The five great monarchies of the ancient eastern worldGeorge Rawlinson T\R r.i\'J vor.K pus:;: library / lOfi. U"0.\ 1!IDi« I >. -. U .HNS . THE FIVE GREAT MONARCHIES ANCIENT EASTERN WORLD; THE HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANTIQUITIES OF CHALD.EA, ASSYRIA BABYLON, MEDIA, AND PERSIA. COLLECTED AND ILLUSTRATED FROM ANCIENT AND MODERN SOURCKS. By GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A., CAMDEN PR0rES80R OF ANCIENT hISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD; LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF EXETER COLLEGE. FOURTH EDITION. IN THREE VOLUMES.—Vol. II. WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. NEW YORK: SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. 1880. THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY 823160 LtNOX AND R L-i CONTENTS Of VOL E. THE SECOND MONARCHY (concluded). ASSYRIA. CHAPTER VEL ^ Relioiom ... ... ... ••• * CHAPTER IX. Chronology and Histoey ... ... ... 48 Appendix ... ... 245 THE THIED MONAECHY. MEDIA. CHAPTER I. Description op the Country 251 CHAPTER H. Climate and Productions 284 CHAPTER HI. Characters, Manners and Customs, Art, etc., of the People 806 IV CONTENTS OF VOL. IL CHAPTER IV. Page Religion .. ... ... ... ... ... ... 822 CHAPTER V. Language and Whiting ... ... ... ... ... 356 CHAPTER VL Chronology and History ... ... ... 871 Appendix ... ... ... 482 THE FOURTH MONARCHY. BABYLONIA. CHAPTER I. Extent of the Empiee ... 485 CHAPTER H. Climate and Productions ... ... ... 479 CHAPTER HI. The People 497 CHAPTER IV. The Capital 510 CHAPTER V. Akts and Sciences 541 LIST OF ILLUSTEATIONS. Map of Mesopotamia and adjacent Regions; .. .. To face tide. 1. Emblems of Asshur (after Lajard) .. ., .. .. .. .. 4 2. Emblems of the principal gods (from an obelisk iu the British Museum) 5 3. Curious emblem of Asshur, from the signet-cylinder of Sennacherib (after Layard) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 4. Simplest fornis of the Sacred Tree, Nimrud (from the originals in the British Museum .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 5. Sacred tree—final and most elaborate type, Nunrud (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 8 6. The Moon-god, from a cylinder (after Lajard) .. .. .. .. 16 7. Emblems of the sun and moon, from the cylinders .. .. .. 18 8. The god of the atmosphere, from a cylinder (after Lajard) .. .. 19 9. Winged figure in horned cap, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 29 10. He ■acred bosket, Khorsabad (after Botta) 29 11. The hawk-headed genius, Khorsabad (ditto) .. .. .. .. 30 12. Evil genii contending, Koyunjik (after Moniclier) .. .. .. 31 13. Sacrificial scene, from an obelisk found at Niinrud (ditto) .. .. 35 14. Triangular altar, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. .. .. .. 37 15. Portable altar in an Assyrian camp, with priests offering, Khorsabad (ditto) 37 16. Worshipper bringing an offering, from a cylinder (after Lajard) .. 38 17. Figure of Tiglath-l'ileser I. (from an original drawing by Mr. John Taylor) 79 18. Plan of the palace of Asshur-izir-pal (after Fergusson) .. .. .. 92 19. Stele of Asshur-izir-pal with an altar in front, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 97 20. Israelites bringing tribute to Shalmaueser II., Nimrud (ditto) .. .. 105 21. Assyrian sphinx, time of Atiskur-bani-pal (after Ixiyard) .. .. 199 22. Scythian soldiers, from a vase found in a Scythian tomb .. .. 224 23. Stone bafe of a pillar at Hamadan (after Morier) .. .. .. .. 266 2i. Plan of the country about Hainadan (after Flandin) . . . . .. 207 25. Plan of Takht-i-Suleiuutu, perhaps the Northern Ecbatana (Sir 11. Raio- limon) 271 26. View of the great Rock of Behistun (after Ker Porter) 274 27. View in Muzautlenm—the Caspian Sea in the distance (alter Praser) .. 278 23. Pigeon-towers near Isfahan (after Montr) .. .. .. .. ..297 29. The destructive locust (Acridium pcregrinum) .. .. .. .. 299 'AO. The scorpion (Scorpio crassicauda) .. .. .. .. 300 81. Persepolitau horse, perhaps Nisrcan (after Ker Porter) .. .. .. 302 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Page 32. Arian physiognomy, from Persepolis (after Prichard) 308 33. Made or Persian carrying a bow in its case, from Persepolia (after Ker Porter) 313 34. Bow and quiver, from Persepolis (after Flandin) 314 3;">. Persian or Median spear, from Persepolis (after Ker Port' r) .. .. 314 3G. Shield of a warrior, from Persepolis (after Flandin) 315 37. Median robe, from Persepolis (after Ker Porter) 315 38. Median shoe, from Persepolia (after Flandin) 316 39. Median head-dress, from Persepolis (ditto) 316 40. A Mcde or Persian wearing a collar and earrings, from Persepolia (after Ker Porter) 317 41. Colossal lion, from Ecbatana (after Flandin) 321 42. Eire-temples near Nakhsh-i-Rustam (ditto) .. .. .. .. 345 43. Lydian coins (after Humphreys) .. .. .. .. .. .. 407 44. View of the Lebanon range .. .. .. .. .. .. 442 45. The Sea of Antioch, from the east (after Ahmrortl) .. .. .. 471 46. Hares, from Babylonian cylinders (after Lajard) .. .. .. .. 490 47. Babylonian fish, from the sculptures .. .. .. .. .. 492 48. Locusts, from a cylinder .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 493 49. Susianian mule, Koyunjik (drawn by the author from a slab in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 493 50. Susiauian horses, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. .. .. .. 494 51. Babylonian dog, from a gem (after Lajard) .. .. .. .. 495 52. Oxen, from Babylonian cylinders (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. 495 53. Heads of Babylonian men (drawn by the author from the Assyrian sculptures in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. 499 54. Head of a Babylonian woman (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. 500 05. Heads of Susianians, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. 500 56. Heads of Babylonians, from the cylinders (after Lajard) .. .. 501 57. Head of an Elamitic chief, Koyunjik (drawn by the author from a relief in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 501 58. Chart of the country round Babylon, with the limits of the ancient city (reduced from the map of M. Oppert) .. .. .. .. .. 512 59. View of the Babil mound from the Kasr (after Oppert) .. .. .. 622 60. Ground-plan of the Babil mound, with its rampart, and traces of an old canal (after Oppert and Selby) .. .. .. .. .. .. 523 61. Ground-plan of the Kasr mound (after Oppert) .. .. .. .. 524 62. Ground-plan of the Amran mound (ditto) .. .. .. .. 526 63. General chart of the ruins of Babylon (reduced from the map of Capt. Selby) 527 64. Chart of ancient Babylon 639 05. Birs-i-Xiinrud, near Babylon .. .. .. .. .. .. 545 60. Elevation of the Birs, restored .. .. .. .. .. .. 547 67. Part of a stone frieze, from the Kaar mouud, Babylon (after Layard) .. '552 68. Pier of bridge at Babylon, restored .. .. .. . . . . 654 69. Babylonian brick (after Bircli) 555 70. Lion standing over a prostrate man, Babylon (from a sketch drawn on the spot by Claude Clerk, Esq.) .. .. .. .. .. .. 658 71. Statuette of a mother and child, found at Babylon (after Ker Porter) .. 659 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. vii 72. Figure of a Babylonian king, probably Merodach-iddinakhi (drawn for the present work from an engraved figure in the British Museum) .. 660 73. Figure of a dog, from a black stone of the time of Merodach-iddin-akhi, found at Babylon (drawn by the author from the original in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 561 74. Figure of a bird, from the same stone (ditto) 561 75. Animal forms, from the cylinders (after Lajard) .. .. .. .. 562 76. Grotesque figures of men and animals, from a cylinder (ditto) .. .. 562 77. Men and monsters, from a cylinder (ditto) .. .. .. .. 563 7S. Serio-comic drawing, from a cylinder (ditto) .. .. .. .. 563 79. Gate and gateway, from a cylinder (ditto) .. .. .. .. 567 50. Bronze ornament found at Babylon (after Ktr Porter) .. .. .. 568 51. Vases and jug, from the cylinders (after Lajard) ., .. .. .. 569 52. Vases in a stand, from a cylinder (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. 569 53. Vase with handles, found in Babylonia (after Birch) .. .. .. 569 84. Babylonian glass bottles (after Layard) .. .. .. .. .. 570 85. Conical top of an engraved black stone, bearing figures or constellations (drawn for the present work from the original in the British Museum) 573 £6. Babylonian zodiac (ditto) £74 THE SECOND MONARCHY. ASSYEIA. CHAPTER VIII. RELIGION. "The graven image, and the molten image."—Uahum i. 1-1. The religion of the Assyrians so nearly resembled—at least in its external aspect, in which alone we can contemplate it—the religion of the primitive Chaldseans, that it will bo unnecessary, after the full treatment which that subject received in an earlier portion of this work,1 to do much more than notice in the pre- sent place certain peculiarities by which it would appear that the cult of Assyria was distinguished from that of the neigh- bouring and closely connected country. With the exception that the first god in the Babylonian Pantheon was replaced by a distinct and thoroughly national deity in the Pantheon of Assyria, and that certain deities whose position was prominent in the one occupied a subordinate position in the other, the two religious systems may be pronounced, not similar merely, but identical. Each of them, without any real monotheism,2 com- mences with the same pre-eminence of a single deity, which is followed by the same groupings of identically the same divini- ties ;8 and, after that, by a multitudinous polytheism, which is chiefly of a local character. Each country, so far as we can see, 1 See vol. i. ch. vii. pp. 110-148. * Though II or Ra in Chaldsea, and Asshur in Assyria, were respectively chitf gods, they were in no sense sole gods. Hot only are the other deities vol. n. viewed as really distinct beings, but they are in many cases self-originated, and always supreme in their several spheres. * See vol. i. p. 112. 11 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. VIII. has nearly the same worship—temples, altars, and ceremonies of the same type—the same religious emblems—the same ideas. The only difference here is, that in Assyria ampler evidence exists of what was material in the religious system, more abundant representations of the objects and modes of worship; so that it will be possible to give, by means of illustrations, a more graphic portraiture of the externals of the religion of the Assyrians than the scantiness of the remains permitted in the case of the primitive Chaldseans. At the head of the Assyrian Pantheon stood the " great god," Asshur. His usual titles are " the great Lord," "the King of all the Gods," " he who rules supreme over the Gods."4 Some- times he is called " the Father of the Gods," though that is a title which is more properly assigned to Belus.8 His place is always first in invocations. He is regarded throughout all the Assyrian inscriptions as the special tutelary deity both of the kings and of the country. He places the monarchs upon their throne, firmly establishes them in the government, lengthens the years of their reigns, preserves their power, protects their forts and armies, makes their name celebrated, and the like. To him they look to give them victory over their enemies, to grant them all the wishes of their heart, and to allow them to be suc- ceeded on their thrones by their sons, and their sons' sons, to a remote posterity. Their usual phrase when speaking of him is "Asshur, my lord." They represent themselves as passing their lives in his service. It is to spread his worship that they carry on their wars. They fight, ravage, destroy in his name. Finally, when they subdue a country, they are careful to " set up the emblems of Asshur," and teach the people his laws and his worship. The tutelage of Asshur over Assyria is strongly marked by the identity of his name with that of the country, which in the original is complete.8 It is also indicated by the curious fact 'See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay in the author's Htrodulus, vol. i. p. 482, 2nd edition. 5 Ibid. pp. 491, 492. * The god, the country, the town Asshur, and "an Assyrian," are all represented by the same term, which is written both A -shur and As-shur. The "determinative" prefixed to the term (see vol. i. p. 271) tells us which mean- ing is intended. Chap. VIII. ASSYRIAN GODS—ASSHUR. 3 that, unlike the other gods, Asshur had no notorious temple or shrine in any particular city of Assyria, a sign that his worship was spread equally throughout the whole land, and not to any extent localised. As the national deity, he had indeed given name to the original capital;7 but even at Asshur (Kileh-Sher- glutt) it may be doubted whether there was any building which was specially his.8 Under these circumstances it is a reasonable conjecture9 that all the shrines throughout Assyria were open to his worship, to whatever minor god they might happen to be dedicated. In the inscriptions the Assyrians are constantly described as "the servants of Asshur," and their enemies as " the enemies of Asshur." The Assyrian religion is " the worship of Asshur." No similar phrases are used with respect to any of the other gods of the Pantheon. We can scarcely doubt that originally the god Asshur was the great progenitor of the race, Asshur, the son of Shem,10 deified. Jt was not long, however, before this notion was lost, and Asshur came to be viewed simply as a celestial being—the first and highest of all the divine agents who ruled over heaven and earth. It is indicative of the (comparatively speaking) elevated character of Assyrian polytheism that this exalted and awful deity continued from first to last the main object of worship, and was not superseded in the thoughts of men by the lower and more intelligible divinities, such as Shamas and Sin, the Sun and Moon, Nergal the God of War, Nin the God of Hunt- ing, or Vul the wielder of the thunderbolt.1 The favourite emblem under which the Assyrians appear to have represented Asshur in their works of art was the winged circle or globe, from which a figure in a horned cap is frequently seen to issue, sometimes simply holding a bow (Fig. I.), some- 'See vol. i. p. 203. * Sir H. Rawliuson, in the author's Herodotus (vol. i. p. 4S3), inclines to allow that the great fane at Kileh- Sherghat was a temple of Asshur; but the deity whose name appears upon the bricks is entitled Ashit. * Sir H. Rawlinson, Lie 10 Gen. x. 22. 1 In the worship of Egypt we may trace such a gradual descent and de- terioration, from Aniun, the hidden god, to Phtha, the demiurgus, thence to Ra, the Sun-God, from him to Isis and Osiris, deities of the third order, and finally to Apis and Serapis, mere daemons. 4 Chap. VIII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Fiic. I. Fig. II. times shooting his arrows against the Assyrians' enemies (Fig. II.). This emblem has been variously explained ;2 but the most probable conjecture would seem to be that the circle typifies eternity, while the wings express omnipresence, and the human figure symbolises wisdom or intelligence. The emblem appears under many varieties. Sometimes the figure which issues from it has no bow, and is represented as simply extending the right hand (Fig. III.); occasionally both hands are extended, and the left holds a ring or chaplet (Fig. IV.). In one instance we see a very re- markable variation: for the complete hu- man figure is substi- tuted a mere pair of hands, which seem to come from behind the winged disk, the right open and exhibiting the palm, the left closed and holding a bow.s Inalargenum- ber of cases all sign of a person is dispensed with,4the winged cir- cle appearing alone, with the disk either plain or ornamented. On the other hand, there are one or two instances where the emblem exhibits Fig. III. Fig. IV. Emblems of Asshur (after Lajard). 'M. Lajard is of opinion that the foundation of the winged circle is a bird, which he pronounces to be a dove, and to typify the Assyrian Venus. To this he supposes were afterwards added the circle as an em- blem of eternity, and the human figure, which he regards as an image of Baal or Be'. In confirmation of his view that the symbol mainly grew out of a bird, he adduces the above form which appears upon a cylinder. * See tie woodcut on the next page This emblem is taken from a mutilated obelisk found at Koyunjik. * See Layard's Monuments of Nineveh, 1 st Series, Pis. 6, 39, and 53; 2nd Series, Pis. 4 and 69; and compare above, vol. i. p. 399. Chap. VIII. EMBLEMS OF ASSHUR. 5 -the central fijmre havino- Emblems of the principal gods. (From ail obelisk in the British Museum.) three human heads instead of one- on either side of it a head, which seems to rest upon the fea- thers of the wintr.5 It is the opi- nion of' some critics, based upon this form of the emblem, that the supreme deity of the Assyrians, whom the winged circle seems always to represent, was in reality a triune god.6 Now certainly the triple human form is very remarkable, and lends a colour to this conjecture; but, as there is absolutely nothing, either in the statements of ancient writers, or in the Assyrian inscrip- tions, so far as they have been deciphered, to confirm the supposition, it can hardly be ac- cepted as the true explanation of the phenomenon. The doc- trine of the Trinity, scarcely apprehended with any distinctness even by the ancient Jews, does not appear to have been one of those which primeval revelation made known throughout the heathen world. It is a fanciful mysticism which finds a Trinity in the Eicton, Cneph, and Phtha of the Egyptians, the Oromasdes, Mithras, and Arimanius of thePersians,andthe Monas, Logos, and Psyche of Pythagoras and Plato.7 There are abundant Triads in ancient mythology, but no real Trinity. The case of Asshur is, however, one of simple unity. He is not even regularly in- cluded in any Triad. It is possible, however, that the triple ligure shows him to us in temporary combination with two other gods, who may be exceptionally represented in this way rather Curious emblem of Asshur. (From the signet cyolinder of Sennacherib.) 5 See the cylinder of Sennacherib supra, toL i. p. 383) ; and compare a cylinder engraved in M. Lajard's Culls ik Mithra, PL xxxii. No. 3. 'Layard,NinevehandBaf>ylon,p. 160; Lajard, Culte de JUithra, Explication des planches, p. 2. 'So Cudworth (Intellectual System of the Universe, ch. iv. § 16, et seq.) and others. Mosheim, in his Latin trans- lation of Cudworth's great work, ably combats his views on this subject. 6 Chap. VIII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. than by their usual emblems. Or the three heads may be merely an exaggeration of that principle of repetition which gives rise so often to a double representation of a king or a god,8 and which is seen at Bavian in the threefold repetition of another sacred emblem, the horned cap. It is observable that in the sculptures the winged circle is seldom found except in immediate connection with the monarch.9 The Great King wears it embroidered upon his robes,10 carries it engraved upon his cylinder,11 represents it above his head in the rock-tablets on which he carves his image,12 stands or kneels in adoration before it,18 fights under its shadow,14 under its pro- tection returns victorious,15 places it conspicuously in the scenes where he himself is represented on his obelisks.16 And in these various representations he makes the emblem in a great measure conform to the circumstances in which he himself is engaged at the time. Where he is fighting, Asshur too has his arrow on the string, and points it against the king's adversaries. Where he is returning from victory, with the disused bow in the left hand and the right hand outstretched and elevated, Asshur takes the same attitude. In peaceful scenes the bow disappears altogether. If the king worships, the god holds out his hand to aid; if he is engaged in secular arts, the divine presence is thought to be sufficiently marked by the circle and the wings without the human figure. An emblem found in such frequent connection with the symbol of Asshur as to wan-ant the belief that it was attached in a special way to his worship, is the sacred or symbolical tree. 8 Layard, Monuments, Pis. 6, 25, 39, Ac. • The occurrence of the emblem of Asshur without the king in the ivory representing women gathering grapes (supra, vol. i. p. 573) is remarkable. Pro- bably the ivory formed part of the orna- mentation of a royal throne or cabinet. There are cylinders, however, apparently not royal, on which the emblem occurs. (Culliniore, Nos. 145,154,155,158,160, 162; Lajard, Pis. liii. 2; xvi. 2 ; xvii. 5, 8, &c.) 10 Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, PL 6; supra, vol. i. p. 399. "Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 160; supra, vol. i. p. 383. 12 As at vhe Nahr-el-Kelb (Lajard Culle de Mithra, Pl. i. No. 39) ; at Ba- vian (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 211), &c. u Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pis. 6, 25, and 39. "Ibid. Pl. 13. 15 Ibid. PL 21. "Ibid. PL 53. Compare the repre- sentation (supra, p. 5) which heads another royal obelisk. ChiP. VIII. THE SACRED TREE. 7 Like the winged circle, this emblem has various forms. The simplest consists of a short pillar springing from a single pair of rams' horns, and surmounted by a capital composed of two Simplest forms of the Sacred Tree (Nimrud). pairs of rams' horns separated by one, two, or three horizontal bands; above which there is, first, a scroll resembling that which commonly surmounts the winged circle, and then a flower, very much like the "honeysuckle ornament" of the Greeks.1 More advanced specimens show the pillar elongated, with a capital in the middle in addition to the capital at the top, whde the blossom above the upper capital, and generally the stem likewise, throw out a number of similar smaller blossoms, which are sometimes replaced by fir-cones or pomegranates. Where the tree is most elaborately portrayed, we see, besides the stem and the blossoms, a complicated network of branches, which after interlacing with one another form a sort of arch surrounding the tree itself as with a frame. (See next page.) It is a subject of curious speculation, whether this sacred tree 1 This resemblance, which Mr. Layard notes (NinereA and its Remaint, vol. ii. p. 294) is certainly very curious; but it does not tell us anything of the origin or meaning of the symbol. The Greeks probably adopted the ornament as ele- gant, without caring to understand it. I suspect that the so-called "flower" was in reality a representation of the head of a palm-tree, with the form of which, as portrayed on the earliest sculp- tures (Layard, Monuments, Pl. 53), it nearly agrees. s Chap. VIII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. does not stand connected with the Asherah of the Phoenicians, which was certainly not a "grove," in the sense in which we commonly understand that word. The Asherah which the Jews adopted from the idolatrous nations with whom they came in contact, was an artificial struc- tu re, originally of wood,2 hut in the later times probahly of metal,8 capable of being " set" in the temple at Jerusalem by one king,4 and "brought out" by another.5 It was a structure for which "hangings" could be made,6 to cover and protect it, while at the same time it was so far like a tree that it could be properly said to be "cut down," rather than " broken" or otherwise demo- lished.7 The name itself seems to imply something which stood straight up;8 . and the conjecture is reasonable that its Sacred Tree—final and most J elaborate type. (Nimrud.) essential element was " the straight stem of a tree,"9 though whether the idea con- nected with the emblem was of the same nature with that which underlay the phallic rites of the Greeks10 is (to say the least) extremely uncertain. We have no distinct evidence that the Assyrian sacred tree was a real tangible object: it may have been, as Mr. Layard supposes,11 a mere type. But it is perhaps on the whole more likely to have been an actual object; 1 2 in which ! Judges vi. 26. "Take the second bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood of the grove (AthCrah) which thou shalt cut down." ■ According to the account in the Second Book of Kings, Josiah "burnt the grove at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to lmcder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people" (xxiii. 6). Un- less the Ashirah had been of metal there would have been no need of stamping it to powder after burning it. * 2 Kings xxi. 7. 'Ibid, xxiii. 6. "Ibid, verse 7. 7 Judges vi. 25, 28 ; 2 Kings xviii. 4; xxiii. 14; 2 Chron. xir. 3; xxxi. 1, &c. "Ashfrah, (mw) is from hth, the true root of which is it*. "to be straight" or "upright." • So Dr. Gotch in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 120. 10 Ibid. loc. cit. 11 Nincrtli and it* Remains, vol. ii. p. 447. "The sacred tree is before him, but only, it may he presumed, aa a type." It is found with objects which are all certainly material, as on Lord Aber- Chap. VIII. THE SACRED TREE. 9 case we cannot but suspect that it stood in the Assyrian system in much the same position as the AsMrah in the Phoenician, being closely connected with the worship of the supreme god,1a and having certainly a symbolic character, though of what exact kind it may not be easy to determine. An analogy has been suggested between this Assyrian em- blem and the Scriptural "tree of life," which is thought to be variously reflected in the multiform mythology of the East.14 Are not such speculations somewhat over-fanciful? There is perhaps, in the emblem itself, which combines the horns of the ram—an animal noted for procreative power—with the image of a fruit or flower-producing tree, ground for supposing that some allusion is intended to the prolific or generative energy in nature; but more than this can scarcely be said without ven- turing upon mere speculation. The time will perhaps ere long arrive when, by the interpretation of the mythological tablets of the Assyrians, their real notions on this and other kindred subjects may become known to us. Till then, it is best to remain content with such facts as are ascertainable, without seeking to penetrate mysteries at which we can but guess, and where, even if we guess aright, we cannot know that we do so. The gods worshipped in Assyria in the next degree to Asshur appear to have been, in the early times, Anu and Vul; in the later, Bel, Sin, Shamas, Vul, Nin or Ninip, and Nergal Gula, Ishtar, and Beltis were favourite goddesses. Hoa, Nebo, and Merodach, though occasional objects of worship, more especially under the later empire, were in far less repute in Assyria than in Babylonia; and the two last-named may almost be said to have been introduced into the former country from the latter during the historical period.1 deen's Black Stone, where a real sacri- ficial sceue appears to be represented. u The groves in Scripture are closely connected with the worship of Baal, supreme God of the Phoenicians. (See Judges iii. 7; 1 Kings xviii. 19; 2 Kings xvii. 16, Ac.) "Layanl, Nineveh and its Remaini, roL ii p. 472. 1 Merodach and Nebo are not abso- lutely unknown to the earlier kings, since they are invoked upon the Black Obelisk as the eighth and the eleventh gods. But it is only with Vul-lush III. (ab. B.C. 800) that they become promi- nent. This king takes special credit to himself for having first prominently placed Merodach in the Pantheon of IO Chap. VI1L THE SECOND MONARCHY. For the special characteristics of these various gods—common objects of worship to the Assyrians and the Babylonians from a very remote epoch—the reader is referred to the first volume of this work, where their several attributes and their position in the Chalda?an Pantheon have been noted.2 The general resemblance of the two religious systems is such, that almost everything which has been stated with respect to the gods of the First Empire may be taken as applying equally to those of the Second ; and the reader is requested to make this application in all cases, except where some shade of difference, more or less strongly marked, shall be pointed out. In the following pages, without repeating what has been said in the former volume, some account will be given of the worship of the principal gods in Assyria and of the chief temples dedicated to their service. ANU. The worship of Anu seems to have been introduced into Assyria from Babylonia during the times of Chaldsean supre- macy which preceded the establishment of the independent Assyrian kingdom. Shamas-Vul, the son of Ismi-Dagon, king of Chaldsea, built a temple to Anu and Vul at Asshur, which was then the Assyrian capital, about B.c 1820. An inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I. states that this temple lasted for 621 years, when, having fallen into decay, it was taken down by Asshur- dayan, his own great-grandfather.8 Its site remained vacant for sixty years. Then Tiglath-Pileser I., in the beginning of his reign, rebuilt the temple more magnificently than before ;1 and from that time it seems to have remained among the principal shrines in Assyria. It was from a tradition connected with this ancient temple of Shamas-Vul, that Asshur in later times acquired the name of Telan^ or " the Mound of Anu" which it bears in Stephen.8 Anu's place among the "Great Gods" of Assyria is not so Assyria. (See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 516, 2nd edition.) 2 Vol i. ch. vii. pp. 110-148. ■ Inscription of Ii'ilam-filestr 7.,g45, p. 62. 4 Ibid. pp. 64-66. s Steph. Byz. ad voc. TeXdril. Vide supra, vol. i. p. 116, note '. Chap. VIII. ANU. I I well marked as that of many other divinities. His name does not occur as an element in the names of kings or of other important personages. He is omitted altogether from many solemn invocations.8 It is doubtful whether he m one of the gods whose emblems were worn by the king and inscribed upon the rock-tablets.7 But, on the other hand, where he occurs in lists, he is invariably placed directly after Asshur;8 and he is often coupled with that deity in a way which is strongly indica- tive of his exalted character. Tiglath-Pileser I., though omitting him from his opening invocation, speaks of him in the latter part of his great Inscription, as his lord and protector in the next place to Asshur. Asshur-izir-pal uses expressions as if he were Anu's special votary, calling himself " him who honours Anu," or " him who honours Anu and Dagan."9 His son, the Black Obelisk king, assigns him the second place in the invo- cation of thirteen gods with which he begins his record.10 The kings of the Lower Dynasty do not generally hold him in much repute; Sargon, however, is an exception, perhaps because his own name closely resembled that of a god mentioned as one of Anu's sons.11 Sargon not unfrequently glorifies Anu, coupling him with Bel or Bil, the second god of the first Triad. He even made Anu the tutelary god of one of the gates of his new city, Bit-Sargina (Khorsabad), joining him in this capacity with the goddess Ishtar. Anu bad but few temples in Assyria. He seems to have had none at either Nineveh or Calah, and none of any importance in all Assyria, except that at Asshur. There is, however, reason to believe that he was occasionally honoured with a shrine in a temple dedicated to another deity.12 • As from that of Tiglath-Pileser I. at the commencement of his great In- scription (p. 18). 'Esarhaddon omits him from the list of gods whose emblems he places over his image (Assyrian Texts, p. 12). If the horned cap is rightly ascribed to Bel (see below, p. 13), there will be no emblem for Anu, since the others may be assigned with certainty to Asshur, Sin, Shamas, Vul, and (Jula. 'As in the Black Obelisk Inscription, where he precedes Bel. Compare Inscrip- tion of Tiylatli-PUeser I., pp. 40, 68, &c . * See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 487, 2nd edition. "See the Dublin University Magazine for October, 1853, p. 420. "Sir H. Rawlinson reads the name of one of Anu's sons as Sargana. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 488.) u Inscription of Tiylath-PUcser I., p. 40. 12 Chap. VIII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. BIL or BEL. The classical writers represent Bel as especially a Babylonian god, and scarcely mention his worship by the Assyrians;18 but the monuments show that the true Bel (called in the former volume Bel-Nimrod) was worshipped at least as much in the northern as in the southern country. Indeed, as early as the time of Tiglath-Pileser I., the Assyrians, as a nation, were especially entitled by their monarchs "the people of Belus;"1 and the same periphrasis was in use during the period of the Lower Empire.2 According to some authorities, a particular quarter of the city of Nineveh was denominated " the city of Belus;"8 which would imply that it was in a peculiar way under his protection. The word Bel does not occur very frequently as an element in royal names; it was borne, however, by at least three early Assyrian kings ;4 and there is evidence that in later times it entered as an element into the names of leading personages, with almost as much frequency as Asshur.6 The high rank of Bel in Assyria is very strongly marked. In the invocations his place is either the third or the second. The former is his proper position, but occasionally Anu is omitted, and the name of Bel follows immediately on that of Asshur.6 In one or two places he is made third, notwithstand- "Herodotus seems to regard Belus as an exclusively Babylonian god (i. 181). So Diodorus (ii. 8), Berosus (Fre. 1 and 2), Abydenus (Frs. 8 and 9), Dionysius Periegetes (L 1007), Claudian (De lav.de Stiliclt. i. 62), and others. Ac- cording to many he was the founder and first king of Babylon (Q. Curt. v. 1, § 24; Eustath. ad. Dion. Per. L s. c., &c.), which some regarded as built by his son (Steph. Byz. ad voc. Bo/SuXtir). Some considered that the great temple of Belus at Babylon was his tomb (Strab. xvi. p. 1049 ; compare iElian. Hist. Var. xiii. 3). His worship by the Assyrians is, however, admitted by PIiny (H. N. xxxvii. 63 and 58), Nonnus (Dionys. xviii. 14), and a few others. The ground 'f the difference thus made by the classical writers is probably the con- fusion between the first Bel and the second Bel—Bel-Merodach—the great seat of whose worship was Babylon. 1 Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I. pp. 20 and 62. 2 See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, p. 491. "Sargon speaks of the 350 kings who from remote antiquity ruled over Assyria and pursued after" (i.e. governed) "the people of Bilu-Nipru (Bel)." • Fox. Talbot, Assyrian Texts, p. 6, note 5. 'See below, ch. ix. p. 49. 6 In the list of Eponyms contained in the famous Assyrian Canon I find, during 250 years, twenty-six in whose names Bel is an element, to thirty-two who have names compounded with Asshur. • As in the invocation of Tiglath- Pileser I. (Inscription, Slc. p. 18). Chap. VIII. BIL OR BEL. 13 ing that Anu is omitted, Shamas, the Sun-god, heing advanced over his head;7 but this is very unusual. The worship of Bel in the earliest Assyrian times is marked by the royal names of Bel-sumili-kapi and Eel-lush, borne by two of the most ancient kings.8 He had a temple at Asshur in conjunction with U or Ra, which must have been of great antiquity, for by the time of Tiglath-Pileser I. (B.C. 1130) it had fallen to decay and required a complete restoration, which it received from that monarch.9 He had another temple at Calah; besides which he had four "arks" or "tabernacles," the emplacement of which is uncertain.10 Among the latter kings, Sargon especially paid him honour. Besides coupling him with Anu in his royal titles, he dedicated to him—in con- junction with Beltis, his wife—one of the gates of his city, and in many passages he ascribes his royal authority to the favour of Bel and Merodach.11 He also calls Bel, in the dedication of the eastern gate at Khorsabad, " the establisher of the founda- tions of his city."12 It may be suspected that the horned cap, which was no doubt a general emblem of divinity, was also in an especial way the symbol of this god. Esarhaddon states that he set up over "the image of his majesty the emblems of Asshur, the Sun, Bel, Nin, and Ishtar."18 The other kings always include Bel among the chief objects of their worship. We should thus ex- pect to find his emblem among those which the kings specially affected; and as all the other common emblems are assigned to distinct gods with tolerable certainty, the horned cap alone remaining doubtful, the most reasonable conjecture seems to bo that it was Bel's symbol.14 It has been assumed in some quartet's that the Bel of the • As by Sennacherib (Journalof Asiatic Society, toL xix. p. 163) and Esarhaddon (Assyrian Texts, p. 16). • See below, ch. ix. p. 49. • Inscription of Ti'jlath-Pileser I., pp. 56-58. '• See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, p. 492. "Oppert, Expedition icientifique en Mesopotamic, vol. ii. p. 337. la Sir H. Rawlinson, L s. c. 1* Assyrian Texts, p. 16. "It is possible that the horned cap symbolised Anu, Bel, and Hoa equally; and the three caps at Bavian (Layar. to have had any special buildings dedicated (.Srhr.) [ ( ) I to his honour.1 His images are, however, V^^/ V—' often noticed in the lists of idols, and it is Emblemaof the sun and pro^able therefore that he received worship moon (from cylinder*). \ , , . . TT. in temples dedicated to other deities. His emblem is generally found conjoined with tbat of the moon, the two being placed side by side, or the one directly under the other. VUL or IVA. This god, whose name is still so uncertain,2 was known in Assyria from times anterior to the independence, a temple having been raised in his sole honour at Asshur,8 the original Assyrian capital, by Shamas-Vul, the son of the Chaldsean king Ismi-Dagon, besides the temple (already mentioned)4 which the same monarch dedicated to him in conjunction with Anu. These buildings having fallen to ruin by the time of Tiglath- Pileser I., were by him rebuilt from their base; and Vul, who was worshipped in both, appears to have been regarded by that monarch as one of his special "guardian deities."5 In the Black-Obelisk invocation Vul holds the place intermediate between Sin and Shanias, and on the same monument is recorded the fact that the king who erected it held, on one occasion, a festival to Vul in conjunction with Asshur.6 Sargon names Vul in the fourth place among the tutelary deities of his 1 See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, p. 80-2. 1 See vol. i. p. 112, note8. 'Inscription of Tiylath-Pilaer I., p. 66. * Supra, p. 10. s See Inscription, &c., p. 30, where Vul is called "my guardian God." Ninip, however, occurs more frequently in that character. (See below, p. 21.) "Dublin i'nir. Magazine forOct. 1853, p. 426. Vul is often joined with Asshur in invocations, more especially where a curse is invoked on those who injure the royal inscriptions. (See the Tvjiaih- Pilestr Instription, p. 72, and compare the still earlier inscription on Tiglathi- Nin's siguet-scal, infra, ch. ix.) Chap. VIII. VUL OK IVA. 19 city,7 and dedicates to bim the north gate in conjunction with the Sun-god, Shamas.8 Sennacherib speaks of hurling thunder on his enemies like Vul,9 and other kings use similar expres- sions.10 The term Vul was frequently employed as an element in royal and other names;11 and the emblem which seems to have symbolised him—the double or triple bolt12—appears con- stantly among those worn by the kings,1a and engraved above their heads on the rock-tablets.14 Vul bad a temple at Calah15 besides the two temples in which he received worship at Asshur. It was dedicated to him in conjunction with the goddess Shala, who appears to have been regarded as his wife. It is not quite certain whether we can recognise any repre- sentations of Vul in the Assyrian remains. Perhaps the figure with four wings and a horned cap,16 who wields a thunderbolt in either hand, and attacks there- with the monster, half lion, half eagle, which is known to us from the Nimrod sculptures, may be intended for this deity. If so, it will be rea- sonable also to recognise him in the figurewith uplifted foot, sometimes perched upon an ox, and bearing, like the other, one or two thunder- bolts, which occasionally occurs upon the cylin- ders.17 It is uncertain, however, whether the former of these figures is not one of the many different representations of Nin, the Assyrian Hercules; and, should that prove the true ex- planation in the one case, no very great confi- dence could be felt in the suggested identification in the other, The god of the at- niosphere (from a cylinder). * Oppert, Expedition scicntifiipu, vol. iu p. 344. * Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, p. 499. * Journal of As. Society, vol. xix. p. 163. •* They "nish on the enemy like the whirlwind of Vul," or " sweep a country as with the whirlwind of Vul." Vul is "he who causes the tempest to rage over hostile lands," in the Tiglath-Pi- leaer inscription. "Aa in Vul-luah, Shamas-Vul, &c. vol. II. Iu the Assyrian Cation ten of the Epo- nyius have names iu which Vul is an element. '- Supra, vol. i . p. 130. "Supra, vol. i. p. 489. 14 As at Bavinn (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 211). 15 Sir H. Rawlinson, Essay, p. 500. 10 Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pl. 5. "Lavard, PL xxvii. No. 5; Culli- more, PL 21, No. 107. c 2 20 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. VIII. GULA. Gula, the Sun-goddess, does not occupy a very high position among the deities of Assyria. Her emblem, indeed, the eight- rayed disk, is borne, together with her, husband's, by the Assyrian monarchs,18 and is inscribed on the rock-tablets, on the stones recording benefactions, and on the cylinder-seals, with remarkable frequency. But her name occurs rarely in the inscriptions, and, where it is found, appears low down in the lists. In the Black-Obelisk invocation, out of thirteen deities named, she is the twelfth.19 Elsewhere she scarcely appears, unless in inscriptions of a purely religious character Perhaps she was commonly regarded as so much one with her husband that a separate and distinct mention of her seemed not to be requisite. Gula is known to have had at least two temples in Assyria. One of these was at Asshur, where she was worshipped in combination with ten other deities, of whom one only, Ishtar, was of high rank.20 The other was at Calah, where her husband had also a temple.21 She is perhaps to be identified with Bilat- lli, "the mistress of the gods," to whom Sargon dedicated one of his gates in conjunction with Hoa.22 KINIP or NIN". Among the gods of the second order, there is none whom the Assyrians worshipped with more devotion than Nin or Ninip. In traditions which are probably ancient, the race of their kings was derived from him,1 and after him was called the mighty city which ultimately became their capital. As early as the thirteenth century B.C. the name of Nin was used as an element in royal appellations;2 and the first king who has left "Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 82; 2nd Series, PL 4. 12 Dublin Univ. Muff. p. 420. 20 Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, p. 504, note ". ■ Ibid. L s. c . 22 Ibid. p. 494 ; and on the presumed identification of Gula with BUal-lli, see pp. 503, 504. 1 The Ninus of the Greeks can be no other than the Nin or Niuip of the Inscriptions. Herodotus probably (i. 7), Ctesias certainly (Diod. Sic. ii . 1-21), derived the kings of the Upper Dynasty from Ninus. 2 Sec below, ch. ix. p. 58. Chap. VIII. NINIP OB NIN. 21 us an historical inscription regarded himself as heing in an especial way under Nin's guardianship. Tiglath-Pileser I. is "the illustrious prince whom Asshur and Nin have exalted to the utmost wishes of his heart."8 He speaks of Nin sometimes singly, sometimes in conjunction with Asshur, as his "guardian deity."4 Nin and Nergal make his weapons sharp for him, and under Nin's auspices the fiercest beasts of the field fall beneath them.8 Asshur-izir-pal built him a magnificent temple at Nimrud (Calah).8 Shamas-Vul, the grandson of this king, dedicated to him the obelisk which he set up at that place in commemoration of his victories.7 Sargon placed his newly- built city in part under his protection," and specially invoked him to guard his magnificent palace.9 The ornamentation of that edifice indicated in a very striking way the reverence of the builder for this god, whose symbol, the winged bull,10 guarded all its main gateways, and who seems to have been actually represented by the figure strangling a lion, so con- spicuous on the Hareem portal facing the great court.11 Nor did Sargon regard Nin as his protector only in peace. He ascribed to his influence the successful issue of his wars; and it is probably to indicate the belief which he entertained on this point that he occasionally placed Nin's emblems on the sculp- tures representing his expeditions.12 Sennacherib, the son and successor of Sargon, appears to have had much the same feelings towards Nin as his father, since in his buildings he gave the same prominence to the winged bull and to the figure strangling the lion; placing the former at almost all his door- ways, and giving the latter a conspicuous position on the grand * Inscription, p. 60. * Ibid. pp. 54-56. 'Ibid. Uc . * Thia is the edifice described by Mr. Layard (Ninti th and Baljylon, pp. 123- 12a and 348-357). * Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's Hcrodotiu, voL i. pp. 512, 513, 2nd edition. 8 Oppert, Erpedition sciaitifique, voL ii. p. 344. 'Ibid. pp. 333, 334. "Supra, voL i. p. 133. "See the woodcut, vol. i. p. 283. For representations of the many mollifica- tions which this figure underwent, seo Mons. F. Lajard's work, Ctdte de AIUltra, Pis. lxxiv. to cii. ; and on the general subject of the Assyrian Hercules, see M. Raoul Ruehette's memoir in the Mimoircs de tlnstitut, vol. xvii. 12 Botta, Monument, Pis. 32 to 34. The emblems given are, 1, the winged bull (PL 33); 2, the winged bull with a humau head (PL 32) ; and 3, the human- headed fish (Pis. 32 and 34). 22 Chap. TilL THE SECOND MONARCHV. fat/ade of his chief palace.18 Esarhaddon relates that he con- tinued in the worship of Nin, setting up his emblem over his own royal effigy, together with those of Asshur, Shamas, Bel, and Ishtar.14 It appears at first sight as if, notwithstanding the general prominency of Nin in the Assyrian religious system, there was one respect in which he stood below a considerable number of the gods. Wc seldom find his name used openly as an element in the royal appellations. In the list of kings three only will be found with names into which the term Nin enters.15 But there is reason to believe that, in the case of this god, it was usual to speak of him under a periphrasis ;16 and this peri- phrasis entered into names in lieu of the god's proper designa- tion. Five kings (if this be admitted) may be regarded as named after him, which is as large a number as we find named after any god but Vul and Asshur. The principal temples known to have been dedicated to Nin in Assyria were at Calah, the modern Nimrud. There the vast structure at the north-western angle of the great mound, in- cluding the pyramidical eminence which is the most striking feature of the roins, was a temple dedicated to the honour of Nin by Asshur-izir-pal, the builder of the North-West Palace. We can have little doubt that this building represents the "busta Nini" of the classical writers, the place where Ninus (Nin or Nin-ip), who was regarded by the Greeks as the hero- founder of the nation, was interred and specially worshipped. Nin had also a second temple in this town, which bore the name of Bit-kura (or Beth-kura), as the other one did of Bit-zira (or Beth-zira).17 It seems to have been from the fane of Beth-zira that Nin had the title Pal-zira, which forms a substitute for Nin, as already noticed,18 in one of the royal names. "Layard, Ninerch and Babylon, p. 137. "Assyrian Tacts, p. 16. u Nin-pala-zira and the two Tiglathi- Nins. (See below, ch. ix.) 10 Kill was called "I'al-kura" and "Pal-zira," "the son of Kura," and "the son of Zira." The latter title is that which the Jews have represented by the second element in Tiglath-ZV/wr. I: Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 512, 513, 2nd edition. See above, note ". Chap. VIIL MERODACH AND NERGAL. MERODACH. Most of the early kings of Assyria mention Merodach in their opening invocations, and we sometimes find an allusion in their inscriptions, which seems to imply that he was viewed as a god of great power.13 But he is decidedly not a favourite object of worship in Assyria until a comparatively recent period. Vul- lush III. indeed claims to have been the first to give him a prominent place in the Assyrian Pantheon ;20 and it may bo conjectured that the Babylonian expeditions of this monarch furnished the impulse which led to a modification in this respect of the Assyrian religious system. The later kings, Sargon and his successors, maintain the worship introduced by Vul-lush. Sargon habitually regards his power as conferred upon him by the combined favour of Merodach and Asshur,21 while Esarhaddon sculptures Merodach's emblem, together with that of Asshur, over the images of foreign gods brought to him by a suppliant priuce.w No temple to Merodach is, however, known to have existed in Assyria, even under the later kings. His name, however, was not infrequently used as an element in the appel- lations of Assyrians.28 NERGAL. Among the minor gods, Nergal is one whom the Assyrians seem to have regarded with extraordinary reverence. He was the divine ancestor from whom the monarchs loved to boast that they derived their descent—the line being traceable, according to Sargon, through three hundred and fifty genera- tions.1 They symbolised him by the winged lion with a human "The Black-Obelisk king says in one place that "the fear of Asshur and Merodach" fell upon his enemies. (Dublin Univ. May. for Oct. 1853, p. 426.) * See Sir H. Rawliuson's Essay, p. 516, note ". a Oppert, Expedition scicnlijique, vol. i ii. p. 337. 3 Assyrian Texts, p. 13. > B Merodach, though an element in so many names of liabylonian kings, is no part of the name of any Assyrian monarch. In M. Oppert's list of Epo- nyms, however, out of about 240 names, twelve are compounded with Merodach. 'See Sir H. Rawliuson's Essay in tin; author's llcrodotus, vol. i. p. 5i9, 2nd edition. ^4 Chap. VIIL THE SECOND MONARCHY. head,2 or possibly sometimes by the mere natural lion;8 and it was to mark their confident dependence on his protection that they made his emblems so conspicuous in their palaces. Nin and Nergal—the gods of war and hunting, the occupations in which the Assyrian monarchs passed their lives—were tutelary divinities of the race, the life, and the homes of the kings, who associate the two equally in their inscriptions and their sculptures. Nergal, though thus honoured by the frequent mention of his name and erection of his emblem, did not (so far as appears) often receive the tribute of a temple. Sennacherib dedicated one to him at Tarbisi (now Sherif-khan), near Khorsabad ;4 and he may have had another at Calah (Nimrud), of which he is .said to have been one of the " resident gods."6 But generally it would secin that the Assyrians were content to pay him honour in other ways8 without constructing special buildings devoted exclusively to his worship. ISHTAR. Ishtar was very generally worshipped by the Assyrian monarchs, who called her " their lady," and sometimes in their iuvocations coupled her with the supreme god Asshur.7 She had a very ancient temple at Asshur, the primeval capital, which Tiglath-Pileser I. repaired and beautified.8 Asshur- izir-pal built her a second temple at Nineveh,8 and she had a third at Arbela, which Asshur-bani-pal states that he restored.10 * Supra, vol. i. pp. 136-138. * The uatural lion is more extensively used as an architectural form by the Assyrians than the winged lion. It occurs not only in central Assyria, as at Nimrud (Layard's Nin. and Bali. p. 359), but also in the remoter provinces, ae at Arban (Layard, p. 278) and Seruj (Chesney, Euphrates Erudition, vol. i. p. 114 ; supra, vol. i . p. 1W7). 'See Sir H. ISawlinson's Essay, p. 520. * Ibid. p. 519, note * Is not the smaller temple, with the Lion entrance, at the north-western corner of the Nimrud mound, a temple of Nergal, aa the larger one is of Ninip? 4 Nergal was not, however, often choson to furnish an clement of a name. By no Assyrian sovereign was he thus honoured. In the case of the Eponyms, only about one out uf thirty has a name compounded with Nergal. 7 See the Inscription of Sennacherib in the Asiatic Society 8 Journal, vol. xix. p. 170. * Inscription of Tiglath-Pilcser I., pp. 40, 41. 'Sir H. Rawlinsou, Essay, p. 522. 1• Ibid. L s. o. Chap. VIII. NEBO. 25 Sargon placed under her protection, conjointly with Anu, the western gate of his city; and his son, Sennacherib, seems to have viewed Asshur and Ishtar as the special guardians of his progeny.11 Asshur-bani-pal, the great hunting king, was a devotee of the goddess, whom he regarded as presiding over his special diversion, the chase. What is most remarkable in the Assyrian worship of Ishtar is the local character assigned to her. The Ishtar of Nineveh is distinguished from the Ishtar of Arbela, and both from the Ishtar of Babylon, separate addresses being made to them in one and the same invocation.11* It would appear that in this case there was, more decidedly than in any other, an identifica- tion of the divinity with her idols, from which resulted the mul- tiplication of one goddess into many. The name of Ishtar appears to have been rarely used in Assyria in royal or other appellations. It is difficult to account for this fact, which is the more remarkable, since in Phoenicia Astarte, which corresponds closely to Ishtar, is found repeatedly as an element in the royal titles.18 NEBO. Nebo must have been acknowledged as a god by the Assyrians from very ancient times, for his name occurs as an element in a royal appellation as early as the twelfth century B.C.1 4 He seems, however, to have been very little worshipped till the time of Vul-lush III., who first brought him prominently forward in the Pantheon of Assyria after an expedition which he conducted into Babylonia, where Nebo had always been in high favour. Vul-lush set up two statues to Nebo at Calah,15 11 Sennacherib speaks of Asshur and Ishtar as about to "call the kings his sons to their sovereignty over Assyria," and begs Asshur and Ishtar to "hear tieir prayers." (Journal of AsiaticSockty, L s. c.) E As in that of Esarhaddon (Atst/rian Tais, p. 10) and in that of Sennacherib (Ai. Soc. Journal, vol. xix. p. 163). Compare the inscription on the slab brought from the Negub tunnel. 1* As in the names Astartus, Abdas- tartus, Delseaatartus, and Gerastartus. (Menand. Ephes. Frs. 1 and 2.) In M. Oppert's list of Eponyms, only five out of more than 240 have names in which Ishtar is an element. 14 See below, ch. ix. p. 61. ls One of these is represented in the woodcut, vol. i. p. 141. The two are, as nearly as possible, facsimiles. 2C-, Chap. Tin. THE SECOND MONARCHY. and probably built him the temple there which was known as Bit-Saggil, or Beth-Saggil, from whence the god derived one of his appellations.16 He did not receive much honour from Sargon; but both Sennacherib and Esarhaddon held him in considerable reverence, the latter even placing him above Merodach in an important invocation.17 Asshur-ban i-pal also paid him considerable respect, mentioning him and his wife Warmita, as the deities under whose auspices he undertook, certain literary labours.18 It is curious that Nebo, though he may thus almost be called a late importation into Assyria, became under the Later Dynasty (apparently) one of the most popular of the gods. In the latter portion of the list of eponyms obtained from the celebrated "Canon," we find Nebo an element in the names as frequently as any other god excepting Asshur. Regarding this as a test of popularity we should say that Asshur held the first place; but that his supremacy was closely contested by Bel and Nebo, who were held in nearly equal repute, both being far in advance of any other deity. Besides these principal gods, the Assyrians acknowledged and worshipped a vast number of minor divinities, of whom, how- ever, some few only appear to deserve special mention. It may be noticed in the first place, as a remarkable feature of this people's mythological system, that each important god was closely associated with a goddess, who is commonly called his wife, but who yet does not take rank in the Pantheon at all in accordance with the dignity of her husband.1 Some of these goddesses have been already mentioned, as Beltis, the feminine counterpart of Bel; Gula, the Sun-goddess, the wife of Shamas; and Ishtar, who is sometimes represented as the wife of Nebo.2 To the same class belong Sheruha, the wife of Asshur; Anata, "Nebo was called Pal-B!t-$a(i>iil, as Ninip was called Pal-zira (supra, p. 22; compare Sir H. Rawlinsou's Essay, p. 524). "Assyrian Trsts, p. 10. 18 Sir H. Rawlinson, Essay, L 8. c. 1 See Sir H. Rawliusou's Essay in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 484, note 2. While Beltis, the wife of Bel, and Gula, the wife of Shamas, are deities of high rank and importance, Sheruha, the wife of Airfhur, and Anuta, the wife of Aim, occupy a very insignificant position. 2 Supra, pp. 15, 20, and 24. Chap. VIII. TABLE OF ASSYRIAN DEITIKS. 2; or Anuta, the wife of Anu ; Dav-Kina, the wife of Hea or Hoa; Shala, the wife of Vul or Iva ; Zir-banit, the wife of Merodach; and Laz, the wife of Nergal Nin, the Assyrian Hercules, and Sin, the Moon-god, have also wives, whose proper names are unknown, but who are entitled respectively "the Queen of the Land" and " the Great Lady."8 Nebo's wife, according to most of the Inscriptions, is Warmita; but occasionally, as above remarked,4 this name is replaced by that of Ishtar. A tabular view of the gods and goddesses, thus far, will probably be found of use by the reader towards obtaining a clear conception of the Assyrian Pantheon:— Table of the Chief Assyrian Deities, arranged in their proper order. Gods. Correspondent Goddesses. Chief Beat of Worship (if any). Asshur Sheruha. Anu Anuta Apshur (Kileh-Sherghat). Asshur, Calah (Niuirud). Asshur, Calah. Bel Beltia Hoa Lhiv-Kina Sin "The Great La ly" Calah, Bit-Sorgina (Khoreabad). Sh'imaa Oula Bit-Sargina. Vol Shala Aeshur, Calah. Nin "The Queen of the Land "... Zir-Banit Calah, Nineveh. Merodach Nergal Laz Tarbiri (Sherif-Khan). Calah. Nebo Warmita (Ishtar?! It appears to have been the general Assyrian practice to unite together in the same worship, under the same roof, the female and the male principle.6 The female deities had in fact, for the most part, an unsubstantial character ; they were ordinarily the mere reflex image of the male, and consequently could not standalone, but required the support of the stronger sex to give them something of substance and reality. This was the general rule; but at the same time it was not without certain ex- ceptions. Ishtar appeal's almost always as an independent and 'Sir H. Uawlinson's Essay, pp. 506 and 513. 4 Supra, p. 28. * See Sir H. Rawlinaon's Essay, § 9,note", p. 514. 28 Chap. VIII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. unattached divinity;6 while Beltis and Gula are presented to us in colours as strong and a form as distinct as their husbands, Bel and Shamas. Again, there are minor goddesses, such as Telita, the goddess of the great marshes near Babylon,7 who stand alone, unaccompanied by any male. The minor male divinities are also, it would seem, very generally without female counterparts.8 Of these minor male divinities the most noticeable are Martu, a son of Anu, who is called "the minister of the deep," and seems to correspond to the Greek Erebus;9 Sargana, another son of Anu, from whom Sargon is thought by some to have derived his name;1 Idak, god of the Tigris; Supulat, lord of the Euphrates;2 and II or Ra, who seems to be the Babylonian chief god transferred to Assyria, and there placed in a humble position.8 Besides these, cuneiform scholars recognise in the Inscriptions some scores of divine names, of more or less doubtful etymology, some of which are thought to designate distinct gods, while others may be names of deities known familiarly to us under a different appellation4 Into this branch of the subject it is not proposed to enter in the present work, which addresses itself to the general reader. It is probable that, besides gods, the Assyrians acknowledged the existence of a number of genii, some of whom they regarded as powers of good, others as powers of evil. The winged figure wearing the horned cap, which is so constantly represented as 'It is only in Babylonia, and even there during but one reign (that of Nebuchadnezzar), that Ishtar appears as the wife of Nebo. (See above, vol. i. p. 139.) Elsewhere she is separate aud independent, attached as wife to no male deity, though not unfrequently conjoined with Asshtir. 7 Telita is, apparently, the goddess me ntioned by Berosus as the original of the Greek Baffffa. (Ft. 1.) The in- scriptions of Sargon mention a city named after her, which was situated on the lower Tigris. This is probably the Ga\dBa of Ptolemy ((Icoyraph. v. 20), which he places near the mouth of the river. 'Martu, however, has a wife, who is called "the lady of Tigganna" (Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, § 3, ii, note *), aud Idak, the god of the Tigris (men- tioned below), has a wife, Belat Muk (ibid. § 4, p. 626). * See vol. i. p. 115. 1 See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, p. 488. 2 Ibid. p. 526. 'Tiglath-Pileser I. repairs a temple of II or Ra at Asshur about B.C. 1150. (Inscription, pp. 56-58.) Otherwise we scarcely hear of the worship of Ra out of Babylonia. I 4 See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, p. 1 527. Chap. VIII. GOOD GENII. 29 attending upon the monarch when he is employed in any sacred function,5 would seem to he his tutelary genius—a benignant spirit who watches over him, and protects him from the spirits of darkness. This figure commonly bears in the right hand either a pomegranate or a pine-cone, while the left is either free or else supports a sort of plaited bag or basket. Where the pine-cone is carried, it is invariably pointed towards the monarch, as if it were the means of communication between the protector and the protected, the instrument by which grace and (Jsiinrud). The sacred basket (Khorsabad). power passed from the genius to the mortal whom he had under- taken to guard. Why the pine-cone was chosen for this pur- pose it is difficult to form a conjecture. Perhaps it had originally become a sacred emblem merely as a symbol of productiveness," after which it was made to subserve a further purpose, without much regard to its old symbolical meaning. The sacred basket, held in the left hand, is of still more 'Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pis. 6, 25, 36; Botta, Monument, Pis. 27 and 28. 1 Supra, page 9. 30 Chap. VIII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. dubious interpretation. It is an object of great elegance; always elaborately and sometimes very tastefully ornamented.7 Pos- sibly it may represent the receptacle in which the divine gifts are stored, and from which they can be taken by the genius at his discretion, to be bestowed upon the mortal under his care. Another good genius would seem to be represented by the hawk-headed figure, which is likewise found in attendance upon the monarch, attentively watching his proceedings. This figure has been called that of a god, and has been supposed to represent the Nisroch of Holy Scripture;8 but the only ground for such an identification is the con- jectural derivation of Nisroch from a root nisr, which in some Semitic lan- guages signifies a "hawk" or "falcon." As nisr, however, has not been found with any such meaning in Assyrian, and as the word " Nisroch" nowhere appears in the Inscriptions,9 it must The hawk-eyed genius be regarded as in the highest degree (Khorcabad). doubtful whether there is any real connection between the hawk-headed figure and thegodinwhose temple Sennacherib was assassinated. The various readings of the Septuagint version10 make it extremely uncertain what was the name actually written in the original Hebrew text. Nisroch, which is utteily unlike any divine name hitherto found in the Assyrian records, is most probably a corruption. At any rate there are no sufficient grounds for identifying the god mentioned, whatever the true reading of his name may be, with the hawk- 'The basket is often ornamented with winged figures in adoration before the sacred tree, and themselves holding baskets. (See Lavard, Monuments, First Series, Pis. 34 and 36.) "Layard, Nineveh and its Jtemaim, vol. ii. p. 459. • M. Oppert, it is true, reads a certain monogram as "Nisruk," and recognises in the god whom it designates—Hea or Hoa—the Nisroch of Holy Scripture. But sounder scholars regard his reading as a very wild and rash conjecture. '0 In Is. xxxvii. 38, the MSS. give either 'Aaipaxor Saaapax. In 2 Kings xix. 37, the greater part of the MSS. have M«ropix. Chap. VIII. EVIL GENII. 31 headed figure, which has the appearance of an attendant genius rather than that of a god, and which was certainly not included among the main deities of Assyria.11 Representations of evil genii are comparatively infrequent; but we can scarcely be mistaken in regarding as either an evil Evil genii contending (Koyunjik). genius, or a representation of the evil principle, themonster—half lion, half eagle—which in the Nimrud sculptures12 retreats from the attacks of a god, probably Vul,18who assailshim with thunder- bolts. Again, in the case of certain grotesque statuettes found 11 The deities proper are not repre- sented as in attendance on the monarch. Thin is an office too low for them. Oc- casionally, as in the case of Asshur, they from heaven guard and assist the king. But even this is exceptional. Ordinarily they stand, or sit, in solemn state to receive offerings and worship. 12 A representation on a large scale is given by Mr. Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pl. 5. 12 See above, page 19 3? Chap. Vlfl. THE SECOND MONARCHY. at Khorsabad, one of which is engraved in the first volume of this work,14 where a human figure has the head of a lion with the ears of an ass, the most natural explanation seems to be that an evil genius is intended. In another instance, where we see two monsters with heads like the statuette just mentioned, placed on human bodies, the legs of which terminate in eagles' claws—both of themarmed with daggers and maces, and engaged in a straggle with one another15—we seem to have a symbolical representation of the tendency of evil to turn upon itself, and reduce itself to feebleness by internal quarrel and disorder.16 A considerable number of instances occur in which a human figure, with the head of a hawk or eagle, threatens a winged human- headed lion—the emblem of Nergal—with a strap or mace.17 In these we may have a spirit of evil assailing a god, or possibly one god opposing another—the hawk-headed god or genius driving Nergal (i. e. War) beyond the Assyrian borders. If we pass from the objects to the mode of worship in Assyria, we must notice at the outset the strongly idolatrous character of the religion. Not only were images of thegods worshipped setup, as a matter of course, in every temple dedicated to their honour, but the gods were sometimes so identified with their images as to be multiplied in popular estimation when they had several famous temples, in each of which was a famous image. Thus we hear of the Ishtar of Arbela, the Ishtar of Nineveh, and the Ishtar of Babylon, and find these goddesses invoked separately, as distinct divinities, by one and the same king in one and the same Inscription.18 In other cases, without this multiplication, we observe expressions which imply a similar identification of the actual god with the mere image. Tiglath-Pileser I. boasts that he has set Anu and Vul (i. e. their images) up in their places.19 He identifies repeatedly the images which he carries "Supra, vol. i. p. 342. 15 See the woodcut ou the preceding page. This scene was represented in the great palace of Asshur-bani-pal at Koyunjik. The sculpture is in the British Museum. 11 This tendency is well illustrated by PIato in the first Book of his Republic, §23. "Layard, Monuments, 1st Scries, Pis. 45, 1; 48, 3; 49, 4 ; compare above, vol. i. p. 346. 18 Assyrian Texts, p. 10; Jov.rnal of As. Society, vol. six. p. 163. "Inscription, pp. 66 and 70. Chap. VIIL IDOLS. 33 off from foreign countries with the gods of those countries.1 In a similar spirit Sennacherib asks, by the mouth of Rabshakeh, "Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah ?" —and again, unable to rise to the conception of a purely spiritual deity, supposes that, because Hezekiah has destroyed all the images throughout Judsea,8 he has left his people without any divine protection.4 The carrying off of the idols from conquered countries, which we find universally practised, was not perhaps intended as a mere sign of the power of the conqueror, and of the superiority of his gods to those of his enemies: it was probably designed further to weaken those enemies by depriving them of their celestial protectors; and it may even have been viewed as strengthening the conqueror by multiplying his divine guar- dians. It was certainly usual to remove the images in a reve- rential manner;6 and it was the custom to deposit them in some of the principal temples of Assyria.6 We may presume that there lay at the root of this practice a real belief in the super- natural power of the images themselves, and a notion that, with the possession of the images, this power likewise changed sides and passed over from the conquered to the conquerors. Assyrian idols were in stone, baked clay, or metal. Some images of Nebo and of Ishtar have been obtained from the ruins. Those of Nebo are standing figures, of a larger size than the human, though not greatly exceeding it. They have been much injured by time, and it is difficult to pronounce decidedly on their original workmanship; but, judging by what appears, it would seem to have been of a ruder and coarser character than that of the slabs or of the royal statues. The Nebo images are heavy, formal, inexpressive, and flot over well- proportioned ; but they are not wanting in a certain quiet dignity which impresses the beholder.7 They are unfortunately dis- 1 Inscription, pp. 28, 30, 40, 50, Ac. 2 2 Kings xviii. 34. Sennacherib means to say—"Where are their gods now? [t.«., their idols.] Are they not captive in Assyria t" See above, vol. i. p. 475. 'Ibid- verse 4. * Ibid. ver. 22. * See the various representations of VOL It, the removal of gods in Mr. Layard's works. (Monuments, lst Series, Pis. 65 and 67 A; 2nd Series, Pl. 50; Nineveh and its remains, vol. ii. opposite p. 451.) * Inscription of Tiglath-PUeser I., pp. 30 and 40. 7 See the representation, vol. i. p. 141. E 34 Chai\ VIII. THE SECOND MONAKCHY. figured, like so many of the lions and bulls, by several lines of cuneiform writing inscribed round their bodies; but this artistic defect is pardoned by the antiquarian, who learns from the inscribed lines the fact that the statues represent Nebo, and the time and circumstances of their dedication. Clay idols are very frequent. They are generally in a good material, and are of various sizes, yet never approaching to the full stature of humanity. Generally they are mere statuettes, less than a foot in height. Specimens have been selected for representation in the preceding volume, from which a general idea of their character is obtainable.8 They are, like the stone idols, formal and inexpressive in style, while they are even ruder and coarser than those figures in workmanship. We must regard them as intended chiefly for private use among the mass of the population,9 while we must view the stone idols as the objects of public worship in the shrines and temples. Idols in metal have not hitherto appeared among the objects recovered from the Assyrian cities. We may conclude, however, from the passage of Nahum prefixed to this chapter,10 as well as from general probability, that they were known and used by the Assyrians, who seem to have even admitted them—no less than stone statues—into their temples. The ordinary metal used was no doubt bronze; but in Assyria, as in Babylonia,11 silver, and perhaps in some few instances gold, may have been em- ployed for idols, in cases where they were intended as proofs to the world at large of the wealth and magnificence of a monarch. The Assyrians worshipped their gods chiefly with sacrifices and offerings. Tiglath-Pileser I. relates that he offered sacrifice to Anu and Vul on completing the repairs of their temple.12 'See vol. i. pp. 140, 341, and 342. 9 Clay idols were also deposited in holes below the pavement of palaces, which (it may bo supposed) were thus placed under their protection. (See M. Botta's Monument de Ninive, vol. v. p. 4i; 10 Nahum i. 14: "And the Lord hath given a commandment coneerning thee (Nineveh), that no more of thy name be sown : out of the house of thy gods will I cut off the graven image and the molten image." "Dan. iii. 1; Herod, i. 183 ; Diod. Sic. ii. 9, &c. Compare Sir H. Rawlin- son's Essay in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 517, note ". 12 Inscription, pp. 68-70. Chap. VIIL SACRIFICES. 35 Asshur-izir-pal says that he sacrificed to the gods after embark- ing on the Mediterranean.18 Vul-lush IV. sacrificed to Bel- Merodach, Nebo, and Nergal, in their respective high seats at Babylon, Borsippa, and Cutha.14 Sennacherib offered sacri- fices to Hoa on the sea-shore after an expedition in the Persian Gulf.15 Esarhaddon "slew great and costly sacrifices" at Nineveh upon completing his great palace in that capital.16 Sacrifice was clearly regarded as a duty by the kings generally, and was the ordi- nary mode by which they propi- tiated the favour of the national deities. With respect to the mode of sacrifice we have only a small amount of information, derived from a very few bas-reliefs. These unite in representing the bull as the special sacrificial animal.17 In one18 we simply see a bull brought up to a temple by the king; but in another,19 which is more elaborate, we seem to have the whole of a sa- crificial scene fairly, if not exactly, "Assyrian Texts, p. 28. "Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, p. 516. "Ibid. p. 495. "Assyrian Texts, p. 18. "That sheep and gouts were also used for sacrifice we learn from the inscriptions. (As- rp-ian Texts, pp. 3, 4.) There is one repre- sentation of a ram, or wild-goat, being led to the altar (Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 469.) '* This is on Lord Aberdeen's Black Stone, » monument of the reign of Esarhaddon. A representation of it will be found in Mr. Fergusson's Palaces of Nineveh Restored, p. '2!>S. * This scene is represented on a mutilated obelisk belonging to the time of As«hur-i/.ir- pal, which is now in the British Museum. The sculptures on this curious monument are rtill unpublished. d 2 36 Chap. VIII. THE SECOKD MONARCHY. brought before us. Towards the front of the temple, where the god, recognisable by his horned cap, appears seated upon a throne, with an attendant priest, who is beardless, paying adora- tion to him, advances a procession consisting of the king and six priests, one of whom carries a cup, while the other five are em- ployed about the animal. The king pours a libation over a large bowl, fixed in a stand, immediately in front of a tall fire- altar, from which flames are rising. Close behind this stands the priest with a cup, from which we may suppose that the monarch will pour a second libation. Next we observe a bearded priest directly in front of the bull, checking the advance of the animal, which is not to be offered till the libation is over. The bull is also held by a pair of priests, who walk behind him and restrain him with a rope attached to one of his fore-legs a little above the hoof. Another pair of priests, following closely on the footsteps of the first pair, completes the procession: the four seem, from the position of their heads and arms, to be engaged in a solemn chant. It is probable, from the flame upon the altar,1 that there is to be some burning of the sacrifice; while it is evident, from the altar being of such a small size, that only certain parts of the animal can be consumed upon it. We may conclude therefore that the Assyrian sacrifices resembled those of the classical nations,2 consisting not of whole burnt offerings, but of a selection of choice parts, regarded as specially pleasing to the gods, which were placed upon the altar and burnt, while the remainder of the victim was consumed by priest or people. Assyrian altars were of various shapes and sizes. One type was square, and of no great height; it had its top ornamented with gradines, below which the sides were either plain or fluted.8 Another, which was also of moderate height, was triangular, but with a circular top, consisting of a single flat 1 Altars of the shape here repre- sented are always crowned with flames, which generally take a conical shape, but are here made to spread into a number of tongues. At Khorsabad the flames on such altars were painted red. (Botta, Monument de Ninive, PL 146.) 2 See Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, sub voc. sacrifi- cium. 8 See above, voL i . p. 308, No. L, and p. 310, No. V. Chap. YIIL ALTARS. 37 Triaujjulai' altar (Khorsabad). stone, perfectly plain, except that it was sometimes inscribed round the edge.4 A third type is that represented in the sacrificial scene on the last page but one. This is a sort of port- able stand—narrow, but of con- siderable height, reaching nearly to a man's chin. Altars of this kind seem to have been carried about by the Assyrians in their expeditions: we see them oc- casionally in the entrenched camps,8 and observe priests ofli- ciating at them in their dress of office. Besides their sacrifices of ani- mals, the Assyrian kings were accustomed to deposit in the temples of their gods, as thank- offerings, many precious products from the countries which they overran in their expeditions. Stones and marbles of various kinds, rare metals, and images of foreign deities, are particularly mentioned;6 but it would seem to be most probable that some por- tion of all the more valuable articles was thus dedicated. Silver and gold were certainly used largely in the adornment of the temples, which are sometimes said to have been made "as splendid as the sun," by reason of the profuse employment upon them of these precious metals.7 It is difficult to determine how the ordinary worship of the Portable altar in an Assyrian camp, with priests offering (Khorsabad). * An altar of this shape was found by M. Botta at Khorsabad. (Monument, PL 157.) Another nearly similar was discovered by Mr. Layard at Nimrud {Monument*, 2nd Series, PL 4), and is now in the British Museum.^ 5 Botta, PL 146 ; Layard, 2nd Series, PL 24. • Inscription of Tiglath-Pilcser /., pp. 30, 38, 66, &c. 'Assyrian Texts, p. 16. 38 Chap. VIIL THE SECOND MONARCHY. gods was conducted. The sculptures are for the most part monuments erected by kings; and when these have a religious character, they represent the performance by the kings of their own religious duties, from which little can be concluded as to the religious observances of the people. The kings seem to have united the priestly with the regal character; and in the religious scenes representing their acts of worship, no priest ever intervenes between them and the god, or appears to assume any but a very subordinate position. The king himself stands and worships in close proxim ty to the holy tree; with his own hand he pours libations; and it is not unlikely that he was entitled with his own arm to sacrifice victims.8 But we can scarcely suppose that the people had these privileges. Sacerdotal ideas have prevailed in almost all Oriental monarchies, and it is notorious that they had a strong hold upon the neighbouring and nearly connected kingdom of Babylon. The Assyrians gene- rally, it is probable, approached the gods through their priests; and it would seem to be these priests who are represented upon the cylinders as introducing worshippers to the gods, dressed themselves in long robes, and with a curious mitre upon their heads: The worshipper seldom comes empty-handed. „. ,. , . . He carries commonly in his arms an antelope Worshipper bringing . 1 an offering (from a or young goat," which we may presume to be cylinder). an offering intended to propitiate the deity. It is remarkable that the priests in the sculptures are gene- rally, if not invariably, beardless."10 It is scarcely probable that "The kings often say that they sacri- ficed. (Tiylath-Pileser Inscription, pp. 60 and 68; Assyrian Texts, p. 18, &c.) But we cannot conclude from this with any certainty that it was with their own hand they slew the victims. (Com- pare 1 K. viii. 63.) Still they may have done so. * Lajard, Culte de Mithra, Pis. xxxvii . No. 7; xxrviii. Nos. 2, 3, 6 ; xxxix. No. 7, &c. 10 See Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pis. 24 and 50 ; Botta, Monument, Pl. 146. If the figure carrying an antelope, and having on the head a highly orna- mented fillet (Botta, PL 43) is a priest, and if that character belongs to the attendants in the sacrificial scene above Chap. VIIL FESTIVALS AND FASTS. 39 they were eunuchs, since mutilation is in the East always re- garded as a species of degradation. Perhaps they merely shaved the beard for greater cleanliness, like the priests of the Egyptians ;11 and possibly it was a custom only obligatory on the upper grades of the priesthood.12 We have no evidence of the establishment of set festivals in Assyria. Apparently the monarchs decided, of their own will, when a feast should be held to any god ;18 and, proclamation being made, the feast was held accordingly. Vast numbers, especially of the chief men, were assembled an such occasions; numerous sacrifices were offered, and the festivities lasted for several days. A considerable proportion of the worshippers were accommodated in the royal palace, to which the temple was ordinarily a mere adjunct, being fed at the king's cost, and lodged in the halls and other apartments.14 The Assyrians made occasionally a religious use of fasting. The evidence on this point is confined to the Book of Jonah,16 which, however, distinctly shows both the fact and the nature of the usage. When a fast was proclaimed, the king, the nobles, and the people exchanged their ordinary apparel for sackcloth, sprinkled ashes upon their heads, and abstained alike from food and drink until the fast was over. The animals also that were within the walls of the city where the fast was commanded, had sackcloth placed upon them;1 and the same abstinence was enforced upon them as was enjoined on the inhabitants. Ordi- nary business was suspended, and the whole population united in prayer to Asshur, the supreme god, whose pardon they en- repreeented (supra, p. 35), we must con- sider that the beard was worn at least by some grades of the priesthood. "Herod, iii 37. 1* Observe that in the sacrificial scene (supra, p. 35) the priest who approaches close to the god is beardless; and that in the camp scene (Lay.ird, MonuvienU, 2nd Series, PL 50) the priest in a tall cap is shaven, while the other, who has no such dignified head-dress, wears a beard. "Auijr'vxn Ttxtt, pp. 11 and 18. Compare the Black Obelisk Inscription, p. 426. "See the account given by Esar- haddon of his great festival (jMyrian Textt, p. 18). u Jonah iii. 5-9. 1 There is a remarkable parallel to this in a Persian practice mentioned by Herodotus (ix. 24). In the mourning for Masistius, a little before the battlx of PIata-a, the Persian troops not only shaved off their own hair, but similarly disfigured their horses and their beasts of burthen. 40 Chap. VIII. THE SECOND MONAECHY. treated, and whose favour they sought to propitiate. These proceedings were not merely formal. On the occasion men- tioned in the book of Jonah, the repentance of the Ninevites seems to have been sincere. "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them: and he did it not."2 The religious sentiment appears, on the whole, to have been strong and deep-seated among the Assyrians. Although religion had not the prominence in Assyria which it possessed in Egypt, or even in Greece—although the temple was subordinated to the palace,8 and the most imposing of the representations of the gods4 were degraded to mere architectural ornaments—yet the Assyrians appear to have been really, nay, even earnestly, religious. Their religion, it must be admitted, was of a sensuous character. They not only practised image-worship, but believed in the actual power of the idols to give protection or work mischief; nor could they rise to the conception of a purely spiritual and immaterial deity. Their ordinary worship was less one of prayer than one by means of sacrifices and offerings. They could, however, we know, in the time of trouble, utter sincere prayers; and we are bound therefore to credit them with an honest purpose in respect of the many solemn addresses and invocations which occur both in their public and their private documents. The numerous mythological tablets5 testify- to the large amount of attention which was paid to religious subjects by the learned; while the general character of their names, and the practice of inscribing sacred figures and emblems upon their signets, which was almost universal, seem to indicate a spirit of piety on the part of the mass of the people. The sensuous cast of the religion naturally led to a pompous ceremonial, a fondness for processional display, and the use of magnificent vestments. These last are represented with great minuteness in the Nimrud sculptures.5 The dresses of those * Jonah iii. 10. * See above, vol. i. p. 278. 4 The winged bulls and Hons, which respectively symbolise Nin and Nergal. * Supra, vol. i. p. 400. * See .Mr. Layard's Monumcntt, 1st Series, Pis. 5, 6, S, 9, &c. Chap. VIIL SUMMARY. 41 engaged in sacred functions seem to have been elaborately embroidered, for the most part with religious figures and emblems, such as the winged circle, the pine-cone, the pome- granate, the sacred tree, the human-headed lion, and the like. Armlets, bracelets, necklaces, and earrings were worn by the officiating priests, whose heads were either encircled with a richly-ornamented fillet,7 or covered with a mitre or high cap of imposing appearance.8 Musicians had a place in the proces- sions, and accompanied the religious ceremonies with playing or chanting, or, in some instances, possibly with both. It is remarkable that the religious emblems of the Assyrians are almost always free from that character of grossness which, in the classical works of art, so often offends modern delicacy. The sculptured remains present us with no representations at all parallel to the phallic emblems of the Greeks. Still we are perhaps not entitled to conclude, from this comparative purity, that the Assyrian religion was really exempt from that worst feature of idolatrous systems—a licensed religious sensualism. According to Herodotus, the Babylonian worship of Beltis was disgraced by a practice which even he, heathen as he was, re- garded as "most shameful."9 Women were required once in their lives to repair to the temple of this goddess, and there offer themselves to the embrace of the first man who desired their company. In the Apocryphal Book of Baruch we find a clear allusion to the same custom,10 so that there can be little doubt of its having really obtained in Babylonia; but if so, it would seem to follow, almost as a matter of course, that the worship of the same identical goddess in the adjoining country included a similar usage. It may be to this practice that the prophet Nahum alludes, where he denounces Nineveh as a "well- favoured harlot," the multitude of whose harlotries was notorious.11 : Botta, Monument, Pl. 43. 'Supra, vol. i. p. 570. ■ Herod, i. 199. AfffX'TOj run "Baruch vi. 43. "The women also with cords about them, sitting in the ways, burn bran for 1ierfume; but if any of them, drawn by some that pas- seth by, lie with him, she reproaches her fellow, that she was not thought as worthy as herself, nor her cord broken." "Nahum iii. 4. It is, however, more likely that the allusion is to the idola- trous practices of the Ninevites. (See above, vol. i. p. 246, note '.) 42 Chap. VIII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Such then was the general character of the Assyrian religion. "We have no means of determining whether the cosmogony of the Chaldseans formed any part of the Assyrian system, or was con- fined to the lower country. No ancient writer tells us anything of the Assyrian notions on this subject, nor has the decipher- ment of the monuments thrown as yet any light upon it. It would be idle therefore to prolong the present chapter by specu- lating upon a matter concerning which we have at present no authentic data. Cha?. IX. ASSYRIAN CHRONOLOGY. 43 CHAPTER IX. CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY. Tl iraXtuA roiaSra tipov, xa^eir& &rrtt ttwtI i£?)s tcKmw'V vumvaax.— Tactm i. 20. The chronology of the Assyrian kingdom has long exercised, and divided, the judgments of the learned. On the one hand, Ctesias and his numerous followers—including, among the ancients, Cephalion, Castor, Diodorus Siculus, Nicolas of Damascus, Trogus Pompeius, Velleius Paterculus, Josephus, Eusebius, and Moses of Chorine'; among the moderns, Freret, Rollin, and Clinton—have given the kingdom a duration of between thirteen and fourteen hundred years, and carried back its antiquity to a time almost coeval with the founding of Babylon; on the other, Herodotus, Volney, Heeren, B. O. Niebuhr, Brandis, and many others, have preferred a chronology which limits the duration of the kingdom to about six centuries and a half, and places the commencement in the thirteenth century B.C., when a nourishing Empire had already existed in Chaldsea, or Babylonia, for a thousand years, or more. The questions thus mooted remain still, despite of the volumes which have been written upon them,1 so far undecided, that it will be necessary to entertain and discuss them at some length in this place, before entering on the historical sketch which is needed to complete our account of the Second Monarchy. The duration of a single unbroken empire continuously for 1306 (or 1360) years,11 which is the time assigned to the Assyrian 1 See particularly the long Essays of the Abbe Sevin and uf Freret in the Memoira de CAauUmU da Inscriptions, Tola. iv. and vii. (12th edition). Com- pare Volney, Rechtrcha sur VHistoirt melauw, vol. i. pp. 381-;>11, and Clinton, Pafti lldknici, vol. i . Ap. ch. iv. * The latter is the number in the present text of Diodorus (ii. 21). But Agathiaa and Syncellus seem to have had 1306 in their copies. (See Agath. ii 25, p. 120 ; SvncelL p. 359, C. Com- pare Augustin. Civ. D. xviii 21.) 44 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Monarchy by Ctesias, must be admitted to be a thing hard of belief, if not actually incredible. The Roman State, with all its elements of strength, had (we are told), as kingdom, common- wealth, and empire, a duration of no more than twelve centu- ries.8 The Chaldaian Monarchy lasted, as we have seen,4 about a thousand years, from the time of the Elamite conquest. The duration of the Parthian was about five centuries ;5 of the first Persian, less than two and a half;6 of the Median, at the utmost, one and a half;7 of the later Babylonian, less than one.8 The only monarchy existing under conditions at all similar to Assyria, whereto an equally long—or rather a still longer— duration has been assigned with some show of reason, is Egypt.9 But there, it is admitted that the continuity was in- terrupted by the long foreign domination of the Hyksos, and by at least one other foreign conquest—that of the Ethiopian Sabacos or Shebeks. According to Ctesias, one and the same dynasty occupied the Assyrian throne during the whole period of thirteen hundred years, Sardanapalus, the last king in his list, being the descendant and legitimate successor of Ninus.14 There can be no doubt that a monarchy lasting about six centuries and a half, and ruled by at least two or three different dynasties, is per se a thing far more probable than one ruled by one and the same dynasty for more than thirteen centuries. And, therefore, if the historical evidence in the two cases is at all equal—or rather, if that which supports the more im- probable account does not greatly preponderate—we ought to * See Gibbon's Decline and Fall, ch. xxv. (voL iv. pp. 251, 252, Smith's edition). * Supra, vol. i. p. 171. 'From B.C. 256 to a.d. 226. (See Heeren's Manual of Ancient History, pp. 299-304, E. T.) * From b.C. 559 to b.C. 331, the date of the buttle of Arbela. 'Herod. i 130. * From B.C. 625 to B.C. 538. (See the Historical Chapter of the "Fourth Monarchy.") * Moderate Egyptologers refer the commencement of a settled monarchy in Egypt to about B.C. 2600 or 2500 (Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, voL ii pp. 288-290; Stuart Poole in Smith's Biblical Dictionary ad voc . chuokology). Mr. Palmer (Egyptian Chronicles, vol. ii p. 896) brings the date down to B.C. 2224, and Mr. Nash (Pharaoh of the Exodus, p. 305) to B.C 1785. The lowest of these dates would make the whole duration, from Meuea to Nectimebus, fourteen and a half ceu- turies. 10 Ap. Diod. Sic. ii 21, § 8. Chap. IX SCHEMES OF CTESIAS AND HERODOTUS. 45 give credence to the more moderate and probable of the two statements. Now, putting aside authors who merely re-echo the statements of others, there seem to be, in the present case, two and two only distinct original authorities—Herodotus and Ctesias. Of these two, Herodotus is the earlier. He writes within two centuries of the termination of the Assyrian rule,1 whereas Ctesias writes at least thirty years later.2 He is of unimpeach- able honesty, and may be thoroughly trusted to have reported only what he had heard.8 He had travelled in the East, and had done his best to obtain accurate information upon Oriental matters, consulting on the subject, among others, the Cbaldseans of Babylon.4 He had, moreover, taken special pains to inform himself upon all that related to Assyria, which he designed to make the subject of an elaborate work distinct from his general history.5 Ctesias, like Herodotus, had had the advantage of visiting the East. It may be argued that he possessed even better opportunities than the earlier writer for becoming acquainted with the views which the Orientals entertained of their own past. Herodotus probably devoted but a few months, or at most a year or two, to his Oriental travels; Ctesias passed seventeen years at the Court of Persia." Herodotus was merely an ordinary traveller, and had no peculiar facilities for acquiring information in the East; Ctesias was court-physician to Arta- xerxes Mnemon,7 and was thus likely to gain access to any archives which the Persian kings might have in their keeping.8 1 The Assyrian rule terminated B.C. 625 (or, according to some, B.C. 606). Herodotus seems to have died about B.C. 425. (See the author's Herodotut, Intro- duction, ch. i. p. 27, 2nd edition.) ! Ctesias returned from Persia to Greece in the year B.C. 398. (See Mure's Literature of Greece, vol. v. p. 483.) He may have published his Persica about B.C. 395. Xenophou quotes it about EC. 380. 5 See the author's Herodotus, Intro- duction, ch. iii. (vol. i pp. 61-64, 2nd ed.) Compare Mure's Literature of Greece, vol. iv. p. 351. * Herod, i. 183. 5 Ibid. i. 106 and 184. Whether this intention was ever executed or no, is still a moot point among scholars. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i . pp. 198, 199, note', 2nd edit.) 'Diod. Sic. ii. 32, § 4. 7 Xen. Anab. i. 8, § 26. * Ctesias appears to have stated that he drew his history from documents written upon parchment belonging to the Persian kings (iK ruv fta;n of Pul (about 28 years) . 775 to 747 to SaracuB A .ivrian kingB from Ful t (122 years) Destruction of Nineveh . 747 to 625 4« Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. In the case of a history so ancient as that of Assyria, we might well be content if our chronology were vague merely to the extent of the variations here indicated. The parade of exact dates with reference to very early times is generally fallacious, unless it be understood as adopted simply for the sake of convenience. In the history of Assyria, however, we may make a nearer approach to exactness than in most others of the same antiquity, owing to the existence of two chronological documents of first-rate importance. One of these is the famous Canon of Ptolemy, which, though it is directly a Babylonian record, has important bearings on the chronology of Assyria. The other is an Assyrian Canon, discovered and edited by Sir H. Eawlinson in 1862,17 which gives the succession of the kings for 251 years, commencing (as in thought) B.C. 911 and termi- nating B.C. 660, eight years after the accession of the son and successor of Esarhaddon. These two documents, which har- monise admirably, carry up an exact Assyrian chronology almost from the close of the Empire to the tenth century before our era. For the period anterior to this we have, in the Assyrian records, one or two isolated dates, dates fixed in later times with more or less of exactness; and of these we might have been inclined to think little, but that they harmonise remarkably with the state- ments of Berosus and Herodotus, which place the commence- ment of the Empire about B.C. 1300, or a little later. We have, further, certain lists of kings, forming continuous lines of descent from father to son, by means of which we may fill up the blanks that would otherwise remain in our chronological scheme with approximate dates calculated from an estimate of generations. From these various sources the subjoined scheme has been composed, the sources being indicated at the side, and the fixed dates being carefully distinguished from those which are uncertain or approximate. 17 See Athenceum, No. 1812. M. Op- pert's claim to the first publication of this document (Imcriptitmt da Sar- gonida, p. 15) is simply (and literally) preposterous. Chap. IX. PROBABLE ACTUAL CHRONOLOGY. KINGS OF ASSYRIA. 49 Ah. 1440 to 1420 — H-D to 1400 — 1400 to 1a30 — 1880 to 1800 — 1860 to 1a40 — 1840 to 1820 — 13-20 to 1300 - 1800 to 12S0 - 1230 to 1210 - 1210 to 1190 - 1190 to 1170 - 1170 to 11>0 - 1150 to 11a0 - 11a0 to 1110 - 1110 to 1090 - 1W0 to 1070 930 to 911 911 to 889 m to S8a to 8-^ 858 to 823 828 to 810 810 to 731 781 to 771 771 to 75a 75a to 745 745 to 727 727 to 722 722 to 705 705 to 6sl 681 to 668 «SSt©626(?) 6j6(?) to 625 Bel-sumili kapi # * • Irba-Tul • • * Asshur-iddin-akhi Asshurbil-nisi- Buzur- Aashur (• Asshur-upallit (i Bel-lush (his son) Pud-il (his son) Vtil-lush 1. (his son) Skalmaneaer I. (his son) Tiglathi-Nin (his son) Bel-kudur-nznr Nin-pala-zira (successor) \ Asshur-dayan I. (his son) f Mutaggil-Nebo (his son) * Ajwhur-ria-ilim (his son) 1 Tiglath-Pile -er I.(his son)) Asshur-bil-kala (his son) Shamas-Vul I. (his brother) Asshur-mamr Asshnr dnyan II. Vul-lush 1I. (his son) Tiglathi-Nin II. (his son) Asshur-izir-pal (his son) Shalmaneser II. (his son) Shamas-Vul II. (his sou) Vul-lush III. (his son) Shalmaneser III. Asshur-dayan HI. Asshur-lush Tiglath-Pileser IL Shalmaneser IV. Sargon Ser>uacherib (his son) Esar-haddon (his sou) Asshur-bani-pal (his son) As&hur emid-ilin Called the founder of the kingdom on a genealogical tablet. Mentioned by Tiglath-Pilesnr I. as a former king. A very archait tablet iu the British Museum is dated in his reign. Mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser as a for- mer king. Mentioned on a synchronistic tablet, which connects them with the time of Purna-puriyas, the Chahheau king. Asshur-upallit mentioned on Kileh-Sh.org hat brick*. Names and succession found on Kileh- Sherghat bricks, vases, Sic. Hhulma- neser mentioned also on a genealo- gical slab and in the standard inscription of Nimrud. Mentioned on a genealogical tablet. Called "the conqueror of Babylon," and placed by Sennacherib 600 years before his own capture of Babylon in B.C. 708. Mentioned on the synchronistic tablet as the predecessor of Niu-pala-zira, Names and relationship given in cylinder of Tiglath-Pileser I. Mentioned on the synchronistic tablet above spoken of. Date of Tiglath- Pileser I. fixed by the Iiavian in- scription. Dates of the other kings calculated from his at 20 years to a Mentioned in an inscription of Shal- IL The kings from Asshur-dayan II. to Vul-lush III. are proved to have been in direct succession by the Kileh- 8h erg hat and Nimrud monuments. The last nine reigns are given in the Assyrian Canon. The Canon is the sole authority for the last three. The dates oi the whole series are determined from the Canon of Ptole- my by calculating back from b.c. 680, his date for the accession of Esar-haddou (Asaridanus). They might also be fixed from the year of the great eclipse. The years of these kings, from Esar- haddou upwards, are taken from the Assyrian Canon. The date* accord strictly with the Canon of Ptolemy. The last year of Asshur bani pal is to some extent conjecturaL It will be observed that in this list the chronology of Assyria is carried back to a period nearly a century and a half anterior to B.C. 1300, the approximate date, according to Herodotus and VOL. il E THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. Berosus, of the establishment of the "Empire." It might have been concluded, from the mere statement of Herodotus, that Assyria existed before the time of which he spoke, since an empire can only be formed by a people already flourishing. Assyria as an independent kingdom is the natural antecedent of Assyria as an Imperial power; and this earlier phase of her existence might reasonably have been presumed from the later.1 The monuments furnish distinct evidence of the time in question in the fourth, fifth, and sixth kings of the above list, who reigned while the Chaldsean empire was still flourishing in Lower Mesopotamia.2 Chronological and other considerations induce a belief that the four kings who follow likewise belonged to it; and that the "Empire" commenced with Tiglathi-Nin I., who is the first great conqueror. The date assigned to the accession of this king, B.C. 1300, which accords so nearly with Berosus' date for the commence- ment of his 526 years, is obtained from the monuments in the following manner. First, Sennacherib, in an inscription set up in or about his tenth year (which was B.C. 694), states that he recovered from Babylon certain images of gods, which had been carried thither by Merodach-iddin-akhi, king of Babylon, who had obtained them in his war with Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, 418 years previously.8 This gives for the date of the war with Tiglath-Pileser the year B.C. 1112. As that monarch does not mention the Babylonian war in the annals which relate the events of his early years,4 we must suppose his defeat to have taken place towards the close of his reign, and assign him the space from B.C. 1130 to B.C. 1110, as, approximately, that during 1 Some writers have endeavoured to reconcile Ctesias with Herodotus by supposing the former to apeak of the beginning of the kingdom of Assyria, the latter of the commencement of the rmpirt. (See Clinton, Fasti Hellemid, vol. i. Appendix, ch. iv.) But this is a mere forced and artificial mode of pro- ducing an apparent reconciliation, since it was really the Empire which Ctesias made to begin with Ninus and Semi- ramis (Diod. Sic. ii. 1-19). * Infra, p. 55. "This important statement is con- tained in a rock-inscription at Bavian. It is evident, from the employment of an exact number (US), that Senna- cherib believed himself to be in posses- sion of .-. perfectly accurate chronology for a period exceeding four centuries from his own time. The discovery of the Assyrian Canon shows us the mode in which such an exact chronology would have been kept. 'Infra, pp. 65-68, and p. 77. Chap. IX. GROUNDS OF THE CHRONOLOGY. 51 which he is likely to have held the throne. Allowing then to the six monumental kings who preceded Tiglath-Pilcser aver- age reigns of twenty years each, which is the actual average furnished by the lines of direct descent in Assyria, where the length of each reign is known,5 and, allowing fifty years for the break between Tiglathi-Nin and Bel-kudur-uzur, we are brought to (1130 + 120 + 50) B.C. 1300 for the accession of the first Tiglathi-Nin, who took Babylon, and is the first king of whom extensive conquests are recorded.6 Secondly, Sennacherib in another inscription reckons 600 years from his first conquest of Babylon (B.C. 703) to a year in the reign of this monarch. This "six hundred" may be used as a round number; but as Senna- cherib considered that he had the means of calculating exactly, he would probably not have used a round number, unless it was tolerably near to the truth. Six hundred years before B.C. 703 brings us to B.C. 1303. The chief uncertainty which attaches to the numbers in this part of the list arises from the fact that the nine kings from Tiglathi-Nin downwards do not form a single direct line. The inscriptions fail to connect Bel-kudur-uzur with Tiglathi-Nin, and there is thus a probable interval between the two reigns, the length of which can only be conjectured. The dates assigned to the later kings, from Vul-lush II. toEsar- haddon inclusive, are derived from the Assyrian Canon taken in combination with the famous Canon of Ptolemy. The agree- ment between these documents, and between the latter and the Assyrian records generally, is exact;7 and a confirmation is thus * Two such lines only are obtainable from the Assyrian lists. The first ex- tends from Vul-lush II. to Vul-lush III. inclusive; this contains six kings, whose united reigns amount to 130 years, fur- nishing thus an average of 21J years. The other begins with Sargon and terminates with Saiil-mugina (Saosduchinus), his great-grandson, containing four reigns, which cover a space of 74 years. The average length of a reign is here 18} years. The mean average is therefore, as nearly as possible, 20 years. 'See below, pp. 58, 59. 'The Assyrian Canon assigns 17 years to Sargon and 24 to Sennacherib, or 41 to the two together. Sargon's first year, according to an Inscription of his own, synchronised with the first of Merodach- Baladnn, in Babylon. Now from this to the first of Ksarhaddon, Sennacherib's son and successor, is exactly 41 years in the Canon of Ptolemy. Again, Sargon ascribes to Merodach-Baladan, just as Ptolemy does, a reign of 12 years. Sen- nacherib assigns 3 years to Belib or Belipni, as Ptolemy does to Belibus, and mentions that he was superseded in his office by Asshur-inadi-su—Ptolemy's Aparanadius or Assaranadiua. Add to e2 52 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. afforded to Ptolemy which is of no small importance. The dates from the accession of Vul-lush II. (B.C. 911) to the death of Esarhaddon (B.C. 668) would seem to have the same degree of accuracy and certainty which has been generally admitted to attach to the numbers of Ptolemy. They have been confirmed by the notice of a great eclipse in the eighth year of Asshur- dayan III., which is undoubtedly that of June 15, B.C. 763.8 The reign of Asshur-bani-pal (Sardanapalus), the son and successor of Esarhaddon, which commenced B.C. 668, is carried down to B.C. 626 on the combined authority of Berosus, Ptolemy, and the monuments. The monuments show that Asshur-bani- pal proclaimed himself king of Babylon after the death of Saiil-mugina, whose last year was (according to Ptolemy) B.C. 647; and that from the date of this proclamation he reigned over Babylon at least twenty years. Polyhistor, who reports Berosus, has left us statements which are in close accordance, and from which we gather that the exact length of the reign of Asshur-bani-pal over Babylon was twenty-one years.9 Hence, B.C. 626 is obtained as the year of his death. As Nineveh appears to have been destroyed B.C. 625 or 624, two years only are left for Asshur-bani-pal's son and successor, Asshur-emid- illin, the Saracus of Abydenus. The framework of Assyrian chronology being thus approxi- mately, and, to some extent, provisionally settled, we may proceed to arrange upon it the facts, so far as they have come down to us, of Assyrian history. In the first place, then, if we ask ourselves where the Assy- rians came from, and at what time they settled in the country which thenceforth bore their name, we seem to have an answer, at any rate, to the former of these two questions, in Scripture. "Out of that land"—the land of Shinar—" went forth Asshur, this that in no case has the date of a king's reign on any tablet been found to exceed the number of years which Ptolemy allows him. * See Appendix A "On the record of an eclipse in the Assyrian Canon." 'Polyhistor gave the succession of the latter Babylonian kings as follows:— Sennacherib, his son (i.e. Esarhaddon), Sammughes (Saiil-mugina), Sardana- palus, his brother (Asshur-bani-pal), Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, &c. The reign of Sardanapalus lasted (he said) 21 years. (Ap. Euseb. Chr. Can. Pars v. §§2, 3.) Chap. IX. ORIGIN OF THE ASSYRIANS. 53 and builded Nineveh."1 The Assyrians, previously to their settlement on the middle Tigris, had dwelt in the lower part of the great valley—the flat alluvial plain towards the mouths of the two streams. It was here, in this productive region, where nature does so much for man, and so little needs to be sup- plied by himself, that they had grown from a family into a people; that they had learnt or developed a religion, and that they had acquired a knowledge of the most useful and necessary of the arts. It has been observed in a former chapter2 that the whole character of the Assyrian architecture is such as to indi- cate that their style was formed in the low flat alluvium, where there were no natural elevations, and stone was not to be had. It has also been remarked that their writing is manifestly derived from the Chaldsean ;8 and that their religion is almost identical with that which prevailed in the lower country from a very early time * The evidence of the monuments accords thus, in the most striking way, with the statement of the Bible, exhibiting to us the Assyrians as a people who had once dwelt to the south, in close contact with the Chaldseans, and had removed after a while to a more northern position. With regard to the date of their removal, we can only say that it was certainly anterior to the time of the Chaldsean kings, Purna-puriyas and Kurri-galzu, who seem to have reigned in the fifteenth century before our era. If we could be sure that the city called in later times Asshur bore that name when Shamas-Vul, the son of Ismi-Dagon, erected a temple there to Anu and Vul,5 we might assign to the movement a still higher antiquity; for Shamas-Vul belongs to the nineteenth century B.C.6 As, however, we have no direct evidence that either the 1 Gen. x. 10 and 11. The true meaning of the Hebrew has been doubted, and our translators have placed in the margin as an alternative version, "He (t.e. Nimrod) went out into Assyria, and builded Nineveh," &c. But the real meaning of ntfK >or Hinn pijn p would seem to be almost certainly that given in the text. So the Septuagint renders EK rrls yi)s Ixelvnt i^rj\8er Ktaovp, and the Syriac and Vulgate versions agree. (Compare Rosenmiiller, Schol. in Gena, p. 215). • See vol. i. ch. vl p. 338. 'Ibid. ch. v. p. 268. 4 Supra, ch. viii. p. 1. • Tiglath-Pilescr calls Shamas-Vul and his father "high-priests of the god Asshur" (Inscription, p. 62), but says nothing of the name of the city at the time when the temple was erected. • See vol. i. p. 164. 54 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCH ST. city or the country was known as Asshur until four centuries later, we must be content to lay it down that the Assyrians had moved to the north certainly as early as B.C. 1440, and that their removal may not improbably have takeli place several centuries earlier.7 The motive of the removal is shrouded in complete obscurity. It may have been a forced colonization, commanded and carried out by the Cbaldsean kings, who may have originated the system of transplanting £o distant regions subject tribes of doubtful fidelity ;8 or it may have been the voluntary self- expatriation of an increasing race, pressed for room and dis- contented, with its condition.' Again, it may have taken place by a single great'movement, like that of the Tartar tribes, who transferred their allegiance from Russia to China in the reign of the Empress Catherine, and emigrated in a body from the banks of the Don to the eastern limits of Mongolia;' or it may have been a gradual and protracted change, covering a long term of years, like most of the migrations whereof we read in history. On the whole, there is perhaps some reason to believe -that a spirit of enterprise about this time possessed the Semitic inhabit- ants of lower Mesopotamia, who voluntarily proceeded north- wards in the hope of bettering their condition. Terah conducted one body from Ur to Harran ;10 another removed itself from the shores of the Persian Gulf to those of the Mediterranean;11 while probably a third, larger than either of these two, ascended the course of the Tigris, occupied Adiabene", with the adjacent regions, and, giving its own tribal name of Asshur to its chief city and territory, became known to its neighbours first as a distinct, and then as an independent and powerful people. The Assyrians for some time after their change of abode were * It is important to bear in mind that on the mutilated Synchronistic tablet the names of Asshur-bel-nisi-su, &c., occur half-way down the first column; which makes it probable that ten or a dozen names of Assyrian kings preceded them. "On the prevalence of this system in the East, see the author's Herodotus, voL i. p. 405; voL ii. p. 467 ; and vol. iii. p. 149 ; 2nd edition. • See the account of this emigration in M. Hommaire de Hell's Travels in the Steppes of the Caspian Sea, pp. 227-235. 10 Gen. xi. 31. 11 On the Phoenician emigration see Kenrick's Phoenicia, pp. 46-48; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. iv. pp. 196 -202, 2nd edition. Chap. IX. FIRST EVIDENCE OF INDEPENDENCE. 55 probably governed by Babylonian rulers, who held their office under the Chaldsean Emperor. Bricks of a Babylonian character have been found at Kileh-Sherghat, the original Assyrian capital, which are thought to be of greater antiquity than any of the purely Assyrian remains, and which may have been stamped by these' provincial governors.12 Ere long, however, the yoke was thrown offhand the Assyrians established a separate monarchy of their own in the upper country, while the Chaldsean Empire was still llourfshing under native monarchs of the old ethnic type in the regions nearer to the sea. The special evidence which we possess 6f. the co-existence side by side of these two kingdoms is furnished by a broken tablet of a considerably later date,1a which seems to have contained, when complete, a brief but continuous sketch of the synchronous history of Babylonia and Assyria, and of the various transactions in which the monarchs of the two countries had been engaged one with another, from the most ancient times. This tablet has pre- served to us the names of three very early Assyrian kings— Asshur-bil-nisi-su, Buzur-Asshur, and Asshur-upallit, of whom the two former are recorded to have made treaties of peace with the contemporary kings of Babylon;1 while the last-named intervened in the domestic affairs of the country, depriving an usurping monarch of the throne, and restoring it to the legitimate claimant, who was his own relation. Intermarriages, it appears, took place at this early date between the royal families of Assyria and Chaldsea; and Asshur-upallit, the third of the three kings, had united one of his daughters to Purna- puriyas, a Chaldsean monarch who has received notice in the preceding volume.2 On the death of Purna-puriyas, Kara- khar-das, the issue of this marriage, ascended the throne; but he had not reigned long before his subjects rebelled against his 12 See the Essay of Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's Ilerodotm, voL i. p. 366, note '. "As the tablet is mutilated at both extremities, its date is uncertain ; but it cannot anyhow be earlier than the time of Shalrnaneser II., to whose wars it alludes. Moat probably it belongs to the time of Esarhaddon or Asshur-bani-pal. 1 Asshur-bel-nisi-su is said to have made a treaty with a Babylonian king otherwise unknown, whose name is read doubtfully as Kara-in-dat. Buzur- Asshur, his successor, made a treaty with Purna puriyas. 2 See vol. i . p. 109. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. authority. A struggle ensued, in which he was slain, where- upon a certain Nazi-hugas, an usurper, became king, the line of Purna-puriyas being set aside. Asshur-upallit, upon this, interposed. Marching an army into Babylonia, he defeated and slew the usurper, after which he placed on the throne another son of Purna-puriyas, the Kurri-galzu8 already men- tioned in the account of the kings of Chaldsea. What is most remarkable in the glimpse of history which this tablet opens to us is the power of Assyria, and the apparent terms of equality on which she stands with her neighbour. Not only does she treat as an equal with the great Southern Empire —not only is her royal house deemed worthy of furnishing wives to its princes—but when dynastic troubles arise there, she exer- cises a predominant influence over the fortunes of the contend- ing parties, and secures victory to the side whose cause she espouses. Jealous as all nations are of foreign interposition in their affairs, we may be sure that Babylonia would not have succumbed on this occasion to Assyria's influence, had not her weight been such that, added to one side in a civil struggle, it produced a preponderance which defied resistance. After this one short lift,4 the curtain again drops over the history of Assyria for a space of about sixty years, during which our records tell us nothing but the mere names of the kings. It appears from the bricks of Kileh-Sherghat that Asshur-upallit was succeeded upon the throne by his son,6 Bel-lush, or Bel- likhus (Belochus ?), who was in his turn followed by his son, Pudil, his grandson, Vul-lush, and his great-grandson, Shalma- neser, the first of the name. Of Bel-lush, Pudil, and Vul-lush I., we know only that they raised or repaired important buildings in their city of Asshur (now Kileh-Sherghat), which in their time, and for some centuries later, was the capital of the monarchy. 1 See vol. i. p. 170. 'Asshur-upallit is also mentioned on » tablet of Tiglath-Pileser I. as having repaired a temple built by Shamas-Vul, which was again repaired at a later date by Shalmancser I. * The regular succession of these early Assyrian monarchs has been discovered since the first edition of this work was published. A brick of Pudil's, on which he speaks of his father, Bel-lush, and his graruifathcr, Asshur-upallit, has enabled us definitely to connect the first group of three Assyrian monarchs with the second group of five. Chap. IX. SHALMANESER L 57 This place was not very favourably situated, being on the right bank of the Tigris, which is a far less fertile region than the left, and not being naturally a place of any great strength. The Assyrian territory did not at this time, it is probable, extend very far to the north: at any rate, no need was as yet felt for a second city higher up the Tigris valley, much less for a transfer of the seat of government in that direction. Calah was certainly, and Nineveh probably, not yet built;1 but still the kingdom had obtained a name among the nations; the term Assyria was applied geographically to the whole valley of the middle Tigris;2 and a prophetic eye could see in the hitherto quiescent power the nation fated to send expeditions into Palestine, and to bear off its inhabitants into captivity.8 Shalmaneser I. (ab. B.C. 1320) is chiefly known in Assyrian his- tory as the founder of Calah (Nimrud),4 the second, apparently, of those great cities which the Assyrian monarchs delighted to build and embellish. This foundation would of itself be suffi- cent to imply the growth of Assyria in his time towards the north, and would also mark its full establishment as the domi- nant power on the left as well as the right bank of the Tigris. Calah was very advantageously situated in a region of great fertility and of much natural strength, being protected on one side by the Tigris, and on the other by the Shor-Derreh torrent, while the Greater Zab further defended it at the dis- tance of a few miles on the south and south-east, and the Khazr or Ghazr-Su on the north-east.6 Its settlement must have secured to the Assyrians the undisturbed possession of the fruitful and important district between the Tigris and the mountains, the Aturia or Assyria Proper of later times,6 which 1 It may be objected that these cities are mentioned aa already built in the time of Moses (Gen. x. 11), who probably lived in the fifteenth century B.O. To this it may be replied, in the first place, that the date of Moses is very uncertain, and, secondly, that the eleventh and twelfth verses of the tenth chapter of Genesis are very possibly an addition made by Ezra on the return from the Captivity. * See Gen. ii. 14, and compare above, vol. i . p. 6. * Numbers xxiv. 22. 4 Shalmaneser is also called the founder (or enlarger) of the Temple of Kharris-matira, which was probably at Calah. s See the Chart supra, vol. i. p. 565. "Strabo, xvi. 1, f 1 ; Arrian. Exp. Alex. iii. 7. 58 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. ultimately became the great metropolitan region in which almost all the chief towns were situated. It is quite in accordance with this erection of a sort of second capital, further to the north than the old one, to find, as we do, by the inscriptions of Asshur-izir-pal, that Shalmaneser under- took expeditions against the tribes on the upper Tigris, and even founded cities in those parts, which he colonized with settlers brought from a distance. We do not know what the exact bounds of Assyria towards the north were before his time, but there can be no doubt that he advanced them; and he is thus entitled to the distinction of being the first known Assyrian conquerer. With Tiglathi-Nin, the son and successor of Shalmaneser I, the spirit of conquest displayed itself in a more signal and striking manner. The probable date of this monarch has already been shown to synchronise closely with the time assigned by Berosus to the commencement of his sixth Baby- lonian dynasty, and by Herodotus to the beginning of his "Assyrian Empire."7 Now Tiglathi-Nin appears in the In- scriptions as the prince who first aspired to transfer to Assyria the supremacy hitherto exercised, or at any rate claimed, by Babylon. He made war upon the Southern kingdom, and with such success that he felt himself entitled to claim its conquest, and to inscribe upon his signet-seal the proud title of " Conquerer of Babylonia."8 This signet-seal, left by him (as is probable) at Babylon, and recovered about six hundred years later by Sennacherib, shows to us that he reigned for some time in person at the southern capital,9 where it would seem that he afterwards established an Assyrian dynasty— a branch perhaps of his own family. This is probably the exact event of which Berosus spoke as occurring 526 years before Phul or Pul, and which Herodotus regarded as marking 7 Supra, pp. 50, 51. * The full inscription was as follows, according to Sennacherib :— "Tiglathi-Nin, king of Assyria, son of Shalmaneaer, king of Assyria, and conqueror of Kar-Dunyae (or Babylonia). Whoever injures my device (?) or name, may Asshur and Vul destroy his name and country." • Hence, on the genealogical tablet he is called "king of Sumir and Akkad" (i.e. of Babylonia), a title not given to any of the other kings. Chap. IX. TIGLATHI-NIN I. 59 the commencement of the Assyrian "Empire." We must not, however, suppose that Babylonia was from this time really subject continuously to the Court of Nineveh. The subjection may have been maintained for a little less than a century; but about that time we find evidence that the yoke of Assyria had been shaken off, and that the Babylonian monarchs, who have Semitic names, and are probably Assyrians by descent, had become hostile to the Ninevite kings, and were engaged in frequent wars with them.10 No real permanent subjection of the Lower country to the Upper was effected till the time of Sargon; and even under the Sargonid dynasty revolts were frequent; nor were the Babylonians reconciled to the Assyrian sway till Esarhaddon united the two crowns in his own person, and reigned alternately at the two capitals. Still, it is pro- bable that, from the time of Tiglathi-Nin, the Upper country was recognised as the superior of the two: it had shown its might by a conquest and the imposition of a dynasty—proofs of power which were far from counterbalanced by a few retaliatory raids adventured upon under favourable circumstances by the Babylonian princes. Its influence was therefore felt, even while its yoke was refused; and the Semitising of the Chal- dseans, commenced under Tiglathi-Nin, continued during the whole time of Assyrian preponderance; no effectual Turanian reaction ever set in; the Babylonian rulers, whether submissive to Assyria or engaged in hostilities against her, have equally Semitic names; and it does not appear that any effort was at any time made to recover to the Turanian element of the population its early supremacy. The line of direct descent, which has been traced in unin- terrupted succession through eight monarchs, beginning with Asshur-bel-nisi-su, here terminates; and an interval occurs which can only be roughly estimated as probably not exceed- ing fifty years. Another consecutive series of eight kings follows, known to us chiefly through the famous Tiglath- Pileser cylinder (which gives the succession of five of them), "Infra, pp. 61, 62, 77, 78, &c . 6o Chap. DC THE SECOND MONARCHY. but completed from the combined evidence of several other documents.1 These monarchs, it is probable, reigned from about B.C. 1230 to B.C. 1070. Bel-kudur-uzur, the first monarch of this second series, is known to us wholly through his unfortunate war with the con- temporary king of Babylon. It seems that the Semitic line of kings, which the Assyrians had established in Babylon, was not content to remain very long in a subject position. In the time of Bel-kudur-uzur, Vul-baladan, the Babylonian vassal monarch, revolted; and a war followed between him and his Assyrian suzerain, which terminated in the defeat and death of the latter, who fell in a great battle, about B.C. 1210. Nin-pala-zira succeeded. It is uncertain whether he was any relation to his predecessor, but clear that he avenged him. He is called "the king who organized the country of Assyria, and established the troops of Assyria in authority."2 It ap- pears that shortly after his accession, Vul-baladan of Babylon, elated by his previous successes, made an expedition against the Assyrian capital, and a battle was fought under the walls of Asshur, in which Nin-pala-zira was completely successful. The Babylonians fled, and left Assyria in peace during the remainder of the reign of this monarch. Asshur-dayan, the third king of the series, had a long and prosperous reign.8 He made a successful inroad into Babylonia, and returned into his own land with a rich and valuable booty. He likewise took down the temple which Shamas-Vul, the son of Ismi-Dagon, had erected to the gods Asshur and Vul at 1 The chief of these are, 1, the Baby- lonian and Assyrian synchronistic tablet, which gives the names of Bel-kudur- uzur and Nin-pala-zira, and again those of Asshur-ris-ilim, Tiglath-PUeser, and Asshur-bil-kala, in apparent succession; and, 2, an inscription on a mutilated statue of the goddess Ishtar, now in the British Museum, which contains these last three royal names, and determi- nately proves the direct genealogical succession of the three monarchs. 2 fmcription of Tiylath-PUeser I. p. 62. ■ Ibid. L a We may gather, how- ever, indirectly from the Tiglath-Pileser Inscription that at least one considerable calamity took place in his reign. The Muskai (Moschi) are said to have occu- pied the countries of Alzi and Purukhuz, and stopped their payment of tribute to Assyria fifty year t before the commence- ment of Tiglath-Pileser's reign (ibid, p. 22). This event must certainly have fallen into the time either of Asshur- dayan or of his son, MutaggU-Nebo. Most probably it belonged to the reign tf the former. Ch>kP. K. MUTAGGIL-NEBO AND ASSHUR-RIS-ILIM. 51 Asshur, the Assyrian capital, because it was in a ruinous con- dition, and required to be destroyed or rebuilt. Asshur-dayan seems to have shrunk from the task of restoring so great a work, and therefore demolished the structure, which was not rebuilt for the space of sixty years from its demolition.4 He was succeeded upon the throne by his son, Mutaggil-Nebo. Mutaggil-Nebo reigned probably from about B.C. 1170 to B.C. 1150. We are informed that "Asshur, the great Lord, aided him according to the wishes of his heart, and established him in strength in the government of Assyria."6 Perhaps these expressions allude to internal troubles at the commence- ment of his reign, over which he was so fortunate as to triumph. We have no further particulars of this monarch. Asshur-ris-ilim, the fourth king of the series, the son and successor of Mutaggil-Nebo, whose reign may be placed between B.C. 1150 and B.C. 1130, is a monarch of greater pretensions than most of his predecessors. In his son's Inscription he is called " the powerful king, the subduer of rebellious countries, he who has reduced all the accursed." 6 These expressions are so broad, that we must conclude from them, not merely that Asshur-ris-ilim, unlike the previous kings of the line, engaged in foreign wars, but that his expeditions had a great success, and paved the way for the extensive conquests of his son and successor, Tiglath-Pileser. Probably he turned his arms in various directions, like that monarch. Certainly he carried them southwards into Babylonia, where, as we learn from the synchronistic tablet of Babylonian and Assyrian history, he was engaged for some time in a war with a Nebuchadnezzar (Nahu- kudur-uzur), the first known king of that name. It has been conjectured that he likewise carried them into Southern Syria and Palestine;7 and that, in fact, he is the monarch designated in the book of Judges by the name of Chushan-ris-athaim,8 who is called "the king of Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim)," and is said to have exercised dominion over the Israelites for eight 4 Imcription of Tiglaih-Pileser, p. 62. 'Ibid. p. 60. * Ibid. 'Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Athenwum for Aug. 22, 1863 (No. 1869, p. 244, note'). 1 Judges iv. 4. 62 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. years. This identification, however, is too uncertain to be assumed without further proof. The probable date of Chushan- ris-athaim is some two (or three) centuries earlier; and his title, "king of Mesopotamia," is one which is not elsewhere applied to Assyrian monarchs. A few details have come down to us with respect to the Babylonian war of Asshur-ris-ilim. It appears that Nebuchad- nezzar was the assailant. He began the war by a march up the Diyaleh and an advance on Assyria along the outlying Zagros hills, the route afterwards taken by the great Persian road described by Herodotus. Asshur-ris-ilim went out to meet him in person, engaged him in the mountain region, and repulsed his attack. Upon this the Babylonian monarch re- tired, and after an interval, the duration of which is unknown, advanced a second time against Assyria, but took now the direct line across the plain. Asshur-ris-ilim on this occasion was content to employ a general against the invader. He "sent" his chariots and his soldiers towards his southern border, and was again successful, gaining a second victory over his antagonist, who fled away, leaving in his hands forty chariots and a banner. Tiglath-Pileser I., who succeeded Asshur-ris-ilim about B.C. 1130, is the first Assyrian monarch of whose history we possess copious details which can be set forth at some length. This is owing to the preservation and recovery of a lengthy document belonging to his reign—in which are recorded the events of his first five years.9 As this document is the chief * This document exists on two dupli- cate cylinders in the British Museum, which are both nearly complete. The Museum also contains fragments of several other cylinders which bore the same inscription. The translation from which the fol- lowing quotations are made was exe- cuted in the year 1857, under peculiar circumstances. Four gentlemen, Sir H. Rawlinson, Mr. Fox Talbot, Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Oppert, were furnished simul- taneously with a lithographed copy of the inscription, which was then unpub- lished; and these gentlemen, working independently, produced translations, more or less complete, of the document. The translations were published in pa- rallel columns by Mr. Parker, of the Strand, under the title of "Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., King of Assyria, B.C 1150. London, J. W. Parker, 1857." A perusal of this work would probably remove any incredulity which may still exist in any quarter on the subject of Assyrian decipherment. Chap. IX TIGLATH-PILESER I. 63 evidence we possess of the condition of Assyria,1 the character and tone of thought of the kings, and indeed of the general state of the Eastern world, at the period in question—which synchronises certainly with some portion of the dominion of the Judges over Israel, and probably with the early conquests of the Dorians in Greece2—it is thought advisable to give in this place such an account of it, and such a number of extracts as shall enable the reader to form his own judgment on these several points. The document opens with an enumeration and glorification of the "great gods" who " rule over heaven and earth," and are "the guardians of the kingdom of Tiglath-Pileser." These are "Asshur, the great Lord, ruling supreme over the gods; Bel, the lord, father of the gods, lord of the world; Sin, the leader (?), the lord of empire (?); Shamas, the establisher of heaven and earth; Vul, he who causes the tempest to rage over hostile lands; Nin, the champion who subdues evil spirits and enemies; and Ishtar, the source of the gods, the queen of victory, she who arranges battles." These deities, who (it is declared) have placed Tiglath-Pileser upon the throne, have "made him firm, have confided to him the supreme crown, have appointed him in might to the sovereignty of the people of Bel, and have granted him pre-eminence, exaltation, and warlike power," are invoked to make the "duration of his empire continue for ever to his royal posterity, lasting as the great temple of Kharris-Matira."8 In the next section the king glorifies himself, enumerating his royal titles as follows: "Tiglath-Pileser, the powerful king, king of the people of various tongues; king of the four regions; king of all kings; lord of lords; the supreme (?); monarch of monarchs; the illustrious chief, who, under the auspices of the > The British Museum contains another inscription of Tiglath-Pileser L, but it is in an exceedingly bad con- dition, and has not been published. It is written on three sides of the broken top of an obelisk, and seems to have contained an account of the monarch's buildings, his hunting exploits, and some of his campaigns, month by month. He mentions as monarchs who hare pre- ceded him, and whose buildings he re- pairs, Irba-Vul, Asshur-iddin-akhi, Vul- lush, Tiglathi-Nin, Asshur-dayan, and Asshur-ris-ilim. 2 The date of Eratosthenes for the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnese was B. c. 1104. Thucydides, apparently, would have placed it seventy or eighty years earlier. (Thuc. v. 112.) * Imcription, &c., pp. 18-20. 64 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Sua-god, being armed with the sceptre and girt with the girdle of power over mankind, rules over all the people of Bel; the mighty prince, whose praise is blazoned forth among the kings; the exalted sovereign, whose servants Asshur has appointed to the government of the four regions, and whose name he has made celebrated to posterity; the conqueror of many plains and mountains of the Upper and Lower country; the victorious hero, the terror of whose name has overwhelmed all regions; the bright constellation who, as he wished, has warred against foreign countries, and under the auspices of Bel—there being no equal to him—has subdued the enemies of Asshur."4 The royal historian, after this introduction, proceeds to narrate his actions—first in general terms declaring that he has subdued all the lands and the peoples round about, and then proceeding to particularise the various campaigns which he had conducted during the first five years of his reign. The earliest of these was against the Muskai, or Moschians, who are probably identical with the Meshech of Holy Scripture6—a people governed (it is said) by five kings, and inhabiting the countries of Alzi and Purukhuz, parts (apparently) of Taurus or Niphates.8 These Moschians are said to have neglected for fifty years to pay the tribute due from them to the Assyrians, from which it would appear that they had revolted during the reign of Asshur-dayan, having previously been subject to Assyiia.7 At this time, with a force amounting to 20,000 men, they had invaded the neigh- bouring district of Qummukh (Cominagene"),8 an Assyrian 4 Inscription, pp. 20-22. 'Ps. cxx. 5; Ezek. xxvii. 13 ; zxxii. 26; xxxviii. 2; xxxix. 1, &c. They are constantly coupled in the Inscriptions with the Tvplaiy just as Meshech is coupled with Tubal in Scripture, and the Moschi with the Tibareni in Hero- dotus (iii. 94; vii. 78). "From the Inscription of Tiglath- Pileser we can only say that these regions formed a portion of themountaincountry in the vicinity of the Upper Tigris. In later times the main seat of the Mos- chian power was the Taurus range im- mediately to the west of the Euphrates. Here was their great city, Mazaca ^Jo- seph., Ant. Jud. i. 6; Mos. Chor., Hit. A>men. i. 13), the Caosarsea Mazaca of the Roman Empire. Hence they seem to have been driven northwards by the Cappadocians, and in the time of Hero- dotus they occupy a small tract upon theEuxine. (See the author's Herodotut, vol. iv. pp. 179-181.) : Supra, p. 60, note "This is one of the very few geo- graphic names in the early Assyrian records which seems to have a classical equivalent. It must not, however, be supposed that the locality of the tribe was the same in Tiglath- Pileser's time as in the days of Strabo and PIiny. Chap. IX. WARS OF TIGLATH-PILESER L OS dependency, and had made themselves masters of it. Tiglath- Pileser attacked them in this newly-conquered country, and completely defeated their army. He then reduced Coinmagene', despite the assistance which the inhabitants received from some of their neighbours. He burnt the cities, plundered the temples, ravaged the open country, and carried off, either in the shape of plunder or of tribute, vast quantities of cattle and treasure.9 The character of the warfare is indicated by such a passage as the following:— "The country of Kasiyara, a difficult region, I passed through. With their 20,000 men and their five kings, in the country of Qummukh I engaged. I defeated them. The ranks of their warriors in fighting the battle were beaten down as if by the tempest. Their carcasses covered the valleys and the tops of the mountains. I cut off their heads. Of the battlements of their cities I made heaps, like mounds of earth (?). Their moveables, their wealth, and their valuables I plundered to a countless amount. Six thousand of their common soldiers, who fled before my servants, and accepted my yoke, I took and gave over to the men of my own territory as slaves."1 The second campaign was partly in the same region and with the same people. The Moschians, who were still loth to pay tribute, were again attacked and reduced.2 Commagene' was completely overrun, and the territory was attached to the Assy- rian empire.8 The neighbouring tribes were assailed in their fastnesses, their cities burnt, and their territories ravaged4 At the same time war was made upon several other peoples or nations. Among these the most remarkable are the Khatti (Hittites), two of whose tribes, the Kaskians and Urumians,8 had committed an aggression on the Assyrian territory: for this they Tiglath-Pile0er,s Qummukh or Com- mukha appear to occupy the mountain region extending from the Euphrates at Sumelsat to beyond the Tigris at Diar- bekr. • Inscription, ftc., pp. 22-30. 1 Ibid. p. 24. s Ibid. pp. 30-32. * Ibid pp. 32-34. VOL. lx. < Ibid. pp. 34-36. 'These Urumians (ffarumaya) were perhaps of the same race with a tribe of the same name who dwelt near and probably gave name to Lake Urumiyeh. The name of the Kaskians recalls that of a primitive Italic people, the Casci. (See Niebuhr, Roman Hittory, vol. I p 78, K T.) F 66 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. were chastised by an invasion which they did not venture to resist, by .the plundering of their valuables, and the carrying off of 120 of their chariots.8 In another direction the Lower Zab was crossed, and the Assyrian arms were carried into the mountain region of Zagros, where certain strongholds were reduced and a good deal of treasure taken.7 The third campaign was against the numerous tribes of the Nairi,8 who seem to have dwelt at this time partly to the eaat of the Euphrates, but partly also in the mountain country west of the stream from Sumeisat to the Gulf of Iskenderun.9 These tribes, it is said, had never previously made their submission to the Assyrians."10 They were governed by a number of petty chiefs or "kings," of whom no fewer than twenty-three are particularised. The tribes east of the Euphrates seem to have been reduced with little resistance, while those who dwelt west of the river, on the contrary, collected their troops together, gave battle to the invaders, and made a prolonged and desperate defence. All, however, was in vain. The Assyrian monarch gained a great victory, taking 120 chariots, and then pursuing the vanquished Nal'ri and their allies as far as "the Upper Sea," i.e., the Mediterranean. The usual ravage and destruction fol- lowed, with the peculiarity that the lives of the " kings " were spared, and that the country was put to a moderate tribute, viz., 1200 horses and 200 head of cattle.11 In the fourth campaign the Aramseans or Syrians were attacked by the ambitious monarch. They occupied at this time the valley of the Euphrates, from the borders of the Tsukhi, or Shuhites12 (who held the river from about Anah to "The chariots of the Hittites are more than once mentioned in Scripture. (See 1 K. x. 29 and 2 K. vii. 6.) 'Inscription, p. 38. * The fact that the country occupied by the Nalri is, in part, that which the Jews knew as Arani-AroAaroim, would seem to be a mere accidental coincidence. Nalri is a purely ethnic title; Naharaim is from VOi "a river," and Aram-Na- haraim is "Syria of the two rivers," i.e., Mesopotamia. (See above, vol. i . p. 2.) The Nahaniyn of the Egyptian monuments may, however, be the Nairi country." * This is the district which after- wards became Commagcne'. It is a laby- rinth of mountains, twisted spurs from Amanus. 10 Inscription, p. 42. "Ibid. p. U. "This identification is made partly on etymological and partly on geogra- phical grounds. (See the author's ar- ticle on Shuhite in Dr. Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. iii. p. 1293.) Chap. IX. WARS OF TIGLATH-PILESER I. 67 Hit), as high up as Carchemish, the frontier town and chief stronghold of the Khatti or Hittites. Carchemish was not, as has commonly been supposed, Circesium, at the junction of the Khabour with the Euphrates,18 but was considerably higher up the stream, certainly near to, perhaps on the very site of, the later city of Mabog or Hierapolis.14 Thus the Aramseans had a territory of no great width, but 250 miles long between its north-western and its south-eastern extremities. Tiglath- Pileser smote this region,as he tells us, "at one blow."16 First attacking and plundering the eastern or left bank of the river, he then crossed the stream in boats covered with skins, took and burned six cities on the right bank, and returned in safety with an immense plunder. The fifth and last campaign was against the country of Musr or Muzr, by which some Orientalists have understood Lower Egypt.1* This, however, appears to be a mistake. The As- syrian Inscriptions designate two countries by the name of Musr or Muzr, one of them being Egypt, and the other a portion of Upper Kurdistan. The expedition of* Tiglath-Pileser I. was against the eastern Musr, a highly mountainous country, con- sisting (apparently) of the outlying ranges of Zagros between the Greater Zab and the Eastern Khabour. Notwithstanding its natural strength and the resistance of the inhabitants, this country was completely overrun in an incredibly short space. The armies which defended it were defeated, the cities burnt, the strongholds taken. Arin, the capital, submitted, and was spared, after which a set tribute was imposed on the entire region, the amount of which is not mentioned. The Assyrian arms were then turned against a neighbouring district, the country of the Comani. The Comani, though Assyrian subjects, had lent assistance to the people of Musr, and it was to punish this insolence that Tiglath-Pileser resolved to invade their terri- "Circesium is identiBed by Mr. Fox Talbot with the Assyrian Sirki, which was apparently in this position. [At- tt/rian Text*, p. 31.) "See B'Mical Dictiotutry,vo\. i.p.278. In the Synac version of the Old Testa- ment, Carchemish is translated, or rather replaced, by Mabog. 15 Inscription, p. 46. "So Mr. Fox Talbot (Inscription, p. 48). r 3 68 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. tory. Having defeated their main army, consisting of 20,000 men, he proceeded to the attack of the various castles' and towns, some of which were stormed, while others surrendered at discretion. In both cases alike the fortifications were broken down and destroyed, the cities which surrendered being spared, while those taken by storm were burnt with fire. Ere long the whole of the "far-spreading country of the Comani" was re- duced to subjection, and a tribute was imposed exceeding that which had previously been required from the people.1 After this account of the fifth campaign, the whole result of the wars is thus briefly summed up:—" There fell into my hands altogether, between the commencement of my reign and my fifth year, forty-two countries with their kings, from the banks of the river Zab to the banks of the river Euphrates, the country of the Khatti, and the upper ocean of the setting sun. I brought them under one government; I took hostages from them; and I imposed on them tribute and offerings."2 From describing his military achievements, the monarch turns to an account of h'rs exploits in the chase. In the country of the Hittites he boasts that he had slain "four wild bulls, strong and fierce," with his arrows; while in the neighbourhood of Harran, on the banks of the river Khabour, he had killed ten large wild buffaloes (?), and taken four alive8 These cap- tured animals he had carried with him on his return to Asshur, his capital city, together with the horns and skins of the slain beasts. The lions which he had destroyed in his various jour- neys he estimates at 920. All these successes he ascribes to the powerful protection of Nin and Nergal4 The royal historiographer proceeds, after this, to give an account of his domestic administration, of the buildings which he had erected, and the various improvements which he had introduced. Among the former he mentions temples to Ishtar, Martu, Bel, II or Ra, and the presiding deities of the city of Asshur, palaces for his own use, and castles for the protection of his territory. Among the latter he enumerates the construction 1 Inscription, Jtc., pp. 48-52. * Ibid. pp. 52-54 a See above, vol. i. p. 514, note 2. * Inscription, pp. 4-Pfl. Chap. IX. HIS RESTORATIONS OF TEMPLES. 69 of works of irrigation, the introduction into Assyria of foreign cattle and of numerous beasts of chase, the naturalization of foreign vegetable products, the multiplication of chariots, the extension of the territory, and the augmentation of the popula- tion of the country.8 A more particular account is then given of the restoration by the monarch of two very ancient and venerable temples in the great city of Asshur. This account is preceded by a formal statement of the particulars of the monarch's descent from Nin- pala-zira,6 the king who seems to be regarded as the founder of the dynasty—which breaks the thread of the narrative some- what strangely and awkwardly. Perhaps the occasion of its introduction was, in the mind of the writer, the necessary men- tion, in connection with one of the two temples, of Asshur-dayan, the great-grandfather of the monarch. It appears that in the reign of Asshur-dayan, this temple, which, having stood for 641 years, was in a very ruinous condition, had been taken down, while no fresh building had been raised in its room. The site remained vacant for sixty years, till Tiglath-Pileser, having lately ascended the throne, determined to erect on the spot a new temple to the old gods, who were Anu and Vul, probably the tutelary deities of the city. His own account of the cir- cumstances of the building and dedication is as follows :— "In the beginning of my reign, Anu and Vul, the great gods, my lords, guardians of my steps, gave me a command to repair 5 Imcription, pp. 56-60. "The most important points of the statement have been quoted in the earlier portion of this chapter, but as the reader may wish to see the entire passage as it stands in the original document, it is here appended:— "Tiglath-Pileser, the illustrious prince, whom Asshur and Nin have exalted to the utmost wishes of his heart; who has pursued after the ene- mies of Asshur, and has subjugated all the earth— "The son of Asshur-ris-ilim, the powerful king, the subduer of rebellious countries, he who has reduced all the accursed (?)— "The grandson of Mutaggil-Nebo, whom Asshur, the Great Lord, aided according to the wishes of his heart, and established in strength in the government of Assyria— "The glorious offspring of Asshur- dayan, who held the sceptre of do- minion, and ruled over the people of Bel; who in all the works of his handa and the deeds of his life placed his reliance on the great gods, and thus obtained a long and prosperous life—. "The beloved child of Nin-pala-zira, the king who organised the country of Assyria, who purged his territories of the wicked, and established the troops of Assyria in authority." (Imcription, pp. 60-02.) . 70 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. this their shrine. So I made bricks; I levelled the earth; I took its dimensions (?); I laid down its foundations upon a mass of strong rock. This place, throughout its whole extent, I paved with bricks in set order (?); fifty feet deep I prepared the ground; and upon this substructure I laid the lower foundations of the temple of Anu and Vul. From its foundations to its roof I built it up better than it was before. I also built two lofty towers (?) in honour of their noble godships, and the holy place, a spacious hall, I consecrated for the convenience of their wor- shippers, and to accommodate their votaries, who were numerous as the stars of heaven. I repaired, and built, and completed my work. Outside the temple I fashioned everything with the same care as inside. The mound of earth on which it was built I enlarged like the firmament of the rising stars (?), and I beau- tified the entire building. Its towers I raised up to heaven, and its roofs I built entirely of brick. An inviolable shrine (?) for their noble godships I laid down near at hand. Anu and Vul, the great gods, I glorified inside the shrine. I set them up in their honoured purity, and the hearts of their noble godships I delighted."7 The other restoration mentioned is that of a temple to Vul only, which, like that to Anu and Vul conjointly, had been originally built by Shamas-Vul, the son of Ismi-Dagon. This building had likewise fallen into decay, but had not been taken down like the other. Tiglath-Pileser states that he "levelled its site," and then rebuilt it "from its foundations to its roofs," enlarging it beyond its former limits, and adorning it. Inside of it he "sacrificed precious victims to his lord, Vul." He also deposited in the temple a number of rare stones or marbles, which he had obtained in the country of the Nairi in the course of his expeditions.8 The inscription then terminates with the following long in- vocation :— "Since a holy place, a noble hall, I have thus consecrated for the use of the Great Gods, my lords Anu and Vul, and have laid down an adytum for their special worship, and have finished it 7 Inec• iption, pp. 64-66. • Ibid. p. 66. Chap. IX. HIS INVOCATION. 7« successfully, and have delighted the hearts of their noble god- ships, may Anu and Vul preserve me in power! May they support the men of my government! May they establish the authority of my officers! May they bring the rain, the joy of the year, on the cultivated land and the desert, during my time! In war and in battle may they preserve me victorious! Many foreign countries, turbulent nations, and hostile kings I have reduced under my yoke: to my children and my descendants, may tbey keep them in firm allegiance! I will lead my steps" (or, " may they establish my feet"), " firm as the mountains, to the last days, before Asshur and their noble godships! "The list of my victories and the catalogue of my triumphs over foreigners hostile to Asshur, which Anu and Vul have granted to my arms, I have inscribed on my tablets and cylin- ders, and I have placed, [to remain] to the last days, in the temple of my lords, Anu and Vul. And I have made clean (?) the tablets of Shamus-Vul, my ancestor; I have made sacrifices, and sacrificed victims before them, and have set them up in their places. In after times, and in the latter days .... if the temple of the Great Gods, my lords Anu and Vul, and these shrines should become old and fall into decay, may the Prince who comes after me repair the ruins! May he raise altars and sacrifice victims before my tablets and C31linders, and may he set them up again in their places, and may he inscribe his name on them together with my name! As Anu and Vul, the Great Gods, have ordained, may he worship honestly with a good heart and full trust! "Whoever shall abrade or injure my tablets and cylinders, or shall moisten them with water, or scorch them with fire, or ex- pose them to the air, or in the holy place of God shall assign them a place where they cannot be seen or understood, or shall erase the writing and inscribe his own name, or shall divide the sculptures (?) and break them off from my tablets, may Anu and Vul, the Great Gods, my lords, consign his name to perdition! May thej curse him with an irrevocable curse! May they cause his sovereignty to perish! May they pluck out the stability of the throiie of his empire I Let not his offspring survive him in 72 Chap. IX THE SECOND MONARCHY. the kingdom! Let his servants be broken! Let his troops be defeated! Let him fly vanquished before his enemies I May Vul in his fury tear up the produce of his land! May a scarcity of food and of the necessaries of life afflict his country! For one day may he not be called happy! May his name and his race perish !"1 The document is then dated—" In the month Kuzalla (Chisleu), on the 29 th day, in the year presided over by Ina- iliya-pallik, the Rabbi-Tun."1 Perhaps the most striking feature of this inscription, when it is compared with other historical documents of the same kind belonging to other ages and nations, is its intensely religious character. The long and solemn invocation of the Great Gods with which it opens, the distinct ascription to their assistance and guardianship of the whole series of royal successes, whether in war or in the chase; the pervading idea that the wars were undertaken for the chastisement of the enemies of Asshur, and that their result was the establishment in an ever-widening circle of the worship of Asshur; the careful account which is given of the erection and renovation of temples, and the dedica- tion of offerings; and the striking final prayer—all these ire so many proofs of the prominent place which religion held in the thoughts of the king who set up the inscription, and mar fairly be accepted as indications of the general tone and temper of his people.8 It is evident that we have here displayed to us, not a decent lip-service, not a conventional piety, but a real, hearty earnest religious faith—a faith bordering on fanaticism—a spirit akin to that with which the Jews were possessed in their warfare with the nations of Canaan, or which the soldiers of Mahomet breathed forth when they fleshed their maiden swords upon the infidels. The king glorifies himself much; but he glorifies the gods more. He fights, in part, for his own credit, and for the extension of his territory; but he fights also for the honour of the gods, whom the surrounding nations reject, and for the diffusion of their worship far and wide throughout al known 1 Inscription, pp. 64-72. 2 Ibid. p. 72. a Sec ubove, vol. i . pp.239-241. Chap. IX RELIGIOUS TONE OF HIS INSCRIPTION. 73 regions. His wars are religious wars, at least as much as wars of conquest; his buildings, or, at any rate, those on whose con- struction he dwells with most complacency, are religious build- ings; the whole tone of his mind is deeply and sincerely religious; besides formal acknowledgments, he is continually letting drop little expressions which show that his gods are " in all his thoughts,"4 and represent to him real powers governing and directing all the various circumstances of human life. The religious spirit displayed is, as might have been expected, in the highest degree exclusive and intolerant; but it is earnest, constant, and all-pervading. In the next place, we cannot fail to be struck with the ener- getic character of the monarch, so different from the temper which Ctesias ascribes, in the broadest and most sweeping terms, to all the successors of Ninus.8 Within the first five years of his reign the indefatigable prince conducts in person expeditions into almost every country upon his borders; attacks and reduces six important nations,6 besides numerous petty tribes;7 receiving the submission of forty-two kings ;8 traversing the most difficult 4 e. g., even when bent on glorifying himself, the monarch is still "the illus- trious chief, who, under the auspices of the Sun God, rules over the people of Bell" (Inscription, p. 20), and "whose servants Asshur hat appointed to the government of the four regions" (ibid.); if his enemies fly, "the fear of Asshur has overwhelmed them" (pp. 28, 36, &c.); if they refuse tribute, they " withhold the offerings due to Asshur" (p. 24) ; if the king himself feels inclined to make an expedition against a country, "his lord, Asshur, invites him" to proceed thither (pp. 34, 42, 48) ; if he collects an army, "Asshur has committed the troops to his hand" (p. 32). When a country not previously subject to As- syria is attacked, it is because the people "do not acknowledge Asshur" (p. 38); when its plunder is carried off, it is to adom and enrich the temples of Asshur and the other gods (p. 40); when it yields, the flint thing is to "attach it to the worship of Asshur" (pp. 38, 40, &c.) The king hunts "under the auspices of Nin and Ner- gal" (p. 54), or of "Nin and Asshur" (p. 58); he puts his tablets under the protection of Anu and Vul (p. 68) ; he ascribes the long life of one ancestor to his eminent piety (p. 62), and the prosperity of another to the protection which Asshur vouchsafed him (p. 60). The name of Asshur occurs in the in- scription nearly forty times, or almost once in each paragraph. The sun-god, Shamas, the deities Anu, Vul, and Bel, are mentioned repeatedly. Acknow- ledgment is also made of Sin, the moon- god, of Nin, Nergal, Ishtar, Beltis, Martu, and II or Ra. And all this is in an inscription which is not dedicatory, but historical! s Ap. Diod. Sic. ii. 19. • The Moschi, the people of Com- magene', the Nairi, the Aramseans, the people of Muzr, and the Comani. 7 As the Kaski and Urumi, tribes of the Hittites, the people of Adavas, Tsaravas, Itsua, Daria, Muraddan, Khanui-rabbi, Miltis, or Jleliteno', Dayan, &c. "InscriptioHofTiglath-PUescrl., p. 52. 74 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. mountain regions; defeating armies, besieging towns, destroying forts and strongholds, ravaging territories; never allowing him- self a moment of repose; when he is not engaged in military operations, devoting himself to the chase, contending with the wild bull and the lion, proving himself (like the first Mesopo- tamian king) in very deed "a mighty hunter,"9 since he counts his victims by hundreds;10 and all the while having regard also to the material welfare of his country, adorning it with buildings, enriching it with the products of other lands, both animal and vegetable, fertilizing it by means of works of irrigation, and in every way "improving the condition of the people, and obtain- ing for them abundance and security."11 With respect to the general condition of Assyria, it may be noted, in the first place, that the capital is still Asshur, and that no mention is made of any other native city.1 The king calls himself " king of the four regions,"2 which would seem to imply a division of the territory into districts, like that which certainly obtained in later times.8 The mention of "four" districts is curious, since the same number was from the first affected by the Chaldseans,4 while we have also evidence that, at least after the time of Sargon, there was a pre-eminence of four great cities in Assyria.6 The limits of the territory at the time of the In- scription are not very clearly marked; but they do not seem to extend beyond the outer ranges8 of Zagros on the east, Niphates on the north, and the Euphrates upon the west. The southern boundary at the time was probably the commencement of the alluvium; but this cannot be gathered from the Inscription, which contains no notice of any expedition in the direction • Gen. x. 9. "> See above, p. 68. "Inscription, p. 60. 1 The existence of "great fortified cities throughout the dominions of the king" is mentioned (p. 58), but none is named except Asshur. 2 Inscription, p. 20. And a little further on he is "the exalted sovereign whoso servants Asshur has appointed to the government of the country of the four regions." What the four regions were we can only conjecture. Perhaps they were, 1, the country east of the Tigris; 2, that between the Tigris and the Khabour; 3, that between the Kha- bour and the Euphrates; and, 4, the mountain region upon the upper Tigris north of the Mesopotamian plain. ■ See above, voL i p. 193. 4 Ibid. p. U. • Ibid. p. 198. 'i. e. the more westerly ranges. When the monarch crosses the Lower Zab, he is immediately in a hostile country. (Inscription, p. 38.) Chap. IX GENERAL CONDITION OF ASSYRIA. 75 of Babylonia. The internal condition of Assyria is evidently flourishing. Wealth flows in from the plunder of the neigh- bouring countries; labour is cheapened by the introduction of enslaved captives;7 irrigation is cared for; new fruits and animals are introduced; fortifications are repaired, palaces renovated, and temples beautified or rebuilt. The countries adjoining upon Assyria on the west, the north, and the east, in which are carried on the wars of the period, present indications of great political weakness. They are divided up among a vast number of peoples, nations, and tribes, whereof the most powerful is only able to bring into the field a force of 20,000 men.8 The peoples and nations possess but little unity. Each consists of various separate communities, ruled by their own kings, who in war unite their troops against the common enemy; but are so jealous of each other, that they do not seem even to appoint a generalissimo. On the Euphrates, between Hit and Carchemish, are, first, the Tsukhi or Shuhites, of whom no particulars are given; and, next, the Aramseans or Syrians, who occupy both banks of the river, and possess a number of cities, no one of which is of much strength. Above the Ara- mseans are the Khatti or Hittites, whose chief city, Carchemish, is an important place; they are divided into tribes, and, like the Aramseans, occupy both banks of the great stream. North and north-west of their country, probably beyond the mountain- range of Amanus, are the Muskai (Moschi), an agressive people, who were seeking to extend their territory eastward into the land of the Qummukh or people of Commagene'. These Qum- mukh hold the mountain country on both sides of the Upper Tigris, and have a number of strongholds, chiefly on the right bank. To the east they adjoin on the Kirkhi, who must have inhabited the skirts of Niphates, while to the south they touch the Na'iri, who stretch from Lake Van, along the line of the Tigris, to the tract known as Commagfind to the Romans. The 'Six thousand are enslaved on one occasion (Inncription, p. 24); four thou- sand on another (p. 32). They are not reserved by the monarch for his own use, but are '' gven over for a spoil to the people of Assyria." 8 Only two nations, the Moschi and the Comani, have armies of such strength as this. (Inscription, pp. 22 and 48.) 76 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Nairi have, at the least, twenty-three kings,' each of whom governs his own tribe or city. South of the more eastern Nairi is the country of Muzr—a mountain tract well peopled and full of castles, probably the region about Amadiyeh and Rowandiz. Adjoining Muzr to the east or north-east, are the Quwanw or Comani,10 who are among the most powerful of Assyria's neigh- bours, being able, like the Moschi, to bring into the field an army of 20,000 men. At this time they are close allies of the people of Aluzr—finally, across the Lower Zab, on the skirts of Zagros, are various petty tribes of small account, who offer but little resistance to the arms of the invader. Such was the position of Assyria among her neighbours in the latter part of the twelfth century before Christ. She was a compact and powerful kingdom, centralized under a single monarch, and with a single great capital, in the midst of wild tribes which clung to a separate independence, each in its own valley or village. At the approach of a great danger, these tribes might consent to coalesce and to form alliances, or even confederations; but the federal tie, never one of much tenacity, and rarely capable of holding its ground in the presence of monarchic vigour, was here especially weak. After one defeat of their joint forces by the Assyrian troops, the confederates commonly dispersed, each flying to the defence of his own city or territory, with a short-sighted selfishness which deserved and ensured defeat. In one direction only was Assyria confronted by a rival state possessing a power and organization in character not unlike her own, though scarcely of equal strength. On her southern frontier, in the broad flat plain intervening between the Mesopotamian upland and the sea—the kingdom of Babylon was still existing; its Semitic kings,though originally established upon the throne by Assyrian influence,11 had dissolved all con- nection with their old protectors, and asserted their thorough 9 Twenty-three are particularised (Insa-iptiun, pp. 42-44). But it is not said that there were no others. "The Comani in later times disap- peared from these parts ; but there are traces of them both in Pontus and in the Lesser Armenia, which was some- times reckoned to Cappadocia. Each of these districts had a town called Comana, the inhabitants of which were Comani or Comaneis. (See Strab. xii. pp. 777 and 793; Ptol. v. 6 and 7; PIin. //. N. vi. 3 ; Greg. Nyss. Vit. Thaumat. p. 5G1.) "Supra, p, 59. Chap. IX. TIGLATH-PILESER's WAR WITH BABYLON". 77 independence. Here, then, was a considerable state, as much centralised as Assyria herself, and not greatly inferior either in extent of territory or in population,1 existing side by side with her, and constituting a species of check, whereby something like a balance of power was still maintained in Western Asia, and Assyria was prevented from feeling herself the absolute mis- tress of the East, and the uncontrolled arbitress of the world's destinies. Besides the great cylinder inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., there exist five more years of his annals in fragments, from which we learn that he continued his aggressive expeditions during this space, chiefly towards the north-west, subduing the Lulumi in Northern Syria, attacking and taking Carchemish, and pursuing the inhabitants across the Euphrates in boats. No mention is made during this time of any collision between Assyria and her great rival, Babylon. The result of the wars waged by Asshur-ris-ilim against Nebuchadnezzar I.2 had, apparently, been to produce in the belligerents a feeling of mutual respect; and Tiglath-Pileser, in his earlier years, neither trespassed on the Babylonian territory in his aggressive raids, nor found himself called upon to meet and repel any invasion of his own dominions by his southern neighbours. Before the close of his reign, however, active hostilities broke out between the two powers. Either provoked by some border ravage or actuated simply by lust of conquest, Tiglath-Pileser marched his troops into Babylonia. For two consecutive years he wasted with fire and sword the "upper" or northern provinces, taking the cities ofKurri-Galzu—nowAkkerkuf—Sipparaof theSun.and Sippara of Anunit (the Sepharvaim or " two Sipparas" of the Hebrews), and Hupa or Opis, on the Tigris; and finally capturing Babylon itself, which, strong as it was, proved unable to resist the invader. On his return he passed up the valley of the Euphrates, and 1 Assyria, within the limits above assigned to it (p. 75), must have con- tained an area of from 50,000 to 60,000 square mi lea. Babylonia contained about 25,000. The proportion is nearly that between England and Scotland, the actual size not being very different. Babylonia, however, was probably more thickly peopled than Assyria; so that the disproportion of the two populations would not be so great. 'See above, p. 62. 78 Chai". IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. took several cities from the Tsukhi. But here, it would seem that he suffered a reverse. Merodach-iddin-akhi, his opponent, if he did not actually defeat his army, must, at any rate, have greatly harassed it on its retreat; for he captured an important part of its baggage. Indulging a superstition common in ancient times,8 Tiglath-Pileser had carried with him in his expedition certain images of gods, whose presence would, it was thought, secure victory to his arms. Merodach-iddin-akhi obtained possession of these idols, and succeeded in carrying them off to Babylon, where they were preserved for more that 400 years, and considered as mementoes of victory.4 The latter days of this great Assyrian prince were thus, unhappily, clouded by disaster. Neither he, nor his descendants, nor any Assyrian monarch for four centuries succeeded in recovering the lost idols, and replacing them in the shrines from which they were taken. A hostile and jealous spirit appears henceforth in the relations between Assyria and Babylon; we find" no more intermarriages of the one royal house with the othsr; wars are frequent—almost constant— nearly every Assyrian monarch, whose history is known to us in any detail, conducting at least one expedition into Babylonia. A work still remains, belonging to the reign of this king, from which it appears that the peculiar character of Assyrian mimetic art was already fixed in his time, the style of representation being exactly such as prevailed at the most flourishing period, and the workmanship, apparently, not very inferior. In a cavern from which the Tsupnat river or eastern branch of the Tigris 2 It was a feeling of this kind which induced the Israelites to send and fetch the ark of the covenant to their camp when they were contending with the Philistines (1 Sam. iv. i), and which made the Spartans always take with them to battle one or both of two images (or rather symbols) of the Tyndarids, Castor and Pollux (Herod, v. 75). So when the Boeotians asked aid from the Eginetans, these last sent them certain images of the ^EacitUc (Herod, v. 80); ami the United Greeks set so high a value on the presence of these same images that they sent expressely to fetch them when they were about to engage the Pel'sian fleet at Salamis (Herod, viiu 64 and 83). Compare Strab. viii.p. 558, and Macrob. Sat. i. 23. 'The chief authority for this war is the "Synchronistic Tablet" already frequently quoted. The capture of the images is not mentioned on that tablet, but is taken from a rock-inscription of Sennacherib's at Bavian near Khorsabad. The idols are said to have been captured at the city of Htkalin, which is thought to have been near Tekrit. Chap. IX. ROCK TABLET OF TIGLATH-PILESER I. rises, close to a village called Korkhar, and about fifty or sixty miles north of Diarbekr, is a bas-relief sculptured on the natural rock, which has been smoothed for the purpose, consisting of a figure of the king in his sacerdotal dress with the right arm extended and the left hand grasping the sacrificial mace,5 accom- panied by an inscription which is read as follows:—" By the grace of Asshur, Shamas, and Vul, the Great Gods, I, Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, son of Asshur-ris-ilim, king of Assyria, who was the son of Mutaggil-Nebo, king of Assyria, marching from the great sea of Akhiri" (the Mediterranean) "to the sea of Nairi" (Lake of Van), "for the third time have invaded the country ofNairi."8 The fact of his having warred in Lower Mesopotamia is almost the whole that is known of Tiglath-Pileser's son and successor, Asshur- bil-kala. A contest in which he was engaged with the Baby- lonian prince, Merodach-shapik-ziri (who seems to have been the successor of Merodach-iddin-akhi), is recorded on the famous synchronistic tablet, in conjunction with the Babylonian wars of his father and grandfather; but the tablet is so injured in this place that no particulars can be gathered from it. From a monument of Asshur-bel-kala's own time—one of the earliest Assyrian sculptures that has come down to us—we may perhaps further conclude that he inherited something of the religious Figure of Tiglath-Pileser I. (From a rock tablet near Korkhar.) 5 The above woodcut is made from a very rough drawing sent to Eng- land by the explorer, who is not a skilled draughtsman; and it must therefore be regarded as giving a mere general notion of the bas-relief. 'This monument, the earliest As- syrian sculpture which is known to exist, is mentioned by Asshur-izir-pal, the father of the Black Obelisk king, in his great Inscription ; and it vi an mainly in consequence of this mention that Mr. John Taylor, being requested by Sir H. Rawlinson to explore the sources of the Tigris, discovered, in 1802, the actual tablet, a circumstance which may serve to clear away any lingering doubts that still exist in any quarters as to the actual decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions. So Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. spirit of his father, and gave a portion of his attention to the adornment of temples, and the setting up of images.1 The probable date of the reign of Asshur-bil-kala is about B.C. 1110-1090. He appears to have been succeeded on the throne by his younger brother, Shamas-Vul, of whom nothing is known, but that he built, or repaired, a temple at Nineveh. His reign probably occupied the interval between B.C. 1090 and 1070. He would thus seem to have been contemporary with Smendes in Egypt and with Samuel or Saul in Israel.8 So apparently insignificant an event as the establishment of a kingdom in Palestine was not likely to disturb the thoughts, even if it came to the knowledge, of an Assyrian monarch. Shamus-Vul would no doubt have regarded with utter contempt the petty sovereign of so small a territory as Palestine, and would have looked upon the new kingdom as scarcely more worthy of his notice than any other of the ten thousand little principalities which lay on or near his borders. Could he, however, have possessed for a few moments the prophetic foresight vouchsafed some centuries earlier to one who may almost be called his countryman,9 he would have been astonished to recognise in the humble kingdom just lifting its head in the far West, and struggling to hold its own against Philistine cruelty and oppression,10 a power which in little more than fifty years would stand forth before the world as the equal, if not the superior, of his own state. The imperial splendour of the king- dom of David and Solomon did, in fact, eclipse for a while the more ancient glories of Assyria.11 It is a notable circumstance * A mutilated female figure, -which is thought to be an image of the goddess Ishtar or Astarte, discovered by Mr. Loftus at Koyunjik, and now in the British Museum, bears a dedicatory in- scription, almost illegible, from which it appears to have been set up by As- shur-bil-kala, the son of Tiglath-Pi- lesser I. and grandson of Asshur-ris-ilim. (See below, p. 94, note'.) • According to the ordinary Biblical chronology, Saul's accession fell about the year B. C. 1096. Samuel's judgeship, which immediately preceded this, is placed between B.O. 1128and B.C. 1096. (See Clinton. F. H. vol. i. p. 320, and compare Palmer, Egyptian Chroniela, vol. ii. p. 899.) The Assyrian chronology tends to lower these dates by the space of about forty years. • Pethor, where Balaam lived, was on the left bank of the Euphrates, in Aram- Naharaim or Mesopotamia. (Deut. xxiii. i; compare Num. xxii. 5 and xxiii. 7.) » 1 Sam. xiii and xiv. "The true character of the Jewish kingdom of David and Solomon as one of the Great Oriental Empires, on a par Chap. DC OBSCURE INTERVAL. 81 that, exactly at the time when a great and powerful monarchy grew up in the tract between Egypt and the Euphrates, Assyria passed under a cloud. The history of the country is almost a blank for two centuries between the reigns of Shamas-Vul and the second Tiglathi-Nin, whose accession is fixed by the Assyrian Canon to B.C. 889. During more than three-fourths of this time, from about B.C. 1070 to B.C. 930, the very names of the monarchs are almost wholly unknown to us.11 It seems as if there was not room in Western Asia for two first-class monar- chies to exist and flourish at the same time; and so, although there was no contention, or even contact, between the two empires of Judsea and Assyria,18 yet the rise of the one to greatness could only take place under the condition of a coincident weakness of the other. It is very remarkable that exactly in this interval of darkness, when Assyria would seem, from the failure both of buildings and records, to have been especially and exceptionally weak,14 occurs with Chaldsea and Assyria, and only less celebrated than the others from the accident of its being short-lived, has rarely been seized by historians. Mil- man indeed parallels the architectural glories of Solomon with those of the "older monarchs of Egypt and Assyria" (HUtory of the Jew', vol. i. p. 261, 1st edition), and Ewald has one or two similar expressions; but neither writer appears to recognise the real greatness of the Hebrew kingdom. It remained for Dean Stanley, with his greater power of realising the past, to see that David, upon the completion of his con- quests, "became a king on the scale of the great Oriental Sovereigns of Egypt and Persia," founding "an imperial dominion," and placing himself "on a level with the great potentates of the world," as, for instance, "Rameses or Cyrus." (Stanley in Smith'sBWL Diet. art. David, voL i. p. 408.) a The single name of Asshur-mazur, which has been assigned to this period (supra, p. 49), is recovered from an in- scription of Shalmaneser II., the Black Obelisk king, who speaks of certain cities on the right bank of the Euphrates as having been taken from Asshur-Mazur VOL. IL by the Aramtcana, who had defeated him in battle. 1' The "Syrians that were beyond the river," who came to the assistance of the Ammonites in their war with David (2 Sam. x. 16), may possibly have been subjects or rather tributaries of Assyria (and in this sense is perhaps to be understood Ps. lxxxiii. 8); but the Assyrian empire itself evideutly took no part in the struggle. The Assyrian monarchs at this tiuie seem to have claimed no sovereignty beyond the Eu- phrates, while David and Solomou were content to push their conquests up to that river. "Perhaps the true cause of Assyria's weakness at this time was that her star now paled before that of Babylon. The story told by Macrobius (Sat. i. 23) of communications between an Egyptian king, Senemur, or Senepos, and a certain Deleboras, or Deboras, whom he calls an Assyrian monarch, belougs prolwbly to this period. Deboras was most likely a Babylonian, since he was lord of the Mesopotamian Heliopolis, which was Tsipar, or Sippara. It is suspected that he may be the Tsibir who, according to Asshur-irir-pal (infra, p. 86), de- a 82 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. the first appearance of her having extended her influence beyond Syria into the great and ancient monarchy of Egypt. In the twenty-second Egyptian dynasty, which began with Sheshonk I., or Shishak, the contemporary of Solomon, about B.C. 990, Assyrian names appear for the first time in the Egyptian dynastic lists. It has been supposed from this circumstance that the entire twenty-second dynasty, together with that which succeeded it, was Assyrian; but the condition of Assyria at the time renders such a hypothesis most improbable. The true explanation would seem to be that the Egyptian kings of this period sometimes married Assyrian wives, who naturally gave Assyrian names to some of their children. These wives were perhaps members of the Assyrian royal family; or perhaps they were the daughters of the Assyrian nobles who from time to time were appointed as viceroys of the towns and small states which the Ninevite monarchs conquered on the skirts of their empire. Either of these suppositions is more probable than the establishment in Egypt of a dynasty really Assyrian at a time of extraordinary weakness and depression. When, at the close of this long period of obscurity, Assyria once more comes into sight, we have at first only a dim and indistinct view of her through the mists which still enfold and shroud her form. We observe that her capital is still fixed at Kileh-Shergbat, where a new series of kings, bearing names which, for the most part, resemble those of the earlier period, are found employing themselves in the repair and enlargement of public buildings,in connection with which they obtain honour- able mention in an inscription of a later monarch. Asshur-dayan, the first monarch of this group, probably ascended the throne about B.C. 930, shortly after the separation of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. He appears to have reigned from about B.C. 930 to B.C. 911. He was succeeded in B.C. 911 by his son,1 Vul-lush II., who held the throne from B.C. 911 to B.C. 889. utroyed a city named Atlil, on the con- ' Mesopotamian power, fines of Assyria. At any rate the very This relationship is established by existence of communications between the great inscription of Asshur-izir-pal. Babylon and Egypt would imply that (British Mutcum Series, Pis. 17 to 2tf.) Assyria was not at the time the great I Chap. IX. ASSHUR-IZIR-PAL. 83 Nothing is known at present of the history of these two monarchs. No historical inscriptions belonging to their reigns have been recovered; no exploits are recorded of them in the inscriptions of later sovereigns.2 They stand up before us the mere "shadows of mighty names"—proofs of the uncertainty of posthumous fame, which is almost as often the award of chance as the deserved recompense of superior merit. Of Tiglathi-Nin, the second monarch of the name, and the third king of the group which we are considering, one important historical notice, contained in an inscription of his son, has come down to us. In the annals of the great Asshur-izir-pal inscribed on the Nimrud monolith, that prince, while commemorating his warlike exploits, informs us that he set up his sculptures at the sources of the Tsupnat river alongside of sculptures previously set up by his ancestors Tiglath-Pileser and Tiglathi-Nin.8 That Tiglathi-Nin should have made so distant an expedition is the more remarkable from the brevity of his reign, which only lasted for six years. According to the Canon, he ascended the throne in the year B.C. 889; he was succeeded in B.C. 883 by his son Asshur-izir-pal. With Asshur-izir-pal commences one of the most flourishing periods of the Empire. During the twenty-five years of his active and laborious reign, Assyria enlarged her bounds and increased her influence in almost every direction, while, at the same time, she advanced rapidly in wealth and in the arts; in the latter respect leaping suddenly to an eminence which (so far as we know) had not previously been reached by human genius. The size and magnificence of Asshur-izir-pal's buildings, the artistic excellence of their ornamentation, the pomp and splendour which they set before us as familiar to the king who raised them, the skill in various useful arts which they display 2 There is some reason to believe that Vul-lush II. was a monarch of energy and character. The fact that several copies of the Canon commence with his reign, shows that it constituted a sort of era. The mention, too, of this Vul- lush by the third king of the name among his picked ancestors is indicative of his reputation as a great monarch. * Asshur-izir-pal, it will be observed, does not call this Tiglathi-Nin his father; and it is therefore possible that the former Tiglathi-Nin may be intended (see above, p. 59). But as Tiglathi-Nin is mentioned after Tiglath-Pileser, it would rather seem that he was a later monarch. a2 84 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. or imply, have excited the admiration of Europe, which has seen with astonishment that many of its inventions were anticipated, and that its luxury was almost equalled, by an Asiatic people nine centuries before the Christian era. It will be our pleasing task at this point of the history, after briefly sketching Asshur- izir-pal's wars, to give such an account of the great works which he constructed as will convey to the reader at least a general idea of the civilization and refinement of the Assyrians at the period to which we are now come. Asshur-izir-pal'sfirstcampaign was in north-western Kurdistan and in the adjoining parts of Armenia. It does not present any very remarkable features, though he claims to have penetrated to a region "never approached by the kings his fathers." His enemies are the Numi or Elami4 (i.e. the mountaineers), and the Kirkhi.who seem to have left their name in the modern Kurkh.5 Neither people appears to have been able to make much head against him; no battle was fought; the natives merely sought to defend their fortified places ; but these were mostly taken and destroyed by the invader. One chief, who was made prisoner, received very barbarous treatment; he was carried to Arbela, and there flayed and hung up upon the town wall. The second expedition of Asshur-izir-pal, which took place in the same year as his first, was directed against the regions to the west and north-west of Assyria. Traversing the country of Qummukh,1 and receiving its tribute, as well as that of Serki2 and Sidikan (Arban 8), he advanced against the Laki, who seem 4 It has been supposed that the Numi of this passage are the same as those of many later inscriptions, and represent the Susianians or Elamites. (See Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p. 353.) But the entire series of geographical names disproves this, and fixes the locality of the campaign to north-western Kurdistan and southern Armenia. The terms Numi and Elami, meaning simply "mountaineers" (compare Heb. Vy, ffts, and the like), would naturally be applied to many quite distinct tribes. s The name of Kurkh is given by the natives to some important ruins on the right bank of the Tigris, about twenty miles below Diarbekr. These ruins cover a raised platform, six miles in circum- ference, crowned towards the south-east corner by a lofty mound, about 180 feet high. Some important Assyrian remains have been found on the site, which are now in the British Museum. Kurkh is probably the Carcathiocerta of the classical writers. (Strab. xi. p. 766 ; PIin. H. N. vi . 9.) It is believed to be the same city as the Tutkha of the Assyrian inscriptions. 1 Supra, p. 64, note ". 1 Circesium, according to Mr. Fox Talbot (AtM/rian TexU, p. 31.) 3 See above, vol. i pp. 187 and 205. Chap. IX. WARS OF ASSHUR-IZIR-PAL. 85 to have been at this time the chief people of Central Mesopo- tamia, extending from the vicinity of Hatra as far as, or even beyond, the middle Euphrates. Here the people of a city called Assura had rebelled, murdered their governor, and called in a foreigner to rule over them. Asshur-izir-pal marched hastily against the rebels, who submitted at his approach, delivering up to his mercy both their city and their new king. The latter he bound with fetters and carried with him to Nineveh; the former he treated with almost unexampled severity.4 Having first plundered the whole place, he gave up the houses of the chief men to his own officers, established an Assyrian governor in the palace, and then, selecting from the inhabitants the most guilty, he crucified some, burnt others, and punished the remainder by cutting off their ears or their noses. We can feel no surprise when we are informed that, while he was thus "arranging" these matters, the remaining kings of the Laki submissively sent in their tribute to the conqueror, paying it with apparent cheerfulness, though it was "a heavy and much increased burthen." In his third expedition, which was in his second year, Asshur- izir-pal turned his arms to the north, and marched towards the Upper Tigris, where he forced the kings of the Nairi, who had, it appears, regained their independence, to give in their sub- mission, and appointed them an annual tribute in gold, silver, horses, cattle, and other commodities. It was in the course of this expedition that, having ascended to the sources of the Tsupnat river, or Eastern Tigris,8 Asshur-izir-pal set up his * The only parallel to this severity which the Inscriptions offer is furnished by Asshur-izir-pal himself in his ac- count of an expedition undertaken in the next year, where, on taking a re- volted city (Tela), he tells us, "their men, young and old, I took prisoners. Of some I cut off the feet and hands; of others I cut off the noses, ears, and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I built a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burnt in the flames. The city I de- troyed, and consumed, and burnt with fire." [Inscription, col. i. ad fin.) 5 The Tsupnat or Tsupna is now called the Tecbeneh—a slight corruption of the original appellation. It is pro- bably the native term from which the Greeks and Romans formed the name Sophdne, whereby they designated the entire region between the Hons Masius and the Upper Euphrates. (See Strab. xi. p. 766; PIin. H. N. vi. 27 ; D. Cass, xxxvi. 36; PIut. Vit. Lucull. c . 24; Pro- cop. De jEd. iii. 2, &c.) Mr. John Taylor has recently explored this region, and finds that the Tsupnat has an under- 86 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. memorial side by side with monuments previously erected on the same site by Tiglatb-Pileser and by the first or second Tiglathi-Nin.8 Asshur-izir-pal's fourth campaign was towards the south-east. He crossed the lesser Zab, and, entering the Zagros range, carried fire and sword through its fruitful valleys—pushing his arms further than any of his ancestors, capturing some scores of towns, and accepting or extorting tribute from a dozen petty kings. The furthest extent of his march was probably the district of Zohab across the Shirwan branch of the Diyaleh, to which he gives the name of Edisa.1 On his return he built, or rather rebuilt, a city, which a Babylonian king called Tsibir had destroyed at a remote period, and gave to his new founda- tion the name of Dur-Asshur, in grateful acknowledgment of the protection vouchsafed him by " the chief of the gods." In his fifth campaign the warlike monarch once more directed his steps towards the north. Passing through the country of the Qummukh, and receiving their tribute, he proceeded to war in the eastern portion of the Mons Masius, where he took the cities of Matyat (now Mediyat) and Kapranisa. He then appears to have crossed the Tigris and warred on the flanks of Niphates, where his chief enemy was the people of Kasiyara. Returning thence, he entered the territory of the Nairi, where he declares that he overthrew and destroyed 250 strong walled cities, and put to death a considerable number of the princes. The sixth campaign of Asshur-izir-pal was in a westerly direction. Starting from Calah or Nirnrud, he crossed the ground course of a considerable length through a cavern, which seems to be the fact exaggerated by PIiny (L s. c.) into a passage of the Tigris underneath Mount Taurus. The Arab geographer, Yacut, gives an account far nearer the truth, making the Tigris flow from a dark cave near Miliums ("IXXiyus of Procopius). It thus appears that both the Arabians and the Romans regarded the Tsupnat as the true Tigris, which is incorrect, as the stream that flows down from Lake Goljik is decidedly the main river. In the cave above men- tioned Mr. Taylor found two of the three memorials mentioned by Asshur- izir-pal. These were his own and Ti- glath-Pileser's. The third had probably been destroyed by the falling in of a part of the cave. 'Supra, pp. 79, 83. 1 Ptolemy calls the Diyaleh the Gor- gus, rAp7os (vi. i.), which is an Arian equivalent of the Semitic Edisa; for edut in Arabic is the same as gurg in Persian, meaning "a wolf or hysena." Compare the name Aimos given to the Zab, which had almost the same mean- ing. (Heb. 3M].) Chap. IX. WARS OF ASSHUR-IZIR-PAL. 87 Tigris, and, marching through the middle of Mesopotamia a little to the north of the Sinjar range, took tribute from a number of subject towns along the courses of the rivers Jerujer,2 Khabour, and Euphrates, among which the most important were Sidikan (now Arban), Sirki, and Anat (now Anah). From Anat, apparently his frontier-town in this direc- tion, he invaded the country of the Tsukhi (Shuhitcs), captured their city Tsur,8 and forced them, notwithstanding the assistance which they received from their neighbours the Babylonians,4 to surrender themselves. He then entered Chaldsea, and chas- tised the Chakkeans, after which he returned in triumph to his own country. His seventh campaign was also against the Shuhites. Re- leased from the immediate pressure of his aims, they had rebelled, and had even ventured -to invade the Assyrian Empire. The Laki, whose territory adjoined that of the Shuhites towards the north and east, assisted them. The combined army which the allies were able to bring into the field amounted probably to 20,000 men,5 including a large number of warriors who fought in chariots. Asshur-izir-pal first attacked the cities on the left bank of the Euphrates, which had felt his might on the former occasion; and, having reduced these and punished their rebellion with great severity," he crossed the river on rafts, and fought a battle with the main army of the enemy. In this engagement he was completely victorious, defeating the Tsukhi and their allies with great slaughter, and driving their routed forces headlong into the Euphrates, where great numbers perished by drowning. Six thousand five hundred of the rebels fell in the battle; and the entire country on the right bank of * This river, the Herman of the Arabians, appears in Asshur-izir-pal's inscription* under the name of Kliar- 1 Tsur, Tyre, may perhaps be cognate to the Hebrew us, the original mean- ing of which is a rock." The initial >sibilant is however rather a than it. 1 The Babylonian monarch of the time was Nebo-bal-adan. He was nob directly attacked by Asshur-izir-pal; and heuce there is no mention of the war on the synchronistic tablet. 5 The scribe has accidentally written the number as "6000," instead of "10,000 or 20,000." Immediately after- wards he states that 6500 of these 6000 were slain in the battle! • Asshur-izir-pal says that he "made a desert" of the banks of the Khabour. Thirty of the chief prisoners were ini-' paled on stakes. Chap. IX. WARS OF ASSHUR-IZIR-PAL. 89 Assyrian monarch passed the Euphrates on rafts, and, entering the city of Carchemish, received the submission of Sangara, the Hittite prince, who ruled in that town, and of various other chiefs," who came reverently and kissed his sceptre." He then "gave command to advance towards Lebanon." Entering the territory of the Patena,8 who adjoined upon the northern Hittites, and held the country about Antioch and Aleppo, he occupied the capital, Kinalua, which was between the Abri (or Afrin) and the Orontes; alarmed the rebel king, Lubarna, so that he submitted, and consented to pay a tribute; and then, crossing the Orontes and destroying certain cities of the Patena, passed along the northern flank of Lebanon, and reached the Mediterranean. Here he erected altars and offered sacrifices to the gods, after which he received the submission of the prin- cipal Phoenician states, among which Tyro, Sidon, Byblus, and Aradus may be distinctly recognised. He then proceeded inland, and visited the mountain range of Amanus, where he cut timber, set up a sculptured memorial, and offered sacrifice. After this he returned to Assyria, carrying with him, besides other plunder, a quantity of wooden beams, probably cedar, which he carefully conveyed to Nineveh, to be used in his public buildings. The tenth campaign of Asshur-izir-pal, and the last which is recorded, was in the region of the Upper Tigris. The geographical details here are difficult to follow. We can only say that, as usual, the Assyrian monarch claims to have over- powered all resistance, to have defeated armies, burnt cities, and carried off vast numbers of prisoners. The " royal city" of the monarch chiefly attacked was Amidi, now Diarbekr, which sufficiently marks the main locality of the expedition.1 ■ Mr. Fox Talbot compares this name with that of the city Batme visited by Julian. (Assyrian Text*, p. 32.) Sir H. Rawlinson has suggested a com- parison with the Batansea of the Greeks and Romans. The position of the Patena at this time was, however, much further north than Batansea, which rather cor- responds with Bashan. 1 AmiHi continued to be known as Amida through the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine periods, and is mentioned under that name by Zosimus (iii. 34), Procopius (Sell Pert. i. 17), Kustathius of Kpiphania, and others, The Arabic name of Diarbekr (" the country of Bekr") superseded that of Anudain the seventh century. Diarbekr is, however, still known as Amid or Kara Amid to the Turks and Armenians. 00 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. While engaged in these important wars, which were all included within his first six years, Asshur-izir-pal, like his great predecessor, Tiglath-Pileser, occasionally so far unbent as to indulge in the recreation of hunting. He interrupts the account of his military achievements to record, for the benefit of posterity, that on one occasion he slew fifty large wild bulls on the left bank of the Euphrates, and captured eight of the same animals ; while, on another, he killed twenty ostriches (?), and took captive the same number. We may conclude, from the example of Tiglath-Pileser,2 and from other inscriptions of Asshur-izir-pal himself, that the captured animals were con- veyed to Assyria either as curiosities, or, more probably, as objects of chase. Asshur-izir-pal's sculptures show that the pursuit of the wild bull was one of his favourite occupations;8 and as the animals were scarce in Assyria, he may have found it expedient to import them. Asshur-izir-pal appears, however, to have possessed a mena- gerie park in the neighbourhood of Nineveh, in which were maintained a variety of strange and curious animals. Animals called paguts or pagdts—perhaps elephants—were received as tribute from the Phoenicians during his reign, on at least one occasion, and placed in this enclosure, where (he tells us) they throve and bred. So well was his taste for such curiosities known, that even neighbouring sovereigns sought to gratify it; and the king of Egypt, a Pharaoh probably of the twenty- second dynasty, sent him a present of strange animals when he was in Southern Syria, as a compliment likely to be appre- ciated. His love of the chase, which he no doubt indulged to some extent at home, found in Syria, and in the country on the Upper Tigris, its amplest and most varied exercise. In an obelisk inscription, designed especially to commemorate a great hunting expedition into these regions, he tells us that, besides antelopes of all sorts, which he took and sent to Asshur, he captured and destroyed the following animals:—lions, wild sheep, red deer, fallow-deer, wild goats or ibexes, leopards large and small, bears, wolves, jackals, wild boars, ostriches. Supra, p. 64. 'See vol. i. pp. 512 et seq. Chap. IX. asshur-izir-pal's buildings. 91 foxes, hysenas, wild asses, and a few kinds which have not been identified.4 From another inscription we learn that, in the course of another expedition, which seems to have been in the Mesopotamian desert, he destroyed 360 large lions, 257 large wild cattle, and thirty buffaloes, while he took and sent to Calah fifteen full-grown lions, fifty young lions, some leo- pards, several pairs of wild buffaloes and wild cattle, together with ostriches, wolves, red-deer, bears, cheetas, and hysenas.6 Thus in his peaceful hours he was still actively employed, and in the chase of many dangerous beasts was able to exercise the same qualities of courage, coolness, and skill in the use of weapons which procured him in his wars such frequent and such great successes. Thus distinguished, both as a hunter and as a warrior, Asshur-izir-pal, nevertheless, excelled his predecessors most remarkably in the grandeur of his public buildings and the free use which he made of the mimetic and other arts in their ornamentation. The constructions of the earlier kings at Asshur (or Kileh-Sherghat), whatever merit they may have had, were beyond a doubt far inferior to those which, from the time of Asshur-izir-pal, were raised in rapid succession at Calah, Nineveh, and Beth-Sargina by that monarch and his successors upon the throne. The mounds of Kileh-Sherghat have yielded no bas-reliefs, nor do they show any traces of buildings on the scale of those which, at Nimrud, Koyunjik, and Khorsabad, provoke the admiration of the traveller. The great palace of Asshur-izir-pal was at Calah, which he first raised from a provincial town to be the metropolis of the empire. It was a building 360 feet long by 300 broad, consisting of seven or eight large halls, and a far greater number of small chambers, grouped round a central court 130 feet long and nearly 100 wide. The longest of the halls, which faced towards the north, and was the first room entered by one who approached from the 4 See a paper published by Sir H. Rawlinson in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. vii. New Series, p. 9. A few variations from the passage in the Transactions will be found in the text. They have the sanction of the writer. 5 This inscription is on the altar found at Niuirud in front of this king's sculp- tured effigy. (Infra, p. 97.) 9^ Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONAECHY. town, was in length 154 and in breadth 33 feet. The others varied between a size little short of this, and a length of 65 with a breadth of less than 20 feet. The chambers were generally square, or nearly so, and in their greatest dimensions rarely exceeded ten yards. The whole palace was raised upon a lofty platform, made of sun-burnt brick, but externally cased on every side with hewn stone. There were two grand facades, one facing the north, on which side there Plan of Palace of Asshur-izir-pal. was an ascent to the platform from the town; and the other facing the Tigris,6 which anciently flowed at tbe foot of the platform towards the west. On the northern front two or three great gateways,7 flanked with andro-sphinxes,8 gave direct 'This, at least, is the opinion of Mr. Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 654), who has even ventured, with the help of Mr. Fergusson, to reconstruct the river facade. (Monumentt, 2nd Series, 7 Only two were uncovered by Mr. Layard ; but he believes that there was a third between them, as at Koyunjii and Khorsabad. (Nin. and Bab. l. s. c. Compare above, vol. i . pp. 291 et seq.) * This term is intended to express Chap. IX. GREAT PALACE OF ASSHUR-IZIR-PAL. 93 access to the principal hall or audience chamber, a noble apartment, but too narrow for its length, lined throughout with sculptured slabs representing the various actions of the king, and containing at the upper or eastern end a raised stone platform cut into steps, which, it is probable, was intended to support at a proper elevation the carved throne of the monarch.9 A grand portal in the southern wall of the chamber, guarded on either side by winged human-headed bulls in yellow lime- stone, conducted into a second hall considerably smaller than the first, and having less variety of ornament,10 which commu- nicated with the central court by a handsome gateway towards the south; and, towards the east, was connected with a third hall, one of the most remarkable in the palace. This chamber was a better-proportioned room than most, being about ninety feet long by twenty-six wide; it ran along the eastern side of the great court, with which it communicated by two gateways and, internally, it was adorned with sculptures of a more finished and elaborate character than any other room in the building.11 Behind this eastern hall was another opening into it, of somewhat greater length, but only twenty feet wide; and this led to five small chambers, which here bounded the palace. South of the Great Court were, again, two halls communicating with each other; but they were of inferior size to those on the north and west, and were far less richly ornamented. It is conjectured that there were also two or three halls on the west side of the court between it and the river;1 but of this there was no very clear evidence, and it may be doubted whether the court towards the west was not, at least partially, open to the winged Hons which have the form of a man down to the waist. (Layard, Monumentt, 1st Series, Pl. 42.) • Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, rot i. p. 383 ; Monumentt, 1st Series, p. 6. "This hall was about 100 feet long by 25 broad. All the slabs except one were ornamented with colossal eagle- headed figures in pairs, facing one another, and separated by the sacred tree. "From the upper or northern end of this hall was obtained the magni- ficently dressed group, figured by Mr. Layard in the 1st Series of his Monu- mentt, PL 6, and now in the British Museum. "All the figures in the chamber," says Mr. Layard, "are co- lossal, and are remarkable for the careful finish of the sculptures and elaborate nature of the ornaments." (Nineveh and it0 Remaint, vol. i . p. 305.) 1 See the plan of the Nimrud ruins in Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, opp. p. 655. 94 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. the river. Almost every hall had one or two small chambers attached to it, which were most usually at the ends of the halls, and connected with them by large doorways. Such was the general plan of the palace of Asshur-izir-paL Its great halls, so narrow for their length, were probably roofed with beams stretching across them from side to side, and lighted by small louvres in their roofs after the manner described in the former volume.2 Its square chambers may have been domed,8 and perhaps were not lighted at all, or only by lamps and torches. They were generally without ornamenta- tion.4 The grand halls, on the contrary, and some of the narrower chambers, were decorated on every side, first with sculptures to the height of nine or ten feet, and then with enamelled bricks, or patterns painted in fresco, to the height, probably, of seven or eight feet more. The entire height of the rooms was thus from sixteen to seventeen or eighteen feet. The character of Asshur-izir-pal's sculptures has been suffi- ciently described in an earlier chapter.8 They have great spirit, boldness, and force; occasionally they show real merit in the design; but they are clumsy in the drawing and somewhat coarse in the execution. What chiefly surprises us in regard to them is the suddenness with which the art they manifest appears to have sprung up, without going through the usual stages of rudeness and imperfection. Setting aside one muti- lated statue, of very poor execution,6 and a single rock tablet,7 we have no specimens remaining of Assyrian mimetic art more 'See voL i. p. 304. * Like the rooms in ordinary Assyrian houses. (See the representation, vol. i. p. 322.) 'Their walls had the usual covering of alabaster slabs, but these slabs were inscribed only, and not sculptured. 5 Vol. i. ch. vi. pp. 344 et etq. 'A mutilated female statue, brought from Koyunjik, and now in the cellars of the British Museum, is inscribed with the name of Asshur-bil-kala, son of Tiglath-Pileser, and is the earliest As- syrian sculpture which has been brought to Europe. The figure wants the head, the two arms from the elbows, and the front part of the feet. It is in a coarse stone, and appears to have been very rudely carved. The size is a little below that of life. The proportions are bad, the length of the body between the arms and the legs being much too short. There are appearances from which it is concluded that the statue had been made to subserve the purposes of a fountain. 'The tablet of Tiglath-Pileser L, of which a representation has been already given (supra, p. 79). Chap. IX. ASSHUB-IZIB-PAL'S SCULPTURES. 95 ancient than this monarch.8 That art almost seems to start in Assyria, like Minerva from the head of Jove, full-grown. Asshur-izir-pal had undoubtedly some constructions of former monarchs to copy from, both in his palatial and in his sacred edifices; the old palaces and temples at Kileh-Sherghat must have had a certain grandeur; and in his architecture this monarch may have merely amplified and improved upon the models left him by his predecessors; but his ornamentation, so far as appears, was his own. The mounds of Kileh-Sherghat have yielded bricks in abundance, but not a single fragment of a sculptured slab.9 We cannot prove that ornamental bas- reliefs did not exist before the time of Asshur-izir-pal; indeed the rock tablets which earlier monarchs set up were sculptures of this character; but to Asshur-izir-pal seems at any rate to belong the merit of having first adopted bas-reliefs on an extensive scale as an architectural ornament, and of having employed them so as to represent by their means all the public life of the monarch. The other arts employed by this king in the adornment of his buildings were those of enamelling bricks and painting in fresco upon a plaster. Both involve considerable skill in the preparation of colours, and the former especially implies much dexterity in the management of several very delicate pro- cesses.10 The sculptures of Asshur-izir-pal, besides proving directly the high condition of mimetic art in Assyria at this time, furnish indirect evidence of the wonderful progress which had been made in various important manufactures. The metallurgy which produced the swords, sword-sheaths, daggers, earrings, necklaces, armlets, and bracelets of this period,11 must have been of a very advanced description. The coach-building which 'Some (signet-cylinders of Assyrian workmanship may be earlier. But then- date ia uncertain. • Layard, Nineceh and iU Remains, ToL ii. pp. 58-60; Nineveh and Babylon, p. 581. Small bits of basalt, fragments probably of an obelisk, a rude statue l.*ee voL i. p. 339), and some portions of a winged bull, are all the works of art which Kileh-Sherghat has yielded. The statue is later than the time of Asshur- izir-pal. 10 See vol. i . pp. 380 et.«?. 11 For representations, see voL i. pp. 368, 369, 371, and 455. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX constructed the chariots, the saddlery which made the harness of the horses, the embroidery which ornamented the robes,12 must, similarly, have been of a superior character. The evidence of the sculptures alone is quite sufficient to show that, in the time of Asshur-izir-pal, the Assyrians were already a great and luxurious people, that most of the useful arts not only existed among them, but were cultivated to a high pitch, and that in dress, furniture, jewellery, &c., they were not very much behind the moderns. Besides the magnificent palace which he built at Calah, Asshur-izir-pal is known also to have erected a certain number of temples. The most important of these have been already described.18 They stood at the north-western corner of the Nimrud platform, and consisted of two edifices, one exactly at the angle, comprising the higher tower or ziggurat,™ which stood out as a sort of corner buttress from the great mound, and a shrine with chambers at the tower's base; the other, a little further to the east, consisting of a shrine and chambers without a tower. These temples were richly ornamented both within and without; and in front of the larger one was an erection which seems to show that the Assyrian monarchs, either during their lifetime, or at any rate after their decease, received divine honours from their subjects. On a plain square pedestal about two feet in height was raised a solid block of limestone cut into the shape of an arched frame, and within this frame was carved the monarch in his sacerdotal dress, and with the sacred collar round his neck, while the five principal divine emblems were represented above his head.18 In front of this figure, marking (apparently) the object of its erection,16 was a triangular altar » See vol. i. pp. 398, 399; and com- pare Layard, Nineveh and its Rt mains, vol. ii. pp. 321 and 412-414. "Supra, vol. i. pp. 316 et seq. M This tower, however, was partly the work of Asshur-izir-pal's son and successor, Shalmaneser II. 15 A stele of the same king, closely resembling this, but of a ruder character, has been recently brought to England, from Kurkh, near Diarbekr, and added to the National Collection. "The custom of placing an altar directly in front of a sculptured repre- sentation of the king appears also in one of the bas-reliefs of Asshur-bani- pal, where there is an arched frame very like this of Asshur-izir-pal, apparently set up against a temple, with an altar at a little distance, placed in a pathway leading directly to the royal image, (See vol. i. p. 310, No. V.) Chap. IX. HIS STELM AND OBELISKS. 97 .with a circular top, very much resembling the tripod of the Greeks.1 Here we may presume were laid the offerings with which the credulous and the servile propitiated the new god,—many a gift, not im- probably, being intercepted on its way to the deity of the temple. Another temple built by this monarch was one de- dicated to Beltis at Nine- veh. It was perhaps for the ornamentation of this edifice that he cut "great trees" in Amanus and else- where during his Syrian ex- pedition, and had them con- veyed across Mesopotamia to Assyria. It is expressly Stated that these beams were Stele of Asshur-izir-pal, with Altar in front carried, not to Calah, where (Ninirud). Asshur-izir-pal usually resided, but to Nineveh. A remarkable work, probably erected by this monarch, and set up as a memorial of his reign at the same city, is an obelisk in white stone, now in the British Museum. On this monu- ment, which was covered on all its four sides with sculptures and inscriptions, now nearly obliterated, Asshur-izir-pal com- memorated his wars and hunting exploits in various countries. The obelisk is a monolith, about twelve or thirteen feet high, and two feet broad at the base.2 It tapers slightly, and, like the Black Obelisk erected by this monarch's son,8 is crowned at the summit by three steps or gradines. This thoroughly Assyrian ornamentation4 seems to show that the idea of the 1 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 3.>1. ! Two feet, that is, on the broader face; on the narrower one the width is less than 14 inches. VOL. II. * See vol. i. p. 266, where this monu- ment is represented. 'For its constant use in Assyria see vol. i. pp. 257, 279, 308, 309, 310, 312, &c. B 53 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. obelisk was not derived from Eygpt, where the pyramidical apax was universally used, being regarded as essential to this class of ornaments.8 If we must seek a foreign origin for the invention, we may perhaps find it in the pillars { Got. 1 The Bartsu at this time inhabit south-eastern Armenia. By Sennache- rib's time they had descended to a much more southerly position. In fact, they are then in, or very near, Persia Proper. Chap. IX. SHAMAS-VUL II. H3 tbe modern province of Ardelan, and with the Tsimri, or Zimri,2 in Upper Luristan. Among all her fresh enemies, she had not, however, as yet found one calculated to inspire any serious fear. No new organized monarchy presented itself. The tribes and nations upon her borders were still either weak in numbers or powerless from their intestine divisions; and there was thus every reason to expect a long continuance of the success which had naturally attended a large centralized state in her contests with small kingdoms or loosely-united confederacies. Names celebrated in the after history of the world, as those of the Medes and Persians, are now indeed for the first time emerging into light from the complete obscurity which has shrouded them hitherto; and, tinged as they are with the radiance of their later glories, they show brightly among the many insignificant tribes and nations with which Assyria has been warring for centuries; but it would be a mistake to suppose that these names have any present importance in the narrative, or repre- sent powers capable as yet of contending on equal terms with the Assyrian Empire, or even of seriously checking the pro- gress of her successes. The Medes and Persians are at this period no more powerful than the Zimri, the Minni, the Urarda/ or than half a dozen others of the border nations, whose appel- lations sound strange in the ears even of the advanced student. Neither of the two great Arian peoples had as yet a capital city, neither was united under a king; separated into numerous tribes, each under its chief, dispersed in scattered towns and villages, poorly fortified or not fortified at all, they were in the same condition as the Nairi, the Qummukh, the Patena, the Hittites, and the other border races whose relative weakness Assyria had abundantly proved in a long course of wars wherein she had uniformly been the victor. The short reign of Shamas-Vul II. presents but little that calls for remark. Like Shalmaneser II., he resided chiefly at Calah, where, following the example of his father and grandfather, he 1 See Jerem. xxv. 25. and is probably the original of the * ThU term is the Assyrian repre- I 'WapodiM of Herodotus (iii. 94; vii, fentation of the Biblical Ararat (stjn), I 79). VOL. II. . I U4 Chip. IX. HIE SECOND MONARCHY. set up an obelisk (or rather a stele) in commemoration of his various exploits. This monument, which is covered on three sides with an inscription in the hieratic or cursive character,4 contains an opening invocation to Nin or Hercules, conceived in the ordinary terms, the genealogy and titles of the king, an account of the rebellion of Asshur-danin-pal, together with its suppression,6 and Shamas-Vul's own annals for the first four years of his reign. From these we learn that he displayed the same active spirit as his two predecessors, carrying his arms against the Nairi on the north, against Media and Arazias on the east, and against Babylonia on the south. The people of Hupuska,the Minni, and the Persians (Bartsu), paid him tribute. His principal success was that of his fourth campaign, which was against Babylon . He entered the country by a route often used,6 which skirted the Zagros mountain range for some dis- tance, and then crossed the flat, probably along the course of the Diyaleh, to the southern capital. The Babylonians, alarmed at his advance, occupied a strongly fortified place on his line of route, which he besieged and took after a vigorous resistance, wherein the blood of the garrison was shed like water. Eighteen thousand were slain; three thousand were made prisoners; the city itself was plundered and burnt, and Shamas-Vul pressed forward against the flying enemy. Hereupon the Babylonian monarch, Merodach-belatzu-ikbi, collecting his own troops and those of his allies, the Chaldseans, the Aramseans or Syrians, and the Zimri—avast host—met the invader on the river Daban7— perhaps a branch of the Euphrates—and fought a great battle in defence of his city. He was, however, defeated by the Assyrians, with the loss of 5000 killed, 2000 prisoners, 100 chariots, 200 4 This inscription has been engraved in the British Museum Series, vol. i. Pis. 29 to 31 ; in which a transcript of the inscription in the ordinary character has been also published (ibid. Pis. 32 to 34). * See above, pp. 109 et seq. * The first Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, attacked Assyria by this route in his first expedition. (Supra, p. 62.) It was also followed by Asshur-izir-pal and Shalmaneier 11. in their Babylonian wars. In the time of Herodotus it seems to have been the ordinary line by which travellers reached Babylon. (See Herod, v. 52, and compare the author's "Outline of the Life of Herodotus" in his lfirodotus, vol. i. p. 9, note '.) 'Sir H. Kawlinson regards the Daban as probably the Babylonian Upper Zab (or Nil), which left the Euphrates at Babylon and joined the Tigris at the site of Apamea, near the commencement of the Shat-el-Hie. Chap. IX. SHAMAS-VUL IL 115 tents, and the royal standard and pavilion. What further mili- tary or political results the victory may have had is uncertain. Shamas-Vul's annals terminate abruptly at this point,8 and we are left to conjecture the consequences of the campaign and battle. It is possible that they were in the highest degree important; for we find, in the next reign, that Babylonia, which has so long been a separate and independent kingdom, is reduced to the condition of a tributary, while we have no account of its reduction by the succeeding monarch, whose relations with the Babylonians, so far as we know, were of a purely peaceful character. The stele of Shamas-Vul contains one allusion to a hunting exploit, by which we learn that this monarch inherited his grandfather's partiality for the chase. He found wild-bulls at the foot of Zagros when he was marching to invade Babylonia, and delaying his advance to hunt them, was so fortunate as to kill several. We know nothing of Shamas-Vul as a builder, and but little of him as a patron of art. He seems to have been content with the palaces of his father and grandfather, and to have been devoid of any wish to outshine them by raising edifices which should throw theirs into the shade. In his stele he shows no originality; for it is the mere reproduction of a monument well known to his predecessors, and of which we have several specimens from the time of Asshur-izir-pal down- wards. It consists of a single figure in relief—a figure repre- senting the king dressed in his priestly robes, and wearing the sacred emblems round his neck, standing with the right arm upraised, and enclosed in the customary arched frame. Tills figure, which is somewhat larger than life, is cut on a single solid block of stone, and then placed on another broader block, which serves as a pedestal. It closely resembles the * One copy of the Assyrian Canon I conk.ins brief notices of Shamna-Vul's expeditions during his last six years. From this document (Brit, Mas. Scries, vol. ii. Pl. 52) it appears that ho was engaged in military expeditious year ; after year until B.C. 810, when he died. The must important of these were against Chaldaja and Babylonia in his 11th and 12th years. The reduction of Babylon,.1 was probably effected by these campaigns (B.c. 813 and 8112). 116 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. figure of Asshur-izir-pal, whereof a representation has been already given.9 The successor of Shamas-Vul was his son Vul-lush, the third monarch of that name, who ascended the throne B.C. 810, and held it for twenty-nine years, from B.C. 810 to B.C. 781. The memorials which we possess of this king's reign are but scanty. They consist of one or two slabs found at Nimrud, of a short dedicatory inscription on duplicate statues of the god Nebo brought from the same place, of some brick inscriptions from the mound of Nebbi Yunus, and of the briefest possible notices of the quarters in which he carried on war, contained in one copy of the Canon. As none of these records are in the shape of annals except the last, and as only these and the slab notices are historical, it is impossible to give any detailed account of this long and apparently important reign. We can only say that Vul-lush III. was as warlike a monarch as any of his pre- decessors, and that his efforts seem to have extended the Assyrian dominion in almost every quarter. He made seven expeditions across the Zagros range into Media, two into the Van country, and three into Syria. He tells us that in one of these expedi- tions he succeeded in making himself master of the great city of Damascus, whose kings had defied (as we have seen) the repeated attacks of Shalmaneser. He reckons as his tributa- ries in these parts, besides Damascus, the cities of Tyre and Sidon, and the countries of Khumri or Samaria, of Palestine or Philistia, and of Hudum (Idumsea or Edom). On the north and east he received tokens of submission from the Nairi, the Minni, the Medes, and the Partsu, or Persians. On the south, he exercised a power, which seems like that of a sovereign, in Babylonia; where homage was paid him by the Chaldseans, and where, in the great cities of Babylon, Borsippa, and Cutha (or Tiggaba), he was allowed to offer sacrifice to the gods Bel, Nebo, and Nergal.1 There is, further, some reason to suspect • See above, p. 97. 1 An abstract of this Inscription of Vul-lush III. was published by Sir H. Kawlinson ils the year 1S50, and will be found in the A thenceum, No. 1476. More recently, Mr. Fox Talbot has translated the Inscription word for word. (See the Journal of the Asiatic Society, voL six. Chap. IX. VUL-LUSH III. 117 that, before quitting Babylonia, he established one of his sons as viceroy over the country; since he seems to style himself in one place "the king to whose son Asshur, the chief of the gods, has granted the kingdom of Babylon." It thus appears that by the time of Vul-lush III., or early in the eighth century B.C., Assyria had with one hand grasped Babylonia, while with the other she had laid hold of Philistia and Edom. She thus touched the Persian Gulf on the one side, while on the other she was brought into contact with Egypt. At the same time she had received the submission of at least some portion of the great nation of the Medes, who were now probably moving southwards from Azerbijan and gradually occupying the territory which was regarded as Media Proper by the Greeks and Romans. She held Southern Arme- nia, from Lake Van to the sources of the Tigris; she possessed all Upper Syria, including Commag&ne' and Amanus; she had tributaries even on the further side of that mountain range; she bore sway over the whole Syrian coast from Issus to Gaza; her authority was acknowledged, probably, by all the tribes and kingdoms between the coast and the desert,2 certainly by the Phoenicians, the Hamathites, the Patena, the Hittites, the Syrians of Damascus, the people of Israel, and the Idumseans, or people of Edom. On the east she had reduced almost all the valleys of Zagros, and had tributaries in the great upland on the eastern side of the range. On the south, if she had not absorbed Babylonia, she had at least made her influence para- pp. 182-186.) The original has been published in the British Museum Series, vol. i. Pl. 35, No. I. ! It is an interesting question at what time exactly Judsea first acknowledged the suzerainty of the Assyrians. The general supposition has been that the submission of Ahaz to Tiglath-Pileser II. (about RC. 730) was the beginning of the subjection (see 2 K. xvi. 7) ; but a notice in the 14th chapter of the Second Book of Kings appears to imply a much earlier acknowledgment of Assyrian sovereignty. It is said there that " as toon as tlu kingdom wat confirmed in Amtvtiah't hand, he slew the servants who had slain the king his father." Now this is the very expression used of Menahem, king of Israel, in ch. xv. 19, where the 1' confirmation" intended is evidently that of the Assyrian monarch. We may suspect, therefore, that Judsea had admitted the suzerainty of a foreign power before the accession of Amaziah; and, if so, it must be regarded as almost certain that the power which exercised the suzerainty was Assyria. Amaziah's accession fell probably towards the close of the reign of Shalmaneaer II., and the submission of Judaea may therefore be assigned with much probability to the time of that monarch(ab. B.c.840or850). n8 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHT. mount there. The full height of her greatness was not indeed attained till a century later; but already the " tall cedar" was "exalted above all the trees of the field; his boughs were mul- tiplied; his branches had become long; and under his shadow dwelt great nations."a Not much is known of Vul-lush III. as a builder, or as a patron of art. He calls himself the "restorer of noble buildings which had gone to decay," an expression which would seem to imply that he aimed rather at maintaining former edifices in repair than at constructing new ones. He seems, however, to have built some chambers on the mound of Niinrud, between the north-western and the south-western palaces, and also to have had a palace at Nineveh on the mound now called Nebbi Yunus. The Nimrud chambers were of small size and poorly ornamented; they contained no sculptures; the walls were plastered and then painted in fresco with a variety of patterns.4 They may have been merely guard-rooms, since they appear to have formed a portion of a high tower.8 The palace at Nebbi Yunus was probably a more important work; but the superstitious regard of the natives for the supposed tomb of Jonah has hitherto frustrated all attempts made by Europeans to explore that mass of ruins.6 Among all the monuments recovered by recent researches, the only works of art assignable to the reign of Vul-lush are two rude statues of the god Nebo, almost exactly resembling one another.7 From the representation of one of them, contained in the first volume of this work,8 the reader will see that the figures in question have scarcely any artistic merit. The head is dis- proportionately large, the features, so far as they can be traced, * Ezek. xxxi. 5, 6. 4 The patterns were in fair taste. They consisted chiefly of winged bulls, zigzags, arrangements of squares and circles, and the like. Mr. Layard calla them "elaborate and graceful in de- sign." (Nineveh and its Jicmtrins, vol. ii. p. I5.) 5 Ibid. p. 16. 0 The Turks themselves at one time excavated to some extent in tho Nebbi Yunus mound, and discovered buildings and relicsof Vul-lush III., of Sennacherib, and of Esar-haddon. 7 Sir H. Rawliuson, who discovered these statues in a temple dedicated to Nebo by Vul-lush III., which adjoined the S.l£. palace at Nimrud, found with them six others. Of these four were colossal, while two resembled those in the Museum. The colossal statues were des- titute of any inscription. "l'age 141. Chap. IX. SCULPTURES OF VUL-LUSH TIT. 119 are coarse and heavy, the arms and hands are poorly modelled, and the lower part is more like a pillar than the figure of a man. We cannot suppose that Assyrian art was incapable, under the third Vul-lush. of a higher flight than these statues indicate; we must therefore regard them as conventional forms, reproduced from old models, which the artist was bound to follow. It would seem, indeed, that while in the representation of animals and of men of inferior rank, Assyrian artists were untrammelled by precedent, and might aim at the highest possible perfection, in religious subjects, and in the representation of kings and nobles, they were limited, by law or custom, to certain ancient forms and modes of expression, which we find repeated from the earliest to the latest times with monotonous uniformity. If these statues, however, are valueless as works of art, they have yet a peculiar interest for the historian, as containing the only mention which the disentombed remains have furnished of one of the most celebrated names of antiquity—a name which for many ages vindicated to itself a leading place, not only in the history of Assyria, but in that of the world.9 To the Greeks and Romans Semiramis was the foremost of women, the greatest queen who had ever held a sceptre, the most extraordinary con- queror that the East had ever produced. Beautiful as Helen or Cleopatra, brave as Tomyris, lustful as Messalina, she had the virtues and vices of a man rather than a woman, and performed deeds scarcely inferior to those of Cyrus or Alexander the Great. It is an ungrateful task to dispel illusions, more especially such as are at once harmless and venerable for their antiquity; but truth requires the historian to obi iterate from the pagosof thepast this well-known image, and to substitute in its place a very dull and prosaic figure—a Semiramis no longer decked with the pris- matic hues of fancy, but clothed instead in the sober garments of fact. The Nebo idols are dedicated,by the Assyrian officer who had them executed, "to his lord Vul-lush and his lady Summura- 'The inscription on the statues shows ♦ hat they were offered to Nelw by an officer, who was governor of Calah, Khamida (Amadiyeh), aud three other places, for the life of Vul-lush and of his wife Sammuramit, that the god might lengthen the king's life, prolong his days, increase his years, and give peace to his house and people, and victory to hia armies. 120 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. niit;"1" from whence it would appear to be certain, in the first place, that that monarch was married to a princess who bore this world-renowned name, and, secondly,that she held a position superior to that which is usually allowed in the East to a queen- consort. An inveterate Oriental prejudice requires the rigid seclusion of women ;* and the Assyrian monuments, thoroughly in accord with the predominant tone of Eastern manners, throw a veil in general over all that concerns the weaker sex, neither representing to us the forms of the Assyrian women in the sculptures, nor so much as mentioning their existence in the inscriptions.11 Very rarely is there an exception to this all but universal reticence. In the present instance, and in about two others, the silence usually kept is broken; and a native woman comes upon the scene to tantalize us by her momentary appa- rition. The glimpse that we here obtain does not reveal much. Beyond the fact that the principal queen of Vul-lush III. was named Semiramis, and the further fact, implied in her being mentioned at all, that she had a recognised position of authority in the country, we can only conclude, conjecturally, from the exact parallelism of the phrases used, that she bore sway con- jointly with her husband, either over the whole or over a part of his dominions. Such a view explains, to some extent, the wonderful tale of the Ninian Semiramis, which was foisted into history by Ctesias; for it shows that he had a slight basis of fact to go upon. It also harmonizes, or may be made to harmonize, with the story of Semiramis as told by Herodotus, who says that she was a Babylonian queen, and reigned five generations before Nitocris,12 or about B.C. 755.18 For it is quite possible that the Sammuramit married to Vul-lush III. was a Babylonian princess, the last descendant of a long line 10 See the Inscription in the British Museum Series, vol. i. Pl. 35, No. II. 11 See vol. i. p. 492. 12 Herod, i. 184. 15 This date is obtained by adopting the estimate of three generations to a century, which was familiar to Hero- dotus (ii. 142), and counting six genera- tions between SemiramU and Labynotus (the supposed son of Nitocris), whose reign commenced B.C. 655, according to the Canon of Ptolemy. The date thus produced is not quite high enoughfor the reign of Vul-lush III., but it approaches sufficiently near to make it probable that the Semiramis of Herodotus and the Sammuramit of the Nebo statues are one and the same person. Chap. IX. SEMIRAMIS, THE WIFE OF VUL-LUSH III. 121 of kings, whom the Assyrian monarch wedded, to confirm through her his title to the southern provinces; in which case a portion of his subjects would regard her as their legiti- mate sovereign, and only recognise his authority as secondary and dependent upon hers. The exaggeration in which Orientals indulge, with a freedom that astonishes the sober nations of the West, would seize upon the unusual circumstance of a female having possessed a conjoint sovereignty, and would gradually group round the name a host of mythic details,14 which at last accumulated to such an extent that, to prevent the fiction from becoming glaring, the queen had to be thrown back into mythic times, with which such details were in harmony. The Babylonian wife of Vul-lush III., who gave him his title to the regions of the south, and reigned conjointly with him both in Babylonia and Assyria, became first a queen of Babylon ruling independently and alone,1 and then an Assyrian empress, the conqueror of Egypt and Ethiopia,2 the invader of the distant India,8 the builder of Babylon,4 and the constructor of all the great works which were anywhere to be found in Western Asia.8 The grand figure thus produced imposed upon the uncritical ancients, and was accepted even by the moderns for many centuries. At length the school of Heeren6 and Niebuhr,7 calling common sense to their aid, pronounced the figure a myth. It remained for the patient explorers of the field of Assyrian antiquity in our own day to discover the slight basis of fact on which the myth was founded, and to substitute for the shadowy marvel of Ctesias a very prosaic and commonplace princess, who, like Atossa or Elizabeth of York, strengthened her hus- band's title to his crown, but who never really made herself conspicuous by either great works or by exploits. "SeeDiod. Sic. ii. 4, where Semiramia is made the daughter of the Syrian goddes' Dcreeto; and ii. 20, where she is said to have been turned into a dove and to have flown away from earth to heaven. Compare Mos. Chor. Hist. Armen. i. 14 et 'ej., and the whole narrative in Diodorua (ii. 4-20), which is full of extravagances. 1 Herod. l. a. c. 2 Diod. Sic. ii. 14. "Ibid. ii. 18. 'Ibid. ii. 7-10. 5 Ibid.ii. 11, 13,14,&c.; Mos.Choren. But. Arm. i. 15; Strab. xi. p. 529, xii. p. 559. * Manual of Ancient Ilistorv. Book i. p. 26, E. T. 'Vortriige iiber atte GeschicKk, vol. i. p. 27. 122 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. With Vul-lush III. the glories of the Ninirud line of monarchs come to a close, and Assyrian history is once more shrouded in a partial darkness for a space of nearly forty years, from B.C. 781 to Ji.C. 745. The Assyrian Canon shows us that three monarchs bore sway during this interval—Shalmaneser III., who reigned from B.C. 781 to B.C. 771, Asshur-dayan III., who reigned from B.C. 771 to B.C. 753, and Asshur-lush, who held the throne from the last-mentioned date to B.C. 745, when he was succeeded by the second Tiglath-Pilcser. The brevity of these reigns, which average only twelve years apiece, is indicative of troublous times, and of a disputed, or, at any rate, a disturbed succession. The fact that none of the three monarchs left buildings of any importance, or, so far as appears, memorials of any kind, marks a period of comparative decline, during which there was a pause in the magnificent course of Assyrian conquests, which had scarcely known a check for above a century.8 The causes of the temporary inaction and apparent decline of a power which had so long been steadily advancing, would form an interesting subject of speculation to the political philosopher; but they are too obscure to be investigated here, where our space only allows us to touch rapidly on the chief known facts of the Assyrian history. One important difficulty presents itself, at this point of the narrative, in an apparent contradiction between the native records of the Assyrians and the casual notices of their history contained in the Second Book of Kings. The Biblical Pul— the "king of Assyria" who came up against the land of Israel, and received from Menahem a thousand talents of silver, " that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand,"9 is unnoticed in the native inscriptions, and even seems to be excluded from the royal lists by the absence of any name at all resembling his in the proper place in the famous Canon.10 * From the accession of Asshur-izir- pnl to tho death of Vul-lush 111. is above a century (103 years). * 2 Kings xv. 19. 10 Until the discovery of the Assyrian Canon had furnished us with three kings between Vul-lush III. and Tiglath- Pileser II., thus separating their reigns by a space of 36 years, it was thought that Vul-lush III. might possibly repre- sent the Biblical Pul. the two names not being so very different. (See the author's Ilcroihtm, vol. i. p. 382.) The identification was never very satis- Chap. IX. ruL. 123 Pul appears in Scripture to be the immediate predecessor of Tiglath-Pileser. At any rate, as his expedition against Menahem is followed within (at the utmost) thirty-two years11 by an expe- dition of Tiglath-Pileser against Pekah, his last year (if he was indeed a king of Assyria) cannot have fallen earlier than thirty- two years before Tiglath-Pileser's first. In other words, if the Hebrew numbers are historical,some portion of Puis reign must necessarily fall into the interval assigned by the Canon to the kings for which it is the sole authority—Shalmaneser III., Asshur-dayan III., and Asshur-lush. But these names are so wholly unlike the name of Pul that no one of them can possibly be regarded as its equivalent, or even as the original from which it was corrupted. Thus the Assyrian records do not merely omit Pul, but exclude him; and we have to inquire how this can be accounted for, and who the Biblical Pul is, if he is not a regular and recognised Assyrian monarch. Various explanations of the difficulty have been suggested. Some would regard Pul as a general of Tiglath-Pileser (or of some earlier Assyrian king), mistaken by the Jews for the actual monarch. Others would identify him with Tiglath- Pileser himself.12 But perhaps the most probable supposition is, that he was a pretender to the Assyrian crown, never ac- factory, for the phonetic va'ue of all the three elements which make up the uanie read as Yul-lush is very uncertain. Chronological considerations have now induced the advocates of the identity to give it up. 11 The argument is here based upon the Scriptural numbers only. As Mena- hem reigned 10 years, Pekahiah 2 years, and Pekah 20, if Pul's expedition had fallen in Menahem's first year, and Tiglath-Pileser's in Pekah's last, they would have been separated at the utmost by a space of 32 years. We shall here- after show reasons for thinking that in fact they were separated by no longer an interval than 18 or 20 years. '-' See the Atheneeum for Aug. 22, 1S63 (No. 1 !-<>9, p. 245). The chief argu- ments lor the identity are, 1. The fact that Scripture mentions Pul's taking tribute from Menahem, but says nothing of tribute being taken from him by Ti- glath-Pileser, while the Adrian monu- ments mention that Tiglath-Pileser took tribute from him, but say nothing of Pul. 2. The improbability (!) that two consecutive kings of Assyria could have pushed their conquests to the distant land of J udica during the short reign of Menahem. 3. The way in whii h Pul and Tiglath- Pilcser are coupled together in 2 (Jhron. v. 26, as if they wore one and the some individual (?), or at any rate were acting together; and, 4. The fact that in the Syriac and Arabic ver- sions of this passage one name only is given instead of the two To me these arguments do not appear to be of much weight. I think that neither the writer of Chronicles nor the writer of Kings could possibly have expressed themselves as they have if they regarded Pul and Tiglath-Pile=er as the same person. 124 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. knowledged at Nineveh, but established in the western (and southern w) provinces so firmly, that he could venture to conduct an expedition into Lower Syria, and to claim there the fealty of Assyria's vassals. Or possibly he may have been a Babylonian monarch, who in the troublous times that had now evidently come upon the northern empire, possessed himself of the Euphrates valley, and thence descended upon Syria and Pales- tine. Berosus, it must be remembered, represented Pul as a Chaldcean king;14 and the name itself, which is wholly alien to the ordinary Assyrian type,15 has at least one counterpart among known Babylonian names.16 The time of Puis invasion may be fixed, by combining the Assyrian and the Hebrew chronologies, within very narrow limits. Tiglath-Pileser relates that he took tribute from Menahem in a war which lasted from his fourth to his eighth year, or from B.C. 742 to B.C. 738. As Menahem only reigned ten years, the earliest date that can be assigned to Pul's ex- pedition will be B.C. 752," while the latest possible date will be B.C. 746, the year before the accession of Tiglath-Pileser. In any case the expedition falls within the eight years as- signed by the Assyrian Canon to the reign of Asshur-lush, Tiglath-Pileser's immediate predecessor. It is remarkable that into this interval falls also the famous era "See the next note. 14 See Euseb. t'hron. Can. Pare Ima, c. iv. "Post hos ait extiti&se Chal- daorum regem, cui nomen Phulus erat." Eusebius makes the quotation from Polyhistor; but Polyhistor'8 authority beyond a doubt was Berosus. Pul there- fore must have figured in the Babylonian annals, either as a native king, or as an Assyrian who had borne sway over Chaldaea. . 15 Assyrian names are almost always compounds, consisting of two, three, or more elements. It is difficult to make two elements out of Pul. There is, how- ever, it must be granted, an Assyrian Eponym in the Canon, whose name is not very far from Pul, being Palaya, or Palluya (= " my son "). The same name was borne by a grandson of Merodach- Baladan. Mr. U. Smith, moreover, in- forms me that he has found Pulu as the name of an ordinary Assyrian on a tablet. 15 The "Porus" of Ptolemy's Canon is a name closely resembling the " Phu- lus" of Polyhistor. The one would be in Hebrew lie, the other is *TB. "According to Ussher (see the mar- ginal dates in our Bibles) Menahem reigned from B.C. 771 to B.C. 761, or twenty years earlier than this. Clinton lowers the dates by two years (/'. H. vol. i. p. 325). Nine more may be de- ducted by omitting the imaginary " in- terregnum " between Pekah and Hoshea, which is contradicted by 2 K. xv. 30. The discrepancy, therefore, between the Assyrian Canon and the Hebrew num- bers at this point does not exceed ten years. Chap. IX. NABONASSAR AT BABYLON. 125 of Nabonassar,1 which must have marked some importantchange, dynastic or other, at Babylon. The nature of this change will be considered more at length in the Babylonian section. At present it is sufficient to observe that, in the declining condition of Assyria under the kings who followed Vul-lush III., there was naturally a growth of power and independence among the border countries. Babylon, repenting of the submission which she had made either to Vul-lush III., or to his father, Shamas-Vul II., once more vindicated her right to freedom, and resumed the position of a separate and hostile monarchy. Samaria, Damascus, Judsea, ceased to pay tribute. Enterprising kings, like Jero- boam II. and Menahem, taking advantage of Assyria's weak- ness, did not content themselves with merely throwing off her yoke, but proceeded to enlarge their dominions at the expense of her feudatories.2 Judging of the unknown from the known, we may assume that on the north and east there were similar defections to those on the west and south—that the tribes of Armenia and of the Zagros range rose in revolt, and that the Assyrian boundaries were thus contracted in every quarter.8 At the same time, within the limits of what was regarded as the settled Empire, revolts began to occur. In the reign of Asshur-dayan III. (B.C. 771-753), no fewer than three important insurrections are recorded—one at a city called Libzu, another at Arapkha, the chief town of Arrapachitis, and a third at Gozan, the chief city of Gauzanitis or Mygdonia. Attempts were made to suppress these revolts; but it may be doubted whether they were successful. The military spirit had declined; the monarchs had ceased to lead out their armies regularly year by year, preferring to pass their time in inglorious ease at their rich and luxurious capitals. Asshur-dayan III., during nine years of his eighteen, remained at home, undertaking no warlike enter- prise. Asshur-lush, his successor, displayed even less of military vigour. During the eight years of his reign he took the field 1 B.C. 747. The near synchronism of floe or manipulation whatsoever. Tiglath-Pileser's accession (B.C. 745) 2 See 2 Kings xiv. 25-28; xv. 16. with this date is remarkable, resulting * This general defection and depres- as it does simply from the numbers in sion in stisted somewhat over-strungly the Assyrian Canon, without any arli- by Herodotus (i. 95, 96). 126 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. twice only, passing six years in complete inaction. At the end of this time, Calah, the second city in the kingdom, revolted; and the revolution was brought about which ushered in the splendid period of the Lower Empire. It was probably during the continuance of the time of depres- sion,'' when an unwarlike monarch was living in inglorious ease amid the luxuries and refinements of Nineveh, and the people, sunk in repose, gave themselves up to vicious indulgences more hateful in the eye of God than even the pride and cruelty which they were wont to exhibit in war, that the great capital was suddenly startled by a voice of warning in the streets—a voice which sounded everywhere, through corridor, and lane, and square, bazaar and caravanserai, one shrill monotonous cry— "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown."5 A strange wild man, clothed in a rough garment of skin,6 moving from place to place, announced to the inhabitants their doom. None knew who he was or whence he had come; none had ever beheld him before; pale, haggard, travel-stained, he moved before them like a visitant from another sphere; and his lips still framed the fearful words—" Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Had the cry fallen on them in the prosperous time, when each year brought its tale of victories, and every nation upon their borders trembled at the approach of their arms, it would probably have been heard with apathy or ridi- cule, and would have failed to move the heart of the nation. But coming, as it did, when their glory had declined; when their enemies, having been allowed a breathing space, had taken courage and were acting on the offensive in many quarters; when it was thus perhaps quite within the range of probability that some one of their numerous foes might shortly appear in arms before the place, it struck them with fear and conster- * The date of Jonah's preaching to the Ninevites has been much disputed. It has been placed as early as bUO (see our Bibles), or from that to B.C. 840 (Drake), which would throw it into a most flourishing Assyrian period, the reign of Shalnianeser II. Others have observed that it may as well belong to the latter part of the reign of Jero- boam II. (Bailey), which would be about B.C. 780, according to the ordinary chronology, or about B.C. 7t>0-750, ac- cording to the views of the present writer. * Jonah iii. 4. * This was the prophetic dress. (See 2 Kings i. 8, and Zech. xiii 4.) Chap. IX. THE PROPHET JONAH AT NINEVEH. 127 nation. The alarm communicated itself from the city to the palace; and his trembling attendants " came and told the king of Nineveh," who was seated on his royal throne in the great audience-chamber, surrounded by all the pomp and magnificence of his court. No sooner did he hear, than the heart of the kino- was touched, like that of his people; and he "arose from his throne, and laid aside his robe from him, and covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes."7 Hastily summoning his nobles, he had a decree framed, and "caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh, by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor nock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man and beast8 be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands."9 Then the fast was proclaimed, and the people of Nineveh, fearful of God's wrath, put on sackcloth "from the greatest of them even to the least of them."19 The joy and merriment, the revelry and feasting of that great city were changed into mourning and lamentation; the sins that had provoked the anger of the Most High ceased; the people humbled themselves; they "turned from their evil way,"11 and by a repentance, which, if not deep and enduring, was still real and unfeigned, they appeased for the present the Divine wrath. Vainly the prophet sate without the city, on its eastern side, under his booth woven of boughs,12 watching, wait- ing, hoping (apparently) that the doom which he had announced would come, in spite of the people's repentance. God was more merciful than man. He had pity on the " great city," with its "six score thousand persons that could not discern between their right hand and their left,"18 and, sparing the penitents, left their town to stand unharmed for more than another century. The circumstances under which Tiglath-Pileser II. ascended the throne in the year B.C. 745 are unknown to us. No con- * Jonah iii. 6. 10 Ibid, verse 5. 'On the custom of putting beasta in "Ibid, verse 10. 12 Ibid. iv. 5. mourning, see above, p. 3y, note 12 Ibid, verse 11. On the meaning of 'Jonah iii. 7, & the phrase see vol. i. pp. 251, 252. 128 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. fidence can be placed in the statement of Bion1 and Polyhistor * which seems to have been intended to refer to this monarch, whom they called Beletaras—a corruption perhaps of the latter half of the name8—that he was, previously to his elevation to the royal dignity, a mere vine-dresser, whose occupation was to keep in order the gardens of the king. Similar tales of the low origin of self-raised and usurping monarchs are too common in the East, and are too often contradicted by the facts, when they become known to us,4 for much credit to attach to the story told by these late writers, the earlier of whom must have written five, or six hundred years after Tiglath-Pileser's time5 We might, however, conclude, without much chance of mistake, from such a story being told, that the king intended acquired the throne irregularly; that either he was not of the blood royal, or that, being so, he was at any rate not the legi- timate heir. And the conclusion at which we should thus arrive is confirmed by the monarch's inscriptions; for though he speaks repeatedly of " the kings his fathers," and even calls the royal buildings at Calah "the palaces of his fathers," yet he never mentions his actual father's name in any record that has come down to us. Such a silence is so contrary to the ordinary practice of Assyrian monarchs, who glory in their descent and parade it on every possible occasion, that, where it occurs, we are justified in concluding the monarch to have been an usurper, deriving his title to the crown, not from his ancestry or from any law of succession, but from a successful revolution, in which he played the principal part. It matters little that such 1 Fr. Hat. Gr. vol. iv. p. 351. * Ibid. vol. iii. p. 210. ■ The native form is Pal-tsira, or Palli-ttir (Oppert), whence Beletar, by a change of the initial tenuit into the media, and a hardening of the dental sibilant. 4 Compare the stories of Gyges, Cyrus, Amasis, &c. Gyges, the herdsman of PIato (Rep. ii. 3), and the guardsman of Herodotus (i. 8), appears in the narrative of Nicolaus Dam;uscenus, who probably follows the native historian Xanthus, as a member of the noblest house in the kingdom next to that of the monarch (Nic. Dam. Fr. 49). Cyrus, son (ac- cording to Herodotus, i. 107) of an ordinary Persian noble, declares himself to have been the son of a "powerful king." (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 200, note*, 2nd edit.) There are good grounds for believing that the low birth of Amasis is likewise a fiction. (Ibid. vol. ii. p. 222, note'.) 5 Biou's date is uncertain, but it pro- bably was not much before B.C. 200. (See the remarks of C. Miiller in the Fr. Ilist. Gr. vol. iv. p. 347.) Chap. IX. REIGN OF TIGLATH-PILESER II. I29 a monarch, when he is settled upon the throne, claims, in a vague and general way, connection with the kings of former times. The ciaim may often have a basis of truth; for in monarchies where polygamy prevails, and the kings have mumerous daughters to dispose of, almost all the nobility can boast that they are of the blood royal. Where the claim is in no sense true, it will still be made; for it flatters the vanity of the monarch, and there is no one to gainsay it. Only in such cases we are sure to find a prudent vagueness—an assertion of the fact of the connection, expressed in general terms, without any specification of the particulars on which the supposed fact rests. On obtaining the crown—whatever the circumstances under which he obtained it—Tiglath-Pileser immediately proceeded to attempt the restoration of the Empire by engaging in a series of wars, now upon one, now upon another frontier, seeking by his unwearied activity and energy to recover the losses suffered through the weakness of his predecessors, and to compensate for their laches by a vigorous discharge of all the duties of the kingly office. The order of these wars, which formerly it was impossible to determine, is now fixed by means of the Assyrian Canon, and we may follow the course of the expeditions con- ducted by Tiglath-Pileser II. with as much confidence and certainty as those of Tiglath-Pileser I., Asshur-izir-pal, or the second Shalmaneser. It is scarcely necessary, however, to detain the reader by going through the entire series. The interest of Tiglath-Pileser's military operations attaches espe- cially to his campaigns in Babylonia and in Syria, where he is brought into contact with persons otherwise known to us. His other wars are comparatively unimportant. Under these circum- stances it is proposed to consider in detail only the Babylonian and Syrian expeditions, and to dismiss the others with a few general remarks on the results which were accomplished by them. Tiglath-Pileser's expeditions against Babylon were in his first and in his fifteenth years, B.C. 745 and 731. No sooner did he find himself settled upon the throne, than he levied an VOL. II. K 130 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. army, anil marched against Southern Mesopotamia,6 which appears to have been in a divided and unsettled condition. According to the Canon of Ptolemy, Nabonassar then ruled in Babylon. Tiglath-Pileser's annals confuse the accounts of his two campaigns; but the general impression which we gather from them is that, even in B.C. 745, the country was divided up into a number of small principalities, the sea-coast being under the dominion of Merodach-Baladan, who held his court in his father's city of Bit-Yakin;7 while in the upper region there were a number of petty princes, apparently independent, among whom may be recognised names which seem to occur later in Ptolem}-'s list,8 among the kings of Babylon to whom he assigns short reigns in the interval between Nabonassar and Mardoc- empalus (Merodach-Baladan). Tiglath-Pileser attacked and defeated several of these princes, taking the towns of Kur-Galzu (now Akkerkuf), and Sippara or Sepharvaim, together w-ith many other places of less consequence in the lower portion of the country, after which he received the submission of Merodach- Baladan, who acknowledged him for suzerain, and consented to pay an annual tribute. Tiglath-Pileser upon this assumed the title of "King of Babylon " (B.C. 729), and offered sacrifice to the Babylonian gods in all the principal cities.9 The first Syrian war of Tiglath-Pileser was undertaken in his third year (B.C. 743), and lasted from that year to his eighth. In the course of it he reduced to subjection Damascus, which had regained its independence,10 and was under the government of Rezin; Samaria, where Menahem, the adversary of Pul, was still reigning; Tyre, which was under a monarch bearing the ° This fact is stated on a mutilated tablet belonging to Tiglath-Pileser's reign. 'Merodach-Baladan is called "the son of Yakiu" in the Assyrian Inscrip- tions. His capital, Bit-Yakin, had ap- parently been built by, and named after, his father. Compare Bit-Omri (i.e. Sa- maria), Bit-Sargina, &c. It has been suggested that Yakin may be intended by Jugaius, if that be the true reading, in Ptolemy's Canon. When Merodach-Baladan is called "the son of Baladan" in 2 Kings xx. 12, and Is. xxxix. 1, the reference is probably to a grandfather or other ancestor. 8 As Nadina, who would seem to be Nadius; and Zuklru, who may possibly be Chinzirus. 'Babylon, Borsippa, Nipur, Cutha, Erech, Kis, and Dilmun. Compare the conduct of Vul-lush III. (supra, p. 11(3). 14 See above, p. 110. Chap. IX. tiglath-pileser's wars. familiar name of Hiram;11 Hamath, Gebal, and the Arabs bordering upon Egypt, who were ruled by a queen 12 called Khabiba. He likewise met and defeated a vast army under Azariah (or TJzziah), king of Judah, but did not succeed in inducing him to make his submission. It would appear by this that Tiglath-Pileser at this time penetrated deep into Palestine, probably to a point which no Assyrian king but Vul-lush III. had reached previously. But it would seem, at the same time, that his conquests were very incomplete; they did not include Judtea or Philistia, Idumsea, or the tribes of the Hauran; and they left untouched the greater number of the Phoenician cities. It causes us, therefore, no surprise to find that in a short time, B.C. 734, he renewed his efforts in this quarter commencing by an attack on Samaria, where Pekah was now king, and taking "Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land of Naphtali, and carrying them captive to Assyria," 18 thus " lightly afflicting the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,"1 or the more northern portion of the Holy Land, about Lake Merom, and from that to the Sea of Gennesareth. This attack was followed shortly (B.C. 733) by the most important of Tiglath-Pileser's Syrian ware. It appears that the common danger, which had formerly united the Hittitcs, Hamathites, and Damascenes in a close alliance,2 now caused a league to be formed between Damascus and Samaria, the sovereigns of which—Pekah and Rezin—made an attempt to add Judsea to their confederation, by declaring war against Ahaz, attacking his territory, and threatening to substitute in his place as king of Jerusalem a creature of their own, " the son 11 Besides the great Hiram, the friend of Solomon, there is a Tyrian king of the name mentioned by Meuander as contemporary with Cyrus (Fr. 2); and another occurs in Herodotus (vii. 98), who must have been contemporary with Darius Hyitaspis. "The Arabs of the tract bordering un Egypt seem to have been regularly governed by queens. Three such are mentioned in the Inscriptions. As these Arabs were near neighbours of the Sa- bicuns, it is suggested that the queen of Sheba came from their country, which was in the neighbourhood of Sinai. (See Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. vii. New Series, p. 14.) 12 2 Kings xv. 29. 1 Isaiah ix. 1. This war is slightly alluded to in the inscriptions of Tiglath- Pileser; but no details are given. * See above, p. 103. K 2 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. of Tabeal."8 Hard pressed by his enemies, Ahaz applied to Assyria, offering to become Tiglath-Pileser's " servant"—i.e. his vassal and tributary—if he would send troops to his assistance, and save him from the impending danger.4 Tiglath-Pileser was not slow to obey this call. Entering Syria at the head of an army, he fell first upon Rezin, who was defeated, and fled to Damascus, where Tiglath-Pileser besieged him for two years, at the end of which time he was taken and slain.8 Next he attacked Pekah, entering his country on the north-east, where it bordered upon the Damascene territory, and, overrunning the whole of the Trans-Jordanic provinces, together (apparently) with some portion of the Cis-Jordanic region. The tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, who had pos- sessed the country between the Jordan and the desert from the time of Moses, were seized and carried away captive by the con- queror, who placed them in Upper Mesopotamia, on the affluents of the Bilikh and the Khabour,' from about Harran to Nisibis.7 Some cities situated on the right bank of the Jordan, in the territory of Issachar, but belonging to Manasseh, were at the same time seized and occupied. Among these, Megiddo in the great plain of Esdraelon, and Dur or Dor upon the coast,8 some way below Tyre, were the most important. Dur was even thought of sufficient consequence to receive an Assyrian governor at the same time with the other principal cities of Southern Syria.9 After thus chastising Samaria, Tiglath-Pileser appears to 2 Isa. vii. 1 -6. Comp. 2 Kings xvi. 5. 4 2 Kings xvi. 7. 1 2 Kings xvi. 9. There is an im- perfect notice of the defeat and death of Kezin in a mutilated inscription now in the British Museum. '2Chron.v.26. That Tiglath-Pileser attacked Pekah twice seems to follow from the complete difference between the localities mentioned in 2 Kings xv. 29, and 2 Chron. v. 26. In Isaiah ix. 1, both expeditions seem to be glanced at. 7 That the Go/un of Scripture was this country is apparent enough from Scripture itself, which joins it with (Halah Chalcitls of Ptolemy), Habor (the Khabour), Haran (Hornn or Carrhas), Rezeph, and Eden (Beth- Adini). It is confirmed by the Assyrian inscriptions, which connect Guzan with Nisibis. * Megiddo and Dora are mentioned under the forms of Magidu and JMiru among the Syrian cities tributary to Tiglath-Pileser. They are joined to a place called Manateuah, which now for the first time appears in the lists, and which probably represents the land of Manasseh. * The south-western limit of Assyria was now advanced to about lat. 32° 3C. Dur and Megiddo seem to have been her frontier towns. Chap. IX. tiglath-pileser's WARS. 133 have passed on to the south, where he reduced the Philistines and the Arab tribes, who inhabited the Sinaitic desert as far as the borders of Egypt. Over these last he set, in lieu of their native queen, an Assyrian governor. He then returned towards Damascus, where he held a court, and invited the neighbour- ing states and tribes to send in their submission. The states and tribes responded to his invitation. Tiglath-Pileser, before quitting Syria, received submission and tribute not only from Ahaz, king of Judah,10 but also from Mit'enna,11 king of Tyre; Pekah, king of Samaria; Khanun, king of Gaza; and Mitinti, king of Ascalon; from the Moabites, the Ammonites, the people of Arvad or Aradus, and the Idumseans. He thus completely re-established the power of Assyria in this quarter,12 once more recovering to the Empire the entire tract between the coast and the desert from Mount Amanus on the north to the Red Sea and the confines of Egypt. One further expedition was led or sent by Tiglath-Pileser into Syria, probably in his last year. Disturbances having occurred from the revolt of Mit'enna of Tyre, and the murder of Pekah of Israel by Hoshea, an Assyrian army marched west- ward, in B.C. 728, to put them down . The Tyrian monarch at once submitted; and Hoshea, having entered into negotiations, agreed to receive investiture into his kingdom at the hands of the Assyrians, and to hold it as an Assyrian territory. On these terms peace was re-established, and the army of Tiglath- Pileser retired and recrossed the Euphrates. '• 2 Kings xvi. 10. Tiglath-Pileser records his reception of tribute from a king of Judah whom he calls Yahu- lehazi, or Jehoahaz. It was at one time suggested that the monarch intended might be Uzziah, whose name would become Jehoahaz by a metathesis of the two elements; but the late date of the tribute-giving, which wag certainly towards the close of Tiglath-Pileser's reign, renders this impossible. Yahw- Ichaa must represent Ahaz. It has been suggested that Jehoahaz was the monarch's real appellation, and that the Jews dropped the initial element because they were unwilling to profane the sacred name of Jehovah by connecting it with so wicked a monarch; but per- haps it is more probable that the name was changed by Tiglath-Pileser, when Ahaz became his tributary, just as the name of Eliakim was turned by Necho to Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiii. 34), and that of Mattaniah to Zedekiah by Nebu- chadnezzar (ibid. xxiv. 17). His im- pieties may have prevented the Jews from recognising the change of name as legitimate, and made them still call him simply Ahaz. "Compare the Matgenus (Mrfryipus) of Menander, the father of Pygmalion and Dido (Fr. 1). 12 See above, p. 117. 134 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONAKCHY. Besides conducting these various campaigns, Tiglath-Pileser employed himself in the construction of some important works at Calah, which was his usual and favourite residence. He repaired and adorned the palace of Shalmaneser II., in the centre of the Nimrud mound; and he built a new edifice at the south-eastern corner of the platform, which seems to have been the most magnificent of his erections. Unfortunately, in neither case were his works allowed to remain as he left them The sculptures with which he adorned Shalmaneser's palace were violently torn from their places by Esar-haddon, and, after barbarous ill-usage,1a were applied to the embellishment of his own residence by that monarch. The palace which he built at the south-eastern corner of the Nimrud mound, was first ruined by some invader, and then built upon by the last Assyrian king. Thus the monuments of Tiglath-Pileser II. come to us in a defaced and unsatisfactory condition, rendering it difficult for us to do full justice either to his architectural conceptions or to his taste in ornamentation. We can see, however, by the ground plan of the building which Mr. Loftus uncovered beneath the ruins of Mr. Layard's south-east palace,14 that the great edifice of Tiglath-Pileser was on a scale of grandeur little inferior to that of the ancient palaces, and on a plan very nearly similar. The same arrangement of courts and halls and chambers, the same absence of curved lines or angles other than right angles, the same narrowness of rooms in comparison with their length, which have been noted in the earlier buildings,15 prevailed also in those of this king. With regard to the sculp- tures with which, after the example of the former monarchs, he ornamented their walls, we can only say they seem to have been characterised by simplicity of treatment—the absence of all ornamentation, except fringes, from the dresses, the total omission of backgrounds, and (with few exceptions) the limita- tion of the markings to the mere outlines of forms. The "They were often partially-destroyed, Monuments, 1st Series, p. 14.) in order to reduce the siae of the stone "This plan is exhibited in the base- and make it fit into a given place ment story of the British Museum, in Esar-haddou's wall. (See Layard, '* Supra, vol. i. pp. 2S1-285. Chap. IX. REIGN OF SHALMANESER IV. drawing is rather freer and more spirited than that of the sculptures of Asshur-izir-pal; animal forms, as camels, oxen, sheep, and goats, are more largely introduced, and there is somewhat less formality in the handling.1 But the change is in no respect very decided, or such as to indicate an era in the progress of art. Tiglath-Pileser appears, by the Assyrian Canon, to have had a reign of eighteen years. He ascended the throne in B.C. 745, and was succeeded in B.C. 727 by Shalmaneser, the fourth monarch who had borne that appellation. It is uncertain whether Shalmaneser IV. was related to Tiglath-Pileser or not. As, however, there is no trace of the succession having been irregular or disputed, it is most probable that he was his son. He ascended the throne in B.C. 727, and ceased to reign in B.C. 722, thus holding the royal power for less than six years. It was probably very soon after his acces- sion, that, suspecting the fidelity of Samaria, he "came up" against Hoshea, king of Israel, and, threatening him with condign punishment, so terrified him that he made immediate submission.2 The arrears of tribute were rendered, and the homage due from a vassal to his lord was paid; and Shalmaneser either returned into his own country or turned his attention to other enterprises.8 But shortly afterwards he learnt that Hoshea, in spite of his submission and engagements, was again contem- plating defection; and, conscious of his own weakness, was endeavouring to obtain a promise of support from an enter- prising monarch who ruled in the neighbouring country of Egypt.4 The Assyrian conquests in this quarter had long been tending to bring them into collision with the great power of 1 For representations of Tiglath-Pile- ser's sculptures, see Mr. Layard's Monu- ments, 1st Series, PIates 57 to 67 ; and cinpare, in vol. i. of this work, the woodcut on p. 212, the second woodcut on p. 243, and the woodcuts on pp. 376 and 404. i 2 Kings xvii. 3. "Againsthim came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant and gave him presents," or "rendered him tribute" (marginal rendering). * It was probably now that Shal- maneser made his general attack upon Phoenicia. (Infra, p. 137.) '2 Kings xvii. 4. "And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So, king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year." 136 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Eastern Africa, which had once held,5 and always coveted,8 the dominion of Syria. Hitherto such relations as they had had with the Egyptians appear to have been friendly. The weak and unwarlike Pharaohs who about this time bore sway in Egypt had sought the favour of the neighbouring Asiatic power by de- manding Assyrian princesses in marriage and affecting Assyrian names for their offspring.7 But recently an important change had occurred.8 A brave Ethiopian prince had descended the valley of the Nile at the head of a swarthy host, had defeated the Egyptian levies, had driven the reigning monarch into the marshes of the Delta, or put him to a cruel death,9 and had established his own dominion firmly, at any rate, over the upper country. Shebek the First bore sway in Memphis in lieu of the blind Bocchoris;10 and Hoshea, seeing in this bold and enterprising king the natural foe of the Assyrians,11 and therefore his own natural ally and friend, "sent messengers" with proposals, which appear to have been accepted; for on their return Hoshea revolted openly, withheld his tribute, and declared himself independent. Shalmaneser, upon this, came up against Samaria for the second time, determined now to punish his vassal's perfidy with due severity. Apparently, he was unresisted; at any rate, Hoshea fell into his power, and » Several kings of the 18th and 19th dynasties seem to have ruled over Syria, and even to have made war across the Euphrates in Western Mesopotamia. (See Wilkinson in the author's llero- dotm, vol. ii. pp. 302-305 and p. 311; and compare Sir H. Rawlinson's Illustra- tions of Egyptian History, published in the Transaction* of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. vii. New Series.) "The invasions of Shishak (Sheshonk) and Zcrah (Osorkon) show that the idea of annexing Syria continued even during a period of comparative depression. 'Vide supra, p. 82. 8 If we were obliged to follow Mane- tho's dates, as reported to us through Eusebius and Africanus, we should have to place the accession of the first Sabaco 22 or 24 years only before Tirhakah, B.C. 712 or 714. But the Apis stelce have shown that Manetho's numbers are not to be trusted ; and it is allowable therefore to assign to the two Ethiopian kings who preceded Tirhakah ordinary reigns of (say) 20 years each, which would bring the Ethiopian conquest to B.C. 730. 'Manetho stated that Bocchoris the Saite was burnt alive by Sabaco I. (Eu- seb. Chr. Can. i. p. 104.) Herodotus gave a different account (ii. 137-140). 10 According to Herodotus, the native king whom Sabaco superseded (called by him Anysis) was blind. Diodorus calls Bocchoris Tip aui/xari irovreXus tikara- The position of Raphia is well marked in Polybius, who places it be- tween Rhinocolura and Gaza (v. 80, § 3). It was the scene of a great battlo between Ptolemy Philopator and Antio- chus the Great, B.C. 217. PIiuy calls it Raphea. (H. N. v. 13.) 4 See above, p. 143, note '. CilAP. IX. BATTLE OF EAPHIA. 145 forcing Shebek to seek safety in flight. Khanun was deprived of his crown and carried off to Assyria by the conqueror.8 Such was the result of the first combat between the two great powers of Asia and Africa. It was an omen of the future, though it was scarcely a fair trial of strength. The battle of Kaphia foreshadowed truly enough the position which Egypt would hold among the nations from the time that she ceased to be isolated, and was forced to enter into the straggle for pre- eminence, and even for existence, with the great kingdoms of the neighbouring continent. With rare and brief exceptions, Egypt has from the time of Sargon succumbed to the superior might of whatever power has been dominant in Western Asia, owning it for lord, and submitting, with a good or a bad grace, to a position involving a greater or less degree of dependence. Tributary to the later Assyrian princes, and again, probably, to Nebuchadnezzar, she had scarcely recovered her independence when she fell under the dominion of Persia. Never successful, notwithstanding all her struggles, in thoroughly shaking off this hated yoke, she did but exchange her Persian for Greek masters, when the empire of Cyrus perished. Since then, Greeks, Romans, Saracens, and Turks have, each in their turn, been masters of the Egyptian race, which has paid the usual penalty of precocity in the early exhaustion of its powers. After the victories of Aroer and Raphia, the Assyrian mon- arch appears to have been engaged for some years in wars of comparatively slight interest towards the north and the north- east. It was not till B.C. 715, five years after his first fight with the Egyptians, that he again made an expedition towards the south-west, and so came once more into contact with nations to whose fortunes we are not wholly indifferent. His chief efforts on this occasion were directed against the peninsula of Arabia. The wandering tribes of the desert, tempted by the weak condition to which the Assyrian conquest had reduced Samaria, made raids, it appears, into the territory at then- pleasure, and carried off plunder. Sargon determined to chas- • Inscriptiom da Sargonules, p. 36. VOL. IL L 146 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. tise these predatory bands, and made an expedition into the interior, where " he subdued the uncultivated plains of the re- mote Arabia, which had never before given tribute to Assyria," and brought under subjection the Thamudites,6 and several other Arab tribes, carrying off a certain number and settling them in Samaria itself, which thenceforth contained an Arab element in its population.7 Such an effect was produced on the surrounding nations by the success of this inroad, that their princes hastened to propitiate Sargon's favour by sending embassies, and accepting the position of Assyrian tributaries. The reigning Pharaoh, whoever he may have been, It-hamar, king of the Sabseans, and Tsamsi,1 queen of the Arabs, thus humbled themselves, sending presents,2 and probably entering into engagements which bound them for the future. Four years later (B.C. 711) Sargon led a third expedition into these parts, regarding it as important to punish the misconduct of the people of Ashdod. Ashdod had probably submitted after the battle of Raphia, and had been allowed to retain its native prince, Azuri. This prince, after a while, revolted, withheld his tribute, and proceeded to foment rebellion against Assyria among the neighbouring monarchs; whereupon Sargon deposed him, and made his brother Akhimit king in his place. The people of Ashdod, however, rejected the authority of Akhimit, and chose a certain Yaman, or Yavan, to rule over them, who strengthened himself by alliances with the other Philistine cities, with Judsea, and with Edom. Immediately upon learning this, Sargon assembled his army, and proceeded to Ashdod to punish the rebels; but, before his arrival, Yaman had fled away, and " escaped to the dependencies of Egypt, which" (it is said) "were under the rule of Ethiopia."8 Ashdod itself, trusting in 6 The Thamudites are a well-known Arabian tribe, belonging anciently to the eentral portion of the peninsula. They occupied seats to the south of Arabia Petrioa in the time of Ptolemy. (Oeo'iraph. vi. 7.) Compare Nehem. ii. 19, and iv. 7. 1 Tsamsi appears to have been the iuccessor of Khabiba (supra, p. 131). * These presents were gold, slices (?), horses, and camels. The Egyptian horses were much prized, and were care- fully preserved by Sargon in the royal stables at Nineveh. * M. Oppert understands the passage somewhat differently. He translates, "Yaman apprit de loin l'approche de mon expedition; il s'enfuit au ddti do l'Egypte, da ctti de MeroeV' (Inicrip- tions des Saryonidei, p. 27.) Chap. IX. CAPTURE OF ASHDOD. M7 the strength from which it derived its name,4 resisted; but Sargon laid siege to it, and in a little time forced it to surrender.8 Yaman fled to Egypt, but his wife and children were captured, and, together with the bulk of the inhabitants, were transported into Assyria, while their place was supplied by a number of persons who had been made prisoners in Sargon's eastern wars. An Assyrian governor was set over the town. The submission of Ethiopia followed. Ashdod, like Samaria, had probably been encouraged to revolt by promises of foreign aid. Sargon's old antagonist, Shebek, had recently brought the whole of Egypt under his authority, and perhaps thought the time had come when he might venture once more to measure his strength against the Assyrians. But Sargon's rapid move- ments and easy capture of the strong Ashdod terrified him, and produced a change of his intentions. Instead of marching into Philistia and fighting a battle, he sent a suppliant embassy, surrendered Yaman, and deprecated Sargon's wrath.8 The Assyrian monarch boasts that the king of Meroe, who dwelt in the desert, and had never sent ambassadors to any of the kings his predecessors, was led by the fear of his majesty to direct his steps towards Assyria and humbly bow down before him. At the opposite extremity of his empire, Sargon soon after- wards gained victories which were of equal or greater import- ance. Having completely reduced Syria, humiliated Egypt, and struck terror into the tribes of the north and east, he determined on a great expedition against Babylon. Merodach- Baladan had now been twelve years in quiet possession of the kingdom.7 He had established his court at Babylon, and, 4 The name Ashdod (-riTtf«) is pro- bably derived from the root -^j, "strong," which appears in Tti and TTSi. some writers2) a "Menahem king of Samaria." After this Senna- "Supra, p. 152. 1* As. Soc. Journ, vol. xix. pp. 139- 143 ; Inscriptions dcs Sargonidcs, pp. 42, 43. 20 Ap. Joseph. Ant. Jud. ix. 14. n This identity is maintained by Mr. Bosanquet. (Pall of Nineveh, p. 40; Messiah the Prinze, p. 385.) 1 This name appears as that of a Philistine king in the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser II. (See above, p. 133.) M. Oppert is, I believe, of this opinion. Mr. Fox Talbot so trans- lates (Asiatic Soc. Journ. voL xix. p. OlUF. IX. * WARS OF SENNACHERIB. cherib marched southwards to Ascalon, where the king, Sidka, resisted him, but was captured, together with his city, his wife, his children, his brothers, and the other members of his family. Here again a fresh prince was established in power, while the rebel monarch was kept a prisoner and transported into Assyria. Four towns dependent upon Ascalon, viz., Hazor, Joppa, Bene- berak, and Beth-Dagon,8 were soon afterwards taken and plundered. Sennacherib now pressed on against Egypt. The Philistine city of Ekron had not only revolted from Assyria, expelling its king, Padi, who was opposed to the rebellion, but had entered into negotiations with Ethiopia and Egypt, and had obtained a promise of support from them. The king of Ethiopia was pro- bably the second Shebek (or Sabaco) who is called Sevechus by Manetho, and is said to have reigned either twelve or fourteen years.4 The condition of Egypt at the time was peculiar. The Ethiopian monarch seems to have exercised the real sovereign power; but native princes were established under him who were allowed the title of king, and exercised a real though delegated authority over their several cities and districts.8 On the call of Ekron both princes and sovereign had hastened to its assistance, bringing with them an army consisting of chariots, horsemen, and archers, so numerous that Sennacherib calls it "a host that could not be numbered." The second great battle6 between the Assyrians and the Egyptians took place near a place called Altaku, which is no doubt the Eltekeh of the Jews,7 a small 144). Sir H. Rawlinson denies the identity of the town mentioned with * Samaria, which is ordinarily represented in the Inscriptions by an entirely dif- ferent set of characters. * Joppa and Bene-berak are con- nected with Ekron in Josh. xiz. 43-46. There was a Hazor among the extreme southern cities of Judah (ib. xv. 23). And there was a Beth-Dagon in the low country or coast tract of Judah, which is probably the modern Beit-Dajan be- tween Lydda and Joppa. These seem to be the four cities now taken by Sen- nacherib. 4 Euseb. Chron. Can. Tars lml, c. xx.; African, ap. Syncell. Chronograph, p. 184, C. * We shall have fuller evidence of the continuation of this practice under the Assyrian kings when they became masters of Egypt. (Infra, pp. 193 and 20.) It is slightly indicated by the Dodecarchy of Herodotus (ii. 147). "The first great battlo was that of Raphia. (Supra, p. 144.) 'See Josh. xix. 44, where Eltekeh (nprVjN) is mentioned next to Ekron. It was a city of the Levites (Josh. xix. 23.) i6o Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. town in the vicinity of Ekron. Again the might of Africa yielded to that of Asia. The Egyptians and Ethiopians were defeated with great slaughter. Many chariots, with their drivers, both Egyptian and Ethiopian, fell into the hands of the conqueror, who also took alive several " sons " of the principal Egyptian monarch.8 The immediate fruit of the victory was the fall of Altaku, which was followed by the capture of Tamna, a neighbouring town.9 Sennacherib then "went on" to Ekron, which made no resistance, but opened its gates to the victor. The princes and chiefs who had been concerned in the revolt he took alive and slew, exposing their bodies on stakes round the whole circuit of the city walls. Great numbers of inferior persons, who were regarded as guilty of rebellion, were sold as slaves. Padi, the expelled king, the friend to Assyria, was brought back, reinstated in his sovereignty, and required to pay a small tribute as a token of dependence.10 The restoration of Padi involved a war with Hezekiah, king of Judah. When the Ekronites determined to get rid of a king whose Assyrian proclivities were distasteful to them, instead of putting him to death, they arrested him, loaded him with chains, and sent him to Hezekiah for safe keeping.11 By accepting this charge the Jewish monarch made himself a partner in their revolt; and it was in part to punish this complicity, in part to compel him to give up Padi, that Sennacherib, when he had sufficiently chastised the Ekronite rebels, proceeded to invade Judsea. Then it was—in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, according to the present Hebrew text12—that "Sennacherib, • Perhaps not real "sons," but rather "servants." Compare the double use of irais in Greek. • Tamna is no doubt Thimnatha (nrOTjn), the &a/iva of the Alexan- drian codex, which is mentioned in Joshua (xix. 43) immediately before Ekron. This is probably not the Tiin- nath or Timnatha of Samson's exploits. 10 As. Soc. Journ. vol. xix. pp. 146, 147; Imcriptionsdet Sargonida, pp. 44, 45. "The first intention was that Heze- kiah should put Padi to death. The Ekronites, we are told, "sent Padi to Hezekiah to he destroyed; but he prayed to God, and he (God) softened their hearts." It is remarkable that the de- terminative for "God" is here used alone, without the addition of any name of a god. "If it was in Hezekiah's sixth year that Samaria was taken by Sargon, he should now have reached his twenty- seventh year. The Hebrew and As- syrian numbers are here irreconcilable. I should propose to read in 2 Kings rviii. 13, "twenty-seventh" for " four- teenth." Chap. IX. SENNACHERIB AND HEZEKIAH. l6l king of Assyria, came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king's house. At that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the doors of the house of the Lord, and [from] the pillars which Hezekiah, king of Judah, had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria."18 Such is the brief account of this expedition and its con- sequences which is given us by the author of the Second Book of Kings, who writes from a religious point of view, and is chiefly concerned at the desecration of holy things to which the imminent peril of his city and people forced the Jewish monarch to submit. It is interesting to compare with this account the narrative of Sennacherib himself, who records the features of the expedition most important in his eyes, the number of the towns taken and of the prisoners carried into captivity, the measures employed to compel submission, and the nature and amount of the spoil which he took with him to Nineveh. "Because Hezekiah, king of Judah," says the Assyrian monarch,1 " would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took forty-six of his strong fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which were scattered about I took and plundered a countless number. And from these places I captured and earned off as spoil 200,150 people, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jeru- salem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers » 2 KingB xviii. 13-16. 1 The translation of Sir H. Rawlin- son, which has already appeared in the author's Hampton Lectures (pp. 141,142, 1st edition) is here followed. It agrees in all essential points with the transla- VOL. II. tions of Dr. Hincks (Layard," Nineveh and BabyUm, pp. 143, 144), M. Oppert (Inscriptions des Sargonides, pp. 45, 46), and Mr. Fox Talbot (Journ. of As. Soc . vol. ik. pp. 147-149). If 162 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. round the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape. . . . Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty. . . . All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government, Hezekiah having sent them by way of tribute, and as a token of his submission to my power." It appears then that Sennacherib, after punishing the people of Ekron, broke up from before that city, and entering Judsea proceeded towards Jerusalem, spreading his army over a wide space, and capturing on his way a vast number of small towns and villages,2 whose inhabitants he enslaved and carried off to the number of 200,000.8 Having reached Jerusalem, he com- menced the siege in the usual way, erecting towers around the city, from which stones and arrows were discharged against the defenders of the fortifications, and "casting banks " against the walls and gates4 Jerusalem seems to have been at this time 2 It is perhaps this desolation of the territory to which Isaiah alludes in his 24thchapter : "Behold, the Lordmaketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scat- tereth abroad all the inhabitants thereof. .... The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled ; for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and f adeth away; the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore has the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate ; there- fore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left. The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the. merry-hearted do sigh. The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth. They shall not drink wine with a song ; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it. The city of confusion is broken down; every house is shut up, that no man may come in. There is a crying for wine in the streets ; all joy is darkened; and the mirth of the land is gone. In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten with destruction." (Is. xxiv. 1-12.) * Demetrius regarded this as one of the great captivities, paralleling it with the previous captivity of Samaria, and with the final captivity of Jerusalem in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. (Demetr. ap. Clem. Alex. Strom, i. p. 403.) 4 Compare Is. xsix. 1-4, which seems to be a prophecy of this siege, the only one (so far as we know) that Jerusalem underwent at the hands of the Assyrians. "Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt I Add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices. For I will dis- tress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow; and it shall be unto me as Ariel. And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thea And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be as of one Chap. IX. SIEGE OF JERUSALEM. 163 very imperfectly fortified The "breaches of the city of David" had recently been "many;" and the inhabitants had hastily pulled down the houses in the vicinity of the wall to fortify it.8 It was felt that the holy place was in the greatest danger. We may learn from the conduct of the people, as described by one of themselves, what were the feelings generally of the cities threatened with destruction by the Assyrian armies. Jerusalem was at first "full of stirs and tumult;" the people rushed to the housetops to see if they were indeed invested, and beheld "the choicest valleys full of chariots, and the horsemen set in array at the gates."6 Then came "a day of trouble, and of treading down, and of perplexity "—a day of "breaking down the walls and of crying to the mountains." 7 Amidst this general alarm and mourning there were, however, found some whom a wild de- spair made reckless, and drove to a ghastly and ill-timed merri- ment. When God by His judgments gave an evident " call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth—behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine—' Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die.'"8 Hezekiah after a time came to the conclusion that resistance would be vain, and offered to surrender upon terms, an offer which Sennacherib, seeing the great strength of the place, and perhaps distressed for water,3 readily granted. It was agreed that Hezekiah should undertake the payment of an annual tribute, to consist of thirty talents of gold and three hundred talents of silver, and that he should further yield up the chief treasures of the place as a *' present" to the Great King. Hezekiah, in order to obtain at once a suf- ficient supply of gold, was forced to strip the walls and pillars that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." 5 Is. xxii. 9, 10. * lb. verses 1, 2. 7 lb. verse 5. * lb. verses 12, 13. * It appears that Hezekiah either now or on the second occasion, when Jerusalem was threatened by Senna- cherib, "stopped all the fountams which were without the city, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land," because the people said, "Why should the Assyrian come and find much water?" (2 Chron. xzii . 3, 4; compare Is. xxii. 9, 11.) From both passages I should infer that the blocking of the fountains took place on this, the first, occasion. On the general subject of the changes made at this time in the water supply, see Williams's Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 472-482. M 2 164 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. of the Temple, which were overlaid in parts with this precious metal.10 He yielded up all the silver from the royal treasury and from the treasury of the Temple; and this amounted to five hundred talents more than the fixed rate of tribute. In addition to these sacrifices, the Jewish monarch was required to surrender Padi, his Ekronite prisoner, and was mulcted in certain portions of his dominions, which were attached by the conqueror to the territories of neighbouring kings.11 Sennacherib, after this triumph, returned to Nineveh, but did not remain long in repose. The course of events summoned him in the ensuing year—B.C. 700—to Babylonia, where Merodach- Baladan, assisted by a certain Susub, a Chaldsean prince, was again in arms against his authority. Sennacherib first defeated Susub, and then, directing his march upon Beth-Yakin, forced Merodach-Baladan once more to quit the country and betake himself to one of the islands of the Persian Gulf, abandoning to Sennacherib's mercy his brothers and his other partisans.1 It would appear that the Babylonian viceroy Belibus, who three years previously had been set over the country by Sennacherib, was either actively implicated in this revolt, or was regarded as having contributed towards it by a neglect of proper pre- cautions. Sennacherib, on his return from the sea-coast, super- seded him, placing upon the throne his own eldest son, Assbur- inadi-su, who appears to be the Asordanes of Polyhistor,2 and the Aparanadius or Assaranadius8 of Ptolemy's Canon. The remaining events of Sennacherib's reign may be arranged in chronological order without much difficulty, but few of them can be dated with exactness. We lose at this point the invalu- able aid of Ptolemy's Canon, which contains no notice of any "2 Chron. iii. 4-8. 11 These were Mitinti king of Ash- dod, Padi king of Ekron, and TsilU- Bel king of Gaza. (Inscription> da Sargonidcs, p. 45 ; At. Soc. Journ. vol. xix. p. 148.) 1 As. Soc. Journ. vol. xix. pp. 149, 150 i Inscription* dcs Sargonides, p. 46. * Ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. Para 1™*, c. v. "Hoc (i.e. Elibo) tertium jam an- num regnaute, Senecheribus rex Assy- riorum copias adversum B.ibylonio8 contrahebat, pnclioque cum iia conserto, superior evadebat; captumque Elibum cum familiaribus ejus in Assyriam trans- ferri jubebat. Is igitur Babyloniorum potitus, filium suum Asordanem eis regem imponebat; ipse autem in Assy- riam reditum maturabat." * This change would easily take place by the two svjmas (ffir) being mistaken for a pi (t). Chap. IX. SennaCherib's seCond syrian expedition. 165 event recorded in Sennacherib's inscriptions of later date than the appointment of Assaranadius. It is probable4 that in the year B.C. 699 Sennacherib con- ducted his second expedition into Palestine. Hezekiah, after his enforced submission two years earlier, had entered into negotiations with the Egyptians,5 and looking to receive im- portant succours from this quarter, had again thrown off his allegiance. Sennacherib, understanding that the real enemy whom he had to fear on his south-western frontier was not Judsea, but Egypt, marched his army through Palestine—pro- bably by the coast route—and without stopping to chastise Jerusalem, pressed southwards to Libnah and Lachish,8 which were at the extreme verge of the Holy Land, and were pro- bably at this time subject to Egypt. He first commenced the siege of Lachish "with all his power;"7 and while engaged in this operation, finding that Hezekiah was not alarmed by his proximity, and did not send in his submission, he detached a body of troops8 from his main force, and sent it under a Tartan or general, supported by two high officers of the court—the Rabshakeh or Chief Cupbearer, and the Rab-saris or Chief Eunuch—to summon the rebellious city to surrender. Heze- kiah was willing to treat, and sent out to the Assyrian camp, which was pitched just outside the walls, three high officials of his own to open negotiations. But the Assyrian envoys had not come to debate or even to offer terms, but to require the unconditional submission of both king and people. The Rabshakeh or cupbearer, who was familiar with the Hebrew language,9 took the word and delivered his message in insulting * There is nothing in the Assyrian records to fix, or even to suggest, this date. It is required in consequence of the length of Hezekiah's reign. As Hezekiah is given only 29 years (2 Kings xviii. 2; 2 Chron. xxix. 1), if Sen- nacherib's first invasion was in his twenty-seventh year, the second must, at the latest, have fallen two years later, since that would be Hezekiah's twenty-ninth or last year. The ar- rangers of the dates in the margin of our Bibles made three years intervene between the first and second expedi- tions. * This is implied in the reproach of Rabshakeh (2 Kings xviii. 21; Is.xxxvi. 6). It Beams to be alluded to in Is. xxxi. 1-3, and stated positively in Is. xxx. 4. '2 Kings xix. 8. '2 Chron. xxxii. 9. '2 Kings xviii. 17; Is. xxxvi. 2. * It has been supposed from this fact that he was a renegade Jew (Prideaux, Milman). But there is no need of this supposition. Hebrew is so like Assyrian 166 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. phrase, laughing at the simplicity which could trust in Egypt, and the superstitious folly which could expect a divine deli- verance, and defying Hezekiah to produce so many as two thousand trained soldiers capable of serving as cavalry. When requested to use a foreign rather than the native dialect, lest the people who were upon the walls should hear, the bold envoy, with an entire disregard of diplomatic forms, raised his voice and made a direct appeal to the popular fears and hopes, thinking to produce a tumultuary surrender of the place, or at least an outbreak of which his troops might have taken advantage. His expectations, however, were disappointed; the people made no response to his appeal, but listened in profound silence; and the ambassadors, finding that they could obtain nothing from the fears of either king or people, and regarding the force that they had brought with them as insufficient for a siege, returned to their master with the intelligence of their ill-success.10 The Assyrian monarch had either taken Lachish or raised its siege, and was gone on to Libnah, where the envoys found him. On receiving their report, he determined to make still another effort to overcome Hezekiah's obstinacy; and accordingly he despatched fresh messengers with a letter to the Jewish king, in which he was reminded of the fate of various other kingdoms and peoples which had resisted the Assyrians, and once more urged to submit himself.11 It was this letter—perhaps a royal autograph—which Hezekiah took into the Temple and there " spread it before the Lord," praying God to " bow down his ear and hear "—to "open his eyes and see, and hear the words of Sennacherib, which had sent to reproach the living God." 1 2 Upon this Isaiah was commissioned to declare to his afflicted sovereign that the kings of Assyria were mere instruments in God's hands to destroy such nations as He pleased, and that none of Sennacherib's threats against Jerusalem should be accomplished. God, Isaiah told him, that an Assyrian would acquire it with Jewish officers should understand Ara- great facility. At any rate, it is not maic. (2 KingB xviii. 26.) more surprising that an Assyrian officer "2 Kings xix. 8. should know Hebrew than that three "Ibid. 9-13. l! Ibid. 14-16. Chap. IX. DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB'S ARMY. 167 would "put his hook in Sennacherib's nose, and his bridle in his lips, and turn him back by the way by which he came." The Lord had said, concerning the king of Assyria, " He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into this city. For I will defend this city, to save it, for my own sake, and for my servant David's sake."18 Meanwhile it is probable that Sennacherib, having received the submission of Libnah, had advanced upon Egypt. It was important to crush an Egyptian army which had been collected against him by a certain Sethos, one of the many native princes who at this time ruled in the Lower country,1 before the great Ethiopian monarch Tehrak or Tirhakah, who was known to be on his march,2 should effect a junction with the troops of this minor potentate. Sethos, with his army, was at Pelusium ;8 and Sennacherib, advancing to attack him, had arrived within sight of the Egyptian host, and pitched his camp over against the camp of the enemy, just at the time4 when Hezekiah received his letter and made the prayer to which Isaiah was instructed to respond. The two hosts lay down at night in their respective stations, the Egyptians and their king full of anxious alarm, Sennacherib and his Assyrians proudly con- fident, intending on the morrow to advance to the combat and ™ 2 Kings xix. 20-34. On the re- p. 1856, ad toc. zoa/j.) The fact of a ceipt of the message sent by Rabshakeh, 1 number of princes at this time dividing Isaiah had declared—"Thus saith the I Egypt is apparent both in Scripture (Is. Lord God, 'Be not afraid of the words xix. 2), and in the Assyrian inscrip- which thou hast heard, with which the ' tions. (Inscriptions dee Sargonides, p. servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the a.) 2 2 Kings xix. 9. The Apis stelso show that Tirhakah did not ascend the throne of Egypt till B.C. 690, eight years after this; but he may have been already sword in his own land.'" (Ibid. 6, 7.) —as he is called in Scripture—"king of 'Herod, ii. 141. According to some Ethiopia." writers, the Sethos of Herodotus is the * Herod, ii. 141. It is thought that Zet of Manetho, the last king of the twenty-third dynasty, who reigned at Tania (Zoan), while Bocchoris was reigning at Sais, and the Ethiopians in Upper Egypt. (Uincks in Athenmim, No. 1878, p. 534; Stuart Poole in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. iii. the main outline of the narrative in this writer is compatible with the account in the Book of Kings, and may be used to fill up its chasms. 'And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out," &c (2 Kings xix. 35.) THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. repeat the lesson taught at Raphia and Altaku.8 But no morrow was to break on the great mass of those who took their rest in the tents of the Assyrians. The divine fiat had gone forth. In the night, as they slept, destruction fell upon them. "The angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." A miracle, like the destruction of the first-born,6 had been wrought, but this time on the enemies of the Egyptians, who naturally ascribed their deliverance to the interposition of their own gods;7 and seeing the enemy in confusion and retreat, pressed hastily after him, distressed his flying columns, and cut off his stragglers.8 The Assyrian king returned home to Nineveh, shorn of his glory, with the shattered remains of his great host, and cast that proud capital into a state of despair and grief, which the genius of an JSschylus might have rejoiced to depict,9 but which no less powerful pen could adequately portray. It is difficult to say how soon Assyria recovered from this terrible blow. The annals of Sennacherib, as might have been expected, omit it altogether, and represent the Assyrian monarch as engaged in a continuous series of successful cam- paigns, which seem to extend uninterruptedly from his third to his tenth year.10 It is possible that while the Syrian expedi- tion was in progress under the eye of Sennacherib himself, a successful war was being conducted by one of his generals in the mountains of Armenia, and that Sennacherib was thus enabled, without absolutely falsifying history, to parade as his own certain victories gained by this leader in the very year ■ Supra, pp. 144 and 159. "I cannot accept the view that the Assyrian army was destroyed by the Simoom, owing to the foreign forces of Sennacherib being little acquainted with the means of avoiding this unusual enemy. (Milman, History of the Jews, vol. i. p. 307.) The Simoom would not have destroyed one army and left the other unhurt. Nor would it have re- mained for the survivors to find when they awoke in the morning that the camp contained 185,000 dead men. The nar- rative implies a secret, sudden taking away of life during sleep, by direct Divine interposition. 'Herod, ii. 141, ad fin. s Ibid. • See the Pertce, 893-1055. Sennacherib, however, does not speak of years, but of campaigns. (" In my first campaign," "In my second campaign," and the like.) M. Oppert translates more correctly than Mr. Fox Talbot. Chap. IX. EFFECTS OF THE DESTRUCTION. 169 of his own reverse. It is even conceivable that the power of Assyria was not so injured by the loss of a single great army, as to make it necessary for her to stop even for one year in the course of her aggressive warfare; and thus the expeditions of Sennacherib may form an uninterrupted series, the eight cam- paigns which are assigned to him occupying eight consecutive years. But on the other hand it is quite as probable that there are gaps in the history, some years having been omitted altogether. The Taylor Cylinder records but eight campaigns, yet it was certainly written as late as Sennacherib's fifteenth year.11 It contains no notice of any events in Sennacherib's first or second year; and it may consequently make other omissions covering equal or larger intervals. Thus the de- struction of the Assyrian army at Pelusium may have been followed by a pause of some years' duration in the usual aggres- sive expeditions; and it may very probably have encouraged the Babylonians in the attempt to shake off the Assyrian yoke, which they certainly made towards the middle of Sen- nacherib's reign. But while it appears to be probable that consequences of some importance followed on the Pelusiac calamity, it is tolerably certain that no such tremendous results flowed from it as some writers have imagined. The murder of the disgraced Sen- nacherib "within fifty-five days" of his return to Nineveh,12 seems to be an invention of the Alexandrian Jew who wrote the Book of Tobit. The total destruction of the empire in con- sequence of the blow, is an exaggeration of Josephus,1a rashly credited by some moderns.14 Sennacherib did not die till B.C. 681, seventeen years after his misfortune;18 and the Empire suffered so little that we find Esar-haddon, a few years later, in full possession of all the territory that any king before him 11 This is proved by the name of the Eponym. The date may be later, for the same person, or a person of the same name, was Eponym five years afterwards, in Sennacherib's twentieth year. '2 Tobit i. 21. u Ant. Jud. x. 2. 'Ev to6t tui> 'Kaovpiw dpxvr MtJSoir KaraXv rlvat. "As Clinton, Fasti HeUenici, vol. i. pp. 279, 280. 15 The expression in 2 Kings xix. 36, that "Sennacherib departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh," implies some considerable length of time, and shows the unhistorical character of Tobit THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. had ever held, ruling from Babylonia to Egypt, or (as he himself expresses it) "from the rising up of the sun to the going down of the same."18 Even Sennacherib himself was not prevented by his calamity from undertaking important wars during the latter part of his reign. We shall see shortly that he recovered Babylon, chastised Susiana, and invaded Cilicia, in the course of the seventeen years which intervened between his flight from Pelusium and his decease. Moreover, there is evidence that he employed himself during this part of his reign in the con- solidation of the Western provinces, which first appear about his twelfth year as integral portions of the Empire, furnishing eponyms in their turn,1 and thus taking equal rank with the ancient provinces of Assyria Proper, Adiabene", and Mesopotamia. The fifth campaign of Sennacherib, according to his own annals, was partly in a mountainous country which he calls Nipur or Nibur—probably the most northern portion of the Zagros range2 where it abuts on Ararat. He there took a number of small towns, after which he proceeded westward and contended with a certain Maniya, king of Dayan, which was a part of Taurus bordering on Cilicia.8 He boasts that he pene- trated further into this region than any king before him; and the boast is confirmed by the fact that the geographical names which appear are almost entirely new to us.4 The expedition was a plundering raid, not an attempt at conquest. Sennacherib ravaged the country, burnt the towns, and carried away with him all the valuables, the flocks and herds, and the inhabitants. "Assyrian Texts, p. 10. 1 In B.C. 694, Sennacherib's 12th year, the Prefect of Damascus is Eponym; in B.C. 692 the Prefect of Arpad; and in B.C. 691 the Prefect of Carchemish. None of these places had furnished eponyms previously. 2 This emplacement depends almost entirely on the name Nibur, which seems to be represented by the Mt. Nibarus (Ni'/3opos) of Strabo. This range lay east of Niphates, stretching as far as Media (iraparefrei M^XP* T^5f MiloYas, xi. p. 766). It seems rightlr regarded as the Ala Dayh, a range due north of Lake Van. 'Dayan is mentioned on the Tiglath- Pileser cylinder among the countries of the Nai'ri (Inscription, p. 46.) A bull-inscription of Sennacherib shows that it lay to the extreme west of their country, where it abutted on Cilicia and the country of the Tibarcni (Tubal). 4 Duyan is not new; but Uizn, its capital, and its strongholds, Anara and Uppa, are new names. Mr. Fox Talbot conjectures that Anara is "the cele- brated Aornus, besieged many ages afterwards by Alexander the Great." (^4t. Soc. Journ. vol. xix. p. 153.) But Aornus was in Bactria, far beyond the utmost limit to which the Assyrian arms ever penetrated eastward. Chap. IX. SennaCherib's war with susiana. 171 After this it appears that for at least three years he was engaged in a fierce struggle with the combined Babylonians and Susianians. The troubles recommenced by an attempt of the Chaldseans of Beth-Yakin to withdraw themselves from the Assyrian territory, and to transfer their allegiance to the Ely- rnsean king. Carrying with them their gods and their treasures, they embarked in their ships, and crossing " the Great Sea of the Rising Sun "—i.e. the Persian Gulf—landed on the Elamitic coast, where they were kindly received and allowed to take up their abode. Such voluntary removals are not uncommon in the East;8 and they constantly give rise to complaints and reclamations, which not unfrequently terminate in an appeal to the arbitrament of the sword. Sennacherib does not inform us whether he made any attempt to recover his lost subjects by diplomatic representations at the court of Susa. If he did, they were unsuccessful; and in order to obtain redress, he was com- pelled to resort to force, and to undertake an expedition into the Elamitic territory. It is remarkable that he determined to make his invasion by sea. Their frequent wars on the Syrian coasts had by this time familiarised the Assyrians with the idea, if not with the practice, of navigation; and as their suzerainty over Phoenicia placed at their disposal a large body of skilled shipwrights, and a number of the best sailors in the world, it was natural that they should resolve to employ naval as well as military force to advance their dominion. We have seen that, as early as the time of Shalmaneser, the Assyrians ventured themselves in ships, and, in conjunction with the Phoenicians of the mainland, engaged the vessels of the Island Tyre.8 It is probable that the precedent thus set was followed by later kings, and that both Sargon and Sennacherib had had the permanent or occasional, services of a fleet on the Mediterranean. But there was a wide difference between such an employment of the navies belonging to their subjects on the sea to which they were accustomed, and the transfer to the opposite extremity of * Compare the removal of the Scyths from Media to Lydia in the reign of Cyaxares, which is said to have pro- duced the Lydian war of that king (Herod, i. 73, 74), and the instances collected by Mr. Grote (History of Greece, vol. ii. p. 417, note ', 2nd edition). 'Supra, p. 137. 172 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. the empire of the naval strength hitherto confined to the Medi- terranean. This thought—certainly not an obvious one—seems to have first occurred to Sennacherib. He conceived the idea of having a navy on both the seas that washed his dominions; and, possessing on his western coast only an adequate supply of skilled shipwrights and sailors,7 he resolved on transporting from his western to his eastern shores such a body of Phoenicians as would enable him to accomplish his purpose. The shipwrights of Tyre and Sidon were earned across Mesopotamia to the Tigris, where they constructed for the Assyrian monarch a fleet of ships like their own galleys,8 which descended the river to its mouth, and astonished the populations bordering on the Persian Gulf with a spectacle never before seen in those waters. Though the Chaldseans had for centuries navigated this inland sea, and may have occasionally ventured beyond its limits, yet neither as sailors nor as ship-builders was their skill to compare with that of the Phoenicians. The masts and sails, the double tiers of oars, the sharp beaks of the Phoenician ships, were (it is probable) novelties to the nations of these parts, who saw now, for the first time, a fleet debouche from the Tigris, with which their own vessels were quite incapable of contending. When his fleet was ready Sennacherib put to sea, and crossed in his Phoenician ships from the mouth of the Tigris to the tract occupied by the emigrant Chaldseans, where he landed and destroyed the newly-built city, captured the inhabitants, ravaged the neighbourhood, and burnt a number of Susianian towns, finally re-embarking with his captives—Chaldsean and Susianian—whom he transported across the gulf to the Chal- dsean coast, and then took with him into Assyria. This whole expedition seems to have taken the Susianians by surprise. They had probably expected an invasion by land, and had collected their forces towards the north-western frontier, so 'The Chaldseans, whose " cry was in the ships" (Is. xliii. 14), no doubt pos- sessed a mercantile marine which had long been accustomed to the navigation of the Persian Gulf. (See above, vol. i. pp. 26 and 101.) But the; probably fell very far short of the Phoenicians both as respected their vessels and their aautical skill. "Sennacherib calls them "Syrian vessels." Most probably they were biremes. Chap. IX BEVOLT OF THE BABYLONIANS. 173 that when the troops of Sennacherib landed fax in their rear, there were no forces in the neighbourhood to resist them. However, the departure of the Assyrians on an expedition regarded as extremely perilous, was the signal for a general revolt of the Babylonians, who once more set up a native king in the person of Susub,9 and collected an army with which they made ready to give the Assyrians battle on their return. Perhaps they cherished the hope that the fleet which had tempted' the dangers of an unknown sea would be seen no more, or expected that, at the best, it would bring back the shattered remnants of a defeated army. If so, they were disappointed. The Assyrian troops landed on their coast flushed witn success, and finding the Babylonians in revolt, proceeded to chastise them; defeated their forces in a great battle; captured their king, Susub; and when the Susianians came, somewhat tardily, to their succour, attacked and routed their army. A vast number of prisoners, and among them Susub himself, were carried off by the victors and conveyed to Nineveh.10 Shortly after this successful campaign, possibly in the very next year, Sennacherib resolved to break the power of Susiana by a great expedition directed solely against that country. The Susianians had, as already related,11 been strong enough in the reign of Sargon to deprive Assyria of a portion of her territory; and Kudur-Nakhunta,1 the Elymsean king, still held two cities, Beth-Kahiri and Raza, which were regarded by Sennacherib as a part of his paternal inheritance. The first ob- ject of the war was the recovery of these two towns, which were taken without any difficulty and reattached to the Assyrian Empire.2 Sennacherib then pressed on into the heart of Susiana, taking and destroying thirty-four large cities, whose names he mentions, together with a still greater number of villages, all of which he gave to the flames. Wasting and destroying in this way he drew near to Vadakat or Badaca,8 the second city • See above, p. 164. Sargon (supra, p. 151). Bricks of Ku- "Inscriptions da Sargonida, pp. 47, dur-Nakhunta, brought from Susa, are 48 ; Journal of the Asiatit Society, vol. in the Assyrian Collection of the British six. pp. 154-156. 11 Supra, p. 152. Museum. 1 Kudur-Nakhunta was the son of 2 Inscriptions da Sargonides, p. 48. Sutruk-Nakhuuta^ tie antagonist of 'Badaca is placed by Diodorus on 174 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. of the kingdom, where Kudur-Nakhunta had for the time fixed his residence. The Elamitic king, hearing of his rapid approach, took fright, and, hastily quitting Badaca, fled away to a city called Khidala, at the foot of the mountains, where alone he could feel himself in safety. Sennacherib then advanced to Badaca, besieged it, and took it by assault; after which affairs seem to have required his presence at Nineveh, and, leaving his conquest incomplete, he returned home with a large booty. A third campaign in these parts, the most important of all, followed. Susub, the Chaldsean prince whom Sennacherib had carried off to Assyria, in the year of his naval expedition4 escaped from his confinement, and, returning to Babylon, was once more hailed as king by the inhabitants. Aware of his inability to maintain himself on the throne against the will of the Assyrians, unless he were assisted by the arms of a powerful ally, he resolved to obtain, if possible, the immediate aid of the neighbouring Elamitic monarch. Kudur-Nakhunta, the late antagonist of Sennacherib, was dead, having survived his dis- graceful flight from Badaca only three months;6 and Umman- minan, his younger brother, held the throne. Susub, bent on contracting an alliance with this prince, did not scruple at an act of sacrilege to obtain his end. He broke open the treasury of the great temple of Bel at Babylon, and seizing the^gold and silver belonging to the god, sent it as a present to Umman- minan, with an urgent entreaty that he would instantly collect his troops and march to his aid.6 The Elamitic monarch, yielding to a request thus powerfully backed, and perhaps suf- ficiently wise to see that the interests of Susiana required an independent Babylon, set his troops in motion without any delay, and advanced to the banks of the Tigris. At the same time a number of the Aramsean tribes on the middle Euphrates, which Sennacherib had reduced in his third year,7 revolted, and the Eulseus, between Susa and Ecbatana (xix. 19). It seems to have been situated at the point where the Kerkhah ori- ginally bifurcated, sending down an eastern arm which fell into the Kuran at Ahwaz. (See Loftus, Chaldcea and Susiana, p. 424.) 4 See above, p. 173. * So Mr. Fox Talbot understands the passage (As. Soc. Journ. vol. /rix. p, 159). It is thought, however, by some t j mean that the whole reign of Kudur- Nakhunta lasted only three months. 'Compare the conduct of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 8). 7 Supra, p. 157. The principal of these tribes were the Pukudu (Feknn) Chap. IX. DEFEAT OF SUSUB. 175 ■ent their forces to swell the army of Susub. A great battle .was fought at Khaluli, a town on the lower Tigris, between the troops of Sennacherib and this allied host; the combat was long and bloody, but at last the Assyrians conquered. Susub and his Elamitic ally took to flight and made their escape. Nebosum- iskun, a son of Merodach-Baladan, and many other chiefs of high rank, were captured. The army was completely routed and broken up.8 Babylon submitted, and was severely punished; the fortifications were destroyed, the temples plundered and burnt, and the images of the gods broken to pieces. Perhaps the rebel city now received for viceroy Regibelus or Mesesi- mordachus, whom the Canon of Ptolemy, which is silent about Susub, makes contemporary with the middle portion of Senna- cherib's reign.9 The only other expedition which can be assigned, on important evidence, to the reign of Sennacherib, is one against Cilicia, in which he is said to have been opposed by Greeks.10 According to Abydenus, a Greek fleet guarded the Cilician shore, which the vessels of Sennacherib engaged and defeated. Polyhistor seems to say that the Greeks also suffered a defeat by land in Cilicia itself, after which Sennacherib took possession of the country, and built Tarsus there on the model of Babylon.1 The the Gambulu, the Khindaru, the Ruhua, and the Damunu. * Inscriptions des Sargonides, pp. 49- 51 ; Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xix. pp. 159-165. * Regibelus ascends the throne in B.C. 693, and Mesesimordadms in the fol- lowing year. These are the 13th and 14th years of Sennacherib. The omission of Susub from the Canon may be ac- counted for by the probable fact that neither of his two reigns lasted for a full year. That he was actual king is proved by a "contract" tablet in the British Museum dated in his reign. "Polyhist. ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. Pars l™*, c. v. :—" Is igitur (i.e. Sena- cheribus) Babyloniorum potitus, filium suum Asordanem eis regem imponehat, ipse autem in Assyriam reditum matu- rabat. Moz quum ad ejus aures rumor esset perlatus, Gnecos in Ciliciam coactis oopiu bellum transtulisse, eos protinus aggressus est, proelioque inito, multis suorum amissis, hostes nihilominus pro- fligavit: suamque imaginem, ut esset victorise monumentum, eo loco crectam reliquit ; cui Chaklaicis littery res a se gestas insculpi mandavit ad memoriam temporumsempitemam. Tarsum quoque urbem ab eo structam ait ad Babylonia exemplar, eidemque nomen inditum Tharsin." Abyden. ap. eund. c. rx.:— "His temporibus quintus denique et vigesimus rex fuit Senacheribus, qui Babylonem sibi subdidit, et in Cilicii maris litore classem Grsecorum profli- gatum disjecit. Hie etiam templum Atheniensium (1) struxit. vErea quoque signa facienda curavit, in quibus sua facinora traditur inscripsisse. Tarsum denique ea forma, qua Babylon utitur, condidit, ita ut media Tarso Cydnus amnis transiret, prorsus ut Babylonem dividit Arazanes." 1 It is not certain that this means 176 Chap. IS. THE SECOND MONARCHY. prominence here given to Greeks by Greek writers is undoubt- edly remarkable, and it throws a certain amount of suspicion over the whole story. Still, as the Greek element in Cyprus was certainly important at this time,2 and as the occupation of Cilicia by the Assyrians may have appeared to the Cyprian Greeks to endanger their independence, it is conceivable that they lent some assistance to the natives of the country, who were a hardy race, fond of freedom, and never very easily brought into subjection.8 The admission of a double defeat makes it evident that the tale is not the invention of Greek national vanity. Abydenus and Polyhistor probably derive it from Berosus, who must also have made the statement that Tarsus was now founded by Sennacherib, and constructed after the pattern of Babylon. The occupation of newly conquered countries, by the establishment in them of large cities in which foreign colonists were placed by the conquerors, was a practice commenced by Sargon,4 which his son is not unlikely to have followed. Tarsus was always regarded by the Greeks as an Assyrian town f and although they gave different accounts of the time of its foundation, their disagreement in this respect does not invalidate their evidence as to the main fact itself, which is intrinsically probable. The evidence of Polyhistor and Abydenus as to the date of the foundation, representing, as it must, the testimony of Berosus upon the point, is to be preferred; and we may accept it as a fact, beyond all reason- able doubt, that the native city of St. Paul derived, if not its origin, yet, at any rate, its later splendour and magnificence, from the antagonist of Hezekiah.8 more than the emplacement of the town on both sides of the Cydnus, so that the stream ran through it. (See the parallel passage in Abydenus.) 2 Sec below, p. 200, note *. 'Cilicia remained independent at the time of the formation of the Lydian Empire (Herod, i. 28). It had its own kings, and enjoyed a certain amount of independence under the Persians (ibid, vii. 98; ^schyl. Pert. 328-330; Xen. Anab. i. 2, § 25). 'See above, p. 151. 'The Greeks generally ascribed the foundation of Tarsus to Sardanapalus, the best known of the Assyrian monarchs. (See Hellan. Fr. 158; Apollodor. Fr. 69; Strab. xiv. p. 968; Arrian. Exp. Alex. ii 5; Athemeus, Dcipn. xii 7; Eustath. ad Dionys. Per. 873.) * If the Tarshish of Gen. z. 4, which is joined with Kittim (Cyprus), Ro- danim (Rhodes), and Elishah (^Eolis, Elis) is allowed to be Tarsus (Joseph. Ant. Jud. i. 6), the original foundation of the city must have preceded the time of Sennacherib. Chap. IX. RENEWED DEFECTION OF BABYLON. 177 That this Cilician war occurred late in the reign of Senna- cherib, appears to follow from the absence of any account of it from his general annals.7 These, it is probable, extend no fur- ther than his sixteenth year, B.C. 689, thus leaving blank his last eight years, from B.C. 689 to 681. The defeat of the Greeks, the occupation of Cilicia, and the founding of Tarsus, may well have fallen into this interval. To the same time may have belonged Sennacherib's conquest of Edom.8 There is reason to suspect that these successes of Sennacherib on the western limits of his empire were more than counter- balanced by a contemporaneous loss at the extreme south-east. The Canon of Ptolemy marks the year B.C. 688 as the first of an interregnum at Babylon which continues from that date till the accession of Esar-haddon in B.C. 680. Interregna in this docu- ment—errj a^aerivra, as they are termed—indicate periods of extreme disturbance, when pretender succeeded to pretender, or when the country was split up into a number of petty king- doms. The Assyrian yoke, in either case, must have been re- jected; and Babylonia must have succeeded at this time in maintaining, for the space of eight years, a separate and inde- pendent existence, albeit troubled and precarious. The fact that she continued free so long, while she again succumbed at the very commencement of the reign of Esar-haddon, may lead us to suspect that she owed this spell of liberty to the in- creasing years of the Assyrian monarch, who, as the infirmities of age crept upon him, felt a disinclination towards distant expeditions. The military glory of Sennacherib was thus in some degree tarnished; first, by the terrible disaster which befell his host on the borders of Egypt; and, secondly, by his failure to maintain the authority which, in the earlier part of his reign, he had established over Babylon. Still, notwithstanding these mis- 7 In the epitome of Sennacherib's pedition—ab. B.C. 695. If therefore the wars inscribed upon the Koyunjik bulla, war to which it alludes is the same there is a statement that he "tri- as that mentioned by the Greeks, the umphantly subdued the men of Cilicia date in the test must be modified. epitome date VOL. IL 'Infra, p. 189. i;8 Chap. IX THE SECOND MONARCHY. fortunes, he must be pronounced one of the most successful of Assyria's warrior kings, and altogether one of the greatest princes that ever sat on the Assyrian throne. His victories of Eltekeh and Khaluli seem to have been among the most im- portant battles that Assyria ever gained. By the one Egypt and Ethiopia, by the other Susiana and Babylon, were taught that, even united, they were no match for the Assyrian hosts. Sennacherib thus wholesomely impressed his most formidable enemies with the dread of his arms, while at the same time he enlarged, in various directions, the limits of his dominions. He warred in regions to which no earlier Assyrian monarch had ever penetrated; and he adopted modes of warfare on which none of them had previously ventured. His defeat of a Greek fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean, and his employment of Phoenicians in the Persian Gulf, show an enterprise and versa- tility which we observe in few Orientals. His selection of Tarsus for the site of a great city indicates a keen appreciation of the merits of a locality.9 If he was proud, haughty, and self- confident, beyond all former Assyrian kings,10 it would seem to have been because he felt that he had resources within himself —that he possessed a firm will, a bold heart, and a fertile in- vention. Most men would have laid aside the sword and given themselves wholly to peaceful pursuits, after such a disaster as that of Pelusium. Sennacherib accepted the judgment as a warning to attempt no further conquests in those parts, but did not allow the calamity to reduce him to inaction. He wisely turned his sword against other enemies, and was rewarded by important successes upon all his other frontiers. But if, as a warrior, Sennacherib deserves to be placed in the foremost rank of the Assyrian kings, as a builder and a patron • On the importance of Tarsus in Greek and Roman times, see Xen. Anab. i . 2, § 23; Cffis. Bell. AUx. 66; Strab. xiv. p. 960; Dionys. Perieg. L 869; Solin. 41, &c. Tertoot is still a city with a population of 30,000. 10 Isaiah x. 12-14; 2 Kings xix. 23- 28. Sennacherib calls himself in his inscriptions, "the great king, the power- ful king, the king of nations, the king of Assyria, the king of the four regions, the diligent ruler, the favourite of the great gods, the observer of sworn faith, the guardian of the law, the embellisher of public buildings, the noble hero, the strong warrior, the first of kings, the punisher of unbelievers, the destroyer of wicked men." (Imcriptiom da Sat- gonida, p. 41 ; compare At. Soc . /own. vol. xix. p. 135.) Chap. IX. SENNACHERIB'S PALACE AT NINEVEH. 179 of art he. is still more eminent. The great palace which he raised at Nineveh surpassed in size and splendour all earlier edifices, and was never excelled in any respect except by one later building. The palace of Asshur-bani-pal, built on the same platform by the grandson of Sennacherib, was, it must be allowed, more exquisite in its ornamentation; but even this edifice did not equal the great work of Sennacherib in the number of its apartments, or the grandeur of its dimensions. Sennacherib's palace covered an area of above eight acres. It consisted of a number of grand halls and smaller chambers, arranged round at least three courts or quadrangles. These courts were respectively 154 feet by 125, 124 feet by 90, and probably a square of about 90 feet.1 Round the smallest of the courts were grouped apartments of no great size, which, it may be suspected, belonged to the seraglio of the king. The seraglio seems to have been reached through a single narrow passage,2 leading out of a long gallery—218 feet by 258—which was approached only through two other passages, one leading from each of the two main courts. The principal halls were imme- diately within the two chief entrances—one on the north-east, the other on the opposite or south-west front of the palace. Neither of these two rooms has been completely explored; but the one appears to have been more than 150 and the other4 was probably 180 feet in length, while the width of each was a little more than 40 feet. Besides these two great halls and the grand gallery already described, the palace contained about twenty rooms of a considerable size, and at least forty or fifty smaller chambers, mostly square, or nearly so, opening out of some hall or large apartment. The actual number of the rooms explored is about sixty ;8 but as in many parts the exami- 1 This third or I/arum Court was very partially explored. The one side uncovered measured ninety-three feet. Mr. Layard in his restoration (Ninerel i and Babylon, PIan 1, opp. p. 67) makes the width of the court eighty-four feet, hut it may easily have been ninety feet or even more. 'It is not quite certain that this passage led to the apartments in ques- tion, as it was not explored to the end; but its apparent object was to conduct to the north-west group of chambers. 'Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 103. 4 This hall was traced to a distance of 160 feet. Assuming that it had the same sort of correspondence and regu- larity as the halls at Khorsabad, its entire length must have been 180 feet. * Mr. Layard counts seventy-0D» n2 i8o Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONAECHY. nation of the building is still incomplete, we may fairly conjec- ture that the entire number was not less than seventy or eighty. The palace of Sennacherib preserved all the main features of Assyrian architecture. It was elevated on a platform, eighty or ninety feet above the plain, artificially constructed, and covered with a pavement of bricks. It had probably three grand facades—one on the north-east, where it was ordinarily ap- proached from the town,6 and the two others on the south-east and the south-west, where it was carried nearly to the edge of the platform, and overhung the two streams of the Khosr-su and the Tigris. Its principal apartment was that which was first entered by the visitor. All the walls ran in straight lines, and all the angles of the rooms and passages were right angles. There were more passages in the building than usual;7 but still the apartments very frequently opened into one another; and almost one-half of the rooms were passage-rooms. The doorways were mostly placed without any regard to regularity, seldom opposite one another, and generally towards the corners of the apartments. There was the curious feature, so common in Assyrian edifices, of a room being entered from a court, or from another room, by two or three doorways,8 which is best explaiaed by supposing that the rank of the person determined the door by which he might enter. Squared recesses in the sides of the rooms were common. The thickness of the walls was great. The apartments, though wider than in other palaces, were still narrow for their length, never much exceeding forty feet; while the courts were much better proportioned. It was in the size and the number of his rooms, in his use of passages, and in certain features of his ornamentation, that Sen- nacherib chiefly differed from former builders. He increased the width of the principal state apartments by one-third, which seems to imply the employment of some new mode or material chambers; but he includes in this esti- mate the three courts, the long gallery, four passages, and four rooms which were imagined rather than proved to exist. • Two great ravines on this side probably mark the position of nights of steps, or inclined ways, which led up to the platform from the lower level of the city. 7 On the rare use of passages by the Assyrians, see above, vol. i. p. 285. • So at Khorsabad (vol. i. p. 281) and at Nimrud (supra, p. 92), Chap. XX. SENNACHERIB'S PALACE AT NINEVEH. l8l for roofing.' In their length he made less alteration, only- advancing from 150 to 180 feet, evidently because he aimed, not merely at increasing the size of his rooms, but at improving their proportions. In one instance alone—that of a gallery or passage-room, leading (apparently) from the more public part of the palace to the Iiareem or private apartments—did he exceed this length, uniting the two portions of the palace by a noble corridor, 218 feet long by 25 feet wide. Into this corridor he brought passages from the two public courts, which he also united together by a third passage, thus greatly facili- tating communication between the various blocks of building which composed his vast palatial edifice. The most striking characteristic of Sennacherib's ornamenta- tion is its strong and marked realism. It was under Senna- cherib that the practice first obtained of completing each scene by a background,10 such as actually existed at the time and place of its occurrence. Mountains, rocks, trees, roads, rivers, lakes, were regularly portrayed, an attempt being made to represent the locality, whatever it might be, as truthfully as the artist's skill and the character of his material rendered pos- sible. Nor was this endeavour limited to the broad and general features of the scene only. The wish evidently was to include all the little accessories which the observant eye of an artist might have noted if he had made his drawing with the scene l>efore him. The species of trees is distinguished in Senna- cherib's bas-reliefs; gardens, fields, ponds, reeds, are carefully represented; wild animals are introduced, as stags, boars, and antelopes; birds fly from tree to tree, or stand over their nests feeding the young who stretch up to them; fish disport themselves in the waters; fishermen ply their craft; boatmen and agricultural labourers pursue their avocations; the scene • Sennacherib used foreign timber in his palace to a large extent, cutting it in Lebanon and Aiuanus. Perhaps, by choosing the tallest trees, he was able to span with single beams the wide space of forty-one or forty-two feet (See vol. i. p. 307.) "Backgrounds occur but very rarely in the reliefs of Asshur-izir-pal (Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pis. 15, 16, and 33). They are employed more largely by Sargon (Botta, Monument, Pis. 31 to 35, and 108 to 114); but even then they continue the exception. With Senna- cherib they become the rule, and at the same time they increase greatly in elaboration. 182 Chap. IX THE SECOND MONARCHY. is, as it were, photographed, with all its features—the least and the most important—equally marked, and without any attempt at selection, or any effort after artistic unity. In the same spirit of realism Sennacherib chooses for artistic representation scenes of a commonplace and every-day cha- racter. The trains of attendants who daily enter his palace with game and locusts for his dinner, and cakes and fruit for his dessert, appear on the walls of his passages,1 exactly as they walked through his courts, bearing the delicacies in which he delighted. Elsewhere he puts before us the entire process of carving and transporting a colossal bull, from the first removal of the huge stone in its rough state from the quarry, to its final elevation on a palace mound as part of the great gateway of a royal residence. We see the trackers dragging the rough block, supported on a low flat-bottomed boat, along the course of a river, disposed in gangs, and working under taskmasters who use their rods upon the slightest provocation. The whole scene must be represented, and so the trackers are all there, to the number of three hundred, costumed according to their nations, and each delineated with as much care as if he were not the exact image of ninety-nine others. We then observe the block transferred to land, and carved into the rough semblance of a bull, in which form it is placed on a rude sledge and conveyed along level ground by gangs of labourers, arranged nearly as before, to the foot of the mound at whose top it has to be placed. The con- struction of the mound is most elaborately represented. Brick- makers are seen moulding the bricks at its base, while workmen, with baskets at their backs, full of earth, bricks, stones, or rub- bish, toil up the ascent—for the mound is already half raised— and empty their burdens out upon the summit. The bull, still lying on its sledge, is then drawn up an inclined plane to the top by four gangs of labourers, in the presence of the monarch and his attendants. After this the carving is completed, and the colossus, having been raised into an upright position, is conveyed along the surface of the platform to the exact site which it is to 1 For a representation see Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pis. 8 and 9; com- pare Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 338-340. Chap. IX. HIS EMPLOYMENT OF FORCED LABOUR. 183 occupy.2 This portion of the operation has been represented in one of the woodcuts contained in the first volume.8 From the representation there given the reader may form a notion of the minuteness and elaboration of this entire series of bas-reliefs. Besides constructing this new palace at Nineveh, Sennacherib seems also to have restored the ancient residence of the kings at the same place,4 a building which will probably be found when- ever the mound of Nebbi-Yunus is submitted to careful exami- nation. He confined the Tigris to its channel by an embankment of bricks.8 He constructed a number of canals or aqueducts for the purpose of bringing good water to the capital.6 He improved the defences of Nineveh, erecting towers of a vast size at some of the gates.7 And, finally, he built a temple to the god Nergal at Tarbisi (now Sherif Khan), about three miles from Nineveh, up the Tigris. In the construction of these great works he made use, chiefly, of the forced labour with which his triumphant expeditions into foreign countries had so abundantly supplied him. Chaldseans, Aramseans, Armenians, Cilicians,8 and probably also Egyptians, Ethiopians, Elamites, and Jews, were employed by thousands in the formation of the vast mounds, in the transport and elevation of the colossal bulls, in the moulding of the bricks, and the erec- tion of the walls of the various edifices, in the excavation of the canals, and the construction of the embankments. They wrought in gangs, each gang having a costume peculiar to it,9 which probably marked its nation. Over each was placed a number of taskmasters, armed with staves, who urged on the work with blows,10 and severely punished any neglect or remissness. ! Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pis. 10 to 17. • Supra, vol. i. p. 402. 4 Assyrian Text*, p. 7; As. Soc. Journ. vol. six. p. 166. * Ass'rrian Texts, L s. c. • Ibid. p. 8. * The great gate of Nineveh, de- scribed in the first volume of this work (p. 258), was composed of bricks marked with Sennacherib's name (Layard, Nine- rth and Babylon, p. 123). Another similar gateway in the eastern wall (ibid.) was probably his; and his bricks have also been found along the curtain of the east side of the city. "On the Bellino Cylinder Sennacherib tells us that he employed these four races, together with the Quhu (Coans), on his great works. (Assyrian Texts, pp. 6, 7.) From a bull-inscription we learn that the number of Aramseans carried off as slaves in one raid was 208,000. (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 141.) • Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pis. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16. "The same practice prevailed in 184 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Assyrian foremen had the general direction of the works, and were entrusted with all such portions as required skill or judg- ment.11 The forced labourers often worked in fetters, which were sometimes supported by a bar fastened to the waist, while sometimes they consisted merely of shackles round the ankles. The king himself often witnessed the labours, standing in his chariot, which on these occasions was drawn by some of his attendants.12 The Assyrian monuments throw but little light on the circum- stances which led to the assassination of Sennacherib; and we are reduced to conjecture the causes of so strange an event. Our various sources of information make it clear that he had a large family of sons. The eldest of them, Asshur-inadi-su, had been entrusted by Sennacherib with the government of Baby Ion,18 and might reasonably have expected to succeed him on the throne of Assyria; but it is probable that he died before his father, either by a natural death, or by violence, during one of the many Babylonian revolts. It may be suspected that Senna- cherib had a second son, of whose name Nergal was the first element;1 and it is certain that he had three others, Adram- melech (or Ardumuzanes),2 Sharezer, and Esar-haddon. Perhaps, upon the death of Asshur-inadi-su, disputes arose about the succession. Adrammelech and Sharezer, anxious to obtain the throne ior themselves, plotted against the life of their father, and having slain him in a temple as he was worshipping,8 pro- ceeded further to remove their brother Nergilus, who claimed the crown and wore it for a brief space after Sennacherib's death.4 Having murdered him, they expected to obtain the Persia (Herod, vii. 22); and there must be something akin to it wherever forced labour is used. "See vol. i. p. 587. ls Lavard, Monument*, 2nd Series, Pis. 12 and 15. "Supra, p. 164. 1 Abydenus, who alone mentions this Nergilus, omits to state his relationship to Sennacherib. He makes him the father of Adrammelech and Esar-haddon (Axerdis), which is certainly incorrect. In the text I have followed probability. 2 The Adrammelech of Scripture (2 Kings xix. 37; Is. xxxvii. 38) is men- tioned as Adrameles by Abydenus (Euseb. Chron. Can. Pars lma, c. ix.), and as Adrainelus by Moses of ChorOne" (Hist. Armcn. i. 22). This latter writer calls him also Argamozanus (ibid.), while Polyhistor gives his name as Ar- dumuzanes (ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. Pars l™, c . v. § 1). * 2 Kings, l. s. c. 4 See Abydenus, L s. c . "Proximus huic (i.e. Senacheribo) regnavit Ner- gilus, quern Adrameles hlius (!) occidit." Chap. IX. SENNACHERIB MURDERED. .18S throne without further difficulty; but Esar-haddon, who at the time commanded the army which watched the Armenian fron- tier, now came forward, assumed the title of King, and prepared to march upon Nineveh. It was winter, and the inclemency of the weather precluded immediate movement. For some months probably the two assassins were recognised as monarchs at the capital, while the northern army regarded Esar-haddon as the rightful successor of his father. Thus died the great Senna- cherib, a victim to the ambition of his sons. It was a sad end to a reign which, on the whole, had been so glorious; and it was a sign that the empire was now verging on that decline which sooner or later overtakes all kingdoms, and indeed all things sublunary. Against plots from without, arising from the ambition of subjects who see, or think they see, at any particular juncture, an apportunity of seizing the great prize of supreme dominion, it is impossible, even in the most vigorous empire, to provide any complete security. But during the period of vigour, harmony exists within the palace, and con- fidence in each other inspires and unites all the members of the royal house. When discord has once entered inside the gates, when the family no longer holds together, when suspicion and jealousy have replaced the trust and affection of a happier time, the empire has passed into the declining stage, and has already begun the descent which conducts, by quick or slow degrees, to destruction. The murder of Sennacherib, if it was, as perhaps it was, a judgment on the individual/ was, at least equally, a judgment on the nation. When, in an absolute monarchy, the palace becomes the scene of the worst crimes, the doom of the kingdom is sealed—it totters to its fall—and requires but a touch from without to collapse into a heap of ruins. Esar-haddon, the son and successor of Sennacherib, is proved by the Assyrian Canon to have ascended the throne of Assyria in B.C. G81—the year immediately previous to that which tbe Canon of Ptolemy makes his first year in Babylon,6 viz., B.C. 680. * See 2 Kings xix. 7 and 37. 'A king was not entered on the Babylonian list until the Thoth which followed his accession. Thoth fell at this time in February. Hence the Baby- lonian dates are in almost every case one year later than the Assyrian. THE SECOKD MONARCHY. Chap. IX. He was succeeded by his son Asshur-bani-pal, or Sardanapalus, in B.C. 668, and thus held the crown no more than thirteen years. Esar-haddon's inscriptions show that he was engaged for some time after his accession in a war with his half-brothers, who, at the head of a large body of troops, disputed his right to the crown.7 Esar-haddon marched from the Armenian frontier, where (as already observed) he was stationed at the time of his father's death, against this army, defeated it in the country of Khanirabbat (north-west of Nineveh), and, proceeding to the capital, was universally acknowledged king. According to Abydenus, Adrammelech fell in the battle ;8 but better autho- rities state that both he and his brother, Sharezer, escaped into Armenia,9 where they were kindly treated by the reigning monarch, who gave them lands, which long continued in the possession of their posterity.10 The chief record which we possess of Esar-haddon is a cylinder inscription, existing in duplicate,11 which describes about nine campaigns, and may probably have been composed in or about his tenth year. A memorial which he set up at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb, and a cylinder of his son's, add some important information with respect to the latter part of his reign.12 One or two notices in the Old Testament connect him with the history of the Jews.18 And Abydenus, besides the passage already quoted, has an allusion to some of his foreign conquests.14 Such are the chief materials from which the modern inquirer has to reconstruct the history of this great king.15 * See Mr. G. Smith's article in the North Brithh Review for July, 1870, pp. 324, 325. The war in question is also mentioned by Abydenus, L s. c. "Huno (i.e. Adramelem) frater suus Axerdis interfecit, patre eodem alia tamen matre genitus, atque Byzantium (?) usque ejus excrcitum persecutes eat quem antea mercede conduxerat auxiliarem." 'See the preceding note. • 2 Kings xix. 37. Mos. Chor. L s. c. "Eum vero (''. e. Senecharimum) filii ejus Adrammelus et Sanasarus ubi in- terfecerunt, ad nos confugere." ,0 Mos. Chor. L s. o. 11 British Museum Series, Pis. 45 to 47. Both copies of the cylinder are im- perfect; but together they supply a very tolerable text. M. Oppert has translated the second in his Inscriptions des Sar- gunides, pp. 53-60. 12 See Sir H. Kawlinson's Illustrations of Egyptian History and Chronology from the Cuneiform Inscriptions, p. 23. "2 Chron. rxxiii. 11; Ezra iv. 2. 14 Abyden. ap. Euseb. L s. c. "jEgyp- tum prseterea partesque interiores Syria) acquirebat Axerdis." 15 There is a second cylinder inscrip- tion belonging to the reign of Esar- » Chat. IX. REIGN OF ESAR-HADDON. 187 It appears that the first expedition of Esar-haddon was into Phoenicia.16 Abdi-Milkut king of Sidon, and Sandu-arra king of the adjoining part of Lehanon, had formed an alliance and revolted from the Assyrians, probably during the troubles which ensued on Sennacherib's death. Esar-haddon attacked Sidon first, and soon took the city; but Abdi-Milkut made his escape to an island—Aradus or Cyprus—where, perhaps, he thought himself secure. Esar-haddon, however, determined on pursuit. He traversed the sea "like a fish,"17 and made Abdi-Milkut18 prisoner; after which he turned his arms against Sandu-arra, attacked him in the fastnesses of his mountains, defeated his troops, and possessed himself of his person. The rebellion of the two captive kings was punished by their execution; the walls of Sidon were destroyed; its inhabitants, and those of the whole tract of coast in the neighbourhood, were carried off into Assyria, and thence scattered among the provinces; a new town was built, which was named after Esar-haddon, and was intended to take the place of Sidon as the chief city of these parts; and colonists were brought from Chaldsea and Susiana to occupy the new capital and the adjoining region. An Assyrian governor was appointed to administer the conquered province.19 Esar-haddon's next campaign seems to have been in Armenia. He took a city called Arza* *, which, he says, was in the neighbourhood of Muzr,M and carried off the inhabitants, toge- ther with a number of mountain animals, placing the former in haddon, which would be of great im- portance if it were complete. It is pub- lished in Mr. Layard's Inscriptions of Assyria, pp. 54-58. It contains the account of Esar-haddon's wars with his brothers, and some particulars of his Arabian and Syrian expeditions not elsewhere mentioned. (See North British Renew, p. 340.) "As the records of Esar-haddon's reign are not written in the form of annals, it is very difficult to determine the order of his campaigns. The order given in the text will be found to differ somewhat from that preferred by Mr. G. Smith (N. B. Review, pp. 325-333), the most important difference being that Mr. Smith places the Babylonian expedition (infra, p. 188) before the Syrian. "Inscription* des Sargonides, p. 54. "The name Abdistartus occurs among the kings of Tyre mentioned by Me- nander (Fr. 1). Abdi-Milkut, or Abed- Melkarth, is formed on the same model, and would mean "Servant of Melkarth" (Hercules), just as Abdistartus is " Ser- vant of Ishtar" (Venus). Compare Ab- diel, Abdallah, Obadiah, &c . "It was probably with special re- ference to this campaign and conquest that Abydenus spoke of Esar-haddon as having added to the empire "the more inland parts of Syria." (See supra, p. 186, note14.) "M. Oppert understands Egypt her* THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IX. a position "beyond the eastern gate of Nineveh." At the same time he received the submission of Tiuspa the Cimmerian.21 His third campaign was in Cilicia and the adjoining regions. The Cilicians, whom Sennacherib had so recently subdued,1 re-asserted their independence at his death, and allied them- selves with the Tibareni, or people of Tubal, who possessed the high mountain tract about the junction of Amanus and Taurus. Esar-haddon inflicted a defeat on the Cilicians, and then invaded the mountain region, where he took twenty-one towns and a larger number of villages, all of which he plundered and burnt. The inhabitants he carried away captive, as usual; but he made no attempt to hold the ravaged districts by means of new cities or fresh colonists.2 This expedition was followed by one or two petty wars in the north-west and the north-east;a after which Esar-haddon, pro- bably about his sixth year, B.C. 675, made an expedition into Chaldfca. It appears that a son of Merodach-Baladan, Nebo- zirzi-sidi by name, had re-established himself on the Chaldsean coast, by the help of the Susianians; while his brother, Nahid- Marduk, had thought it more prudent to court the favour of the great Assyrian monarch, and had quitted his refuge in Susiana to present himself before Esar-haddon's footstool at Nineveh. This judicious step had all the success that he could have ex- pected or desired. Esar-haddon, havingconqueredtheill-judging Nebo-zirzi-sidi, made over to the more clear-sighted Nahid- Marduk the whole of the maritime region that had been ruled by his brother. At the same time the Assyrian monarch deposed a Chaldsean prince who had established his authority over a small town in the neighbourhood of Babylon, and set up another (Inscriptions des SargonitUs, p. 54), aa also (Iol's Mr. G. Smith (N. Brit. Review, p. 329); but Sir H. llawlinson has shown that the Eastern Muzr must be meant. (Illustrations, &c. p. 21.) 21 This is the first mention of Cim- merians in the Assyrian Inscriptions. Herodotus places the great Cimmerian nvasion of Asia in the reign of Ardys the Lydian, which, according to him, was from B.C. 6S6 to B.c. 637. The name of Tiuspa is curiously near to Teispes, who must have been king of Persia about this time, 1 Supra, p. 175. * Inscriptions des Sargonides, pp. 5i, 55; Assyrian Texts, pp. 11, 12. a The scene of the first of these wars was Northern Syria; the second was in South-Eastern Armenia—against the Mannai or Minni. 4 Mr. Q. Smith reads this name as Nabu-zira-napisti-esir (N. Brit. Review, p. 326). Chap. IX. WARS OF ESAR-HADDON in his place,5 thus pursuing the same system of division in Baby- lonia which we shall hereafter find that he pursued in Egypt.6 Esar-haddon after this was engaged in a war with Edom. He there took a city which bore the same name as the country —a city previously, he tells us, taken by his father7—and trans- ported the inhabitants into Assyria, at the same time carrying off certain images of the Edomite gods. Hereupon the king, who was named Hazael, sent an embassy to Nineveh, to make submission and offer presents, while at the same time he sup- plicated Esar-haddon to restore his gods and allow them to be conveyed back to their own proper country.8 Esar-haddon granted the request, and restored the images to the envoy; but as a compensation for this boon, he demanded an increase of the annual tribute, which was augmented in consequence by sixty-five camels. He also nominated to the Edomite throne, either in succession or in joint sovereignty, a female named Tabua, who had been bor n and brought up in his own palace.9 The expedition next mentioned on Esar-haddon's principal cylinder is one presenting some difficulty. The scene of it is a country called Bazu, which is said to be "remote, on the ex- treme confines of the earth, on the other side of the desert."10 It was reached by traversing a hundred and forty farsakha (490 miles) of sandy desert, then twenty farsakhs (70 miles) of fertile land, and beyond that a stony region.11 None of the kings of Assyria, down to the time of Esar-haddon, had ever penetrated so far. Bazu lay beyond Khazu, which was the name of the stony tract, and Bazu had for its chief town a city called Yedih, which was under the rule of a king named Laile". It is thought, from the combination of these names,12 and from * The name of the ChakUean prince deposed is read as Shamas-ipni; his suc- cessor was Nebo-sallini, the son of Ba- lazu (Belesys). * Infra, p. 193. 7 Supra, p. 177. * This appeal recalls Laban's address to Jacob (Gen. xxxt 30), when Rachel had "stolen his gods." * Is this a trace of a system like that which the Romans adopted in the case of the Parthians and Armenians during the early part of the Empire! (See Tacit. Ann. ii. 2.) Was Tabua an Ara- bian princess, taken as a hostage, and so bred up in the palace of the Assyrian king? It is highly improbable that sho was a native Assyrian. 10 Imcriptiom da Sargimides, p. 56. "Mr. G. Smith reads these numbers somewhat differently; but comes to the sameconclusionasthe presentwriter,viz., that Esar-haddon "penetrated into the middle of Arabia" (N. B. Review, p. 332). u The combination of Bazu aud 190 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. the general description of the region—of its remoteness and of the way in which it was reached—that it was probably the district of Arabia beyond Nedjif which lies along the Jebel Shammer, and corresponds closely with the modern Arab kingdom of Hira. Esar-haddon boasts that he marched into the middle of the territory, that he slew eight of its sovereigns, and carried into Assyria their gods, their treasures, and their subjects; and that, though Laite' escaped him, he too lost his gods, which were seized and conveyed to Nineveh. Then Laile, like the Idumsean monarch above mentioned, felt it necessary to humble himself. He went in person to the Assyrian capital, prostrated himself before the royal footstool, and entreated for the restoration of his gods; which Esar-haddon consented to give back, but solely on the condition that Lail^ became thence- forth one of his tributaries.18 If this expedition was really carried into the quarter here supposed, Esar-haddon performed a feat never paralleled in history, excepting by Augustus14 and Nushirvan.15 He led an army across the deserts which everywhere guard Arabia on the land side, and penetrated to the more fertile tracts beyond them, a region of settled inhabitants and of cities. He there took and spoiled several towns; and he returned to his own country without suffering disaster. Considering the physical perils of the desert itself, and the warlike character of its in- habitants, whom no conqueror has ever really subdued, this was Khazu closely resembles that of Huz and Buz (Gen. xxii. 21). That Huz and Buz both gave names to countries is ap- parent from the Book of Job (i. 1, and xxxi. 2); and both countries seem to have been in Arabia. (See Jer. xxv. 25, and cf. Smith's Biblical Dictionary, ad voc.) Bazu, it may be noted, is the nearest possible Assyrian representation of the Hebrew Til. The names of the king, Laile', and of the other potentates mentioned, are thoroughly Arabic, as are also the places, some of which are well known. The entire list is as fol- lows :—Kittu (Keis), king of KhaliU; Akbaru (Acbar), king of Dapiyat; Kha- bizu, king of Qadattia (Qadessiyeh); Yelua, queen of Dihyan; Mannuki, king of Maraban (?); Tabkharu, king of Gah- van; LeUu, queen of Yakhilu; and Kha- baziru, king of Sidah. 1■ IrucriptioM, &c., L s. c. "It has been disputed how far the expedition of .dSIius Qallus in the reign of Augustus (Strab. xvi. pp. 1107-1110) penetrated. According to some, it reached Yemen ; according to others, it proceeded no further than the eastern foot of the great Nejd chain. (See a note by Dr. W. Smith in his edition of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, voL i. pp. 138, 139.) u Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v. p. 364, Smith's edition. Chap. IS. ESAR-HADDON'S INVASION OF ARABIA. 191 a most remarkable success. The dangers of the simoom may- have been exaggerated, and the total aridity of the northern region may have been over-stated by many writers;16 but the difficulty of carrying water and provisions for a large army, and the peril of a plunge into the wilderness with a small one, can scarcely be stated in too strong terms, and have proved sufficient to deter most Eastern conquerors from even the thoughts of an Arabian expedition. Alexander would, perhaps, had he lived, have attempted an invasion from the side of the Persian Gulf;17 and Trajan actually succeeded in bringing under the Roman yoke an outlying portion of the country—the district between Damascus and the Red Sea; but Arabia has been deeply pene- trated thrice only in the history of the world; and Esar-haddon is the sole monarch who ever ventured to conduct in person such an attack. From the arid regions of the great peninsula Esar-haddon proceeded, probably in another year, to the invasion of the marsh-country on the Euphrates, where the Aramsean tribe of the Gambulu1 had their habitations, dwelling (he tells us) "like fish, in the midst of the waters " 1—doubtless much after the fashion of the modern Khuzeyl and Affej Arabs,8 the latter of whom inhabit nearly the same tract. The sheikh of this tribe had revolted; but on the approach of the Assyrians he submitted himself, bringing in person the arrears of his tribute and a present of buffaloes (?),4 whereby he sought to propitiate the wrath of his suzerain. Esar-haddon states that he forgave him; that he strengthened his capital with fresh works, placed a garrison in it, and made it a stronghold to protect the terri- tory against the attacks of the Susianians. H Stuart Poole in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 92. Much of Nejd is no doubt a good grazing country, and the beet horses in the world are bred in it. But still large portions are desert, and the outskirts of Arabia on the north and east are still more arid and desolate. "Arrian, Exped. Alex. vii. 19, sub fin. 1 See above, p. 148, note ,0, and com- pare pp. 157 and 175. * Irucriptiom des Sargonides, p. 58. * On the Khuzeyl, nee Loftus, Vhaldaa and Sutiana, pp. 38-10 ; on the Affej, see the same work, pp. 91-93, amlLayard, Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 551-555. Com- pare also the present work, vol. i. pp. 37, 3S. * Cattle of gome kind or other are certainly mentioned. The marsh region is the special resort of the buffalo. (Layard, p. 553.) 192 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. The last expedition mentioned on the cylinder, which seems not to have been conducted by the king in person, was against the country of Bikni or Bikan, one of the more remote regions of Media—perhaps Azerbijan.8 No Assyrian monarch before Esar-haddon had ever invaded this region. It was under the government of a number of chiefs—the Arian character of whose names is unmistakable6—each of whom ruled over his own town and the adjacent district. Esar-haddon seized two of the chiefs and carried them off to Assyria, whereupon several others made their submission, consenting to pay a tribute and to divide their authority with Assyrian officers.7 It is probable that these various expeditions occupied Esar- haddon from B.C. 681, the year of his accession, to B.C. 671, when it is likely that they were recorded on the existing cylinder. The expeditions are ten in number, directed against countries remote from one another; and each may well have occupied an entire year. There would thus remain only three more years of the king's reign, after the termination of the chief native record, during which his history has to be learnt from other sources. Into this space falls, almost certainly, the greatest of Esar-haddon's exploits—the conquest of Egypt; and, probably, one of the most interesting episodes of his reign—the punishment and pardon of Manasseh. With the consideration of these two events the military history of his reign will terminate. The conquest of Egypt by Esar-haddon, though concealed from Herodotus, and not known even to Diodorus, was no secret to the more learned Greeks, who probably found an account of the expedition in the great work of Berosus.8 All that we know of its circumstances is derived from an imperfect tran- script of the Nahr-el-Kelb tablet, and a short notice in the annals of Esar-haddon's son and successor, Asshur-bani-pal, * The -iijan or -lagan of Azerbijan may possibly represent the Bikan of the inscriptions. Azerbijan can scarcely be, as commonly supposed, a corruption of Atropatene\ 't. g., Sitirparna or Sitraphernes, Eparna or Ophernes, Ramatiya or Ra- mates, and Zanasaua or Zanasanes. 'Inscriptions des Sargonida, p. 57. * See the passage of Abydenus above quoted, p. 186, note Abydenus, it is almost certain, drew from Berosus. Chap. IX. ESAR-HADDON'S CONQUEST OF EGYPT. 193 who finds it necessary to make an allusion to the former doings of his father in Egypt, in order to render intelligible the state of affairs when he himself invades the country. According to these notices, it would appear that Esar-haddon, having entered Egypt with a large army, probably in B.C. 670, gained a great battle over the forces of Tirhakah in the lower country, and took Memphis, the city where the Ethiopian held his court, after which he proceeded southwards, and conquered the whole of the Xile valley as far as the southern boundary of the Theban district. Thebes itself was taken;9 and Tirhakah retreated into Ethiopia. Esar-haddon thus became master of all Egypt, at least as far as Thebes or Diospolis, the No or No-Amon of Scripture.10 He then broke up the country into twenty govern- ments, appointing in each town a ruler who bore the title of king, but placing all the others to a certain extent under the authority of the prince who reigned at Memphis. This was Neco, the father of Psammetichus (Psamatik I.)—a native Egyptian of whom we have some mention both in Herodotus11 and in the fragments of Manetho." The remaining rulers were likewise, for the most part, native Egyptians; though in two or three instances the governments appear to have been committed to Assyrian officers.1a Esar-haddon, having made these arrangements, and having set up his tablet at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb side by side with that of Rameses II., returned to his own country, and proceeded to introduce sphinxes into the ornamentation of his palaces,14 while, at the * It is either to this capture or to a subsequent one under Esar-haddon's eon that the prophet Nuhum alludes when threatening Nineveh—"Art thou better than populous No, that was situate among the rivers, that had the waters round about it; whose rampart was the flood (jy), and her wall from the flood? Ethiopia and Egypt were her strength, and it was infinite. Put and Lubim were thy helpers. Yet was she carried away, she went into cap- tivity; her young children also were dashed in pieces at the top of all the streets: and they cast lots for her honourable men; and all her great men were bound in chains." (Ch. iii. 8-10.) VOL. II. "On the question of identity see Mr. Stuart Poole's article in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. ii. p. 576. In the Assyrian inscription Thebes is called " Nia." 11 Herod, ii. 152. 12 Manetho ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. Pars c. xx. p. 10. "See Sir H. Rawlinson's paper in the Transactions of the Royal Society oj Literature, New Series, vol. vii. p. 136 et seq. Compare O. Smith in the Zeit- schriftfur Aeyyptische Sprache for 1868, p. 94, and the N. Brit. Review for July, 1870, pp. 334, 335. "Infra,pp. 198,199; Layard, Nincitl i and its Remains, vol. i . p. 348. O 194 Chap. EC THE SECOND MONARCHY. same time, he attached to his former titles an additional clause, in which he declared himself to be "king of the kings of Egypt, and conqueror of Ethiopia."15 The revolt of Manasseh king of Judah may have happened shortly before or shortly after the conquest of Egypt. It was not regarded as of sufficient importance to call for the personal intervention of the Assyrian monarch. The "captains of the host of the king of Assyria" were entrusted with the task of Manasseh's subjection; and, proceeding into Judsea, they " took him, and bound him with chains, and carried him to Babylon,"16 where Esar-haddon had built himself a palace, and often held his court.17 The Great King at first treated his prisoner severely; and the "affliction" which he thus suffered is said to have broken his pride and caused him to humble himself before God,18 and to repent of all the cruelties and idolatries which had brought this judgment upon him. Then God "was en- treated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought hirn back again to Jerusalem into his kingdom."19 The crime of defection was overlooked by the Assyrian monarch;M Manas- seh was pardoned, and sent back to Jerusalem; where he was allowed to resume the reins of government, but on the con- dition, if we may judge by the usual practice of the Assyrians in such cases, of paying an increased tribute.21 It may have been in connection with this restoration of Manasseh to his throne—an act of doubtful policy from an Assyrian point of view—that Esar-haddon determined on a project by which the hold of Assyria upon Palestine was con- siderably strengthened. Sargon, as has been already observed,1 when he removed the Israelites from Samaria, supplied their 15 This title, which does not appear on the cylinders, is found on the back of the slabs at the entrance of the S.W. palace at Nimrud, where the sphinxes occur; on a bronze lion dug up at Nebbi Yunus; and on the slabs of the palace which Esar-haddon built at Sherif Khan. "2 Chron. xxxiii. 11. "It is this circumstance that serves to fix the captivity of Manasseh to the reign of Esar-haddon. Otherwise it might as well have fallen into the reign of his son. 18 2 Chron. xxxiii 12. "Ibid, verse 13. "It has been supposed that Manas seh may have been released by Esar- haddon s successor, as Jehoiachin was by Nebuchadnezzar's. (Ewald, Gesehichte d. Volkea Israel, vol. iii. p. 678.) And this is certainly possible. But it is a mere conjecture. ■ See above, pp. 85, 8S, io. 1 Supra, p. 152. Chap. IX. COLONISATION OF PALESTINE. place by colonists from Babylon, Cutha, Sippara, Ava, Hamath,2 and Arabia;8 thus planting a foreign garrison in the region which would be likely to preserve its fidelity. Esar-haddon reaolved to strengthen the foreign element. He gathered men4 from Babylon ,Orchoe, Susa, Elymais, Persia, and other neigh- bouring regions, and entrusting them to an officer of high rank —" the great and noble Asnapper "—had them conveyed to Palestine and settled over the whole country, which until this time must have been somewhat thinly peopled.8 The restora- tion of Manasseh, and the augmentation of the foreign element in Palestine, are thus portions, but counterbalancing portions, of one scheme—a scheme, the sole object of' which was the pacification of the empire by whatever means, gentle or severe, seemed best calculated to effect the purpose. The last years of Esar-haddon were, to some extent, clouded with disaster. He appears to have fallen ill in B.C. 669; and the knowledge of this fact at once produced revolution in Egypt. Tirhakah issued from his Ethiopian fastnesses, descended the valley of the Nile, expelled the kings set up by Esar-haddon, and re-established his authority over the whole country. Esar- haddon, unable to take the field, resolved to resign the cares of the empire to his eldest son, Asshur-bani-pal, and to retire into a secondary position. Relinquishing the crown of Assyria, and retaining that of Babylon only, he had Asshur-bani-pal pro- claimed king of Assyria, and retired to the southern capital. See 2 Kings xvii. 24. ■ Supra, p. 146. 'It has b«en usually supposed that the colonisation to which reference is made in Ezra iv. 2, 9, is the same as that whereof an account is given in 2 Kings xvii. 24. But a comparison of the places named will show that the two colonisations are quite distinct. Sargon brought his colonists from Ha- math in Ctele-Syria, and from four cities in Babylonia—Babylon itself, Cutha, Sippara, and Ava or lvah. Esar- haddon brought his mainly from Su- siana and the countries still further to the east. They were Susianians, Elymseans, Persians (mttibn), Dai &c. Those of Esar-haddon's colonists who were furnished by Baby- lonia came from Babylon and Erech, or Orchoe. The Dinaites (tnn) were probably from Dayan, a country often mentioned in the Inscriptions, which must have adjoined on Cilicia. The Tarpelites and the Apharsathchit«a are still unrecognised. 5 When wild beasts multiply in a country, we may be sure that its human occupants are diminishing. The danger from lions, of which the first colonists complained to Sargon, is indicative of the depopulation produced by his con- quest. (See 2 Kings xvii. 25, 26.) o2 196 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. There he appears to have died in B.C. 668, or early in B.C. 667, leaving Asshur-bani-pal sole sovereign of the entire empire. Of the architecture of Esar-haddon, and of the state of the arts generally in his time, it is difficult to speak positively. Though he appears to have been one of the most indefatigable con- structors of great works that Assyria produced, having erected during the short period over which his reign extended no fewer than four palaces and above thirty temples,6 yet it happens un- fortunately that we are not as yet in a condition to pronounce a decisive judgment either on the plan of his buildings or on the merits of their ornamentation. Of his three great palaces, which were situated at Babylon, Calah, and Nineveh, one only—that at Calah or Nimrud—has been to any large extent explored. Even in this case the exploration was far from complete, and the ground-plan of his palace is still very defective. But this is not the worst. The palace itself had never been finished;7 its ornamentation had scarcely been begun; and the little of this that was original had been so damaged by a furious con- flagration, that it perished almost at the moment of discovery.8 We are thus reduced to judge of the sculptures of Esar-haddon by the reports of those who saw them ere they fell to pieces, and by one or two drawings, while we have to form our con- ception of his buildings from a half-explored fragment of a half-finished palace, which was moreover destroyed by fire be- fore completion. The palace of Esar-haddon at Calah. was built at the south- western corner of the Nimrud mound, abutting towards the west on the Tigris, and towards the south on the valley /ormed by the Shor-Derreh torrent. It faced northwards, and was entered on this side from the open space of the platform, through a portal guarded by two winged bulls of the ordinary character. The visitor on entering found himself in a large court, 280 feet by 100,9 bounded on the north side by a mere wall, but on the * Inscriptions des Sargonides, p. 57; Assyrian Texts, p. 16. Sir H. Rawlin- son reads this passage differently. He understands Esar-haddon to say that he "repaired ten of the high-places or strongholds of Assyria and Babylonia." 7 Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. "p. 30. ■ Ibid. vol. i. p. 349. 'Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 654. Chap. IX. ESAR-HADDON'S PALACE AT CALAH. 197 other three sides surrounded by buildings. The main building was opposite to him, and was entered from the court by two portals, one directly facing the great northern gate of the court, and the other a little to the left hand, the former guarded by colossal bulls, the latter merely reveted with slabs. These portals both led into the same room—the room already described in the first volume of this work10—which was designed on the most magnificent scale of all the Assyrian apartments, but was so broken up through the inability of the architect to roof in a wide space without abundant supports, that, practically, it formed rather a suite of four moderate-sized chambers than a single grand hall. The plan of this apartment will be seen by reference to the former volume (p. 283). Viewed as a single apartment, the room was 165 feet in length by 62 feet in width, and thus contained an area of 10,230 square feet, a space nearly half as large again as that covered by the greatest of the halls of Sennacherib, which was 7200 feet. Viewed as a suite of chambers, the rooms may be described as two long and narrow halls running parallel to one another, and communi- cating by a grand doorway in the middle, with two smaller chambers placed at the two ends, running at right angles to the principal ones. The smaller chambers were 62 feet long, and respectively 19 feet and 23 feet wide; the larger ones were 110 feet long, with a width respectively of 20 feet and 28 feet.11 The inner of the two long parallel chambers communicated by a grand doorway, guarded by sphinxes and colossal lions, either with a small court or with a large chamber extending to the southern edge of the 1• See above, vol. i. p. 282. "Mr. Fergusson seems to beof opinion that the divisions which broke up this grand room into four parts would not have greatly interfered with the general effect. His account of the apartment is as follows :— "Its general dimensions are 165 feet in length, by 62 feet in width ; and it consequently is the largest hall yet found in Assyria. The architects, how- ever, do not seem to have been quite equal to roofing so large a space, even with the number of pillars with which they seem usually to have crowded their floors (?) ; and it is consequently divided down the centre by a wall sup- porting dwarf columns ('!), forming a centre gallery (?), to which access was had (?) by bridge galleries at both ends, a mode of arrangement capable of great variety and picturesqueness of effect, and of which I have little doubt that the builders availed themselves to the fullest extent." (Handbook of ArchUec- lure, voL i. pp. 176, 177.) 198 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. mound;12 and the two end rooms communicated with smaller apartments in the same direction. The buildings to the right and left of the great court seem to have been entirely separate from those at its southern end: to the left they were wholly unexamined; on the right some explorations were conducted which gave the usual result of several long narrow apartments, with perhaps one or two passages. The extent of the palace westward, southward, and eastward is uncertain: eastward it was unexplored; southward and westward the mound had been eaten into by the Tigris and the Shor-Derreh torrent.1a The walls of Esar-haddon's palace were composed, in the usual way, of sun-dried bricks, reveted with slabs of alabaster. Instead, however, of quarrying fresh alabaster slabs for the purpose, the king preferred to make use of those which were already on the summit of the mound, covering the walls of the north-western and central palaces, which, no doubt, had fallen into decay. His workmen tore down these sculptured monu- ments from their original position, and transferring them to the site of the new palace, arranged them so as to cover the freshly-raised walls, generally placing the carved side against the crude brick, and leaving the back exposed to receive fresh sculptures, but sometimes exposing the old sculpture, which, however, in such cases, it was probably intended to remove by the chisel.1 This process was still going on, when either Esar- haddon died and the works were stopped, or the palace was destroyed by fire. Scarcely any of the new sculptures had been executed. The only exceptions were the bulls and lions at the various portals,2 a few reliefs in close proximity to them,8 and some complete figures of crouching sphinxes,4 which had been 12 The excavations here were incom- plete. Mr. Layard speaks in one place as if he had uncovered the southern facade of the building (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 656) ; but his plan (Nineveh and its Remaint, vol. i. opp. p. 34) rather indicates the existence of further rooms in this direction. 1* Supra, vol. i. p. 201. Compare At. Soc. Journal, vol. xv. p. 347. 1 The sculptures had been removed by the chisel in some cases. (Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii p. 29.) I conceive that the intention was to remove them in all. * Layard, vol. i. pp. 347, 376; vol. ii. pp. 25, 26. * Ibid. vol. i. p. 348; vol. ii. p. 26. * The sphinxes were sometimes double: ijt. two were placed side by side (Ibid. vol. i. p. 349.) Chap. IX. esar-haddon's PALACE AT CALAH. 199 placed as ornaments, and possibly also as the bases of sup- ports, within the span of the two widest doorways. There .was nothing very remarkable about the bulls; the lions were spirited, and more true to nature than usual; the sphinxes were curious, being Egyptian in idea, but thoroughly Assyrian- ized, having the horned cap common on bulls, the Assyrian arrangement of hair, Assyrian earrings, and wings nearly like those of the ordinary winged bull or lion. The figures near the lions were mythic, and exhibited somewhat more than usual grotesqueness, as we learn from the representations of them given by Mr. Layard.8 Assyrian Sphinx. (Time of Asshur-bani-pal.) While the evidence of the actual monuments as to the character of Esar-haddon's buildings and their ornamentation is thus scanty, it happens, curiously, that the Inscriptions furnish a particularly elaborate and detailed account of them. It appears, from the principal record of the time, that the temples which Esar-haddon built in Assyria and Babylonia— thirty-six in number—were richly adorned with plates of silver and gold, which made them (in the words of the Inscription) "as splendid as the day."6 His palace at Nineveh, a building 1 Nimveh and its Remains, vol. ii. pp. 462, 463. • Inscriptions des Sargonides, p. 57; Assyrian Texts, p. 16. Compare above p. 196, note • 200 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. situated on the mound called Nebbi Yunus, was, we are told, erected upon the site of a former palace ofihe kings of Assyria. Preparations for its construction were made, as for the great buildings of Solomon,7 by the collection of materials, in wood, stone, and metal, beforehand: these were furnished by the Phoenician, Syrian, and Cyprian monarchs,8 who sent to Nineveh for the purpose great beams of cedar, cypress, and ebony(?\ stone statues, and various works in metals of different kinds. The palace itself is said to have exceeded in size all buildings of former kings. It was roofed with carved beams of cedar- wood; it was in part supported by columns of cypress wood, ornamented and strengthened with rings of silver and of iron; the portals were guarded by stone bulls and lions; and the gates were made of ebony and cypress ornamented with iron, silver, and ivory. There was, of course, the usual adornment of the walls by means of sculptured slabs and enamelled bricks. If the prejudices of the Mahometans against the possible dis- turbance of their dead, and against the violation by infidel hands of the supposed tomb of Jonah, should hereafter be dis- pelled, and excavations be freely allowed in the Nebbi Yunus mound, we may look to obtain very precious relics of Assyrian art from the palace of Esar-haddon, now lying buried beneath the village or the tombs which share between them this most important site.9 Of Esar-haddon's Babylonian palace nothing is at present '1 Kings v. 6-18; 2 Chr. ii. 3-18. * Esar-haddon gives a list of twenty- two kings, who supplied him with ma- terials for his palace at Nineveh. Among them are Manasseh, king of Judah; Baal, king of Tyre; Mitinti, king of Ascalon; Puduel, king of Beth-Ammon; ..Egisthus, king of Idalium; Pytha- goras, king of Citium; Ithodagon, king of Paphos; Euryalus, king of Soli; Damastes, king of Curium ; and kings of Kdom, Gaza, Ekron, Byblus, Aradus, Ashdod, Salnmis, Tamissus, Ammo- chosta, Linienium, and Aphrodisia. (See the author's Herodotut, vol. i. p. 397, note*, 2nd edition; and compare Oppert, Inscriptiont des Sargonidca, p. 68.) 'Mr. Layard made stealthily a single slight excavation in the Nebbi Yunus mound (A'tncreA and Babylon, p. 59S), which produced a few fragments bear- ing the name of Esar-haddon. The Turks afterwards excavated for nearly a year, but without much skill or judg- ment. They uncovered a long line of wall belonging to a palace of Senna- cherib, and also a portion of the palace of Esar-haddon. On the outer surface of the former were winged bulls in high relief, sculptured apparently after the wall was built, each bull covering some ten or twelve distinct blocks of stone. The slab-inscription published in the British Museum Series, Pis. 43 and 44, was obtained from this palace. A bronze lion with legend was obtained from the Esar-haddon palace. Chap. IX. ACCESSION OF ASSHUR-BANI-PAL. 201 known, beyond the mere fact of its existence; but if the mounds at Hillah should ever be thoroughly explored, we may expect to recover at least its ground-plan, if not its sculptures and other ornaments. The Sherif Khan palace has been exa- mined pretty completely.10 It was very much inferior to the ordinary palatial edifices of the Assyrians, being in fact only a house which Esar-haddon built as a dwelling for his eldest son during his own lifetime. Like the more imposing buildings of this king, it was probably unfinished at his decease. At any rate its remains add nothing to our knowledge of the state of art in Esar-haddon's time, or to our estimate of that monarch's genius as a builder. After a reign of thirteen years, Esar-haddon, "king of Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Meroe, and Ethiopia," as he styles himself in his later inscriptions, died, leaving his crown to his eldest son, Asshur-bani-pal, whom he had already associated in the government.11 Asshur-bani-pal ascended the throne in B.C. 668, or very early in B.C. 667; and his first act seems to have been to appoint as viceroy of Babylon his younger brother Saiil-Mugina,12 who appears as Sam-mughes in Polyhistor,18 and as Saosduchinus in the Canon of Ptolemy. The first war in which Asshur-bani-pal engaged was most probably with Egypt. Late in the reign of Esar-haddon, Tir- hakah (as already stated14) had descended from the upper country, had recovered Thebes, Memphis, and most of the other Egyptian cities, and expelled from them the princes and governors appointed by Esar-haddon upon his conquest.15 Asshur-bani-pal, shortly after his accession, collected his forces, and marched through Syria into Egypt, where he defeated the army sent against him by Tirhakah in a great battle near the city of Kar-banit. Tirhakah, who was at Memphis, hearing of "By Mr. Layard (Nineveh and Baby- lon, L s. c.), and afterwards by Sir H. Rawlinson. 11 See above, p. 195. "See British Mweum Seria, PL 8, No. II., L 11. "Ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. Pars lma, c . v. I 2. "Sub Ezechia enim Senec- cherimus regnavit, uti Polyhistor in- nuit, Minis octodecim ; post quem ejus- dem filius, annis oeto: turn annis vi- ginti et uno Sammughes." The octo here is probably an error of Eusebins or Polyhistor, IF having been mistaken for H. "Supra, p. 195. 15 Supra, p. 193. 202 Ch.vp. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. the disaster that had befallen his army, abandoned Lower Egypt, and sailed up the Nile to Thebes, whither the forces of Asshur-bani-pal followed him; but the nimble Ethiopian re- treated still further up the Nile valley, leaving all Egypt from Thebes downwards to his adversary. Asshur-bani-pal, upon this, reinstated in their former governments the various princes and rulers whom his father had originally appointed, and whom Tirhakah had expelled; and then, having rested and refreshed his army by a short stay in Thebes, returned victo- riously by way of Syria to Nineveh. Scarcely was he departed when intrigues began for the res- toration of the Ethiopian power. Neco and some of the other Egyptian governors, whom Asshur-bani-pal had just reinstated in their posts, deserted the Assyrian side and went over to the Ethiopians. Attempts were made to suppress the incipient revolt by the governors who continued faithful; Neco and one or two of his copartners in guilt were seized and sent in chains to Assyria; and some of the cities chiefly implicated, as Sais, Mendes, and Tanis (Zoan), were punished. But the efforts at suppression failed. Tirhakah entered Upper Egypt, and having established himself at Thebes, threatened to extend his authority once more over the whole of the Nilotic valley. Thereupon Asshur-bani-pal, having forgiven Neco, sent him, accompanied by a strong force, into Egypt; and Tirhakah was again compelled to quit the lower country and retire to Upper Egypt, where he soon after died. His crown fell to his stepson,1 Urdamane, who is perhaps the Rud-Amun of the Hieroglyphics.2 This prince was at first very successful. He descended the Nile valley in force, defeated the Assyrians near Memphis, drove them to take refuge within its walls, besieged and took the city, and recovered Lower Egypt. Upon this Asshur-bani-pal, who was in the city 1 Urdamane' is called "son of the wife of Tarqu." It is conjectured that Tirhakah had married the widow of Sabaco II. 2 Lepsius, Kbnigsbuch, Taf. xlix. No. 661. A stele, however, of another king, whose name is read as Nut-amuri-mi or Rut-amun-tru, is in such close agreement with the record of Asshur-bani-pal as to raise a strong suspicion that he, rather than Rud-Amun, is the monarch with whom Asshur-bani-pal contended. (See the parallel drawn out by Dr. Haigh in the Zcitschrift filr Aegyptitche Spratht, January, 1869, pp. 3, 4.) Chap. IX. WARS OF ASSHUR-BANI-PAL. 203 of Asshur when he heard the news, went in person against his new adversary, who retreated as he advanced, flying from Mem- phis to Thebes, and from Thebes to a city called Kipkip, far up the course of the Nile. Asshur-bani-pal and his army now entered Thebes, and sacked it. The plunder which was taken, consisting of gold, silver, precious stones, dyed garments, captives male and female, ivory, ebony, tame animals (such as monkeys and elephants) brought up in the palace, obelisks, &c., was carried off and conveyed to Nineveh. Governors were once more set up in the several cities, Psammetichus being probably among them ;8 and, hostages having been taken to secure their fidelity, the Assyrian monarch returned home with his booty. Between his first and second expedition into Egypt, Asshur- bani-pal was engaged in warlike operations on the Syrian coast, and in transactions of a different character with Cilicia. Re- turning from Egypt, he made an attack on Tyre, whose king, Baal, had offended him, and having compelled him to sub- mit, exacted from him a large tribute, which he sent away to Nineveh. About the same time Asshur-bani-pal entered into communication with the Cilician monarch, whose name is not given, and took to wife a daughter of that princely house, which was already connected with the royal race of the Sargonids.4 Shortly after his second Egyptian expedition, Asshur-bani-pal seems to have invaded Asia Minor. Crossing the Taurus range, he penetrated to a region never before visited by any Assyrian monarch;6 and, having reduced various towns in these parts and returned to Nineveh, he received an embassy of a very unusual character. "Gyges, king of Lydia,"6 he tells us, "a ■ The Egyptian* regarded the reign of Psammetichus as commencing im- mediately upon the termination of the reign of Tirhakah. (Sir G. Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotut, vol. ii. p. 320, 2nd edition.) The Apis stelse give for the year of Psammetichua's accession B.C. 664. Asshur-bani-pal's second Egyp- tian expedition was probably in B.C. 666 or 665. "Sargon gave one of his daughters in marriage to the King of Cilicia, con- temporary with him. (See above, p. 150, note'.) 'This is his own statement. It is confirmed by the fact that the geo- graphical names are entirely new to us. * We learn from this that Gyges was still living in B.C. 667. Herodotus placed his death about nine or ten years earlier. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 287, 2nd edition.) But in this he differed from other writers. (See Dionys. Hal. Ep. ad On. Pomp. c. 3; Euseb. Chron. Can. Pars 2nda, p. 325; Hieronym. p. 107.) The reigns of the Lydian kings in Herodotus are im- probably long. 204 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. country on the sea-coast, a remote place, of which the kings his ancestors had never even heard the name, had formerly learnt in a dream the fame of his empire, and had sent officers to his presence to perform homage on his behalf." He now sent a second time to Asshur-bani-pal, and told him that since his submission he had been able to defeat the Cimmerians, who had formerly ravaged his land with impunity; and he begged his acceptance of two Cimmerian chiefs,7 whom he had taken in battle, together with other presents, which Asshur-bani-pal regarded as a "tribute." About the same time the Assyrian monarch repulsed the attack of the "king of Kharbat," on a district of Babylonia, and, having taken Kharbat, transported its inhabitants to Egypt. After thus displaying his power and extending his dominions towards the south-west, the north-west, and the south-east, Asshur-bani-pal turned his arms towards the north-east, and invaded Minni, or Persarmenia—the mountain-country about Lakes Van and Urumiyeh. Akhsheri, the king, having lost his capital, Izirtu, and several other cities, was murdered by his subjects; and his son, Vahalli, found himself compelled to make submission, and sent an embassy to Nineveh to do homage, with tribute, presents, and hostages. Asshur-bani-pal received the envoys graciously, pardoned Vahalli, and maintained him upon the throne, but forced him to pay a heavy tribute. He also in this expedition conquered a tract called Paddiri, which former kings of Assyria had severed from Minni and made inde- pendent, but which Asshur-bani-pal now attached to his own empire, and placed under an Assyrian governor. A war of some duration followed with Elam, or Susiana, the flames of which at one time extended over almost the whole empire. This war was caused by a transfer of allegiance.8 Certain tribes, pressed by a famine, had passed from Susiana into the territories of Asshur-bani-pal, and were allowed to settle there; but when, the famine being over, they wished 7 The invasion of Lydia by the Cim- merians, which Herodotus assigns to the reign of Ardys, is thus proved to have really occurred in the time of his pre- decessor. 8 See above, p. 171, and compare the narrative of Herodotus, i. 73. Chap. IX. ELAMITIC WAR OF ASSHUR-BANI-PAL. 205 to return to their former country, Asshur-bani-pal 'would not consent to their withdrawal. Urtaki, the Susianian king, took umbrage at this refusal, and, determining to revenge himself, commenced hostilities by an invasion of Babylonia. Belu-bagar, king of the important Aramsean tribe of the Gambulu,1 assisted him; and Saiil-Mugina, in alarm, sent to his brother for protec- tion . An Assyrian army was dispatched to his aid, before which Urtaki fled. He was, however, pursued, caught, and defeated. With some difficulty he escaped and returned to Susa, where within a year he died, without having made any fresh effort to injure or annoy his antagonist. His death was the signal for a domestic revolution which proved very advantageous to the Assyrians. Urtaki had driven his elder brother, Umman-aldas, from the throne,1 and, passing over the rights of his sons, had assumed the supreme authority. At his death, his younger brother, Temin-Umman, seized the crown, disregarding not only the rights of the sons of Umman- aldas, but likewise those of the sons of Urtaki.2 As the pre- tensions of those princes were dangerous, Temin-Umman endeavoured to seize their persons with the intention of putting them to death; but they, having timely warning of their danger, fled; and, escaping to Nineveh with their relations and adherents, put themselves under the protection of Asshur-bani- pal . It thus happened that in the expedition which now fol- lowed, Asshur-bani-pal had a party which favoured him in Elam itself. Temin-Umman, however, aware of this internal weak- ness, made great efforts to compensate for it by the number of r See above, pp. 148,157, 174,191, &c. * Umman-aldas was subsequently put to death by command of Urtaki, and with the consent of Temin-Umman. ■ It may assist the reader towards a clearer comprehension of the narra- tive in the text to exhibit the genea- logical tree of the Susianian royal family at this time, so far as it is known to us. A king, perhaps Umman-miuan (supra, p. 174). Umman-aldas. Urtaki. Tomin-Umman. Kuduro. Para. Ummln-lbL Umman-appa. TamLarit Undasi. Pahe. 4c . Tanimarit. Un1m.-'u-aIJa3. Paritu. 206 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONABCHY. his foreign allies. Two descendants of Merodach-Baladan, -who had principalities upon the coast of the Persian Gulf, two moun tain chiefs, one of them a blood-connection of the Assyrian crown, two sons of Belu-bagar, sheikh of the Gambulu, and several other inferior chieftains, are mentioned as bringing their troops to his assistance, and fighting in his cause against the Assyrians. All, however, was in vain. Asshur-bani-pal defeated the allies in several engagements, and finally took Temin-Umman prisoner, executed him, and exposed his head over one of the gates of Nineveh. He then divided Elam between two of the sons of Urtaki, Umman-ibi and Tammarit, establishing the former in Susa, and the latter at a town called Khidal in Eastern Susiana.8 Great severities were exercised upon the various princes and nobles who had been captured. A son of Temin-Umman was executed with his father. Several grandsons of Merodach-Baladan suffered mutilation. A Chal- dsean prince and one of the chieftains of the Gambulu had their tongues torn out by the roots. Another of the Gambulu chiefs was decapitated. Two of the Temin-Umman's principal officers were chained and flayed. Palaya, a grandson of Merodach- Baladan, was mutilated. Asshur-bani-pal evidently hoped to strike terror into his enemies by these cruel, and now unusual, punishments, which, being inflicted for the most part upon royal personages, must have made a profound impression on the king-reverencing Asiatics. The impression made was, however, one of horror rather than of alarm. Scarcely had the Assyrians returned to Nineveh, when fresh troubles broke out. Saiil-Mugina, discontented with his position, which was one of complete dependence upon his brother, rebelled, and, declaring himself king of Babylon in his own right, sought and obtained a number of important allies among his neighbours. Umman-ibi, though he had received his crown from Asshur-bani-pal, joined him, seduced by a gift of treasure from the various Babylonian temples. Vaiteha, a * Khidal or Khaidala (Oppert, Fox Talbot) is mentioned also in the annals of Sennacherib. It was the place to which Eudur-Nakhunta fled from Ba- daca. (Supra, p. 174.) Chap. IX. ELAMITTC WAR OF ASSHUR-BANI-PAL. 207 powerful Arabian prince, and Nebo-bel-sumi, a surviving grand- son of Merodach-Baladan, came into the confederacy; and Saiil- Mugina had fair grounds for expecting that he would be able to maintain his independence. But civil discord—the curse of Elam at this period—once more showed itself, and blighted all these fair prospects. Tammarit, the brother of Umman-ibi, rinding that the latter had sent the flower of his army into Babylonia, marched against him, defeated and slew him, and became king of all Elam. Maintaining, however, the policy of his brother, he entered into alliance with Saiil-Mugina, and proceeded to put himself at the head of the Elamitic contin- gent, which was serving in Babylonia. Here a just Nemesis overtook him. Taking advantage of his absence, a certain Inda- bibi4 (or Inda-bigas), a mountain-chief from the fastnesses of Luristan, raised a revolt in Elam, and succeeded in seating himself upon the throne. The army in Babylonia declining to maintain the cause of Tammarit, he was forced to fly and con- ceal himself, while the Elamitic troops returned home. Saiil- Mugina thus lost the most important of his allies at the moment of his greatest danger; for his brother had at length marched against him at the head of an immense army, and was over- irinning his northern provinces. Without the Elamites it was impossible for Babylon to contend with Assyria in the open field. All that Saul-Mugina could do was to defend his towns, which Asshur-bani-pal besieged and took, one after another. The rebel fell into his brother's hands, and suffered a punish- ment more terrible than any that the relentless conqueror had as yet inflicted on his captured enemies. Others had been mutilated, or beheaded; Saiil-Mugina was burnt. The tie of blood, which was held to have aggravated the guilt of his rebellion, was not allowed to be pleaded in mitigation of his sentence. A pause of some years' duration now occurred. The relations between Assyria and Susiana were unfriendly, but not actually hostile. Inda-bibi had given refuge to Nebo-bel-sumi at the * Inda-bibi appears to have belonged to the Susianian royal family, and to have held bio crown as a sort of appanage or fief 208 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. time of Saiil-Mugina's discomfiture, and Asshur-bani-pal re- peatedly but vainly demanded the surrender of the refugee. He did not, however, attempt to enforce his demand by an appeal to arms; and Inda-bibi might have retained his king- dom in peace, had not domestic troubles arisen to disturb him. He was conspired against by the commander of his archers, a second Umman-aldas, who killed him and occupied his throne. Many pretenders, at the same time, arose in different parts of the country; and Asshur-bani-pal, learning how Elam was distracted, determined on a fresh effort to conquer it. He renewed his demand for the surrender of Nebo-bel-sumi, who would have been given up had he not committed suicide. Not content with this success, he (ab. B.C. 645) invaded Elam, be- sieged and took Bit-Imbi, which had been strongly fortified, and drove Umman-aldas out of the plain country into the moun- tains. Susa and Badaca, together with twenty-four other cities, fell into his power; and Western Elam being thus at his dis- posal, he placed it under the government of Tammarit, who, after his flight from Babylonia, had become a refugee at the Assyrian court. Umman-aldas retained the sovereignty of Eastern Elam. But it was not long before fresh changes occurred. Tammarit, finding himself little more than a puppet-king in the hands of the Assyrians, formed a plot to massacre all the foreign troops left to garrison his country, and so to make himself an indepen- dent monarch. His intentions, however, were discovered, and the plot failed. The Assyrians seized him, put him in bonds, and sent him to Nineveh. Western Elam passed under purely military rule, and suffered, it is probable, extreme severities. Under these circumstances, Umman-aldas took heart, and made ready, in the fastnesses to which he had fled, for another and a final effort. Having levied a vast army, he, in the spring of the next year, made himself once more master of Bit-Imbi, and, establishing himself there, prepared to resist the Assyrians. Their forces shortly appeared; and, unable to hold the place against their assaults, Umman-aldas evacuated it with his troops, and fought a retreating fight all the way back to Susa, Chap. IX. ASSHUR-BANI-PAL's RELATIONS WITH LYDIA. 20O, holding the various strong towns and rivers1 in succession Gallant, however, as was his resistance, it proved ineffectual. The lines of defence which he chose were forced, one after another ; and finally both Susa and Badaca were taken, and the country once more lay at Asshur-bani-pal's mercy. All the towns made their submission. Asshur-bani-pal, burning with anger at their revolt, plundered the capital of its treasures,2 and gave the other cities up to be spoiled by his soldiers for the space of a month and twenty-three days. He then formally abolished Susianian independence, and attached the country as a province to the Assyrian empire. Thus ended the Susianian war,8 after it had lasted, with brief interruptions, for the space of (probably) twelve years. The full occupation given to the Assyrian arms by this long struggle encouraged revolt in other quarters. It was probably about the time when Asshur-bani-pal was engaged in the thick of the contest with Umman-ibi and Saul-Mugina that Psamme- tichus declared himself independent in Egypt, and commenced a war against the princes who remained faithful to their Assyrian suzerain. Gyges, too, in the far north-west, took the opportunity to break with the formidable power with which he had recently thought it prudent to curry favour, and sent aid to the Egyptian rebel, which rendered him effective service.4 Egypt freed her- self from the Assyrian yoke, and entered on the prosperous period which is known as that of the twenty-sixth (Saite) dynasty. Gyges was less fortunate. Assailed shortly by a ter- rible enemy,8 which swept with resistless force over his whole land, he lost his life in the struggle. Assyria was well and 1 Among the rivers, the Eulaeus (Hu- lai) is distinctly mentioned as that on which Susa was situated. 2 Among these are particularised eighteen images of gods and goddesses, thirty-two statues of former Susianian kings, statues of Kudur-Nakhunta, Tammarit, &c. 'In a later passage of the annals there is a further mention of Umman- aldas, who appears to have been cap- tured and sent as a prisoner to Nineveh. 4 There can be little doubt that the VOL. IL "Ionians and Carians," who gave the victory to Psammetichus (Ilerod. ii. 152), represent the aid which Gyges sent from Asia Minor. * It is a reasonable conjecture that this enemy was the Cimmerians (Le- normant, Mannel, torn. ii. p. 117); and that the invasion which Herodotus places in the reign of Ardys (i. 15) fell really in that of his father. But it is highly improbable that the invasion took place (as M. Lenormant thinks) at the call of the Assyrians. P 210 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. quickly avenged; and Ardys, the new monarch, hastened to resume the deferential attitude towards Asshur-bani-pal which his father had unwisely relinquished. Asshur-bani-pal's next important war was against the Arabs. Some of the desert tribes had, as already mentioned, lent assists ance to Saiil-Mugina during his revolt against his suzerain, and it was to punish this audacity that Asshur-bani-pal undertook his expedition. His principal enemy was a certain Vaiteha, who had for allies Natun, or Nathan, king of the Nabathseans, and Ammu-ladin, king of Kedar. The fighting seems to have extended along the whole country bordering the Euphrates valley from the Persian Gulf to Syria,6 and thence southwards by Damascus to Petra. Petra itself, Muhab (or Moab), Hudumi- mukrab (Edom), Zaharri (perhaps Zoar), and several other cities were taken by the Assyrians. The final battle was fought at a place called Khukhuruna, in the mountains near Damascus, where the Arabians were defeated with great slaughter, and the two chiefs who had led the Arab contingent to the assist- ance of Saiil-Mugina were made prisoners by the Assyrians. Asshur-bani-pal had them conducted to Nineveh, and there publicly executed. The annals of Asshur-bani-pal here terminate.7 They exhibit him to us as a warrior more enterprising and more powerful than any of his predecessors, and as one who enlarged in almost every direction the previous limits of the empire. In Egypt he completed the work which his father Esar-haddon had begun, and established the Assyrian dominion for some years, not only at Sais and at Memphis, but at Thebes. In Asia Minor he carried the Assyrian arms far beyond any former king, con- quering large tracts which had never before been invaded, and extending the reputation of his greatness to the extreme western limits of the continent. Against his northern neigh- bours he contended with unusual success, and towards the close • A lake is mentioned, which, ap- parently was the Sea of Nedjif. (Supra, vol. i. p. 14.) 'The only additional facta mentioned are the reception of tribute from Hu- suva, a city on the Syrian coast, the capture of ITmmau-aldas, and the sub- mission of Belat-Duri, king of the Ar- menians (Urarda). Chap. IX. ASSHUR-BANI-PAL'S LOVE OF HUNTING. 211 of his reigu he reckoned, not only the Minni, but the Urarda, or true Armenians, among his tributaries.8 Towards the south, he added to the empire the great country of Susiana, never subdued until his reign; and on the west, he signally chastised if he did not actually conquer, the Arabs. To his military ardour Asshur-bani-pal added a passionate addiction to the pleasures of the chase. Lion-hunting was his especial delight. Sometimes along the banks of reedy streams, sometimes borne mid-channel in his pleasure galley, he sought the king of beasts in his native haunts, roused him by means of hounds and beaters from his lair, and despatched him with his unerring arrows.9 Sometimes he enjoyed the sport in his own park or paradise. Large and fierce beasts, brought from a distance, were placed in traps about the grounds,1 and on his approach were set free from their confinement, while he drove among them in his chariot, letting fly his shafts at each with a strong and steady hand, which rarely failed to attain the mark it aimed at. Aided only by two or three attendants armed with spears, he would encounter the terrific spring of the bolder beasts, who rushed frantically at the royal marksman, and en- deavoured to tear him from the chariot-board. Sometimes he would even voluntarily quit this vantage-ground, and, engaging with the brutes on the same level, without the protection of armour, in his everyday dress, with a mere fillet upon his head, he would dare a close combat, and smite them with sword or spear through the heart.2 When the supply of lions fell short, or when he was satiated with this kind of sport, Asshur-bani-pal would vary his occupa- tion, and content himself with game of an inferior description. Wild bulls were probably no longer found in Assyria or the adjacent countries,8 so that he was precluded from the sport which, next to the chase of the lion, occupied and delighted the • See the preceding note. • See vol. i. p. 508; and compare vol. i. p. 361. Asshur-bani-pal's love of sport appears further by the figures of his favourite hounds, which he had made in clay, painted, and inscribed with their respective names. (See vol. i. pp. 234 and 342.) ! See vol. i. p. 509. * It is Asshur-bani-pal who is repre- sented, vol. i. pp. 506, 607. • See vol. i. p. 513. p2 212 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. earlier monarchs. He could indulge, however, freely in the chase of the wild ass—still to this day a habitant of the Mesopotamian regions;4 and he could hunt the stag, the hind, and the ibex or wild goat. In these tamer kinds of sport he seems, how- ever, to have indulged only occasionally—as a light relaxation scarcely worthy of a great king. Asshur-bani-pal is the only one of the Assyrian monarchs to whom we can ascribe a real taste for learning and literature. The other kings were content to leave behind them some records of the events of their reigns, inscribed on cylinders, slabs, bulls, or lions, and a few dedicatory inscriptions, addresses to the gods whom they specially worshipped. Asshur-bani-pal's literary tastes were far more varied—indeed they were all-embracing. It seems to have been under his direction that the vast collec- tion of clay tablets—a sort of Royal Library—was made at Nineveh, from which the British Museum has derived perhaps the most valuable of its treasures. Comparative vocabularies, lists of deities and their epithets, chronological lists of kings and eponyms, records of astronomical observations, grammars, histories, scientific works of various kinds, seem to have been composed in the reign,6 and probably at the bidding, of this prince, who devoted to their preservation certain chambers in the palace of his grandfather, where they were found by Mr. Layard. The clay tablets on which they were inscribed lay here in such multitudes—in some instances entire, but more commonly broken into fragments—that they filled the chambers to the height of a foot or more from the floor.6 Mr. Layard observes with justice that "the documents thus discovered at Nineveh probably exceed [in amount of writing] all that has 4 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 270; Ainsworth, Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 77. 5 The greater part of the tablets, and more especially those of a literary cha- racter, are evidently copies of more ancient documents, since a blank is constantly left where the original was defective, and a gloss entered, "want- ing." There are a large number of re- ligious documents, prayers, invocations, &c., together with not a few juridical treatises (the fines, e.g., to be levied for certain social offences); and finally, there are the entire contents of a Registry office—deeds of sale and barter referring to land, houses, and every species of property, contracts, bonds for loans, benefactions, and various other kinds of legal instruments. A selection from the tablets has been published, and a further selection is now being prepared for publication by Sir H. Rawlinson. • Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 345. Chap. IX asshur-bani-pal's BUILDINGS. 213 yet been afforded by the monuments of Egypt."7 They have yielded of late years some most interesting results,8 and will probably long continue to be a mine of almost iujxhaustible wealth to the cuneiform scholar. As a builder, Asshur-bani-pal aspired to rival, if not even to excel, the greatest of the monarchs who had preceded him. His palace was built on the mound of Koyunjik, within a few hundred yards of the magnificent erection of his grandfather, with which he was evidently not afraid to challenge compa- rison. It was built on a plan unlike any adopted by former kings. The main building consisted of three arms branching from a common centre, and thus in its general shape resembled a gigantic "T\ The central point was reached by a long ascending gallery lined with sculptures, which led from a gateway, with rooms attached, at a corner of the great court, first a distance of 190 feet in a direction parallel to the top bar of the T, and then a distance of 80 feet in a direction at right angles to this, which brought it down exactly to the central point whence the arms branched. The entire building was thus a sort of cross, with one long arm projecting from the top towards the left or west. The principal apartments were in the lower limb of the cross. Here was a grand hall, running nearly the whole length of the limb, at least 145 feet long by 28£ feet broad, opening towards the east on a great court, paved chiefly with the exquisite patterned slabs of which a specimen is given in the first volume of this work,9 and communicating towards the west with a number of smaller rooms, and through them with a second court, which looked towards the south-west and the south. The next largest apartment was in the right or eastern arm of the cross. It was a hall 108 feet long by 24 feet wide, divided by a broad doorway, in which were two pillar-bases, into a square antechamber of 24 feet each way, and an inner apartment about 80 feet in length. Neither of the two arms of the cross was completely explored; and it is * Layard, Nineveh andBabyUm,p. 347. • As especially the chronological scheme drawn from seven different tablets, which has been called "the As- syrian Canon." "' See vol. i. p. 279. 214 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. uncertain whether they extended to the extreme edge of the eastern and western courts, thus dividing each of them into two; or whether they only reached into the courts a certain distance. Assuming the latter view as the more probable, the two courts would have measured respectively 310 and 330 feet from the north-west to the south-east, while they must have been from 230 to 250 feet in the opposite direction. From the comparative privacy of the buildings,10 and from the character of the sculptures,11 it appears probable that the left or western arm of the cross formed the hareem of the monarch. The most remarkable feature in the great palace of Asshur- bani-pal was the beauty and elaborate character of the orna- mentation. The courts were paved with large slabs elegantly patterned. The doorways had sometimes arched tops beauti- fully adorned with rosettes, lotuses, &c.1 2 The chambers and passages were throughout lined with alabaster slabs, bearing reliefs designed with wonderful spirit, and executed with the most extraordinary minuteness and delicacy. It was here that were found all those exquisite hunting scenes which have furnished its most interesting illustrations to the present his- tory.18 Here, too, were the representations of the private life of the monarch,1 of the trees and flowers of the palace garden,2 of the royal galley with its two banks of oars,8 of the libation over four dead lions,4 of the temple with pillars supported on lions,5 and of various bands of musicians, some of which have been already given.6 Combined with these peaceful 10 So far as appeared, only one door- nay led from the rest of the palace to these western rooms. 11 Here was the representation of the royal garden, with vines, lilies, and flowers of different kinds (see voL i. pp. 353 and 354), among which musicians and tame lions were walking. ™ See the representation, vol. i. p. 335. 15 As especially the following: The Wild Ass (vol. i. p. 222); the Stag and Hind (p. 224); the dying Wild Asses, and the Lion about to gpring (p. 355) ; the Wounded Wild Ass seized by Hounds (p. 366); the Wounded Lion (p. 357); tie Lion biting a Chariot- | wheel (p. 358) ; the King shooting a Lion (p. 359); the Lion-hunt on a river (p. 361); the King killing Lions (pp. 606,507) ; the Lion let out of a trap (p. 509); the Hound held in leash (p. 610); the Wounded Lioness (p. 612); the Hound chasing a Wild Ass (p. 516); the Wild Asses (pp. 516 and 517); the Hound chasing a Doe (p. 618); the Stag taking the Water (p. 619); and the Ibexes (p. 521). 1 See vol. i. p. 493. 'Ibid. pp. 353 and 864. 'Ibid. p. 861. 4 Ibid. p. 515. * Ibid. p. 312. The temple (No. V. p. 310) also belongs to this monarch. • Ibid. pp. 535 tan•' 642. Chap. IX. CHARACTER OF ASSHUR-BANI-PAL'S SCULPTURES. 215 scenes and others of a similar character, as particularly a long train, with game, nets, and dogs, returning from the chase, which formed the adornment of a portion of the ascending passage, were a number of views of sieges and battles, repre- senting the wars of the monarch in Susiana and elsewhere. Reliefs of a character very similar to these last were found by Mr. Layard in certain chambers of the palace of Sennacherib, which had received their ornamentation from Asshur-bani-pal.7 They were remarkable for the unusual number and small size of the figures, for the variety and spirit of the attitudes, and for the careful finish of all the little details of the scenes re- presented upon them. Deficient in grouping, and altogether destitute of any artistic unity, they yet give probably the best representation that has come down to us of the confused mSUe of an Assyrian battle, showing us at one view, as they do, all the various phases of the flight and pursuit, the capture and treatment of the prisoners, the gathering of the spoil, and the cutting off the heads of the slain. These reliefs form now a portion of our National Collection. A good idea may be formed of them from Mr. Layard's Second Series of Monuments, where they form the subject of five elaborate engravings.8 Besides his own great palace at Koyunjik, and his additions to the palace of his grandfather at the same place, Asshur-bani- pal certainly constructed some building, or buildings, at Nebbi Yunus, where slabs inscribed with his name and an account of his wars have been found.9 If we may regard him as the real monarch whom the Greeks generally intended by their Sarda- napalus, we may say that, according to some classical authors, he was the builder of the city of Tarsus in Cilicia, and likewise of the neighbouring city of Anchialus;10 though writers of more authority tell us that Tarsus, at any rate, was built by Sennacherib.11 It seems further to have been very generally believed by the Greeks that the tomb of Sardanapalus was in 7 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 446-459. 'Monuments, Second Series,PIa. 45 to 49. 'Nineveh and Babylon, p. 459. 10 Or Anchiale. (See Arrian, Esp. Alex. ii. 5 ; Apollod. Fr. 69; Hellamc. Fr. 158 ; Schol. ad Aristoph. Av. 1021, Ac.) "See above, p. 175. 2l6 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. this neighbourhood.12 They describe it as a monument of some height, crowned by a statue of the monarch, who appeared to be in the act of snapping his fingers. On the stone base was an inscription in Assyrian characters, of which they believed the sense to run as follows:—" Sardanapalus, son of Anacyn- daraxes, built Tarsus and Anchialus in one day. Do thou, 0 stranger, eat, and drink, and amuse thyself; for all the rest of human life is not worth so much as this "—" this " meaning the sound which the king was supposed to be making with his fingers. It appears probable that there was some figure of this kind, with an Assyrian inscription below it, near Anchialus; but, as we can scarcely suppose that the Greeks could read the cuneiform writing, the presumed translation of the inscription would seem to be valueless. Indeed, the very different versions of the legend which are given by different writers18 sufficiently indicate that they had no real knowledge of its purport. We may conjecture that the monument was in reality a stele con- taining the king in an arched frame, with the right hand raised above the left, which is the ordinary attitude,14 and an inscrip- tion below commemorating the occasion of its erection . Whether it was really set up by this king or by one of his predecessors,18 we cannot say. The Greeks, who seem to have known more of Asshur-bani-pal than of any other Assyrian monarch, in con- sequence of his war in Asia Minor and his relations with Gyges and Ardys, are not unlikely to have given his name to any 12 See, besides the authors quoted in note10, Strab. xiv. p. 958, and Athen. Deipn. xii. 7, p. 530, B. "Clearchus said that the inscription was simply, " Sardanapalus, son of Ana- cyndaraxes, built Tarsus and Anchiale in one day—yet now he is dead" (ap. Athen. L s. c.) Aristobulus gave the inscription in the form quoted above (Strab. Lie; Athen. l. s. c.) Later writers enlarged upon the theme of this last version, and turned it into six or seven hexameter lines (Strab. L s. c.; Diod. Sic. ii. 23; Schol. ad Aristoph. Av. 1021). Amyntas said that the tomb of Sardanapalus was at Nineveh, and gave a completely different inscription (Athen. l. s. c.) I regard all these tales as nearly worthless. "See above, p. 79. 15 I incline to believe that the so- called tomb of Sardanapalus was in reality the stele set up by Sennacherib (as related by Polyhistor, supra, p. 175, note 1") on his conquest of Cilicia and settlement of Tarsus. I cannot agree with those who see in the architectural emblem on the coins of Tarsus a repre- sentation of the monument in question. (See M. Raoul Rochette's Memoir in the Mcmoira de tlnstitvt, torn, xvii.) That emblem appears to me to be the temple of a god. Chap. IX. ASSHUR-BANI-PAL KNOWN TO THE GREEKS. 21J Assyrian monument which they found in these parts, whether in the local tradition it was regarded as his work or no. Such, then, are the traditions of the Greeks with respect to this monarch. The stories told by Ctesias of a king, to whom he gives the same name, and repeated from him by later writers,16 are probably not intended to have any reference to Asshur- bani-pal, the son of Esar-haddon,17 but rather refer to his suc- cessor, the last king. Even Ctesias could scarcely have ven- tured to depict to his countrymen the great Asshur-bani-pal, the vanquisher of Tirhakah, the subduer of the tribes beyond the Taurus, the powerful and warlike monarch whose friendship was courted by the rich and prosperous Gyges, king of Lydia,18 as a mere voluptuary, who never put his foot outside the palace gates, but dwelt in the seraglio, doing woman's work, and often dressed as a woman. The character of Asshur-bani-pal stands really in the strongest contrast to the description—be it a portrait, or be it a mere sketch from fancy—which Ctesias gives of his Sardanapalus. Asshur-bani-pal was beyond a doubt one of Assyria's greatest kings. He subdued Egypt and Su- siana; he held quiet possession of the kingdom of Babylon;1 he carried his arms deep into Armenia; he led his troops across the Taurus, and subdued the barbarous tribes of Asia Minor. When he was not engaged in important wars, he chiefly occu- pied himself in the chase of the lion, and in the construction and ornamentation of temples2 and palaces. His glory was well known to the Greeks. He was no doubt one of the "two "As Diodorus Siculua (ii. 23-27); Cephalion (ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. Pars l™*, o. xv.) ; Justin, i. 3; Mos. Chor. Hitt. Armen. i. 20; Nio. Damasc. Fr. 8; Clearch. Sol Fr. 5; Duris Sam. Fr. 14; &c. "In one point only does the character of Asshur-bani-pal, as revealed to us by his monuments, show the least resem- blance to that of the Sardanapalus of Ctesias. Asshur-bani-pal desired and secured to himself a multitude of wives. On almost every occasion of the sup- pression of a revolt, he required the conquered vassal to send to Nineveh, together with his tribute, one or more of his daughters. These princesses be- came inmates of his hareem. (See Mr. O. Smith's article in the N. British Re- new, July, 1870, p. 344.) 18 On the wealth and power of Gyges, see Herod. i. 14 ; and compare ArUt. Met. iii. 17 ; PIutarch, ii. p. 471), C. 1 The short revolt of Saul-Mugina (supra, p. 207), which was begun and ended within a year, is an unimportant exception to the general rule of tranquil possession. 'Asshur-bani-pal raised a temple to Ishtar at Koyunjik (Sir H. Rawlinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 497) and repaired a shrine of the same god dess at Arbela (ibid. p. 522). 218 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. kings called Sardanapalus," celebrated by Hellanicus;8 he must have been " the warlike Sardanapalus" of Callisthenes ; 4 Herodotus spoke of his great wealth;5 and Aristophanes used his name as a by-word for magnificence." In his reign the Assyrian dominions reached their greatest extent, Assyrian art culminated, and the empire seemed likely to extend itself over the whole of the East. It was then, indeed, that Assyria most completely answered the description of the Prophet—"The Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great; the deep set him up on high with her rivers running about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of the heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches; for his root was by great waters. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him; the fir-trees were not like his boughs; and the chestnut-trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty."1 In one respect, however, Assyria, it is to be feared, had made but little advance beyond the spirit of a comparatively barbar- ous time. The " lion" still "tore in pieces for his whelps, and strangled for his lionesses, and rilled his holes with prey, and his dens with ravin."8 Advancing civilisation, more abundant literature, improved art, had not softened the tempers of the Assyrians, nor rendered them more tender and compassionate in their treatment of captured enemies. Sennacherib and Esar- haddo show, indeed, in this respect, some superiority to former • Hellanic. Fr. 158. 4 Suidaa ad voa 2*/>5avoiroXoi. 5 Herod, ii 160. • Aristoph. Av. L 983, ed. Bothe. » Ezek. xxxi. 3-8. 8 Nahum ii 12. Chap. IX. asshub-bani-pal's Cruelties. 219 kings. They frequently spared their prisoners, even when rehels,■ and seem seldom to have had recourse to extreme punishments. But Asshur-bani-pal reverted to the antique system10 of executions, mutilations, and tortures. We see on his bas-reliefs the unresisting enemy thrust through with the spear, the tongue torn from the mouth of the captive accused of blasphemy, the rebel king beheaded on the field of battle, and the prisoner brought to execution with the head of a friend or brother hung round his neck.11 We see the scourgers preceding the king as his regular attendants, with their whips passed through their girdles;1 we behold the operation of flaying per- formed either upon living or dead men ;2 we observe those who are about to be executed first struck on the face by the execu- tioner's fist.8 Altogether we seem to have evidence, not of mere severity, which may sometimes be a necessary oreven a merciful policy, but of a barbarous cruelty, such as could not fail to harden and brutalise alike those who witnessed and those who inflicted it. Nineveh, it is plain, still deserved the epithet of "a bloody city," or "a city of bloods."4 Asshur-bani-pal was harsh, vindictive, unsparing, careless of human suffering—nay, glorying in his shame, he not merely practised cruelties, but handed the record of them down to posterity by representing them in all their horrors upon his palace walls. It has been generally supposed8 that Asshur-bani-pal died about B.C. 648 or 647, in which case he would have continued to the end of his life a prosperous and mighty king. But recent discoveries render it probable that his reign was extended to a much greater length—that, in fact, he is to be identified with the Cinneladanus of Ptolemy's Canon, who held the throne of Babylon from B.C. 647 to 626." If this be so, we ■ See above, pp. 159, 173, 191, and 194. The great Asshur-izir-pal (B.C. 884- 859) was apparently the most cruel of all the Assyrian kings. (See above, p. 85, note4.) Aaahur-bani-pal does not exactly revive his practices; but he acts in his spirit. "Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 457 and 458. 1 Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pl. 49; compare Nineveh and Babylon, p. 452. * Monumentt. Pl. 47. * Nineveh and Babylon, p. 458; Monu- ments, Pl. 48. * Nahum iii. 1. * Lenormant, Manual, voL ii. p. 114. * Asshur-bani-pal distinctly states that when he conquered Babylon, and put Saul-Mugina to death (see above. 220 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. must place in the later years of the reign of Asshur-bani-pal the commencement of Assyria's decline—the change whereby she passed from the assailer to the assailed, from the undisputed primacy of Western Asia to a doubtful and precarious position. This change was owing, in the first instance, to the rise upon her borders of an important military power in the centralised monarchy, established, about B.C. 640, in the neighbouring territory of Media. The Medes had, it is probable, been for some time growing in strength, owing to the recent arrival in their country of fresh immigrants from the far East. Discarding the old system of separate government and village autonomy, they had joined together and placed themselves under a single monarch; and about the year B.C. 634, when Asshur-bani-pal had been king for thirty-four years, they felt themselves sufficiently strong to undertake an expedition against Nineveh. Their first attack, however, failed utterly. Phraortes, or whoever may have been the real leader of the invading army, was completely defeated by the Assyrians; his forces were cut to pieces, and he himself was among the slain.4 Still, the very fact that the Medes could now take the offensive and attack Assyria was novel and alarm- ing; it showed a new condition of things in these parts, and foreboded no good to the power which was evidently on the decline and in danger of losing its preponderance. An enter- prising warrior would doubtless have followed up the defeat of the invader by attacking him in his own country before he could recover from the severe blow dealt him; but the aged Assyrian monarch appears to have been content with repelling his foe, and made no effort to retaliate. Cyaxares, the successor of the slain Median king, effected at his leisure such arrange- p. 207), he ascended the Babylonian throne himself. Numerous tablets exist, dated by his regnal years at Babylon. The eponyms assignable to his reign are, at the lowest computation, twenty-six or twenty-seven. Add to this that the king of Babylon, who followed Sam- mughes (Saiil-Mugina), is distinctly stated by Polyhistor to have been his brother (ap. Euseb. C/iron. Can. i 5, § 2), and to have reigned at Babylon 21 years; and the conclusion seems inevitable that Asshur-bani-pal is Cinneladanus, how- ever different the names, and that his entire reign was one of 42 years, from B.C. 668 to B.C. 626. ''Eirl Tovrovf Jil ffrparevadfuvos i ^pabpTrp airoi re SiapBapr), Kal 6 iptv 0 avroi XaSoiroXtiffapos. Chronograph, p. 210, B. * Ap. eund. c. v. § 2. Polyhistor here makes Sammughes succeeded by his brother after a reign of 21 years; and then gives this "brother" a reign of the same duration. After hiin he places Nabopolassar, to whom he assigus 20 years. In the next section there is an omission (as the text now stands) either of this "brother" or of Nabopo- lassar—probably of the latter. 8 As especially in Susiana (see below, p. 231). 230 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. grand and magnificent style of former kings. Still Saracus attempted something. At Calah he began the construction of a building which apparently was intended for a palace, but which contrasts most painfully with the palatial erections of former kings. The waning glory of the monarchy was made patent both to the nation and to strangers by an edifice where coarse slabs of common limestone, unsculptured and uninscribed, replaced the alabaster bas-reliefs of former times; and where a simple plaster above the slabs9 was the substitute for the richly-patterned enamelled bricks of Sargon, Sennacherib, and Asshur-bani-pal. A set of small chambers, of which no one ex- ceeded forty-five feet in length and twenty-five feet in its great- est breadth, sufficed for the last Assyrian king, whose shrunken Court could no longer have filled the vast halls of his ancestors. The Nimrud palace of Saracus seems to have covered less than one half of the space occupied by any former palace upon the mound; it had no grand facade, no magnificent gateway; the rooms, curiously misshapen,10 as if taste had declined with power and wealth, were mostly small and inconvenient, running in suites which opened into one another without any approaches from courts or passages, roughly paved with limestone flags, and composed of sun-dried bricks faced with limestone and plaster. That Saracus should have been reduced even to contemplate residing in this poor and mean dwelling is the strongest possible proof of Assyria's decline and decay at a period preceding the great war which led to her destruction. It is possible that this edifice may not have been completed at the time of Saracus's death, and in that case we may suppose that its extreme rudeness would have received certain em- bellishments had he lived to finish the structure. While it was being erected, he must have resided elsewhere. Apparently, he held his court at Nineveh during this period; and it was certainly there that he made his last arrangements for defence,11 and his final stand against the enemy, who took advantage • Layard, Nineveh and its Remaint, vol. ii. pp. 38, 39; Nineveh andBabylon, p. 665. 10 See Mr. Layard'a plan (Nineveh and its Remaint, p. 39). 11 Abydenus, L a. a Chap. IX CYAXARES ATTACKS NINEVEH. 231 of his weak condition to press forward the conquest of the empire. The Medes, in their strong upland country, abounding in rocky hills, and running up in places into mountain-chains, had probably suffered much less from the ravages of the Scyths than the Assyrians in their comparatively defenceless plains. Of all the nations exposed to the scourge of the invasion they were evidently the first to recover themselves,12 partly from the local causes here noticed, partly perhaps from their inherent vigour and strength. If Herodotus's date for the original inroad of the Scythians is correct,18 not many years can have elapsed before the tide of war turned, and the Medes began to make head against their assailants, recovering possession of most parts of their country, and expelling or overpowering the hordes at whose insolent domination they had chafed from the first hour of the invasion. It was probably as early as B.C. 627, five years after the Scyths crossed the Caucasus, according to Herodotus, that Cyaxares, having sufficiently re-established his power in Media, began once more to aspire after foreign con- quests. Casting his eyes around upon the neighbouring coun- tries, he became aware of the exhaustion of Assyria, and per- ceived that she was not likely to offer an effectual resistance to a sudden and vigorous attack. He therefore collected a large army and invaded Assyria from the east, while it would seem that the Susianians, with whom he had perhaps made an alli- ance, attacked her from the south14 To meet this double danger, Saracus, the Assyrian king, determined on dividing his forces; and, while he entrusted a portion of them to a general, Nabopolassar, who had orders to proceed to Babylon and engage the enemy advancing from the B Herod. i . 106; iv. 4. 1* I do not regard this date as pos- sessing much value, since the Median chronology of Herodotus is purely arti- ficial. (See Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 340-342.) I incline to believe that the Scythian invasion took place earlier than Herodotus allows, and that eight or ten years intervened between the first appearaa.ee of the Scyths in Media and the second siege of Nineveh by Cyaxares. "The "turmic vulgi collecticiao quac a mari adversus Saracum adventabant" (Abyd. l. s. c.) can only, I think, be Su- sianians, or Susianians assisted by Chal- dteans. 232 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. sea, he himself with the remainder made ready to receive the Medes. In idea this was probably a judicious disposition of the troops at his disposal; it was politic to prevent a junction of the two assailing powers; and, as the greater danger was that which threatened from the Medes, it was well for the king to reserve himself with the bulk of his forces to meet this enemy. But the most prudent arrangements may be disconcerted by the treachery of those who are entrusted with their execution; and so it was in the present instance. The faithless Nabopolassar saw in his sovereign's difficulty his own opportunity; and, instead of marching against Assyria's enemies, as his duty required him, he secretly negotiated an arrangement with Cyaxares, agreed to become his ally against the Assyrians, and obtained the Median king's daughter as a bride for Nebuchad- nezzar, his eldest son.1 Cyaxares and Nabopolassar then joined their efforts against Nineveh ;2 and Saracus, unable to resist them, took counsel of his despair, and, after all means of resistance were exhausted, burned himself in his palace8 It is uncertain whether we possess any further historical details of the siege. The narrative of Ctesias may embody a certain number of the facts, as it certainly represented with truth the strange yet not incredible termination4 But on the other hand, we cannot feel sure, with regard to any statement made solely by that writer, that it has any other source than his ima- gination. Hence the description of the last siege of Nineveh, as given by Diodorus on the authority of Ctesias, seems un- 1 Seeabove,p. 229, note'; and compare Polyhistor (ap. Syneell. Chronograph. p. 210, A.), ToDroi> [rir Na/SoiroXaffa/wv] & Ro lmup 'A\i^avSpos ZapSardiraX- \ov Kai vini^ama irobs Affrvirrrpr ffclrpairrlv Mt;Setat KtU r^r dvyaripa aiVroD 'Afivtrrir ^ima vipjpjpr els Tbr viov avrov Na/Soi^o{<»'6ffup. Or, as Eu- sebius reports him (Chron. Can. Pars lm', c. iv.), "Sardanapallus ad Asdahagem, qui erat Medicse gentis praises et sa- trapa, copias auxiUares misit, videlicet ut filio suo Nabucodrossoro desponderet Amuhiam e filiabus Asdahagis unam." 2 See besides Ahydenus and Poly- histor, Tobit xiv. 15 (where both kings, however, are wrongly named), and Joseph. Ant. Jud. x. 5, § 1. * Abydeu. ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. Pars l™*, c. ix. p. 25; Syneell. Chronograph. p. 210,B. 4 The self-immolation of Saracus has a parallel in the conduct of the Israelitish king, Zimri, who, "when he saw that the city was taken, went into the palace of the king's house, and burnt the king'l house over him, and died" (1 Kings xvi. 18); and again in that of the Persian governor, Boges, who burnt himself with his wives and children at Eion (Herod, vii. 107). Chap. IX. FALL OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. 233 deaerving of a place in history, though the attention of the curious may properly be directed to it.8 The empire of the Assyrians thus fell, not so much from any inherent weakness, or from the effect of gradual decay, as by an unfortunate combination of circumstances—the occurrence of a terrible inroad of northern barbarians just at the time when a warlike nation, long settled on the borders of Assyria, and within a short distance of her capital, was increasing, partly by natural and regular causes, partly by accidental and abnormal ones, in greatness and strength. It will be proper, in treating of the history of Media, to trace out, as far as our materials allow, these various causes, and to examine the mode and extent of their operation. But such an inquiry is not suited for this place, since, if fully made, it would lead us too far away from our present subject, which is the history of Assyria; while, if made partially, it would be unsatisfactory. It is therefore deferred to another place. The sketch here attempted of Assyrian history will now be brought to a close by a few observations on the general nature of the monarchy, or its extent in the most flourishing period, and on the cha- racter of its civilisation.6 * See Diod. Sic. ii. 24-27. According to Ctesiaa, the Medea were accompanied by the Persians, and the Babylonians by some Arabian allies. The assailing army numbered 400,000. In the first engage- ment the Assyrians were victorious, and the attacking army had to fly to the mountains (Zagros). A second and a third attempt met with no better suc- cess. The fortune of war first changed on the arrival of a contingent from Bactria, who joined the assailants in a night attack ou the Assyrian camp, which was completely successful. The Assyrian monarch sought the shelter of his capital, leaving his army under the command of his brother-in-law Salse- menes. Sakemenes was soon defeated and slain; and the siege of the city then commenced. It continued for more than two years without result. In the third year an unusually wet season caused the river to rise extraordinarily, and destroy above two miles (?) of the city wall; upon which the king, whom an oracle had told to fear nothing till the river became his enemy, despaired, and making a funeral pile of all bis richest furniture, burnt himself with his concubines and his eunuchs in his palace. The Medea and their allies then entered the town on the side which the flood had laid open, and after plundering it, destroyed it. * The author has transferred these observations, with such alterations aa the progress of discovery has rendered necessary, from an Eaaay "On the Chro- nology and History of the great Assyrian Empire," which he published in 185$, in his Hcrodotut. He found that eight years of additional study of the subject had changed none of hia views, and that if he wrote a new "Summary," he would merely repeat in other words what he had already written with a good deal of care. Under these circumstances, and having reason to believe that the present work is read in quarters to which his 234 THE SECOND MONAKCHY. Chap. IX. The independent kingdom of Assyria covered a space of at least a thousand years; but the empire can, at the utmost, be considered to have lasted a period short of seven centuries, from B.C. 1300 to B.C. 625 or 624—the date of the conquest of Cyaxares. In reality, the period of extensive domination seems to have commenced with Assur-ris-ilim,7 about B.C. 1150, so that the duration of the true empire did not much exceed five centuries. The limits of the dominion varied considerably within this period, the empire expanding or contracting accord- ing to the circumstances of the time and the personal character of the prince by whom the throne was occupied. The extreme extent appears not to have been reached until almost imme- diately before the last rapid decline set in, the widest dominion belonging to the time of Asshur-bani-pal, the conqueror of Egypt, of Susiana, and of the Armenians.8 In the middle part of this prince's reign Assyria was paramount over the portion of Western Asia included between the Mediterranean and the Halys on the one hand, the Caspian Sea and the great Persian desert on the other. Southwards the boundary was formed by Arabia and the Persian Gulf; northwards it seems at no time to have advanced to the Euxine or to the Caucasus, but to have been formed by a fluctuating line, which did not in the most flourishing period extend so far as the northern frontier of Armenia Besides her Asiatic dominions, Assyria possessed also at this time a portion of Africa, her authority being ac- knowledged by Egypt as far as the latitude of Thebes. The countries included within the limits thus indicated, and sub- ject during the period in question to Assyrian influence, were chiefly the following: Susiana, Chaldsea, Babylonia, Media, Matiene or the Zagros range, Mesopotamia; parts of Armenia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia; Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Idumsea, a portion of Arabia, and almost the whole of Egypt. The island of Cyprus was also, it is probable, a dependency. On the other hand, Persia Proper, Bactria, and Sogdiana, even version of Herodotus never penetrated, he has thought that a republication of his former remarks would be opeu to no valid objection. 'Supra, pp. 81, 62. ■ Supra, pp. 210, 211. Chap. IX. REVIEW OF ASSYRIAN HISTORY. 235 HyTcania, were beyond the eastern limit of the Assyrian sway, which towards the north did not on this side reach further than about the neighbourhood of Kasvin, and towards the south was confined within the mountain barrier of Zagros. Similarly on the west, Phrygia, Lydia,9 Lycia, eVen Pamphylia, were inde- pendent, the Assyrian arms having never, so far as appears, penetrated westward beyond Cilicia or crossed the river Halys. The nature of the dominion established by the great Mesopo- tamian monarchy over the countries included within the limits above indicated, will perhaps be best understood if we compare it with the empire of Solomon. Solomon "reigned over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents and served Solomon all the days of his life."1 The first and most striking feature of the earliest empires is that they are a mere congeries of kingdoms: the countries over which the dominant state acquires an influence, not only retain their distinct individuality, as is the case in some modern empires,8 but remain in all respects such as they were before, with the simple addition of certain obligations contracted towards the paramount authority. They keep their old laws, their old religion, their line of kings, their law of succession, their whole internal organization and machinery; they only acknow- ledge an external suzerainty which binds them to the per- formance of certain duties towards the Head of the Empire. These duties, as understood in the earliest times, may be summed up in the two words "homage " and "tribute;" the subject kings "serve " and "bring presents." They are bound to acts of submission; must attend the court of their suzerain when summoned,8 unless they have a reasonable excuse; must • The homage of the Lydian kings, Gyges and Ardys, to Asshur-bani-pal scarcely constitutes a real subjection of Lydia to Assyria. 1 1 Kings iv. 21. Compare ver. 24; and for the complete organization of the empire, see ch. x., where it appears that the kings "brought every man his present, a rate year by year" (ver. 25); and that the amount of the annual revenue from all sources was 666 talents of gold (ver. 14). See also 2 Chron. ix. 13-28, and Pa. lxxii. 8-11. * Our own, for instance, and the Austrian. 9 There are several cases of this kind in the Inscriptions. (Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xix. p. 145; Jnecrip- 236 Chap. IX- THE SECOND MONARCHY. there salute him as a superior, and otherwise acknowledge his rank ; 4 above all, they must pay him regularly the fixed tribute which has been imposed upon them at the time of their sub- mission or subjection, the unauthorised withholding of which is open and avowed rebellion5 Finally, they must allow his troops free passage through their dominions, and must oppose any attempt at invasion by way of their country on the part of his enemies.' Such are the earliest and most essential obliga- tions on the part of the subject states in an empire of the primitive type, like that of Assyria; and these obligations, with the corresponding one on the part of the dominant power of the protection of , its dependants against foreign foes, appear to have constituted the sole links7 which joined together in one the heterogeneous materials of which that empire consisted. It isevident that a government of the character here described contains within it elements of constant disunion and disorder. Under favourable circumstances, with an active and energetic prince upon the throne, there is an appearance of strength, and a realisation of much magnificence and grandeur. The subject monarchs pay annually their due share of" the regulated tribute tiotu des Sargmida, p. 56, &c.) Perhaps the visit of Ahaz to Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings xvi. 10) was of this character. 1 Of. Pa. lxxii. 11 : "All kings shall fall down before him." This is said primarily of Solomon. The usual ex- pression in the Inscriptions is that the subject kings "kissed the sceptre" of the Assyrian monarchs. 5 See 2 Kings xvii. i, and the Inscrip- tions passim. * Josiah perhaps perished in the per- formance of this duty (2 Kings xxiii. 29; 2 Chron. xxv. 20-23). 'In some empires of this type, the subject states have an additional obliga- tion—that of furnishing contingents to swell the armies of the dominant power. But there is no clear evidence of the Assyrians having raised troops in this way. The testimony of the book of Judith is worthless; and perhaps the circumstance that Nebuchodonosor is made to collect his army from all quarters (as the Persians were wont to do) may be added to the proofs elsewhere adduced (see the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 195, 2nd ed.) of the lateness of its composi- tion. We do not find, either in Scrip- ture or in the Inscriptions, any proof of the Assyrian armies being composed of others than the dominant race. Mr. Vance Smith assumes the contrary (Pro- phecies, &c., pp. 92, 183, 201); but the only passage which is important among all those explained by him in this sense (Isa. xxii 6) is somewhat doubtfully re- ferred to an attack on Jerusalem by the Assyrians. Perhaps it is the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar which forms the subject of the prophetic vision, as Babylon has been the main figure in the preceding chapter. The negative of course cannot be proved; but there seem to be no grounds for concluding that "the various subject races were incorporated into the Assyrian army." An Assyrian army, it should be remem- bered, does not ordinarily exceed one, or at most two, hundred thousand men. Chap. IX. STBENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF THE EMPIRE. 237 of the empire; " 8 and the better to secure the favour of their common sovereign, add to it presents, consisting of the choicest productions of their respective kingdoms.9 The material re- sources of the different countries are placed at the disposal of the dominant power;10 and skilled workmen11 are readily lent for the service of the court, who adorn or build the temples and the royal residences, and transplant the luxuries and refine- ments of their several states to the imperial capital. But no sooner does any untoward event occur, as a disastrous expedition, a foreign attack, a domestic conspiracy, or even an untimely and unexpected death of the reigning prince, than the inherent weakness of this sort of government at once displays itself— the whole fabric of the empire falls asunder—each kingdom re-asserts its independence—tribute ceases to be paid—and the mistress of a hundred states suddenly finds herself thrust back into her primitive condition, stripped of the dominion which has been her strength, and thrown entirely upon her own resources. Then the whole task of reconstruction has to be commenced anew—one by one the rebel countries are overrun, and the rebel monarchs chastised—tribute is re- imposed, submission enforced, and in fifteen or twenty years the empire has perhaps recovered itself. Progress is of course slow and uncertain, where the empire has continually to be built up again from its foundations, and where at any time * This is an expression not uncommon in the Inscriptions. We may gather from a passage in Sennacherib's annals, where it occurs, that the Assyrian tri- bute was of the nature either of a poll- tax or of a land-tax. For when portions of Hezekiah's dominions were taken from him and bestowed on neighbouring princes, the Assyrian king tells us that "according as he increased the do- minions of the other chiefs, so he aug- mented the amount of tribute which they were to pay to the imperial treasury." • It is not always easy to separate the tribute from the presents, as the tribute itself is sometimes paid partly in kind (supra, p. 66); but in the case of Heze- kiah we may clearly draw the distinc- tion, by comparing Scripture with the account given by Sennacherib. The tribute in this instance was "300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold" (2 Kings xviii. 14); the additional presents were, 500 talents of silver, various mineral products, thrones and beds and rich furniture, the skins and horns of beasts, coral, ivory, and amber. "The Assyrian kings are in the habit of cutting cedar and other timber in Lebanon and Amanus. Tiglath-Pileser I. derived marbles from the country of the Nalri (supra, p. 70). "Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xix. pp. 137, 148, &c. Sennacherib uses Phoenicians to construct his vessels on the Tigris and to navigate them. (Sea above, p. 172.) 238 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. a day may undo the work which it has taken centuries to accomplish. To discourage and check the chronic disease of rebellion, recourse is had to severe remedies, which diminish the danger to the central power, at the cost of extreme misery and often almost entire ruin to the subject kingdoms. Not only are the lands wasted, the flocks and herds carried off,1 the towns pil- laged and burnt, or in some cases razed to the ground, the rebel king deposed and his crown transferred to another, the people punished by the execution of hundreds or thousands,2 as well as by an augmentation of the tribute money;8 but sometimea wholesale deportation of the inhabitants is practised, tens or hundreds of thousands being carried away captive by the conquerors,4 and either employed in servile labour at the capi- tal,5 or settled as colonists in a distant province. With this practice the history of the Jews, in which it forms so prominent a feature, has made us familiar. It seems to have been known to the Assyrians from very early times,6 and to have become by degrees a sort of settled principle in their government. In the most flourishing period of their dominion—the reigns of Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esar-haddon—it prevailed most widely, and was carried to the greatest extent. Chaldseans were trans- 1 The numbers are often marvellous. Sennacherib in one foray drives off 7,200 horses, 11,000 mules, 5,230 camels, 120,000 oxen, and 800,000 sheep! Some- times the sheep and oxen are said to be "countless as the stars of heaven." * The usual modes of punishment are beheading and impaling. Asshur-izir- pal impales on one occasion "thirty chiefs;" on another he beheads 250 warriors; on a third he impales captives on every side of the rebellious city. Compare the conduct of Darius (Herod, iii. 159). * This frequently takes place. (See above, pp. 85, 88, &c.) Hezekiah evi- dently expects an augmentation when he says, " That which thou puttest upon me I will bear" (2 Kings xviii . 14). 'It has been noticed (supra, pp. 158 and 161) that Sennacherib carried into captivity from Judsea more than 200,000 persons, and an equal or greater number from the tribes along the Euphrates. The practice is constant, butthenumbers are not commonly given. * As the Aramseans, ChalcUeans, Ar- menians, and Cilicians, by Sennacherib (supra, p. 183), and the numerous cap- tives who built his temples and palaces, by Sargon (Inscription* dtt Sargonida, p. 31). The captives may be seen en- gaged in their labours, under task- masters, upon the monuments. (Supra, vol. i. p. 402.) 4 See the annals of Aashur-izir-pal, where, however, the numbers carried off are small—in one case 2,600, in another 2,500, in others 1,200, 500, and 300. Women at this period are carried off in vast numbers, and become the wives of the soldiery. Tiglath-Pileser II. is the first king who practises deportation on a large scale. Chap. IX. STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF THE EMPIRE. 239 ported into Armenia,7 Jews and Israelites into Assyria and Media,8 Arabians, Babylonians, Susianians, and Persians into Palestine"—the most distant portions of the empire changed inhabitants, and no sooner did a people become troublesome from its patriotism and love of independence, than it was weak- ened by dispersion, and its spirit subdued by a severance of all its local associations. Thus rebellion was in some measure kept down, and the position of the central or sovereign state was rendered so far more secure; but this comparative security was gained by a great sacrifice of strength, and when foreign invasion came, the subject kingdoms, weakened at once and alienated by the treatment which they had received, were found to have neither the will nor the power to give any effectual aid to their enslaver.1 Such, in its broad and general outlines, was the empire of the Assyrians. It embodied the earliest, simplest, and most crude conception which the human mind forms of a widely extended dominion. It was a "kingdom-empire," like the empires of Solomon, of Nebuchadnezzar, of Chedor-laomer,2 and probably of Cyaxares, and is the best specimen of its class, being the largest, the longest in duration, and the best known of all such governments that has existed. It exhibits in a marked way both the strength and weakness of this class of monarchies— their strength in the extraordinary magnificence, grandeur, wealth, and refinement of the capital; their weakness in the impoverishment, the exhaustion, and the consequent disaffection of the subject states. Ever falling to pieces, it was perpetually reconstructed by the genius and prowess of a long succession of warrior princes, seconded by the skill and bravery of the people. 'Fortunate in possessing for a long time no very powerful neigh- bour,8 it found little difficulty in extending itself throughout 'By Sargon (supra, p. 152). ■ 2 Kings xvii 6; and supra, p. 162 and l. a. c . • 2 Kings rrii. 24 ; and Ezra iv. 9. 1 The case of Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 29), which may appear an exception, does not belong to Assyrian, but rather to Babylonian, history. ■ Gen. xiv. 1-12. See above, vol. i. pp. 161, 162. * Babylonia and Susiana are the only large countries bordering upon Assyria which appear to have been in any degree centralised. But even in Babylonia there are constantly found cities which have independent kings, and Chaldsea was always under a number of chief- tains. 240 Chap. IS. THE SECOND MONARCHY. regions divided and subdivided among hundreds of petty chiefs,4 incapable of union, and singly quite unable to contend with the forces of a large and populous country. Frequently endangered by revolts, yet always triumphing over them, it maintained itself for five centuries, gradually advancing its influence, and was only overthrown after a fierce struggle by a new kingdom5 formed upon its borders, which, taking advantage of a time of exhaustion, and leagued with the most powerful of the subject states, was enabled to accomplish the destruction of the long- dominant people. In the curt and dry records of the Assyrian monarchs, while the broad outlines of the government are well marked, it is difficult to distinguish those nicer shades of system and treat- ment which no doubt existed, and in which the empire of the Assyrians differed probably from others of the same type. One or two such points, however, may perhaps be made out. In the first place, though religious uniformity is certainly not the law of the empire, yet a religious character appears in many of the wars,6 and attempts at any rate seem to be made to diffuse everywhere a knowledge and recognition of the gods of Assyria. Nothing is more universal than the practice of setting up in the subject countries "the laws of Asshur" or "altars to the Great Gods." In some instances not only altars but temples arc erected, and priests are left to superintend the worship and .secure its being properly conducted. The history of Judsea is, however, enough to show that the continuance of the national worship was at least tolerated, though some formal acknowledg- ment of the presiding deities of Assyria on the part of the subject nations may not improbably have been required in most cases.7 * In the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pi- leser L and Asshur-izir-pal, each city of Mesopotamia and Syria seems to have its king. Twelve kings of the Hittites, twenty-four kings of the Tibareni (Tu- bal), and twenty-seven kings of the Partou, are mentioned by Shahnaneser II. The Phoenician and Philistine cities are always separate and independent. In Media and Bikan, during the reign of Esar-haddon, every town has its chief. Armenia is perhaps less divided: still it is not permanently under a single king. * Although Assyria came into contact with Median tribes as early as the reign of Shalmaneser II. (b.0. 850), yet the Median kingdom which conquered As- syria must be regarded as a new forma- tion—the consequence of a great immi- gration from the East, perhaps led by Cyaxares. • See above, p. 73. 7 It is probable that the altar which Chap. IX. CIVILISATION OF THE ASSYRIANS. 241 Secondly, there is an indication that in certain countries immediately bordering on Assyria endeavours were made from time to time to centralise and consolidate the empire, by sub- stituting, on fit occasions, for the native chiefs, Assyrian officers as governors. The persons appointed are of two classes— "collectors" and "treasurers." Their special business is, of course, as their names imply, to gather in the tribute due to the Great King, and secure its safe transmission to the capital; but they seem to have been, at least in some instances, entrusted with the civil government of their respective districts.8 It does not appear that this system was ever extended very far. Lebanon on the west, and Mount Zagros on the east, may be regarded as the extreme limits of the centralised Assyria. Armenia, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, most of Phoenicia,9 Pales- tine, Philistia, retained to the last their native monarchs; and thus Assyria, despite the feature here noticed, kept upon the whole her character of a "kingdom-empire." The civilisation of the Assyrians is a large subject, on which former chapters of this work have, it is hoped, thrown some light, and upon which only a very few remarks will be here offered by way of recapitulation. Deriving originally letters and the elements of learning from Babylonia, the Assyrians appear to have been content with the knowledge thus obtained, and neither in literature nor in science to have progressed much beyond their instructors. The heavy incubus of a dead language1 lay upon all those who desired to devote themselves to scientific pursuits; and, owing to this, knowledge tended to become the exclusive possession of a learned or perhaps a priest class, which did not aim at progress, but was satisfied to hand Ahaz saw at Damascus, and of which he sent a pattern to Jerusalem (2 Kings xvi. 10), was Assyrian rather than Syrian, and that he adopted the worship connected with it in deference to his Assyrian suzerain. 'See above, pp. 147, 149, 158, &e. • For one exception in this district, see above, p. 187. Another is furnished by the Assyrian Canon, which gives a prefect of Arpad as Eponym in B.C. 692. VOL. II. The general continuance, however, of native kings in these parts is strongly marked by the list of 22 subject monarchs in an inscription of Esar-haddon (supra, p. 200, note •). 1 The old scientific treatises appear to have been in the Hamitic dialect of the Proto-ChaleUcans. It was not till the time of Asshur-bani-pal that translations were made to any great extent. s 242 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. on the traditions of former ages. To understand the genius of the Assyrian people we must look to their art and their manu- factures. These are in the main probably of native growth; and from them we may best gather an impression of the national character. They show us a patient, laborious, pains- taking people; with more appreciation of the useful than the ornamental, and of the actual than the ideal. Architecture, the only one of the fine arts which is essentially useful forms their chief glory; sculpture, and still more painting, are sub- sidiary to it. Again, it is the most useful edifice—the palace or house—whereon attention is concentrated—the temple and the tomb, the interest attaching to which is ideal and spiritual, are secondary, and appear (so far as they appear at all) simply as appendages of the palace. In the sculpture it is the actual —the historically true—which the artist strives to represent. Unless in the case of a few mythic figures connected with the religion of the country, there is nothing in the Assyrian bas- reliefs which is not imitated from nature. The imitation is always laborious, and often most accurate and exact. The laws of representation, as we understand them, are sometimes departed from, but it is always to impress the spectator with ideas in accordance with truth. Thus the colossal bulls and lions have five legs, but in order that they may be seen from every point of view with four; the ladders are placed edgeways against the walls of besieged towns, but it is to show that they are ladders, and not mere poles; walls of cities are made dis- proportionately small, but it is done, like Raphael's boat, to bring them within the picture, which would otherwise be a less complete representation of the actual fact. The careful finish, the minute detail, the elaboration of every hair in a beard, and every stitch in the embroidery of a dress, reminds us of the Dutch school of painting, and illustrates strongly the spirit of faithfulness and honesty which pervades the sculptures, and gives them so great a portion of their value. In conception, in grace, in freedom and correctness of outline, they fall un- doubtedly far behind the inimitable productions of the Greeks; but they have a grandeur and a dignity, a boldness, a strength, Chap. IX. ASSYRIAN ART AND MANUFACTURES. 243 and an appearance of life, which render them even intrinsically valuable as works of art, and, considering the time at which they were produced, must excite our surprise and admiration. Art, so far as we know, had existed previously only in the stiff and lifeless conventionalism of the Egyptians. It belonged to Assyria to confine the conventional to religion, and to apply art to the vivid representation of the highest scenes of human life. War in all its forms—the march, the battle, the pursuit, the siege of towns, the passage of rivers and marshes, the sub- mission and treatment of captives, and the "mimic war" of hunting—the chase of the lion, the stag, the antelope, the wild bull, and the wild ass, are the chief subjects treated by the Assyrian sculptors; and in these the conventional is discarded; fresh scenes, new groupings, bold and strange attitudes per- petually appear, and in the animal representations especially there is a continual advance, the latest being the most spirited, the most varied, and the most true to nature, though perhaps lacking somewhat of the majesty and grandeur of the earlier. With no attempt to idealise or go beyond nature, there is a growing power of depicting things as they are—an increased grace and delicacy of execution, showing that Assyrian art was progressive, not stationary, and giving a promise of still higher excellence, had circumstances permitted its development. The art of Assyria has every appearance of thorough and entire nationality; but it is impossible to feel sure that her manufactures were in the same sense absolutely her own. The practice of borrowing skilled workmen from the conquered states would introduce into Nineveh and the other royal cities the fabrics of every region which acknowledged the Assyrian sway; and plunder, tribute, and commerce would unite to enrich them with the choicest products of all civilised countries. Still, judging by the analogy of modern times, it seems most reason- able to suppose that the bulk of the manufactured goods con- sumed in the country would be of home growth. Hence we may fairly assume that the vases, jars, bronzes, glass bottles, carved ornaments in ivory and mother-of-pearl, engraved gems, bells, dishes, earrings, arms, working implements, &c., which s 2 244 Chap. IX. THE SECOND MONARCHY. have been found at Nimrud, Khorsabad, and Koyunjik, are mainly the handiwork of the Assyrians. It has been conjectured that the rich garments represented as worn by the kings and others were the product of Babylon,2 always famous for its tissues; but even this is uncertain; and they are perhaps as likely to have been of home manufacture. At any rate the bulk of the ornaments, utensils, &c., may be regarded as native products. These are almost invariably of elegant form, and indicate a considerable knowledge of metallurgy and other arts,8 as well as a refined taste. Among them are some which anticipate inventions believed till lately to have been modern. Transparent glass (which, however, was known also in ancient Egypt) is one of these;4 but the most remarkable of all is the lens5 discovered at Nimrud, of the use of which as a magnifying agent there is abundant proof." If it be borne in mind, in addition to all this, that the buildings of the Assyrians show them to have been well acquainted with the principle of the arch, that they constructed tunnels, aqueducts, and drains, that they knew the use of the pulley, the lever, and the roller, that they understood the arts of inlaying, enamelling, and overlay- ing with metals, and that they cut gems with the greatest skill and finish, it will be apparent that their civilisation equalled that of almost any ancient country, and that it did not fall im- measurably behind the boasted achievements of the moderns. With much that was barbaric still attaching to them, with a rude and inartificial government, savage passions, a debasing religion, and a general tendency to materialism, they were, towards the close of their empire, in all the ordinary arts and appliances of life, very nearly on a par with ourselves; and thus their history furnishes a warning—which the records of nations constantly repeat—that the greatest material prosperitymay co- exist with the decline—and herald the downfall—of a kingdom. 2 Quarterly iie>'.No.clxvii.pp. 150,151. ■ See above, vol. i. pp. 365-372. * See vol. i. p. 389. 8 Layard, Nmeveh and J3abylon,p. 1§7. "Long before the discovery of the Nimrud lens it had been concluded that the Assyrians used magnifying glasses, from the fact that the inscriptions were often so minute that they could not pos- sibly be read, and therefore could not have been formed, without them. (See voL i. pp. 263 and 391.) <. 245 ) APPENDIX. A. ON THE MEANINGS OF THE ASSYRIAN ROYAL NAMES. The names of the Assyrians, like those of the Hebrews, seem to have been invariably significant. Each name is a sentence, fully or elliptically expressed, and consists consequently of at least two elements. This number is frequently—indeed, commonly—increased to three, which are usually a noun in the nominative case, a verb active agreeing with it, and a noun in the objective or accusative case governed by the verb. The genius of the language requires that in names of this kind the nominative case should invariably be placed first; but there is no fixed rule as to the order of the two other words; the verb may be either preceded or followed by the accusative. The number of elements in an Assyrian name amounts in rare cases to four, a maximum reached by some Hebrew names, as Maher-shalal-hash-baz.l Only one or two of the royal names comes under this category. No Assyrian name exceeds the number of four elements.' An example of the simplest form of name is Sar-gon, or Sar-gina, "the established king," i.e. "(I am) the established king." The roots are Sar, or in the full nominative, sarru, the common word for "king" (compare Heb. ife, rnto, &c), and kin (or gin),* "to esta- blish," a root akin to the Hebrew fa. A name equally simple is Buzur-Asshur, which means either "Asshur is a stronghold," or "Asshur is a treasure; " buzur being the Assyrian equivalent of the Hebrew -un, which has this double signification. (See Gesen. Lex. p. 165.) A third name of the same simple form is Saiil-mugina (Sammughes), which probably means 1 Isaiah viii. 3. the Eponym of the 18th year of Asshur- 'The list of Eponyms in the famous izir-pal. Mr. G. Smith finds in the name, Canon, which contains nearly 250 names, however, only four elements, furnishes (according to the reading of 1 'Otn or gina is the Turanian equiva- M. Opi>ert) one exception to this rule— lent of the Assyrian kin or kino. 246 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Amron A. "Saiil (is) the establisher," mugina being the participial form of the same verb which occurs in Ssx-gina or Sargon.4 There is another common form of Assyrian name consisting of two elements, the latter of which is the name of a god, while the former is either thamtu or sliamsi (Heb. ctrtf), the common word for "servant," or else a term significative of worship, adoration, reverence, or the like. Of the former kind, there is bnt one royal name, viz., Shamas-Yul. "the servant of Vol," a name exactly resembling in its formation the Phoenician Abdistartos, the Hebrew Obadiah, Abdiel, &c, and the Arabic Abdallah.' Of the latter kind are the two royal names, Tiglathi-Nin and Mutaggil-Nebo. Tiglathi- Nin is from tiglat or tiklat, " adoration, reverence" (comp. Chald. 'bp, "to trust in"), and Nin or Ninip, the Assyrian Hercules. The meaning is "Adoratio (sit) Herculi"—" Let worship (be given to) Hercules." Mutaggil-Nebo is "confiding in" or "worshipping Nebo" —mutajgil being frorj the same root as tiglat, but the participle, instead of the abstract substantive. A name very similar in its con- struction is that of the Caliph Motawakkil Billah.6 With these names compounded of two elements it will be con- venient to place one which is compounded of three, viz., Tiglath- Pileser, or Tiglat-pal-zira. This name has exactly the same mean- ing as Tiglathi-Nin—" Be worship given to Hercules;" the only difference being that Nin or Hercules is here designated by a favourite epithet, Pal-zira, instead of by any of his proper mames. In Pal-zira, the first element is undoubtedly pal, "a son ;" the other element is obscure ;7 all that we know of it is that Nin was called "the son of Zira," apparently because he had a temple at Calah which was called Bit-Zira, or "the house of Zira."* M. Oppert believes Zira to be " the Zodiac;"9 but there seem to be no grounds for this identification. Names of the common threefold type are Asshur-iddin-akhi, Asshur-izir-pal,u> Sin-aklii-irib (Sennacherib), Asshur-akh-iddina (Esar-haddon), and Asshur-bani-paL Asshur-idden-akhi is "Asshur 'Or Saiil-niugina may be in good Turanian "Saiil establishes me," the syllable mu being a separate element, sometimes equivalent to our "me." * Other names of this kind are Abdi- Milkut (supra, p. 187), Abdolominus (or rather Abdalonimus), Abed-Nego, Abd-er-Rahman, Abd-el-Kader. • So Oppert, Expldititm icientijtque en Maopotamit, vol. ii. p. 352. i Sir H. Rawlinson believes Zira to mean "lord," as Zirat certainly means "lady," "mistress," or "wife." Bitzira would thus be "the Lord's house," or "the holy house." • See above, p. 22. • Expedition icientijique, l. s. c . "Asshur-izir-pal seems to be the true name of the king who was formerly called Sardanapalus I. or Asshur-idanni-pal. Appendix A. MEANINGS OF ROYAL NAMES. 24/ has given brothers," iddin being the third person singular of nadan, "to give" (comp. Heb. and akhi being the plural of akhu, "a brother" (comp. Heb. tin). Asshur-izir-pal is " Asshur protects (my) son," izir (for inzir) being derived from a root corresponding to the Hebrew tm, "to protect," and pal being (as already explained u) the Assyrian equivalent for the Hebrew ft and the Syriac bar, " a son." The meaning of Sin-akhi-irib (Sennacherib) is "Sin (the Moon) has multiplied brethren," irib being from raba (Heb. rm), "to augment, multiply." Asshur-akh-iddina is "Asshur has given a brother," from roots already explained; and Asshur-bani-pal is "Asshur has formed a son," from Asshur, bani, and pal; bani being the participle of bana, "to form, make" (comp. Heb. to). Other tri-elemental names are Asshur-ris-ilim, Bel-kudur-uzur, Asshur-bil-kala, Nin-pala-zira, and Bel-sumili-kapi. Asshur-ris-ilim either signifies "Asshur (is) the head of the gods," from Asshur, ris, which is equivalent to Heb. "head," and Hint, the plural of il or el, "god ;" or perhaps it may mean "Asshur (is) high- headed," from Asshur, ris, and dam, "high," ris-elim being equiva- lent to the tir-buland of the modern Persians.1 Bel-kudur-uzur means "Bel protects my seed," or " Bel protects the youth," as will be explained in the next volume under Nebuchadnezzar. Asshur- bil-kala means probably " Asshur (is) lord altogether," from Asshur, bil, "a lord" (Heb. fta), and kala, "wholly;" a form connected with the Hebrew or a/-adau, "Merodach has given a son ;" whence the transition to the Syriac bar (as in Bar-Jesus, Bar-Jonas, &c.) was easy. 1 Sir H. Rawlinson, in Athenceum, No. 1869, p. 244, note :. i'lam, "high," is to be connected with and nbrp. * Supra, p. 246. * Sir H. Rawlinson, iu Atlienwum. No. 1869, p. 243, note '. 'In the list of Epouyms. six names out of nearly 250 arecomixised of four elements. 248 Appendix A. THE SECOND MONARCHY. .which is sometimes written as emid (comp. n»), sometimes as nirik, being translated in a vocabulary by kinat, "power," while the last element (which is omitted on the monarch's bricks) is of course from kin (the equivalent of fQ), which has been explained under Sargon. The name of the other monarch presents no difficulty. Asshur-bil- nisi-su means "Asshur (is) the lord of his people," from bil or bilu, "lord," nis, " a man" (comp. Heb. tfop), and 0u, "his" ( = Heb. i). To these names of monarchs may be added one or two names of princes, which are mentioned in the records of the Assyrians, or elsewhere; as Asshur-danin-pal, the eldest son of the great Shalmaneser, and Adrammelech and Sharezer, sons of Sennacherib. Asshur-danin-pal seems to be "Asshur strengthens a son," from Asshur, pal, and danin, which has the force of "strengthening " in Assyrian.8 Adrammelech has been explained as decus regis, "the king's glory;"6 but it would be more consonant with the prop osi- tional character of the names generally to translate it "the king (is) glorious," from adir (nx or n»), "great, glorious," and melek (-]So), "a king." Or Adrammelech may be from ediru (comp. tw), a common Assyrian word meaning "the arranger" and melek, and may signify "the king arranges," or "the king is the arranger."7 Sharezer, if that be the true reading, would seem to be "the king protects," from sar or sarru, "a king" (as in Sargon), and a form, izir, from nazar or natsar," "to guard, protect." The Armenian equivalent, however, for this name, San-asar, may be the proper form; and this would apparently be " The Moon (Sin) protects." Nothing is more remarkable in this entire catalogue of names than their predominantly religious character. Of the thirty-nine kings and princes which the Assyrian lists furnish, the names of no fewer than thirty-one contain, as one element, either the name or the designation of a god. Of the remaining eight, five have doubtful names,1 so that there remain three only whose names are known to be purely of a secular character." Thirteen names, one of 5 Danin is Benoni of a root pi con- stantly used in Assyrian in the sense of "being strong" or "strengthening." Sarru dannu, "the powerful king," is the standard expression in all the royal inscriptions. The root has not, I believe, any representative in other Semitic languages. 1 Oppert, ExpidhUm scienlifique en Misopotamie, vol. ii. p. 355. 'Sir H. Rawlinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 502, 2nd ed. 8 See above, p. 247. 1 These five kings bear only two names, Pud-il and Shalmaneser, the latter of which occurs four times in our list. Various explanations have been given of the name Shalmaneser (see Athenaum, No. 1869, p. 244, note5; Oppert, Expedition tcientifique, vol. ii. p. 353); but none is satisfactory. ! Sargon, Adrammelech, and Sharezer. Appendix A, MEANINGS OF ROYAL NAMES. 249 which was bome by two kings, contain the element Asshnr; three, two of which occur twice, contain the element Nin; * two, one of which was in such favour as to occur four times,4 contain the element Vul; three contain the element Bel; one the element Nebo; and one the element Sin.6 The names occasionally express mere facts of the mythology, as Nin-pala-zira, " Nin (is) the son of Zira," Bel-sumili-kapi, "Bel (is) left-handed," and the like. More often the fact enunciated is one in which the glorification of the deity is involved; as, Asshur-bil-nisi-su, "Asshnr (is) the lord of his people ;" Buzur-Asshur, "a stronghold (is) Asshur;" Asshur- bil-kala, "Asshur (is) lord altogether." Frequently the name seems to imply some special thankfulness to a particular god for the par- ticular child in question, who is viewed as having been his gift, in answer to a vow or to prayer. Of this kind are Asshur-akh-iddina (Esar-haddon), Sin-akhi-irib (Sennacherib), Asshur-bani-pal, &c.; where the god named seems to be thanked for the child whom he has caused to be born. Such names as Tiglathi-Nin, Tiglath- Pileser, express this feeling even more strongly, being actual ascrip- tions of praise by the grateful parent to the deity whom he regards as his benefactor. In a few of the names, as Mutaggil-Nebo and Shamas-Iva, the religious sentiment takes a different turn. Instead of the parent merely expressing his own feelings of gratitude towards this or that god, he dedicates in a way his son to him, assigning to him an appellation which he is to verify in his after-life by a special devotion to the deity of whom in his very name he professes himself the "servant" or the "worshipper." Even here some doubt attaches to one name. If we read Sanasar for Sharezer, the name will be a religious one. * i. «., they either contain the name Nin, or the common designation of the god, Pal-Zira. * This is the name which has been given as Vul-lush, a name composed of three elements, each one of which is of uncertain sound, while the second and third are also of uncertain meaning. 'Sir H. Rawlinson has collected a list of nearly a thousand Assyrian names. About two-thirds of them have the name of a god for their dominant ele- ment. Asshur and Nebo hold the fore- most place, and are of about equal fre- quency. The other divine names occur much less often than these, and no one of them has any particular prominence. 250 Appendix B. THE SECOND MONARCHY. a TABULAR VIEW OF THE NAMES ASSIGNED TO THE ASSYRIAN KINGS AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND BY DIFFERENT WRITERS. Sir H. Rawlinaon in I860. Bel-lush Pud il Vul-lush I.b Shalma-Bar c Nin-pala-kurad Asshur-daha-il Mutaggil-Nebo Asshur-ris-ilim Tiglath-Pileser I. Asshur bani-pal L Asshur-adan-akhi Aashur-dan-il Vul-lush II. Ti« lathi-Niuip Asshur-idanni-pal fchalmanu-sar i. Shamosh-Vul Vul-lush III. Tiglath-Pileaor II.£ Shalmauu-asr II. Sirgina Sennacherib Esar-haddon A ash ur-bani-pal Assur eniit-ili 0. Smith in 1ST0. Bel-sumili-kapi (?) Aashur- bilu-nisi-su Buzur-Asshnr Asshur-upallit Bilu-nirari (?) Pudi-el Vul-nirari I. (?) Sallim-manu uzur I. Tukulti-Ninip I. Vol-nirari II. (?) Nin-pala zara Asshiir-dayan I. Mutaggil-Nabu A ssh ur- ris-eUm Tukulti-pal-zara I. Asshur-bilkala Samsi-Vul I. Asshur-rabu-amar Asshur-muzur A Arthur- iddin akhl Asshur-dayan II. Vul-nirari III. (?) Tukulti-Ninip II. Asdiur-nazir-pale SalLim-maim-uzur II. Samsi-Vul II. Vul-nirari IV. (?) Sallim-mauu-uzur III. Aashur-dayan HI. Asshur-nirari (?) TukulU-pal-zara II. Sallim-mauu-uzur IV. Sar-gina h Sennacherib 1 Esar-haddon I Asshur-bani-pal Asshur-emit-ilin Dr. Hincka. Divanu-rish Ninip-pal-isri Assur-dayan Tiklat-pal lsri I. Shimish Bar Asshur-yuzhur bal f Divanu-Bara Shamsi-Yav M. Oppert in 186°.* Tiklat-pal-isri IL Sar-giria Tsin-akhi-irib Asdiur-akh idin Asshnr-idauna-bal Bel kat-irarau. Asur-bel-nisi-au. Busur-Asur. Asur-uballat. Bel-likh-khis. Pudi-el. Bin-likh-khU I. Salman-asir II. Tuklat-Ninip I. Bin likh-khis II. N inip-habal-asar. Avur-dayan. Mutakkil-Nabu. Asur-ris-isi. Tuklat-habal-asar I. Asur-iddaiuia-habal. Asur iddin-akhe. Asur-edil-el I. Biu-likh-khisIII. Tuklat-Ninip II. Asur-nazir-habal Salman-asir III. Samas-Biu. Bin-likh-khia IV. Saiiuan-aur IV. Asur-edil-el II. Astir likh-khis. Tuklat-habal-asar II. Salman-asir V. Saryu-kin. Sin-akhe irib. Asur-akh-iddin. Asur-baui habaL Asur-edil-el III. a In thU list I have taken the forms of the names either from M. Oppert's own article in the Revue arche'olofsiqne for 1805), or from the Manuel d'Histoire ancienne at t'Orient of hi* disciple, M. Francois Leuormant i5th ed. 1S0K). b This uame is composed of three elements, all of which are doubtful The first is the god of the atmosphere, who has been called Vul, Iva, Yav, Yam, Yem, Ao, Bin, aud V or Qu. The second element has been read as likht zala, and trim; the third aa gabt AAiw, audpalkir. Both of theiu are must uncertain. c Or Shalma-ria. This name was originally thought to be different from that of the Black-Obelisk king, but is now regarded as a mere variant, and as equivalent to the Scriptural Shalmaneser. The last element is the same word as the name of the Assyrian Hercules, who has been called Bar, Nin or Niuip, and Ussur, and who possibly bore all these appellations. Sir H. Rawlinaon originally called this king Temenbar. (Commentary, p. 22.) J Or Kin-iiala-si>-a. (Rawliusou's Herodotus, 1st edition.) c The middle element of thia name was thought to represent the root "to give." and to nave the power of iddin or idanni; but a variant reading in the recently discovered Canon employs the phonetic complement of tr, thus showing that the root must be the one ordinarily represented by the character, namely ula, "to protect," which will form nazir in the Benoui, and izir (for inzir) iu the third lwiaon of the aorist. f Originally Ur. ilincks called this monarch Aashur-aiA-bol. (Layard's Jfin, and Bab. p. 615. Mr. Fox Talbot still prefers this reading. (Atheuteum, No. 18a9, p. 120.) £ Tlus, of course, is following the Hebrew literation. The Assyrian is read as Tukulti-pal-zara. h Or, more fully, Sarru-gina. i The Assyrian names of Sennacherib and Esar-haddon, according to Mr. G. Smith, were Sin- akhi-irba and Asshur-okb-iddiua. THE THIRD MONARCHY. MEDIA. CHAPTER I. DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNTRY. Xiiprlr raicriovres dirtipiTOv, oi piv hr' airras H4rpas al vxpd (xi. 13, § 7). Compare Kinneir, Persian Empire, pp. 108, 144, 149, with Fraser, Khoratan, pp. 162- 165. "This is more especially the case in Irak, the most southern portion of the country. (Kinneir, p. 108.) 256 THE THIRD MONARCHY. Chap. L traveller with a feeling of sadness and weariness. Even in Azerbijan, which is one of the least arid portions of the territory, vast tracts consist of open undulating downs,9 desolate and sterile, bearing only a coarse withered grass and a few stunted bushes. Still there are considerable exceptions to this general aspect of desolation. In the worst parts of the region, there is a time after the spring rains when nature puts on a holiday dress, and the country becomes gay and cheerful. The slopes at the base of the rocky ranges are tinged with an emerald green:10 a richer vegetation springs up over the plains,11 which are covered with a fine herbage or with a variety of crops; the fruit trees which surround the villages burst out into the most luxuriant blossom; the roses come into bloom, and their perfume everywhere fills the air.12 For the two months of April and May the whole face of the country is changed, and a lovely verdure replaces the ordinary dull sterility. In a certain number of more favoured spots, beauty and fertility are found during nearly the whole of the year. All round the shores of Lake Urumiyeh,1 more especially in the rich plain of Miyandab at its southern extremity, along the valleys of the Aras,2 the Kizil-Uzen,8 and the Jaghetu,4 in the great ballook of Linjan,8 fertilised by irrigation from the Zenderud, in the Zagros valleys,6 and in various other places, there is an excellent soil which produces abundantly with very slight cultivation. The general sterility of Media arises from the scantiness of the water supply. It has but few rivers, and the streams that it possesses run for the most part in deep and narrow valleys 'Sir H. Rawlinson in Geograph. !Ker Porter, TraxeU, vol. i. p. 217; Journ. vol. x. pp. 43, 44, 55, &c. Even I Kinneir, p. 153; Morier, pp. 234-236. here a tree is a rarity. (Morier, Second Journey, p. 237.) 10 Fraaer, p. 163. 11 Ker Porter, vol. i . pp. 285, 367, &c. a Ibid. pp. 228, 231, Ac. ; Geograph. Journ. vol. x. p. 29. i neir, L s. c.) The plain of Moghan on the lower Aras is famous for its rich soil and luxuriant pastures. The Persians say that the grass is sufficiently high to hide an army from view when encamped. (Kin- 1 Journal of Geographical Society, vol. x. pp. 2, 5, 10, 13, 39, &c.; Kinneir, Persian Empire, pp. 153-156; Morier, Second Journey, p. 284; Ker Porter, vol. ii. p. 592-607. 'Journal of Geograph. Society, vol. x. p. 59 ; Ker Porter, vol. i. p. 267. 4 Geograph. Journ. vol. x. pp. 11, 40, Ac 'Kinneir, p. 110. • Rich, Kurdistan, pp. 60,130-134, &a Chap. L RIVERS OF MEDIA—THE ARAS. 257 sunk below the general level of the ceuntry, so that they cannot be applied at all widely to purposes of irrigation. Moreover, some of them are, unfortunately, impregnated with salt to such an extent that they are altogether useless for this purpose;7 and indeed, instead of fertilising, spread around them desolation and barrenness. The only Median streams which are of sufficient importance to require description are the Aras, the Kizil-Uzen, the Jaghetu, the Aji-Su and the Zenderud, or river of Isfahan. The Aras is only very partially a Median stream.8 It rises from several sources in the mountain tract between Kars and Erzeroum,9 and runs with a generally eastern direction through Armenia to the longitude of Mount Ararat, where it crosses the fortieth parallel and begins to trend southward, flowing along the eastern side of Ararat in a south-easterly direction, nearly to the Julfa ferry on the highroad from Erivan to Tabriz. From this point it runs only a little south of east to long. 46° 30' E. from Greenwich, when it makes almost a right angle and runs directly north-east to its junction with the Kur at Djavat. Soon after this it curves to the south, and enters the Caspian by several mouths in lat. 39° 10' nearly. The Aras is a considerable stream almost from its source. At Hassan-Kaleh, less than twenty miles from Erzeroum, where the river is forded in several branches, the water reaches to the saddle-girths.10 At Keupri-Kieui, not much lower, the stream is crossed by a bridge of seven arches.11 At the Julfa ferry it is fifty yards wide, and runs with a strong current.12 At Megree, thirty miles further down, its width is eighty yards.18 In spring and early summer the stream receives enormous accessions from the spring rains and the melting of the snows, which produce floods that often cause great damage to the lands and villages along the valley. Hence the difficulty of maintaining bridges over the Aras, which was noted as early * Ker Porter, vol. i. pp. 220, 370, &c . ; Morier, Second Journey, pp. 167, 233; Gcograph. Journ. vol. xxxi. p. 38. • According to Strabo (xi. 13, § 3), the lower Araxes was the boundary be- tween Armenia and Media Atropat6ne\ Thus even here one bank only was vol. n. Median; and the upper course of the river was entirely in Armenia. 'See Hamilton's Asia Minor, vol. i. p. 183. 10 Ibid. L 8. c. » Ibid. p. 185. 12 Ker Porter, vol. i. p. 215. ls Kinneir, p. 321. S 258 Chap. I THE THIRD MONARCHY. as the time of Augustus,14 and is attested by the ruins of many such structures remaining along its course.15 Still, there are at the present day at least three bridges over the stream,—one, which has been already mentioned, at Keupri-Kieui, another a little above Nakshivan, and the third at Khudoperinski, a little below Megree.16 The length of the Aras, including only main windings, is 500 miles.17 The Kizil-Uzen, or (as it is called in the lower part of its course) the Sefid-Rud, is a stream of less size than the Aras, but more important to Media, within which lies almost the whole of its basin. It drains a tract of 180 miles long by 150 broad before bursting through the Elburz mountain chain, and descending upon the low country which skirts the Caspian. Rising in Persian Kurdistan almost from the foot of Zagros, it runs in a meandering course with a general direction of north- east through that province into the district of Khamseh, where it suddenly sweeps round and flows in a bold curve at the foot of lofty and precipitous rocks,18 first north-west and then north, nearly to Miana, when it doubles back upon itself, and turning the flank of the Zenjan range runs with a course nearly south- east to Menjil, after which it resumes its original direction of north-east, and rushing down the pass of Rudbar19 crosses Ghilan to the Caspian. Though its source is in direct distance no more than 220 miles from its mouth, its entire length, owing to its numerous curves and meanders, is estimated at 490 miles.20 It is a considerable stream, forded with difficulty, even in the dry season, as high up as Karagul,21 and crossed by a bridge of three wide arches before its junction with the Garongu river near Miana.22 In spring and early summer it is an impetuous torrent, and can only be forded within a short distance of its source. "Virgil, Jin. viii. 728. "Poutem indignatus Araxes." ls Ker Porter, vol. ii. pp. 610, 641,&c. 10 Kinneir, L s. c . "Colonel Chesney estimates the whole course of the Araxes, including all its windings, at 830 miles. (Euphrates Ex- pedition, vol. i. p. 12.) "Sir H. Rawlinson estimated the height of these rocks above the stream at 1500 feet. (Geograph. Journ. vol. x. p. 59.) 19 Ibid. p. 64; Kinneir, p. 124. ■ Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i . p. 191. "Geograph. Journ. vol. x. p. 59. H Ker Porter, vol. i . p. 267; Morier, First Journey, p. 267. Chap. L THE JAGHETU, AJI-SU, AND ZENDEBUD. 259 The Jaghetu and the Aji-Su are the two chief rivers of the Urumiyeh basin. The Jaghetu rises from the foot of the Zagros chain, at a very little distance from the source of the Kiril-Uzen. It collects the streams from the range of hills which divides the Kizil-Uzen basin from thatof Lake Urumiyeh, and flows in a tolerably straight course first north and then north-west to the south-eastern shore of the lake. Side by side with it for some distance flows the smaller stream of the Tatau, formed by torrents from Zagros; and between them, towards their mouths, is the rich plain of Miyandab, easily irrigated from the two streams, the level of whose beds is above that of the plain,28 and abundantly productive even under the present system of cultivation . The Aji-Su reaches the lake from the north-east. It rises from Mount Sevilan, within sixty miles of the Caspian, and flows with a course which is at first nearly due south, then north-west, and finally south-west, past the city of Tabriz, to the eastern shore of the lake, which it enters in lat. 37° 50'. The waters of the Aji-Su are, unfortunately, salt,24 and it is therefore valueless for purposes of irrigation. The Zenderud or river of Isfahan rises from the eastern flank of the Kuh-i-Zerd (Yellow Mountain), a portion of the Bakhti- yari chain, and receiving a number of tributaries from the same mountain district, flows with a course which is generally east or somewhat north of east, past the great city of Isfahan—so long the capital of Persia—into the desert country beyond, where it is absorbed in irrigation.1 Its entire course is perhaps not more than 120 or 130 miles; but running chiefly through a plain region, and being naturally a stream of large size, it is among the most valuable of the Median rivers, its waters being capable of spreading fertility, by means of a proper arrangement of canals, over a vast extent of country,2 and giving to this part 22 Geograph. Journ. vol. x. p. 11. M Ker Porter, vol. i. p. 220 ; Morier, Second Journey, p. 233. 1 Kinneir, p. 109. * According to Kinneir, the whole ballook of Linjan, a district seventy miles long and forty wide, is irrigated by canals cut from the Zenderud, which render it one of the most productive parts of Persia (p. 110). Ker Porter speaks of the "great quantities of water which are drawn off from the Zenderud for the daily use of the rice-fielda all around Isfahan" (voL i . p. 420). a 2 26o Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. of Iran a sylvan character,8 scarcely found elsewhere on the plateau. It will be observed that of these streams there is not one which reaches the ocean. All the rivers of the great Iranic plateau terminate in lakes or inland seas, or else lose them- selves in the desert. In general the thirsty sand absorbs, within a short distance of their source, the various brooks and streams which flow south and east into the desert from the northern and western mountain chains, without allowing them to collect into rivers or to carry fertility far into the plain region. The river of Isfahan forms the only exception to this rule within the limits of the ancient Media. All its other important streams, as has been seen, flow either into the Caspian or into the great lake of Urumiyeh. That lake itself now requires our attention. It is an oblong basin, stretching in its greater direction from N.N.W. to S.S.E., a distance of above eighty miles, with an average width of about twenty-five miles.4 On its eastern side a remarkable peninsula, projecting far into its waters, divides it into two Dortions of very unequal size—a northern and a southern. The southern one, which is the largest of the two, is diversified towards its centre by a group of islands, some of which are of a considerable size. The lake, like others in this part of Asia,5 is several thousand feet above the sea level. Its waters are heavily impregnated with salt, resembling those of the Dead Sea. No fish can live in them. When a storm sweeps over their surface it only raises the waves a few feet; and no sooner is it passed than they rapidly subside again into a deep, heavy, death-like sleep.6 The lake is shallow, nowhere exceeding four fathoms, and averaging about two fathoms—a depth which, however, is rarely attained within two miles of the land. The water is pellucid. To the eye it has the deep blue colour of * Ker Porter, vol. i. pp. 411 and 431; vol. U. p. 60. * Kinneir goes considerably beyond the truth when he estimates the circum- ference at 300 miles. (Persian Empire, p. 155.) 'Lake Urumiyeh is 4200 feet above the sea level; Lake Van 5400 feet Lake Sivan is less elevated than either of these; but still its height above the sea is considerable. * See Geographical Journal, vol. x. p. 7. Compare vol. iii. p. 56; and see ak-o Kinneir, L s. c. Chap. L CHIEF DISTRICTS OF MEDIA. 26l some of the northern Italian lakes, whence it was called by the. Armenians the Kapotan Zow or "Blue Sea."7 According to the Armenian geography, Media contained eleven districts ;8 Ptolemy makes the number eight ;9 but the classical geographers in general are contented with the twofold division already indicated,10 and recognise as the constituent parts of Media only Atropatene- (now Azerbijan) and Media Magna, a tract which nearly corresponds with the two provinces of Irak Ajemi and Ardelan. Of the minor subdivisions there are but two or three which seem to deserve any special notice. One of these is Rhagiana, or the tract skirting the Elburz Mountains from the vicinity of the Kizil-Uzen (or Sefid-Rud) to the Caspian Gates, a long and narrow slip, fairly productive, but excessively hot in summer, which took its name from the important city of Rhages. Another is Nissea, a name which the Medes seem to have carried with them from their early eastern abodes,11 and to have applied to some high upland plains west of the main chain of Zagros, which were peculiarly favourable to the breeding of horses. As Alexander visited these pastures on his way from Susa to Ecbatana,12 they must necessarily have lain to the south of the latter city. Most probably they are to be identified with the modern plains of Khawah and Alishtar, between Behistun and Khorramabad, which are even now considered to afford the best summer pasturage in Persia.18 It is uncertain whether any of these divisions were known * Armen. Oeogr. p. 364. It has been ingeniously conjectured that Strabo's X-iravra (xi. 13, § 2) is a corruption of Kairavra, due to some ancient copyist. (See St. Martin's Recherchet sur VAr- minie, torn. i. p. 59; and compare Ingigi, Archceolog. Armen. vol. i. p. 160, and Geograph. Journ. voL X. p. 9.) * These were Atropatia (or Atropa- t&n€), Rhea (Rhagiana), Oilania (Ghi- I ml, Mucania, Dilmnia, Amatania (Hamadan), Dambuaria, Sparastania, Amlia, Chesoaia, and Rhovania (pp. 363, 364). 'Ptolemy's districts are Margiana, Tropat£ne (i.e. Atropaten6), Choromi- thrdn6, Elymais, Sigriana, Rhagiana, Da- ritis, and Syro-Media (Geograph. vi. 2). u See above, p. 253. "The proper Nissea is the district of Nishapur in Khorasan (Strabo, xi. 7, § 2; Isid. Char. p. 7), whence it is pro- bable that the famous breed of horses was originally brought. The Turkoman horses of the Atak are famous through- out Persia. (See the Gcograph. Journ. vol. ix. p. 101.) ™ Arrian, Exp. Alex. vii. 13. Compare Diod. Sic. xvii. 110, § 6. "Geographical Journal, voL ix. pp. 100, 101. Compare Ker Porter, voL ii. p. 84. 262 Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. in the time of the great Median Empire. They are not consti- tuted in any case by marked natural lines or features. On the whole it is perhaps most probable that the main division—that into Media Magna and Media Atropat^ne'—was ancient, Atro- patene- being the old home of the Medes,1 4 and Media Magna a later conquest; but the early political geography of the country is too obscure to justify us in laying down even this as certain. The minor political divisions are still less distinguishable in the darkness of those ancient times. From the consideration of the districts which composed the Median territory, we may pass to that of their principal cities, some of which deservedly obtained a very great celebrity. The most important of all were the two Ecbatanas—the northern and the southern—which seem to have stood respectively in the position of metropolis to the northern and the southern province. Next to these may be named Rhages, which was probably from early times a very considerable place; while in the third rank may be mentioned Bagistan—rather perhaps a palace than a town—Concobar, Adrapan, Aspadan, Charax, Kudrus, Hyspaostes, Urakagabarna, &c. The southern Ecbatana or Agbatana—which the Medes and Persians themselves knew as Hagmatan1—was situated, as we learn from Polybius2 and Diodorus,8 on a plain at the foot of Mount Orontes, a little to the east of the Zagros range. The notices of these authors, combined with those of Eratosthenes,4 Isidore,8 Pliny,6 Arrian,7 and others, render it as nearly certain as possible that the site was that of the modern town of 14 I suspect that the Varena of the Vendidad is Atropat£n(5, so named from its capital city, which was often called Vara or Vera (infra, p. 268, note "); and I believe that the Biknn of the Assyrian inscriptions designates the same district. (See above, p. 192, note •.) 1 Hagmatana, or Hagmatan, is the form used in the Behistun inscription, which was set up in Media within a short distance of the city itself The Achmetha (xnonx) of Ezra (vi. 2) drops the last consonant (just as 1 Chr. v. 26 drops the same letter from Har- ran); but otherwise it fairly represents the native word. Of the two Greek forms, Agbatana, which is the more ancient, is to be preferred. 2 Polyb. x. 27. 'Diod. Sic. ii. 13, § 6. 4 Ap. Strab. ii. p. 79. 'Mans. Parth. p. 6 ; ed. Hudson, in his Qcographi Minores. The "Apoba- tana" of this passage is beyond a doubt Ecbatana. • H. N, vi. 14 and 26. 'Exp. Alex. iii. 19, 20. 264 Chap. I. THE THIRD MONARCHY. The character of the city and of its chief edifices has, unfor- tunately, to be gathered almost entirely from unsatisfactory authorities. Hitherto it has been found possible in theae volumes to check and correct the statements of ancient writers, which are almost always exaggerated, by an appeal to the incontrovertible evidence of modern surveys and explorations. But the Median capital has never yet attracted a scientific expedition. The travellers by whom it has been visited have reported so unfavourably of its character as a field of anti- quarian research, that scarcely a spadeful of soil has been dug, either in the city or in its vicinity, with a view to recover traces of the ancient buildings. Scarcely any remains of antiquity are apparent. As the site has never been deserted, and the town has thus been subjected for nearly twenty-two centuries to the destructive ravages of foreign conquerors, and the still more injurious plunderings of native builders, anxious to obtain materials for new edifices at the least possible cost and trouble, the ancient structures have everywhere disappeared from sight, and are not even indicated by mounds of a sufficient size to attract the attention of common observers. Scientific explorers have consequently been deterred from turning their energies in this direction; more promising sites have offered and still offer themselves; and it is as yet uncertain whether the plan of the old town might not be traced and the position of its chief edifices fixed by the means of careful researches conducted by fully competent persons. In this dearth of modern materials we have to depend entirely upon the classical writers, who are rarely trustworthy in their descriptions or measurements, and who, in this instance, labour under the peculiar disadvantage of being mere reporters of the accounts given by others. Ecbatana was chiefly celebrated for the magnificence of its palace, a structure ascribed by Diodorus to Semiramis,14 but most probably constructed originally by Cyaxares, and improved, enlarged, and embellished by the Achsemenian monarchs. According to the judicious and moderate Polybius, who pre- faces his account by a protest against exaggeration and over- "Diod. Sic. u. 13, 5 6. Chap. L ECBATANA—ITS PALACE. 265 colouring, the circumference of the building was seven stades,18 or 1420 yar<'s, somewhat more than four-fifths of an English mile. This size, which a little exceeds that of the palace mound at Susa, while it is in its turn a little exceeded by the palatial platform at Persepolis,18 may well be accepted as probably close to the truth. Judging, however, from the analogy of the above- mentioned palaces, we must conclude that the area thus assigned to the royal residence was far from being entirely covered with buildings. One-half of the space, perhaps more, would be occu- pied by large open courts, paved probably with marble, sur- rounding the various blocks of building and separating them from one another. The buildings themselves may be copjec- tured to have resembled those of the Achsemenian monarchs at Susa and Persepolis, with the exception, apparently, that the pillars, which formed their most striking characteristic, were for the most part of wood rather than of stone. Polybius distin- guishes the pillars into two classes,1 those of the main buildings (oi ev t«u? oroali), and those which skirted the courts (oi ev roh irepurrvXoi<;), from which it would appear that at Ecbatana the courts were surrounded by colonnades, as they were commonly in Greek and Roman houses.2 These wooden pillars, all either of cedar or of cypress,8 supported beams of a similar material, which crossed each other at right angles, leaving square spaces (<£aT- vaiifiaTa) between, which were then filled in with wood-work. Above the whole a roof was placed, sloping at an angle,4 and composed (as we are told) of silver plates in the shape of tiles. The pillars, beams, and the rest of the wood-work were like- wise coated with thin laminse of the precious metals, even gold being used for this purpose to a certain extent.6 "Polyb. x. 27, § 9. 15 The circumference of the palace mound at Susa is about 4000 feet, or 1333 yards. (Loftus, ChaMcca and Susiana, plan, opp. p. 340.) That of the Persepolitau platform is 4578 feet, or 1526 yards. (Ker Porter, vol. i. p. 582.) The Assyrian palace mounds are in some instances still larger. The circuit of the Nimrud mound is nearly 1900, and that of the Koyunjik platform exceeds 2000 yards. 1 Polyb. x. 27, § 10. * The Assyrian courts seem, on the contrary, to have been quite open. * Polyb. L s. c. Oflo-ilt yap rils JiA/ns iirdt Kiovas, TOds piv 266 Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. Such seems to have been the character of the true ancient Median palace, which served probably as a model to Darius and Xerxes when they designed their great palatial edifices at the more southern capitals. In the additions which the palace received under the Achsemenian kings, stone pillars may have been introduced; and hence probably the broken shafts and bases, so nearly resembling the Persepolitan, one of which Sir R. Ker Porter6 saw in the immediate neighbourhood of Hamadan on his visit to that place in 1818. But, to judge from the description of Polybius, an older and ruder style of archi- tecture prevailed in the main building, which depended for its effect not on the beauty of archi- tectural forms, but on the rich- ness and costliness of the mate- rial. A pillar architecture, so far as appears, began in this part of Asia with the Medes,7 who, however, were content to use the more readily obtained and more easily worked material of wood; Stone Base of a Pillar. (Hamadan.) while the Persians afterwards conceived the idea of substi- tuting for these inartificial props the slender and elegant stone shafts which formed the glory of their grand edifices. At a short distance from the palace was the "Acra," or cita- ipyvpaU toi)? Se xpwaif iriffi ire- ptet\7/00ai, rds ot Kepapddas dpyvpds cu'cu 7ra' iv av-nl 10 Ezra vi. 2. XetpoiroCrrror tx*h 6avfiaaius irpbs 6xv- "As Ker Porter (Travels, vol. ii. p. pbrirra KariaKtvaotutrrqv. 101). • Arrian, Exp. Alex. >ii. 19. 268 Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. earlier date than the era of Parthian supremacy,12 and they can therefore throw no light on the character of the old Median stronghold. It may be thought perhaps that the description which Herodotus gives of the building called by him "the palace of Deioces" should be here applied, and that by its means we might obtain an exact notion of the original structure. But the account of this author is wholly at variance with the natural features of the neighbourhood, where there is no such conical hill as he describes, but only a plain surrounded by mountains. It seems, therefore, to be certain that either his description is a pure myth, or that it applies to another city, the Ecbatana of the northern province. It is doubtful whether the Median capital was at any time surrounded with walls. Polybius expressly declares that it was an unwalled place in his day;18 and there is some reason to suspect that it had always been in this condition. The Medes and Persians appear to have been in general content to esta- blish in each town a fortified citadel or stronghold, round which the houses were clustered, without superadding the further defence of a town wall.14 Ecbatana accordingly seems never to have stood a siege.18 When the nation which held it was defeated in the open field, the city (unlike Babylon and Nine- veh) submitted to the conqueror without a struggle. Thus the marvellous description in the book of Judith,16 which is internally very improbable, would appear to be entirely desti- tute of any, even the slightest, foundation in fact. The chief city of northern Media, which bore in later times the names of Gaza, Gazaca, or Canzaca,17 is thought to have also B This is the decided opinion of Sir H. Rawlinson, who carefully examined the ruins in 1836. » Polyb. Uc . M Hcrodotus expressly states that the northern Ecbatana was a city of this character (i. 98, 99). Modern researches have discovered no signs of town walls at any of the old Persian or Median sites. ™ Ecbatana yielded at once to Cyrus, to Alexander (Arrian, F.>cp. Alex, iii 19), and to Antiochus the Great (Polyb. x. 27). "Judith i. 2-4. According to this account the walls were built of hewn stones nine feet long, and four and a half broad. The height of the walls was 105 feet, the width 75 feet. The gates were of the same altitude as the walls; and the towers over the gates were carried to the height of 150 feet. "See Strab. xi. 13, § 3; PIin. H. If. vi. 13; Ptol. Geograplt. vi. 2; Am. Marc, xxiii 6; Armen. Geogr. § 87, p. 364, &c . Another name of the city was Vera. (Strabo, L s. c.) Chap. I. GAZA, THE NORTHERN ECBATANA. 2C9 been called Ecbatana, and to have been occasionally mistaken by the Greeks for the southern or real capital.18 The descrip- tion of Herodotus, which is irreconcileably at variance with the local features of the Hamadan site, accords sufficiently with the existing remains of a considerable city in the province of Azerbijan; and it seems certainly to have been a city in these parts which was called by Moses of Chorene' "the second Ec- batana, the seven-walled town."1 The peculiarity of this place was its situation on and about a conical hill which sloped gently down from its summit to its base, and allowed of the interpo- sition of seven circuits of wall between the plain and the hill's crest. At the top of the hill, within the innermost circle of the defences, were the Royal Palace and the treasuries; the sides of the hill were occupied solely by the fortifications; and at the base, outside the circuit of the outermost wall, were the domestic and other buildings which constituted the town. According to the information received by Herodotus, the battlements which crowned the walls were variously coloured. Those of the outer circle were white, of the next black, of the third scarlet, of the fourth blue, of the fifth orange, of the sixth silver, and of the seventh gold.2 A pleasing or at any rate a striking effect was thus produced—the citadel, which towered above the town, presenting to the eye seven distinct rows of colours.8 If there was really a northern as well as a southern Ecba- tana,4 and if the account of Herodotus, which cannot possibly 1* See the paper of Sir H. Rawlinson, "On the Site of the Atropatenian Ec- batana," in the tenth volume of the Journal of Hie Geographical Society, pp. 65-158. 1 Mos. Chor. Hist. Armen. ii. 84. * Herod, i. 98. * This whole description has no doubt a somewhat mythical air; and the plating of the battlements with the precious metals seems to the modern reader peculiarly improbable. But the people who roofed their palaces with silver tiles, and coated all the internal wood-work either with plates of silver or of gold, may have been wealthy enough and lavish enough to make even such a display as Herodotus describes. There is reason to believe that in Baby- lonia at least one temple was orna- mented almost exactly as the citadel of Ecbatana is declared to have been by Herodotus. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 484, 2nd edition, and compare ch. vi. of the "Fourth Monarchy.") 4 The view maintained by Sir H. Rawlinson in the paper already referred to (supra, note'"), while in England it has been very generally accepted, has been combated on the Continent, more especially in France, where an elaborate reply to his article was pub- lished by M. Quatremere in the Me- moira tie VAcadimie da Inscription* et BeUa-Lettm, torn. xix. part i. p. 419 et seq. It must be admitted that the 270 Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. apply to the southern capital, may be regarded as truly de- scribing the great city of the north, we may with much proba- bility fix the site of the northern town at the modern Takht- i-Suleiman, in the upper valley of the Saruk, a tributary of the Jaghetu. Here alone in northern Media are there important ruins occupying such a position as that which Herodotus de- scribes.8 Near the head of a valley in which runs the main branch of the Saruk, at the edge of the hills which skirt it to the north, there stands a conical mound projecting into the vale and rising above its surface to the height of 150 feet. The geological formation of the mound is curious in the extreme.6 It seems to owe its origin entirely to a small lake, the waters of which are so strongly impregnated with calcareous matter, that wherever they overflow they rapidly form a deposit which is as hard and firm as natural rock. If the lake was originally on a level with the valley, it would soon have formed incrustations round its edge, which every casual or permanent overflow would have tended to raise; and thus, in the course of ages, the entire hill may have been formed by a mere accumu- lation of petrefactions.7 The formation would progress more or less rapidly according to the tendency of the lake to overflow its bounds; which tendency must have been strong until the water reached its present natural level—the level, probably, of some other sheet of water in the hills, with which it is con- nected by an underground syphon.8 The lake, which is of an irregular shape, is about 300 paces in circumference. Its water, only ancient writer who distinctly re- cognises two Median Ecbatanas is the Armenian historian above quoted. (See above, p. 269, note 1.) * The ruins at Kileh Zohak, described by Colonel Menteith in such glowing terms (Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. iii. pp. 4, 5), are in reality quite insignificant. • The best description of the Takht- i-Suleiman ruins will be found in the Geographical Journal, vol. x. pp. 46-53. Sir R K. Porter is both less complete and leas exact. (Travelt, vol. ii. pp. 558- 661.) 'This theory was first broached by Ker Porter. Later travellers agree with him. 'One of the peculiarities of the lake is, that whatever the quantity of water drawn off from it for purposes of irri- gation by the neighbouring tribes, it always remains at the same level. Sir H. Rawlinson thus explains the phe- nomenon: "I conclude," he says, "the lake to be connected by an underground syphon with some other great fountain in the interior of the adjacent moun- tains, which is precisely at the same level as itself, and which has other means of outlet" (Geographical Journal, vol. x. p. 48.) Chap. L GAZA, THE NORTHERN ECBATANA. 271 notwithstanding the quantity of mineral matter held in solu- tion, is exquisitely dear, and not unpleasing to the taste.9 Formerly it was believed by the natives to be unfathomable; but experiments made in 1837 showed the depth to be no more than 156 feet. The ruins which at present occupy this remarkable site consist of a strong wall, guarded by numerous bastions and pierced by four gateways, which runs round the brow of the hill in a slightly irregular ellipse, of some interesting remains Plan of Takht-i-Suleiman (perhaps the Northern Ecbatana), of buildings within this walled space, and of a few insignificant traces of inferior edifices on the slope between the plain and the summit. As it is not thought that any of these remains are of a date anterior to the Sassanian kingdom,10 no descrip- tion will be given of them here. We are only concerned with the Median city, and that has entirely disappeared. Of the seven walls, one alone is to be traced;11 and even here the Median structure has perished, and been replaced by masonry of a far later age. Excavations may hereafter bring to light Geographical Journal, vol. x. p. 50; Ker Porter, voL ii. p. 558. 10 Geoi/raph. Journal, vol. x. p. 51. 11 In its present condition the hill could not receive seven complete circular walls, from the fact that towards the east it abuts upon the edge of the hilly country, and is consequently on that side only a little elevated above the adjacent ground. But as the water has now for some time been drawn off on this side, the hill has probably grown in this direction. 272 Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. some remnants of the original town, but at present research has done no more than recover for us a forgotten site. The Median city next in importance to the two Ecbatanas was Raga or Rhages, near the Caspian Gates, almost at the extreme eastern limits of the territory possessed by the Medcs. The great antiquity of this place is marked by its occurrence in the Zendavesta among the primitive settlements of the Arians.1 Its celebrity during the time of the Empire is indi- cated by the position which it occupies in the romances of Tobit2 and Judith.8 It maintained its rank under the Persians, and is mentioned by Darius Hystaspis as the scene of the struggle which terminated the great Median revolt.4 The last Darius seems to have sent thither his heavy baggage and the ladies of his court,8 when he resolved to quit Ecbatana and fly eastward. It has been already noticed that Rhages gave name to a district;6 and this district may be certainly identified with the long narrow tract of fertile territory intervening between the Elburz mountain-range and the desert,7 from about Kasvin to Khaar, or from long. 50° to 52° 30'. The exact site of the city of Rhages within this territory is somewhat doubtful. All accounts place it near the eastern extremity; and as there are in this direction ruins of a town called Rhei or Rhey, it has been usual to assume that they positively fix the locality.8 But 1 Rhages occurs as Ragha in the first Fargard of the Vendidad. It is the twelfth settlement, and one in which the faithful were intermingled with un- believers. (Haug in Bunsen's Eyypt, vol. iii. p. 490, K T.) 2 Tobit i. 14 ; iv. 1 ; ix. 1 ; &c. 5 Judith i. 5 and 15. * Bthistvm Inscription, col. ii. par. 13. s Arrian, Exp. Alex. iii. 19. Arrian only mentions the Caspian Gates; but there can be little doubt that Rhages was the place where they were to await Darius. Compare ch. 20. * Rhagiana occurs as a district in Isidore (Mans. Parth. p. 6) as well as in Ptolemy. In the former the MSS. have Rhatiana (PATIANH for PATIANH), which Hudson perversely transforms into Matiana, a district lying exattly in the opposite direction. Strabo points to Rhagiana in his expression, rd irepl rat 'Payas Kal ras Ka• Exp. Alex. ill. 20. "This point is well argued by Mr. Fraaer (Khoramn, pp. 291-293, note), whose conclusion seems to be now gene- rally adopted. PIiny's Pylac Caapise, on the other hand (B. N. vi. 14), would appear to be the Girduni Siyaluk, another pass over the same spur, situated three or four miles further north, at the point where the spur branches out from the VOL. II. main cham. This pass is one of a tre- mendous character. It is a gap five miles long between precipices 1000 feet high, scarped as though by the hand of man, its width varying from ten to forty feet. (Sir H. Rawlinson, MS. notes.) 1! Alexander's marches seem to have averaged 190 stades, or about 22 miles. The ordinary Roman march was 20 Roman miles, equivalent to 18^ English miles. » Sir H. Rawlinson, MS. notes. In Erij we have probably a corruption of Rhag-ea. "Uewanukif is six or seven miles from the commencement of the pass (Fraser, p. 291). Isidore places Charax directly under the hill, (inrb t6 6pos S Ko 'Ctai K&airios, &

a£. Hudson's identification of Cha- T 274 Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. The other Median cities, whose position can be determined with an approach to certainty, were in the western portion of the country, in the range of Zagros, on in the fertile tract between that range and the desert. The most important of these are Bagistan, Adrapan, Concobar, and Aspadan. Bagistan is described by Isidore16 as "a city situated on a bill, where there was a pillar and a statue of Semiramis." Diodorus has an account of the arrival of Semiramis at the place, of her establishing a royal park or paradise in the plain below the mountain, which was watered by an abundant spring, View of the Rock of Bebiatun. of her smoothing the face of the rock where it descended pre- cipitously upon the low ground, and of her carving on the surface thus obtained her own effigy, with an inscription in rax Spasini with Anthemusias or Charax Bdorava) irAXis in-' 6pos Ket/dni,r> ht Sidse (lsid. Mans. Parth. p. 2) is a strange ZefupdfiiSot &ya ia 'ral <7TtJ ;. Corn- error, pare with Bdffriu'ei the modern Bostan "Mam. Parth. p. 6. BiitTava (leg. and Behistun. Chap. I. BAGISTAN. 275 Assyrian characters.17 The position assigned to Bagistan by both writers, and the description of Diodorus,18 identify the place beyond a doubt with the now famous Behistun, where the plain, the fountain, the precipitous rock, and the scarped surface are still to be seen,19 though the supposed figure of Semiramis, her pillar, and her inscription have disappeared.20 This remarkable spot, lying on the direct route between Baby- lon and Ecbatana, and presenting the unusual combination of a copious fountain, a rich plain, and a rock suitable for sculp- tures, must have early attracted the attention of the great monarchs who marched their armies through the Zagros range, as a place where they might conveniently set up memorials of their exploits. The works of this kind ascribed by the ancient writers to Semiramis were probably either Assyrian or Baby- lonian, and (it is most likely) resembled the ordinary monu- ments which the kings of Babylon and Nineveh delighted to erect in countries newly conquered.21 The example set by the Hesopotamians was followed by their Arian neighbours, when the supremacy passed into their hands; and the famous moun- tain, invested by them with a sacred character,22 was made tv subserve and perpetuate their glory by receiving sculptures and inscriptions1 which showed them to have become the lords of Asia. The practice did not even stop here. When the Par- thian kingdom of the Arsacidse had established itself in these parts at the expense of the Seleucidse, the rock was once more called upon to commemorate the warlike triumphs of a new race. Gotarzes, the contemporary of the Emperor Claudius, after defeating his rival Meherdates in the plain between "Diod. Sic . ii. 13, 1-2. "Diodorus, as usual, greatly exag- gerates the height of the mountain, which he estimates at seventeen stades, or above 10,000 feet, whereas it is really about 1700 feet. (Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. x. p. 187.) "Ker Porter, Travels, vol. ii. pp. 150, 151; Sir H. Rawlinson, in Journal of the Geographical Society,v6L ix. pp. 112,113. "They were perhaps destroyed by Chosroe Parviz, when he prepared to build a palace on the site. (Ibid. p. 114.) ■ See vol. i. p. 484; vol. ii pp. 97, 216, &c. "Bagistan is "the hill of Jove" (Atit 8pos), according to Diodorus (it 13, § 1). It seems to mean really "the place of Qod." We may thus compare the name with the "Bethel" of the Hebrews. * The tablet and inscriptions of Da- rius, which have made Behistun famous in modern times, are in a recess to the right of the scarped face of the rock, and at a considerable elevation. (Ker Porter, voL ii. p. 154.) T 2 276 Chap. I. THE THIRD MONARCHY. Behistun and Kermanshah, inscribed upon the mountain, which already bore the impress of the great monarchs of Assyria and Persia, a record of his recent victory.2 The name of Adrapan occurs only in Isidore,8 who places it between Bagistan and Ecbatana, at the distance of twelve schoeni—36 Roman or 34 British miles from the latter. It was, he says, the site of an ancient palace belonging to Ecbatana, which Tigranes the Armenian had destroyed. The name and situation sufficiently identify Adrapan with the modern village of Arteman,4 which lies on the southern face of Elwend near its base, and is well adapted for a royal residence. Here, "during the severest winter, when Hamadan and the surrounding country are buried in snow, a warm and sunny climate is to be found; whilst in the summer a thousand rills descending from Elwend diffuse around fertility and fragrance."6 Groves of trees grow up in rich luxuriance from the well-irrigated soil, whose thick foliage affords a welcome shelter from the heat of the noonday sun. The climate, the gardens, and the manifold blessings of the place are proverbial throughout Persia; and naturally caused the choice of the site for a retired palace, to which the court of Ecbatana might adjourn when either the summer heat and dust or the winter cold made residence in the capital irksome. In the neighbourhood of Adrapan, on the road leading to Bagistan, stood Concobar,6 which is undoubtedly the modern Kungawar, and perhaps the Chavon of Diodorus.7 Here, according to the Sicilian historian, Semiramis built a palace and laid out a paradise; and here, in the time of Isidore, was a famous temple of Artemis. Colossal ruins crown the summit of the acclivity on which the town of Kungawar stands,8 which ! The inscription, which is in the Greek character and language, is much mutilated; but the name of Gotarzes (rQTAPZHC) appears twice in it. His rival, Meherdates, is perhaps mentioned under the name of Mithrates. (Sir H. Rawlinson, in Gcograph. Journ. vol. ix. pp. 114-116.) * Mam. Parth. p. 6. The true reading seems to be 'ASpxirirtw, as edited by Hoechel. * Arteman is one of three villages— —Tooee, Sirkan, and Arteman—which lie close together, and are generally known under the common title of Too- sirkan. Sir H. Rawlinson, MS. notes.) 5 Ibid. 'Isidore, Mans. Parth. L s. c . 7 Diod. Sic. ii 13, § 3. * Ker Porter, Travels, vol. ii. pp. 141, 142; Ollivier, Voyage dant VEmpire othoman, torn. v. pp. 47, 48, Chap. I. COUNTRIES BORDERING ON MEDIA. 277 may be the remains of this latter building; but no trace has been found that can be regarded as either Median or Assyrian. The Median town of Aspadan, which is mentioned by no writer but Ptolemy,9 would scarcely deserve notice here, if it were not for its modern celebrity. Aspadan, corrupted into Isfahan, became the capital of Persia under the Sen kings, who rendered it one of the most magnificent cities of Asia. It is uncertain whether it existed at all in the time of the great Median empire. If so, it was, at best, an outlying town of little consequence on the extreme southern confines of the territory, where it abutted upon Persia proper.10 The district wherein it lay was inhabited by the Median tribe of the Parsetaceni.11 Upon the whole it must be allowed that the towns of Media were few and of no great account. The Medes did not love to congregate in large cities, but preferred to scatter themselves villages over their broad and varied territory. The protection of walls, necessary for the inhabitants of the low Mesopotamian regions, was not required b}' a people whose country was full of natural fastnesses to which they could readily remove on the approach of danger. Excepting the capital and the two important cities of Gazaca and Rhages, the Median towns were insignificant. Even those cities themselves were probably of moderate dimensions, and had little of the architectural splendour which gives so peculiar an interest to the towns of Mesopotamia Their principal buildings were in a frail and perishable material,12 unsuited to bear the ravages of time; they have consequently altogether disappeared; and in the whole of Media modern researches have failed to bring to light a single edifice which can be assigned with any show of pro- bability to the period of the Empire. The plan adopted in former portions of this work18 makes it necessary, before concluding this chapter, to glance briefly at the character of the various countries and districts by which * Geograph. vi. 4. "See above, p. 254. It is strange that so acute a writer as the late Archdeacon Williams should not have seen that this position was fatal to his theory, that Isfahan represented Ecbatana. 11 The Panutaceni had another city, called Parcetaca, the site of which is un- certain. (Steph. Byz. ad voc.) "See above, p. 265. "See voL i. np. 25 and 206. 27S Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. Media was bordered—the Caspian district upon the north, Armenia upon the north-west, the Zagros region and Assyria upon the west, Persia proper upon the south, and upon the east Sagartia and Parthia. North and north-east of the mountain range which under different names skirts the southern shores of the Caspian Sea and curves round its south-western corner, lies a narrow but important strip of territory—the modern Ghilan and Mazan- deran. This is a most fertile region, well watered and richly View in Mazondenm—the Caspian Sea in the distance. wooded, and forms one of the most valuable portions of the modern kingdom of Persia. At first it is a low flat tract of deep alluvial soil, but little raised above the level of the Cas- pian; gradually however it rises into swelling hills which form the supports of the high mountains that shut in this sheltered region, a region only to be reached by a very few passes over Chap. L THE CASPIAN DISTRICT. 279 or through them.14 The mountains are clothed on this side nearly to their summit with dwarf oaks, or with shrubs and brushwood: while, lower down, their flanks are covered with forests of elm3, cedars, chesnuts, beeches, and cypress trees. The gardens and orchards of the natives are of the most superb character; the vegetation is luxuriant; lemons, oranges, peaches, pomegranates, besides other fruits, abound; rice, hemp, sugar- canes, mulberries are cultivated with success; vines grow wild; and the valleys are strewn with flowers of rare fragrance, among which may be noted the rose, the honeysuckle, and the sweetbriar.1 Nature, however, with her usual justice, has balanced these extraordinary advantages with peculiar draw- backs; the tiger, unknown in any other part of Western Asia,2 here lurks in the thickets, ready to spring at any moment on the unwary traveller; inundations are frequent, and carry deso- lation far and wide; the waters, which thus escape from the river beds, stagnate in marshes, and during the summer and autumn heats pestilential exhalations arise, which destroy the stranger, and bring even the acclimatised native to the brink of the grave.8 The Persian monarch chooses the southern rather than the northern side of the mountains for the site of his capital, preferring the keen winter cold and dry summer heat of the high and almost waterless plateau to the damp and stifling air of the low Caspian region. The narrow tract of which this is a description can at no time have sheltered a very numerous or powerful people. During the Median period, and for many ages afterwards, it seems to have been inhabited by various petty tribes of pre- datory habits—Cadusians, Mardi, Tapyri, &c.,—who passed "The mountains are pierced by the two streams of the Aras and the Kizil Uzen or Send Rud, and the low country may be entered along their courses. There is a pass over the Elburz chain from Firuz-kuh to Puli-sefid, 80 or 90 miles to the east of Teheran. This would seem to be the "Pylse Caspise" of Diony- sius (Ptrieg. 1035-1038). 1 The authorities for this description are Kinneir, Persian Empire, pp. 159- 163; Ouseley, Travels, vol. iii. pp. 221- 336; Fraser, Khorasan, p. 165; Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. pp. 216, 217; Todd, in Journal of Geographical Society, vol. viii. pp. 102-104. 'Tigers sometimes stray from this regien into Azerbijan. (See Morier, Second Journey, p. 218.) 'Kinneir, p. 166; Chesney, vol. i. p. 216 ; Fraser, Travels near the Caspian Sea, p. 11. 2SO Ch*f. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. their time in petty quarrels among themselves, and in plun- dering raids upon their great southern neighbour.4 Of these tribes the Cadusians alone enjoyed any considerable reputation. They were celebrated for their skill with the javelin6—a skill probably represented by the modern Persian use of the djereed. According to Diodorus, they were engaged in frequent wars with the Median kings, and were able to bring into the field a force of 200,000 men!8 Under the Persians they seem to have been considered good soldiers,7 and to have sometimes made a struggle for independence.8 But there is no real reason to believe that they were of such strength as to have formed at any time a danger to the Median kingdom, to which it is more probable that they generally acknowledged a qualified sub- jection. The great country of Armenia, which lay north-west and partly north of Media, has been generally described in the first volume but a few words will be here added with respect to the more eastern portion, which immediately bordered upon the Median territory. This consisted of two outlying districts, separated from the rest of the country, the triangular basin of Lake Van, and the tract between the Kur and Aras rivers—the modern Karabagh and Erivan. The basin of Lake Van, sur- rounded by high ranges, and forming the very heart of the mountain system of this part of Asia, is an isolated region, a sort of natural citadel, where a strong military power would be likely to establish itself. Accordingly it is here, and here alone in all Armenia, that we find signs of the existence, during the Assyian and Median periods, of a great organised monarchy. The Van inscriptions indicate to us a line of kings who bore sway in the eastern Armenia—the true Ararat,— and who were both in civilisation and in military strength far in advance of any of the other princes who divided among them the Armenian territory. The Van monarchs may have been at times formid- * Strab. xi. 13, § 3; Diod. Sic. ii. 33, § 4. * Strab. si. 13, § 4. 'AKortuttoI claw i/HffTOt. 'Diod. Sic. xt. 33, §§ 3 and 6. 'After the battle of Arbela. Darius hoped to retrieve his fortunes by means of a fresh army of Cadusians and Sacse. (Arrian, Exp, Alex. iii. 19.) • Diod. Sic. xv. 8, § 4; xvii. 6, § L • See pp. 207, 208. Chap. I. ARMENIA. 28r able enemies of the Medes. They have left traces of their dominion, not only on the tops of the mountain passes10 which lead into the basin of Lake Urumiyeh, but even in the compa- ratively low plain of Miyandab on the southern shore of that inland sea.11 It is probable from this that they were at one time masters of a large portion of Media Atropat&ne'; and the very name of Urumiyeh, which still attaches to the lake, may have been given to it from one of their tribes.12 In the tract between the Kur and Aras, on the other hand, there is no sign of the early existence o£ any formidable power. Here the mountains are comparatively low, the soil is fertile, and the climate temperate.18 The character of the region would lead its inhabitants to cultivate the arts of peace rather than those of war, and would thus tend to prevent them from being for- midable or troublesome to their neighbours. The Zagros region, which in the more ancient times separated between Media and Assyria, being inhabited by a number of independent tribes, but which was ultimately absorbed into the more powerful country, requires no notice here, having been sufficiently described among the tracts by which Assyria was bordered.14 At first a serviceable shield to the weak Arian tribes which were establishing themselves along its eastern base upon the high plateau, it gradually passed into their possession as they increased in strength, and ultimately became a main nursery of their power, furnishing to their armies vast numbers both of men and horses. The great horse pastures, from which the Medes first, and the Persians afterwards, supplied their numerous and excellent cavalry, were in this quarter;u and the troops which it furnished—hardy mountaineers accustomed to brave the severity of a most rigorous climate—must have been among the most effective of the Median forces.16 "Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. z. pp. 21, 22; compare above, voL i. p. 553. 11 Geographical Journal, vol. I. p. 12. "The Urumi are coupled with the Nairi in an inscription of Asshur-izir- pal; and the Van monarchs always call themselves "kings of the Nairi." 1* Morier, Second Journey, p. 245; Ker Porter, Travelt, vol. i. pp. 192-194. "See vol. i. pp. 206, 207. 15 Supra, p. 261. 16 On the known superiority of moun- tain troops in ancient times see Herod, ix. 122, and compare PIat. Leg. iii. p. 695, A 282 Chap. L THE THIRD MONARCHY. On the south Media was bounded by Persia proper—a tract which corresponded nearly with the modern province of Far- sistan. The complete description of this territory, the original seat of the Persian nation, belongs to a future volume of this work, which will contain an account of the " Fifth Monarchy." For the present it is sufficient to observe that the Persian terri- tory was for the most part a highland, very similar to Media, from which it was divided by no strongly marked line or natural boundary. The Persian mountains are a continuation of the Zagros chain, and Northern Persia is a portion—the southern portion—of the same great plateau, whose western and north-western skirts formed the great mass of the Median territory. Thus upon this side Media was placed in the closest connection with an important country, a country similar in character to her own, where a hardy race was likely to grow up, with which she might expect to have difficult contests. Finally, towards the east lay the great salt desert, sparsely inhabited by various nomadic races, among which the most important were the Cossseans and the Sagartians. To the latter people Herodotus seems to assign almost the whole of the sandy region, since he unites them with the Sarangians and Thama- nseans on the one hand, with the Utians and Mycians upon the other.1 They were a wild race, probably of Arian origin,2 who hunted with the lasso over the great desert mounted on horses,8 and could bring into the field a force of eight or ten thousand men4 Their country,a waste of sand and gravel, in parts thickly encrusted with salt, was impassable to an army, and formed a barrier which effectively protected Media along the greater portion of her eastern frontier. Towards the extreme north- east the Sagartians were replaced by the Cossseans and the 1 Herod. Hi. 93. The Sarangians .dwelt about the lake in which the H el- mend ends; the Thamanfeans between that lake and Herat. The Utians (Uxians) inhabited a part of the Zagros range; the Mycians seem to have dwelt on the Persian Gulf, in a part of the modern Mck-ran. 2 See the author's Ilerodoiui, vol. iv. p. 172, and compare vol. i. p. 554 (2nd edition). * We can only account for carrying the lasto into battle (Herod, vii. 85) by regarding it as the weapon with which daily use had made them familiar. 4 They furnished 8,000 horsemen to the army of Xerxes (Herod. l. s. c.), which was probably not their full force Chap. L PERSIA, SAGABTIA. AND PARTHIA. 283 , Parthians, the former probably the people of the Siah-Koh mountain,8 the latter the inhabitants of the tract known now as the Atak,* or "Skirt," which extends along the southern flank of the Elburz range from the Caspian Gates nearly to Herat, and is capable of sustaining a very considerable popula- tion. The Cossajans were plunderers,7 from whose raids Media suffered constant annoyance; but they were at no time of sufficient strength to cause any serious fear. The Parthians, as we learn from the course of events, had in them the materials of a mighty people; but the hour for their elevation and expan- sion was not yet come, and the keenest observer of Median times could scarcely have perceived in them the future lords of Western Asia From Parthia, moreover, Media was divided by the strong rocky spur8 which runs out from the Elburz into the desert in long. 52° 10' nearly, over which is the narrow pass already mentioned as the Caspian Gates.9 Thus Media on most sides was guarded by the strong natural barriers of seas,10 mountains, and deserts lying open only on the south, where she adjoined upon a kindred people. Her neighbours were for the most part weak in numbers, though warlike. Armenia, however, to the north-west, Assyria to the west, and Persia to the south, were all more or less formidable. A prescient eye might have foreseen that the great struggles of Media would be with these powers, and that if she attained imperial proportions it must be by their subjugation or absorption. * Cosweans is explained by some as Koh-Siane, inhabitants of the Koh-Siah, or Siah-Koh, a remarkable isolated mountain in the sait desert, nearly due south of the Caspian Gates. • Fraser, Khoratan, p. 245. 7 KyTrpixoi. Strab. xi. 13, § 6. 'A good description of this spur and of the true character of the "Caspian Gates" is given by Mr. Fraser in his Khoratan, pp. 291-293, note. The reader may compare the author's article on Rhages in Dr. Smith's Biblical Dic- tionary, vol. ii. p. 990. • See above, p. 273. 10 The Caspian Sea was a great pro- tection from the barbarians of the North. 284 Chap. II. THE THIRD MONARCHY. CHAPTER IL CLIMATE AND PKODUCTIONS. *H toXX}( filr 6^77X7) ioTi /to! i(>vxp&' i) 3' h> raireiroU iS&Qtai Kal KoC\m offfo fiSalfiur a3in) is striking, and can scarcely be a mere accident. Shira-kulla, however, is trans- lated "the lion locust," & meaning which cannot possibly be given to chargol. 300 Chap. II. THE THIRD MONARCHY. scribes it as "a large insect, about four inches long, with no wings, but a kind of sword projecting from the tail. It bites," he says, "pretty severely, but does no harm to the cultivation."'-0 We may recognise in this description a variety of the great green grasshopper (Locusta virid issima), many species of which are destitute of wings, or have wing-covers only, and those of a very small size."21 The scorpion of the country (Scorpio crassicauda) has been represented as peculiarly venomous,22 more especially that which abounds in the city and neighbourhood of Kashan;28 but the most judicious ob- servers deny that there is any difference between the Kashan scorpion and that of other parts of the pla- teau,24 while at the same time they maintain that if the sting be properly treated, no danger need be apprehended from it The scorpion infests houses, hiding itself under cushions The oeorpion [Scorpio cnusicauda). ° , and coverlets, and stings the moment it is pressed upon; some caution is thus requisite in avoiding it; but it hurts no one unless molested, and many Europeans have resided for years in the country without having ever been stung by it.25 The domestic animals existing at present within the limits of the ancient Media are the camel, the horse, the mule, the ass, the cow, the goat, the sheep, the dog, the cat, and the buffalo. The camel is the ordinary beast of burden in the flat country, and can carry an enormous weight. Three kinds are employed a Kurdistan, p. 195. 21 Cuvier's Animal Kingdom, edition of Carpenter and Westwood, p. 561. a Chardin, torn. iii. p. 38. a Ollivier, torn. v. p. 170; Ker Porter, vol. i. p. 390; Ouseley, vol. iii. pp. 87-89. "Ollivier, p. 171; Kinneir, p. 43. "Ker Porter remarks that neither he himself, nor any of his "people," were ever stung during their stay in Persia (L s. c.) So Ouseley (p. 91). Chap. II. DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 301 —the Bactrian or two-humped camel, which is coarse and low; the taller and lighter Arabian breed; and a cross between the two, which is called ner, and is valued very highly.26 The ordinary burden of the Arabian camel is from seven to eight hundredweight; while the Bactrian variety is said to be capable of bearing a load nearly twice as heavy.27 Next to the camel, as a beast of burden, must be placed the mule. The mules of the country are small, but finely propor- tioned, and carry a considerable weight.1 They travel thirty miles a day with ease,2 and are preferred for journeys on which it is necessary to cross the mountains. The ass is very inferior, and is only used by the poorer classes.8 Two distinct breeds of horses are now found in Media, both of which seem to be foreign—the Turkoman and the Arabian. The Turkoman is a large, powerful, enduring animal, with long legs, a light body, and a big head.4 The Arab is much smaller, but perfectly shaped, and sometimes not greatly inferior to the very best produce of Nejd.6 A third breed is obtained by an intermixture of these two, which is called the bid-pai, or "wind footed," and is the most prized of all.6 The dogs are of various breeds, but the most esteemed is a large kind of greyhound, which some suppose to have been introduced into this part of Asia by the Macedonians, and which is chiefly employed in the chase of the antelope.7 The animal is about the height of a full-sized English greyhound, but rather stouter; he is deep-chested, has long, smooth hair, "Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, voL i. p. 82. ■ Ibid. p. 582. * Chesney says that the ordinary burden of a mule in Persia is three hundredweight. (Euphrates Expedition, vol. i p. 81.) « Ibid. Uc. * Chardin, Voyages, torn. ILL. p. 33; Chesney, L e. c. * Kinneir, Persian Empire, p. 40; Fraser, Khorasan, pp. 269, 270. Fraser observes, that "on the whole the Tur- koman horses approach more to the character of the English horse than any other breed in the East." 'Kinneir, L s. c. * Chesney, L s. c. * The antelope is commonly chased by the falcon and greyhound in combina- tion. The falcon, when loosed, makes straight at the game, and descending on its head, either strikes it to the ground, or at least greatly checks its course. If shaken oil', it will strike again and again, at once so frightening and re- tarding the animal that the dogs easily reach it. (See Chardin, torn. iii. p. 42, and Kinneir, p. 42. Compare the similar practice of the Mesopotamian Arabs, de- scribed in Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p. 482.) 302 Chap. IL THE THIRD MONARCHY. and the tail considerably feathered.8 His pace is inferior to that of our greyhounds, but in strength and sagacity he far surpasses them.9 We do not find many of the products of Media celebrated by ancient writers. Of its animals, those which had the highest reputation were its horses, distinguished into two breeds, an ordinary kind, of which Media produced annually many thou- sands,10 and a kind of rare size and excellence, known under the name of Nisiean. These last are celebrated by Herodotus,11 Strabo,12 Arrian,18 Ammianus Marcellinus,14 Suidas,15 and others. Persepolitan Horse, perhaps Nissean. They are said to have been of a peculiar shape;10 and they were equally famous for size, speed, and stoutness.17 Strabo remarks that they resembled the horses known in his own time as Parthian;18 and this observation seems distinctly to "Ollivier, torn. v. p. 104 ; Chesney, vol. i. p. 587; Layard, p. 482, note. * See the narrative of Ker Porter, Trareh, voL i. pp. 444, 445. 10 Diodorus Siculus says that the great horse pastures near Bagistan nourished at one time 160,000 horses (xvii. 110, § 6). Strabo tells us that Media fur- nished annually to the Persian king 3000 horses as a part of iU fixed tribute (xi. 13, § 8). Polybius speaks of the vast number of horses in Media, which supplied with those animals "almost all Asia." (ffxtSbv Airaaav xopifyet rrly 'Aafav. Polyb. x. 27, § 2.) "Herod, vii. 40. Compare iii. 106, and i. 189. » Strab. xi. 13, § 7. "Arrian, Exp. Alex, vii 13. Arrian gives the form Nwaioi, in place of the Nio-aioi of Herodotus, and the Nilffoioi of Strabo. "Amm. Mare, xxiii. 6. 15 Suidas, ad voc. Nurator. "'ISi6fiopootoi (Suid.), tpieToi (Strab.) Loc . cit. Chap. II. KNOWN ANCIENT PRODUCTS. 303 connect them with the Turkoman breed mentioned above, which is derived exactly from the old Parthian country. In colour they were often, if not always, white. We have no representation on the monuments which we can regard as certainly intended for a Nissean horse, but perhaps the above figure from Persepolis may be a Persian sketch of the animal.19 The mules and small cattle (sheep and goats) were in suffi- cient repute to be required, together with horses, in the annual tribute paid to the Persian king.20 Of vegetable products assigned to Media by ancient writers, the most remarkable is the " Median apple" or citron.21 Pliny says it was the sole tree for which Media was famous,22 and that it would only grow there and in Persia.28 Theophrastus,2I Dioscorides,28 Virgil,26 and other writers, celebrate its won- derful qualities, distinctly assigning it to the same region. The citron, however, will not grow in the country which has been here termed Media.27 It flourishes only in the warm tract between Shiraz and the Persian Gulf, and in the low sheltered region, south of the Caspian, the modern Ghilan and Mazanderan. No doubt it was the inclusion of this latter region within the limits of Media by many of the later geographers that gave to this product of the Caspian country an appellation which is really a misnomer. Another product whereto Media gave name, and probably with more reason, was a kind of clover or lucerne, which was said to have been introduced into Greece by the Persians in the reign of Darius,28 and which was afterwards cultivated "The horse represented, though not large according to English notions, is considerably above the standard Usual on the Persian monuments. ■ Strab. xi. 13, § 8. ■ It has been questioned whether the "Malum medicum" was the orange or the citron. I decide in favour of the citron, on account of the description in Dioscorides. Tifirj\orMnvKet (oblong), ifyiTiSuifUvov (wrinkled), XP"e^0r H! Xl>(xh K. t. X. (Dc Mat. Med. i. 5 166.) ** H. N. xii. 3. "Nec alia arbor lau- dator in Media." a Ibid. "Nisi apud Medos et in Per- side nasci noluit" "Hist. Plant, iv. 4. a De Mat. Med. i. § 166. "Georg. ii . 126-135). "Media fort tristes sucoos tardumque asporem Felicia mail: quo Don preeentiua ullum, Focula si quando arevas infecere novercse, Mutcueruntque herbas et non innoxia verba, Auxiliun venit, ac membru arit atra venena. I pea ingena arboe, facienique suniliima lauro; Et, ai non alium late jactaret odorem, Lauraserat; folia baud ullis labentia Tentis; Flos ad prima tenax ; animas et olentia Medi Orafoventiilo,etaenibuamodicanturanhelia." "Ollivier, torn. v. p. 191 ; Chesney, vol. i.p. 80. a PIiny, B. If. xviii. 16. 304 Chac IL THE THIRD MONARCHY. largely in Italy.29 Strabo considers this plant to have been the chief food of the Median horses,80 while Dioscorides assigns it certain medicinal qualities.81 Clover is still cultivated in the Elburz region,82 but horses are now fed almost entirely on straw and barley. Media was also famous for its silphium, or assafetida, a plant which the country still produces,58 though not in any large quantity. No drug was in higher repute with the ancients for medicinal purposes; and though the Median variety was a coarse kind, inferior in repute, not only to the Cyrenaic, but also to the Parthian and the Syrian,84 it seems to have been exported both to Greece and Rome,85 and to have been largely used by druggists, however little esteemed by physicians.86 The other vegetable products which Media furnished, or was believed to furnish, to the ancient world, were bdellium, amomum, cardamomum, gum tragacanth, wild-vine oil, and sagapenum, or the Ferula persica."1 Of these, gum tragacanth is still largely produced, and is an important article of com- merce.88 Wild vines abound in Zagros89 and Elburz, but no oil is at present made from them. Bdellium, if it is benzoin, amomum, and cardamomum were perhaps rather imported through Media40 than the actual produce of the country, which is too cold in the winter to grow any good spices. The mineral products of Media noted by the ancient writers are nitre, salt, and certain gems, as emeralds, lapis lazuli, and the following obscurer kinds, the zathene, the gassinades, and "See Varro, De Re Ruslica, i. 42; Virg. Oeorg. i. 215 ; PIiny, L 3. c. ■ Strab. xi. 13, § 7. ■ De Mat. Med. ii. § 176 ; iv. $ 18. "See Morier, Second Journey, p. 361. "Chesney, vol. i . p. 80; Chardin, torn. iii. p. 17. u PIiny, H. N. xxii. 23. Compare Strab. xi. 13, $ 7. ■ Diosc. De Mai. Med. iii. 84; PIin. H. N. xix. 3. "Compare Strab. xi. 13, § 7 ad 6n. with Diosc. iii. 84. "Bdellium is called a Median pro- duct by PIiny (H. N. xii. 9) ; amomum I by PIiny and Dioscorides (De Mat. Med. | i . S 14); sum tragacanth by PIiny (xiii. 21) and Theophrastus (De Hitt Plant. ix. 1); sagapenum by Dioscorides (iii. 85); wild-vine oil ((Enanthe) by PIiny (xii. 28) ; and cardamomum by the same writer (xii. 13). Theophrastus expresses a doubt whether amomum and carda- momum came from Media or from India (viii. 7). ■ Ollivier, torn. v. p. 343. • Rich, Kurdistan, p. 144. "See above, note . Kuhn argues that this was the case also with the silphium or assafetida, which (he thinks) is scarcely to be found in Media 'Proper. (See his edition of Dioscorides, | vol. ii. p. 530.) Chap. II. KNOWN ANCIENT PRODUCTS. 3°5 the narcissitis. The nitre of Media is noticed by Pliny, who says it was procured in small quantities, and was called "halmyraga."1 It was found in certain dry-looking glens, where the ground was white with it, and was obtained there purer than in other places. Saltpetre is still derived from the Elburz range, and also from Azerbijan.2 The salt of Lake Urumiyeh is mentioned by Strabo, who says that it forms naturally on the surface,8 which would imply a far more complete saturation of the water than at present exists, even in the driest seasons. The gems above mentioned are assigned to Media chiefly by Pliny. The Median emeralds, according to him, were of the largest size; they varied con- siderably, sometimes approaching to the character of the sapphire, in which case they were apt to be veiny, and to have flaws in them.4 They were far less esteemed than the emeralds of many other countries. The Median lapis lazuli,8 on the other hand, was the best of its kind. It was of three colours—light blue, dark blue, and purple. The golden specks, however, with which it was sprinkled—really spots of yellow pyrites—ren- dered it useless to the gem-engravers of Pliny's time.8 The zatkene, the gassinades, and the narcissitis were gems of in- ferior value.7 As they have not yet been identified with any known species, it will be unnecessary to prolong the present chapter by a consideration of them. 1 Plin. H. N. xxxi. 10. 1 See above, p. 294, notes ■ and 9. • Strab. xi. 13, ) 2. Alfurrp Thr SirouTa*', {v rf fiXes tirav6ouvref t^t- Torrai. H. S. xxxvii. 5. Compare Solinus, "H. N. xxxvii. 8. Neither the lapis lazuli nor the emerald are now found within the limits of Media. The former abounds in Baetria, near Fyzabad; and the latter is occasionally found in the same region. (Fraser, Klioramn, Ap- FJ./hia. 20. pendix, pp. 105, 106 . PIiny a name for this gem is "sap- 'See PIin. H. N. xxxvii. 10 and 11. pliirus ;" but it has been well shown by Mr. King that his "sapphirus" is the lapis lazuli, and his "hyacinthus" the sapphire. (Antique Gems, pp. 44-47.) The narcitsitti is mentioned also by Dionysius. (See the passage placed at the head of the first chapter.) VOL. IL X Cn.\p. III. A.IIIAN PHYSIOGNOMY. 307 belonged all to a single stock, differing from one another pro- bably not much more than now differ the various subdivisions of the Teutonic or the Slavonic race.6 Between the tribes at the two extremities of the Arian territory the divergence was no doubt considerable; but between any two neighbouring tribes the difference was probably in most cases exceedingly slight. At any rate this was the case towards the west, where the Medes and Persians, the two principal sections of the Arian body in that quarter, are scarcely distinguishable from one another in any of the features which constitute ethnic type. The general physical character of the ancient Arian race is best gathered from the sculptures of the Achsemenian kings,7 which exhibit to us a very noble variety of the human species— a form tall, graceful, and stately; a physiognomy handsome and pleasing, often somewhat resembling the Greek ;8 the forehead high and straight, the nose nearly in the same line, long and well formed, sometimes markedly aquiline, the upper lip short, commonly shaded by a moustache, the chin rounded and gene- rally covered with a curly beard. The hair evidently grew in great plenty, and the race was proud of it. On the top of the head it was worn smooth, but it was drawn back from the fore- head and twisted into a row or two of crisp curls, while at the same time it was arranged into a large mass of similar small close ringlets at the back of the head and over the ears. Of the Median women we have no representations upon the sculptures; but we are informed by Xenophon that they were remarkable for their stature and their beauty.9 The same qualities were observable in the women of Persia, as we learn See the author's Herodotus, vol. i pp. 550-555, 2nd edition. 'The only certain representations of actual Medes which the sculptures fur- nish are the prostrate figure and the third standing rebel in the Behistun bas-relief. But the artist in this sculp- ture makes no pretence of marking ethnic difference by a variety in the physiognomy. "Dr. Pricbard observes of the type in question : "The outline of the coun- tenance is here not strictly Grecian, for it is peculiar; but it is noble and digni- fied; and if the expression is not full of life and genius, it is intellectual and indicative of reflection. The shape of the head is entirely Indo-European, and has nothing that recalls the Tartar or Mongolian." (Nat. Hist, of Man, p. 173.) • Xen. Anab. iii. % § 25. In accord- ance with his statement in this place, Xenophon makes the daughter of Cy- axares, whom he marries to Cyrus the Great, au 1 x.inordinary beauty. (Cyrop. viii. 5, § 28.) x 2 308 THE THIRD MONARCHY. Chap. III. from Plutarch,10 Ainmianus Marcellinus,11 and others. The Arian races seem in old times to have treated women with a certain chivalry, which allowed the full development of their physical powers, and rendered them specially attractive alike to their own husbands and to the men of other nations. Arian Physiognomy (Persepolie). The modern Persian is a very degenerate representative ot the ancient Arian stock. Slight and supple in person, with quick, glancing eyes, delicate features, and a vivacious manner, "Plut. Yit. Alexand. p. 676, D. Perside, uii feminarum puleliriiudo ex- "Amm. Marc. xxiv. 14. "Ex vir- cellit." Compare Quint. Curt. iii. 11; ginibua, quae speciosus 'un catptsc, ut in Arrian, Kxji. Alex. ix. 19, &c. Ciiaf. HI. MORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDES. 309 he lacks the dignity and strength, the calm repose and simple grace of the race from which he is sprung. Fourteen centuries of subjection to despotic sway have left their stamp upon his countenance and his frame, which, though still retaining some traces of the original type, have been sadly weakened and lowered by so long a term of subservience. Probably the wild Kurd or Lur of the present day more nearly corresponds in physique to the ancient Mede than do the softer inhabitants of the great plateau. Among the moral characteristics of the Medes, the one most obvious is their bravery. "Pugnatrix natio et formidanda," says Ammianus Marcellinus in the fourth century of our era, summing up in a few words the general judgment of antiquity.12 Originally equal, if not superior, to their close kindred, the Persians, they were throughout the whole period of Persian supremacy only second to them in courage and warlike qualities. Mardonius, when allowed to take his choice out of the entire host of Xerxes, selected the Median troops in immediate suc- cession to the Persians.1 Similarly, when the time for battle came he kept the Medes near himself, giving them their place in the line close to that of the Persian contingent.2 It was no doubt on account of their valour, as Diodorus suggests,a that the Medes were chosen to make the first attack upon the Greek position at Thermopylse, where, though unsuccessful, they evi- dently showed abundant courage.4 In the earlier times, before riches and luxury had eaten out the strength of the race, their valour and military prowess must have been even more con- spicuous. It was then especially that Media deserved to be called, as she is in Scripture, "the mighty one of the heathen"8 —" the terrible of the nations."6 Her valour, undoubtedly, was of the merciless kind. There was no tenderness, no hesitancy about it. Not only did her armies "dash to pieces" the fighting men of the nations opposed "Amm. Marc, xxiii. 6. Compare Nic. Dam. Fr. 9; Diod. Sic. xi. 6; Herod, i. 95; &c. Herod, viil 113. 'Ibid. ix. 31. • Diod. Sic. xi. 6, § 3. M SrSpttzp irpOKptvo.% avrovs. 'See Herod, vii. 210. 5 Ezek. xxxi. 11. 'Ibid, verse 12. 3io Chap. III. THE THIRD MONARCHY. to her, allowing apparently no quarter,7 but the .women and the children suffered indignities and cruelties at the hands of her savage warriors, which the pen unwillingly records. The Median conquests were accompanied by the worst atrocities which lust and hate combined are wont to commit when they obtain their full swing. Neither the virtue of women nor the innocence of children were a protection to them. The infant was slain before the very eye of the parent. The sanctity 01 the hearth was invaded, and the matron ravished beneath her own roof-tree.8 Spoil, it would seem, was disregarded in com- parison with insult and vengeance; and the brutal soldiery cared little either for silver or gold,■ provided they could indulge freely in that thirst for blood which man shares with the hysena and the tiger. The habits of the Medes in the early part of their career were undoubtedly simple and manly. It has been observed with justice that the same general features have at all times distin- guished the rise and fall of Oriental kingdoms and dynasties. A brave and adventurous princo, at the head of a population at once poor, warlike, and greedy, overruns a vast tract, and acquires extensive dominion, while his successors, abandoning themselves to sensuality and sloth, probably also to oppressive and irascible dispositions, become in process of time victims to those same qualities in another prince and people, which had enabled their own predecessors to establish their power.10 It was as being braver, simpler, and so stronger than the Assyrians, that the Medes were able to dispossess them of their sovereignty over western Asia. But in this, as in most other cases of con- quest throughout the East, success was followed almost imme- diately by degeneracy. As captive Greece captured her fierce conqueror,11 so the subdued Assyrians began at once to corrupt their subduers. Without condescending to a close imitation of Assyrian manners and customs, the Medes proceeded directly 'Isaiah xiii. 15 and 18. ■ Ibid, verse 16. "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes ; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." • See verse 17. '• Grote, History of Greece, vol. iii. p. 157, 2nd ed. 11 Horat. Epia. ii. 1, 156. '* Grsx a capta ferum victorem cepit." Chap. III. MILITARY EQUIPMENT. 313 practised in the use of the bow, they appear to have proceeded against their enemies with clouds of horse, almost in Scythian fashion, and to have gained their victories chiefly by the skill with which they shot their arrows as they advanced, retreated, or manoeuvred about their foe. No doubt they also used the sword and the spear. The employment of these weapons has been almost universal throughout the East from a very remote antiquity, and there is some mention of them in connection with the Medes and their kindred, the Persians, in Scripture;9 but it is evident that the terror which the Medes inspired arose mainly from their dexterity as archers.10 No representation of weapons which can be distinctly recognised as Median has come down to us. The general character of the mili- tary dress and of the arms appears, probably, in the Persepolitan sculp- tures; but as these reliefs are in most cases representations, not of Medes, but of Persians, and as they must be hereafter adduced in illustration of the military customs of the latter people, only a very sparing use of them can be made in the present chapter. It would seem that the bow employed was short, and very much curved, and that, like the Assyrian,11 it was usually carried in a bow-case, which might either be slung at the back, or hung from the girdle. The arrows, which were borne in a quiver slung behind the right shoulder, must Mede or Persian carrying a Bow in its case (Persepolis). Strabo, who says (L s. c.) that the famous Persian educational system was wholly copied from the Median. 'The sword is mentioned in connec- tion with the Medes and Persians in Jeremiah L 35-37. "The bow and the spear" are united in vi. 23, and again in l. 42. "The fame of the Medes as archers passed on to the Persians, and even to the Parthians, who with the tastes in- herited the name of the earlier people. Hence the "horribilis Medus" (Hor. Od. i . 29, 4) and the "Medi ph.iretra decori" of Horace (Od. ii. 16, 6). 11 Supra, vol i. p. ibl. 314 THE THIRD MONARCHY. Chap. III. have been short, certainly not exceeding the length of three feet. The quiver appears to have been round; it was covered at the top, and was fastened by means of a flap and strap, which last passed over a button. Bow and Quiver (Persepolis). The Median spear or lance was from six to seven feet in length. Its head was lozenge-shaped and flattish, but strengthened by a or — Persian or Median Spear (Persepolis). bar or line down the middle.12 It is uncertain whether the head was inserted into the top of the shaft, or whether it did not "Compare the Assyrian spear-heads, vol. i. p. 457. 3i6 Chap. III. tup; third monarChy. Median Shoe (Persepolis). cincture. Below it is remarkably full and ample, drooping in two clusters of perpendicular folds at the two sides, and between these hang- ing in festoons like a curtain. It ex- tends down to the ankles, where it is met by a high shoe or low boot, opening in front, and secured by buttons. These Median robes were of many colours. Sometimes they were purple, sometimes scarlet, occa- sionally a dark grey, or a deep crimson.2 Procopius says that they were made of silk,8 and this statement is confirmed to some extent by Justin, who speaks of their transparency.4 It may be doubted, however, whether the material was always the same; probably it varied with the season, and also with the wealth of the wearer. Besides this upper robe, which is the only garment shown in the sculptures, the Medes wore as under garments a sleeved shirt or tunic of a purple colour,5 and embroidered drawers or trousers' They CO- Median Head-dress (Persepolis). vere(j tjie head, not only out of doors, but in their houses,7 wearing either felt caps (ViXot) like the Persians, or a head-dress of a more elaborate character, . Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3, \ 3. 'E£tipept fir} teal d.Waf Mt^KAs ffro\ds' ta>uir6X- s yap irapetsKtudaaTO, ovdev tpeido- fitvos, ovre iropipvpiduv, ovre dpipvivur, oiVe tpoiviKiZitiv ovtt KapvKivuv ipariur. Another kind of Median robe, called tarn- pis, seems to have been striped alternately white and purple. (Compare Pollux, vii. 13, with Hcsvchius ad voc. aapams.) 2 Procop. DcBM. Pert. i. 20, p. 106, C. Silken fabrics were manufactured by the Greeks from the middle of the fourth century B.C. (Aristot. Hist. An. v. 19.) They probably imported the raw silk from Asia, where the material w is in use from a very early time. The Parthian standards were of silk (Florus, iii. 11); and there can be little doubt that the looms of China, India, aud Cashmere produced rich silken fabrics from a remote period, which were ex- ported into the neighbouring countries of Media and Persia. 4 Justin says of the Parthians : "Ves- tis olim sui moris; posteaquam aeees- sere opes, ut Media, perlucida ac fiuida (xli 2). 5 See Xen. Atiab. i. 5, § 8, and com- pare Cyrop. i. 3, § 2. 6 IUxmA.is ava(vpiSas. Xen. Anab. l. s.c. Compare Strab. xi. 13, $ 9. 'Strab. l. s. c.; Herod, iii. 12. Chap. III. MEDIAN LOVE OF ORNAMENT. 317 which bore the name of tiara or cidaris? This appears to have been, not a turban, but rather a kind of high-crowned hat, either stiff or flexible, made probably of felt or cloth, and dyed of different hues, according to the fancy of the owner. The Medes took a particular delight in the ornamentation of their persons. According to Xenophon, they were acquainted with most of the expedients by the help of which vanity attempts to conceal the ravages of time and to create an arti- ficial beauty. They employed cosmetics, which they rubbed into the skin, for the sake of improving the complexion.9 They made use of an abundance of false hair.10 Like many other Oriental nations, both ancient and modern, they applied dyes to enhance the brilliancy of the eyes,11 and give them a greater apparent size and softness. They were also fond of wearing golden or- naments. Chains or collars of gold usually adorned their necks, bracelets of the same precious metal encircled their wrists,12 and earrings were inserted into their ears.18 Gold was also used in the caparisons of their horses, the bit and other parts of the har- ness being often of this valuable material.14 We are told that the Medes were very luxurious at their ban- quets. Besides plain meat and game of different kinds, with the ordinary accompaniments of wine and bread, they were accustomed to place before their guests a vast number of side- dishes, together with a great variety of sauces.15 They ate Avith A Made or Persian w ear- ing a Collar aud Ear- rings (Persepolis.) 'Strictly speaking, these words are not synonyms. The name tiara was generic, applying to all the tall caps; while rid'trii or eitaria was specific, being properly applied to the royal head-dress only. (See Brisson, De Jlcyn. Pert. ii. pp. 309-131 2.) 'X/xi^aros Ivrfnypit. (Xen. Cyrop. i- 3, § 2.) 10 Xofiai tpbffBtToi. (Ibid.) "'O inroyptupri. (Ibid.) This practice is a-cribed to Sardanapalus (Nic. Dam. Fr. 8 ; Athen. Dripn. xii. 7, p. 529, A ; Diod. Sic. ii. 23); and again to Na- nanis the Babylonian (Nic. Dam. Fr. 10). It seems to have been adopted from the Medes by the Persians. (Xen. Cyrop. viii. 8, § 20.) 12 Strab. L s. c.; Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, § 2. 18 Earrings commonly accompany the Median dress on the Persepolitan -culp- tures. They are mere plain rings without any pendant. See the above woodcut. Nicolas of Damascus assigns earrings (AX6(3ia) to Nanarus, a satrap under the Medes. (Fr. 10.) "Xen. Cyrop. i . 3, § 3. 15 Ibid. § 1. 318 Chap. IIL THK THIRD MONARCHY. the hand, as is still the fashion in the East, and were sufficiently- refined to make use of napkins.16 Each guest had his own dishes, and it was a mark of special honour to augment their number.17 Wine was drunk both at the meal and afterwards, often in an undue quantity; and the close of the feast was apt to be a scene of general turmoil and confusion.18 At the Court it was customary for the king to receive his wine at the hands of a cupbearer, who first tasted the draught, that the king might be sure it was not poisoned, and then presented it to his master with much pomp and ceremony.18 The whole ceremonial of the court seems to have been im- posing. Under ordinary circumstances the monarch kept him- self secluded, and no one could obtain admission to him unless he formally requested an audience, and was introduced into the royal presence by the proper officer.1 On his admission he prostrated himself upon the ground with the same signs of adoration which were made on entering a temple.2 The king, surrounded by his attendants, eunuchs, and others, maintained a haughty reserve, and the stranger only beheld him from a distance. Business was transacted in a great measure by writing. The monarch rarely quitted his palace, contenting himself with such reports of the state of his empire as were transmitted to him from time to time by his officers.8 The chief amusement of the court, in which however the king rarely partook,4 was hunting. Media always abounded in beasts of chase ;8 and lions, bears, leopards, wild boars, stags, gazelles, wild sheep, and wild asses are mentioned among the animals hunted by the Median nobles6 Of these the first four 16 Xeip6naKrpa. (Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, § 5.) Median kings. Certainly neither Xeno- 17 Ibid. § 6. phon in his Cyropcedia, nor Ctesias in "See the description in Xenophon. the fragments which remain of his (Cyrop. i. 3, § 10.) Compare the Persian practice. (Herod, i. 133.) "Cyrop. i. 3, § 8. 1 Herod, i. 99. Compare Nic. Dam. Fr. 66. (Fr. Hut. Gr. vol. iii. p. 402.) 2 Strab. L s. c. XepairpAt Btoirpeirjs eU robs Htpaas napa MifSbiv itpiKrox. 'This, at least, is the account of Hero- dotus (i. 100). But it may be doubted whether he does not somewhat over-state the degree of seclusion affected by the writings, appears to hold such extreme views on the subject as "the Father of History." 4 Herodotus's account would neces- sarily imply this. Xenophon furnishes no contradiction; for he does not make the king bunt in person. 5 See above, p. 295. * Xen. Cyrop. i. 4, § 7. Nicolas of Damascus meutiuns the wild boars, the stags, and the wild asses. (Fr. 10.) Chap. III. PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY. 319 were reckoned dangerous, the others harmless.7 It was cus- tomary to pursue these animals on horseback, and to aim at them with the bow or the javelin. We may gather a lively idea of some of these hunts from the sculptures of the Parthians, who some centuries later inhabited the same region. We see in these the rush of great troops of boars through marshes dense with water-plants, the bands of beaters urging them on, the sportsmen aiming at them with their bows, and the game falling transfixed with two or three well-aimed shafts.8 Again we see herds of deer driven within enclosures, and there slain by archers who shoot from horseback, the monarch under his parasol looking on the while, pleased with the dexterity of his servants.9 It is thus exactly that Xenophon portrays Astyages as contem- plating the sport of his courtiers, complacently viewing their enjoyment, but taking no active part in the work himself.10 Like other Oriental sovereigns, the Median monarch main- tained a seraglio of wives and concubines ;11 and polygamy was commonly practised among the more wealthy classes. Strabo speaks of a strange law as obtaining with some of the Median tribes—a law which required that no man should be content with fewer wives than five.12 It is very unlikely that such a burthen was really made obligatory on any: most probably five legitimate wives, and no more, were allowed by the law referred to, just as four wives, and no more, are lawful for Mahometans. Polygamy, as usual, brought in its train the cruel practice of castration; and the court swarmed with eunuchs, chiefly foreigners purchased in their infancy.18 Towards the close of the Empire this despicable class appears to have been all-powerful with the monarch.14 Thus the tide of corruption gradually advanced; and there 'Xen. Ctjrop. l. a. c. • See the engraving in Ker Porter's Trarelt, vol. ii. opp. p. 175, or the more carefully drawn representation in Flan- din's Voyage en Perse, torn. i. PL 10. • Ker Porter, vol. ii opp. p. 177; Flandin, torn. i. PL 12. u Xen. Cyrop. i. 4, § 15. 'EfoaTO £;W{(\&>rat, *oi Siuuwras, Kai d.ov- WfovTas. "Strab. xi. 13, § 11. Compare Nico- las of Damascus, Fr. 66 (Fr. Hist. Or. vol. iii. p. 403). 12 Strab. L s. c. 13 Clearch. Sol. ap. Athen. Deipn. xii. 2, p. 514, D. "Nic. Dam. Fr. 66 (Fr. Mist. Or. vol. iii. pp. 398 and 402). 320 Chap. III. THE THIHD MONARCHY. is reason to believe that both court and people had in a great measure laid aside the hardy and simple customs of their forefathers, and become enervated through luxury, when the revolt of the Persians came to test the quality of their courage, and their ability to maintain their empire. It would be im- proper in this place to anticipate the account of this struggle, which must be reserved for the historical chapter; but the well- known result—the speedy and complete success of the Persians —must be adduced among the proofs of a rapid deterioration in the Median character between the accession of Cyaxares and the capture—-less than a century later—of Astyages. We have but little information with respect to the state of the arts among the Medes. A barbaric magnificence charac- terised, as has been already observed, their architecture, which differed from the Assyrian in being dependent for its effect on groups of pillars rather than on painting or sculpture. Still sculpture was, it is probable, practised to some extent by the Medes, who, it is almost certain, conveyed on to the Persians those modifications of Assyrian types which meet us everywhere in the remains of the Achsemenian monarchs. The carving of winged genii, of massive forms of bulls and lions, of various gro- tesque monsters, and of certain clumsy representations of actual life, imitated from the bas-reliefs of the Assyrians, may be safely ascribed to the Medes; since, had they not carried on the tra- ditions of their predecessors, Persian art could not have borne the resemblance that it does to Assyrian. But these first mimetic efforts of the Arian race have almost wholly perished, and there scarcely seems to remain more than a single fragment which can be assigned on even plausible grounds to the Median period. A portion of a colossal lion, greatly injured by time, is still to be seen at Hamadan, the site of the great Median capital, which the best judges regard as anterior to the Persian period, and as therefore most probably Median.1 It consists of the head and body of the animal, from which the four legs and the tail have been broken off, and measures between eleven and twelve feet from the crown of the head to the point from which 1 Flaudin, Voyage en Perse, p. 17. Sir H. Kawlinson is of the same opinion. Chap. III. MEDIAN SCULPTURE. 321 the tail sprang. By the position of the head and of what remains of the shoulders and thighs, it is evident that the animal was represented in a sitting posture, with the fore legs straight and the hind legs gathered up under it. To judge of the feeling and general character of the sculpture is difficult, owing to the worn and mutilated condition of the work; but we i*j<" w~\ .-ks^^-L „5-" "V^. '"./ i ."' V-^~ Colossal Lion (Ecbatana). seem to trace in it the same air of calm and serene majesty that characterises the colossal hulls and lions of Assyria, together with somewhat more of expression and of softness than are seen in the productions of that people. Its posture, which is unlike that of any Assyrian specimen, indicates a certain amount of originality as belonging to the Median artists, while its colossal size seems to show that the effect on the spectator was still to be produced, not so much by expression, finish, or truth to nature, as by mere grandeur of dimension. VOL. II. 322 Chap. IV. THE THIRD MONARCHY. CHAPTER IV. RELIGION. 'A/uffTor Atli Sio Kut' airrods elrai ipxas, ayaObv Satfiova Kal KclK&r Salfiova' Kai r(p fih tfo^a firal Zei>t Kal 'OpofidaSns, t 5i "Aot/s cai 'Apeinii>toi.—Diog. Laert. Prooem. p. 2. The earliest form of the Median religion is to be found in those sections of the Zendavesta1 which have been pronounced on internal evidence to be the most ancient portions2 of that venerable compilation; as, for instance, the first Fargard of the Vendidad, and the Gathas, or " Songs,"8 which occur here and 1 The Zend-Avesta, or sacred volume of the Parsees, which has now been printed both by Westergaard (1852- 1854) and Spiegel (1851-1858), and translated into German by the latter, is a compilation for liturgical purposes from various older works which have been lost. It is composed of eight pieces or books, entitled Yacna, Visporatu or Visparad, Vendidad, Yashts, Nyayish, Afrigaus, G&hs, Sirozah. It is written in the old form of Arian speech called the Zend, a language closely cognate to the Sanscrit of the Vedas and to Achse- menian Persian, or the Persian of the Cuneiform inscriptions. A Pehlevi trans- lation of the more important books, made probably under the Sassanidse (a.d. 235-640) is extant, and a Sanscrit translation of the Yacna, made about the end of the fifteenth century by a certain Neriosengh. The celebrated Frenchman, Anquetil du Perron, first acquainted the learned of Europe with this curious and valuable compilation. His translation (Paris, 1771), confused in its order, and often very incorrect, is now antiquated; and students unacquainted with Zend will do well to have recourse to Spiegel, who, however, is far from a per- fect translator. The best Zend scholars have as yet attempted versions of some portions of the Zendavesta only—as Burnouf of the first and ninth chapters of the Yacna (Commentairc sur U Yac-na, Paris, 1833; and the Journal asiatiqne for 1844-1846), and Martin Haug of the Gathas (2 vols., Leipsic, 1858-1860), and other fragments (Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsees, Bombay, 1862). Pro- fessor Westergaard of Copenhagen is understood to be engaged upon a com- plete translation of the whole work into English. When this version appears, it will probably leave little to be desired. The word " Zend-Avesta," introduced into the languages of Europe by Du Perron, is incorrect. The proper form is "Aveste-Zend," which is the order always used in the Pehlevi books. This word, "Avesta-Zend," is a contraction of A vesta u Zend, "Avesta and Zend," i.e. Text and Comment. Avesta (ara- sthd) means "text, scripture ;" its Peh- levi form is apistai, and it is cognate with the late Sanscrit and Mahratta pmtaJc, "book." Zend (tand) is "explanation, comment." (See Haug's Essays, pp. 120- 122; and compare Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 474, note.) 1 Haug, Essays, pp. 60-116; Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. p. 476. * Itwasdoubtedforsometimewhether the Gathas were really "songs." Brock- haus said in 1850, "Jusqu'ioi je n'ai pu Chap. IV. RELIGION OF THE MEDES. 323 there in the Yacna, or Book on Sacrifice.4 In the Gathas, which belong to a very remote era indeed,8 we seem to have the first beginnings of the Religion. We may indeed go back by their aid to a time anterior to themselves—a time when the Arian race was not yet separated into two branches, and the Easterns and Westerns, the Indians and Iranians, had not yet adopted the conflicting creeds of Zoroastrianism and Brahmin- ism. At that remote period we seem to see prevailing a poly- theistic nature-worship—a recognition of various divine beings, called indifferently Amras (Akuras),* or Bevas,7 each inde- pendent of the rest, and all seemingly nature-powers rather than persons, whereof the chief are Indra, Storm or Thunder; Mithra, Sunlight; Aramati (Armaiti),8 Earth; Vayu, Wind; Agni,Fire; and Soma (Homa), Intoxication. Worship is conducted by priests, who are called kavi," seers;" Jtarapani, " sacrificers," or rifUths, " wise men."9 It consists of hymns in honour of the gods; sacrifices, bloody and unbloody, some portion of which is burnt upon an altar; and a peculiar ceremony, called that ol Soma, in which an intoxicating liquor is offered to the gods, and then consumed by the priests, who drink till they are drunken. Such, in outline, is the earliest phase of Arian religion, and it is common to both branches of the stock, and anterior to decouvrir la moindre trace de mesure dans lea morceaux que l'on peut regarder cumme des Gathas." (Vendidad-Sadi, p. 357, ad too. ydtha.) But Haug has shown distinctly, not only that they are metrical, but that the metres are of the same nature as those which are found in the Vedic hymns. (Essays, pp. 136- 138.) And Westorgaard has shown by his mode of printing that he regards them as metrical. * Yaata in Zend is equivalent to yajna in Sanscrit, and means "sacri- fice." The Ytupna consists chiefly of prayers, hymns, &c., relating to sacri- ficial rites, and intended to be used during the performance of sacrifice. 1 Traditionally, several of the Gathas are ascribed to Zoroaster, whose date was anterior to B.C. 2000 according to Berosus, and whom other writers place ■till earlier. (See Aristot. ap. Diog. Loert. Pref. 6; PIin. H. If. xxx. 1; Her- mipp. Fr. 79 ; Xan. Lyd. Fr. 2!>, &c.) Their style shows them to be consider- ably anterior to the first Fargard of the Vendidad, which must have been com- posed before the great migration of the Medes southward from the Caspian region. Haug is inclined to date the Zoroastrian Gathas as early as the time of Moses. (Essays, p. 255.) "The Sanscrit s is replaced most com- monly by A in Zend. Asura or ahura is properly an adjective meaning " living." But it is ordinarily used as a substantive, and means "divine or celestial being." 'The word dcva is clearly cognate to the Latin Deus, XHvus, Lithuanian diewas, Greek Zeiis or SSei/t, &c . In modern Persian it has become dir. "Aramati is the Sanscrit, Armaiti the Zend form. • Haug, Essays, pp. 245-247. T 2 324 Chap. IV. THE THIRD MONARCHY. the rise of the Iranic, Median, or Persian system. That system is a revolt from this sensuous and superficial nature-worship. It begins with a distinct recognition of spiritual intelligencea —real persons—with whom alone, and not with powers, religion is concerned. It divides these intelligences into good and bad, pure and impure, benignant and malevolent. To the former it applies the term Asuras (Ahuras), "living" or "spiritual beings," in a good sense; to the latter, the term Devas, in a bad one. It regards the "powers" hitherto worshipped as chiefly Devas; but it excepts from this unfavourable view a certain number, and, recognising them as Asuras, places them among the Izeds, or "angels." Thus far it has made two ad- vances, each of great importance, the substitution of real "per- sons" for "powers," as objects of the religious faculty, and the separation of the persons into good and bad, pure and impure, righteous and wicked. But it does not stop here. It proceeds to assert, in a certain sense, monotheism against polytheism. It boldly declares that, at the head of the good intelligences, is a siDgle great Intelligence, Ahurd-Mazdao,10 the highest object of adoration, the true Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the universe. This is its great glory. It sets before the soul a single Being as the source of all good and the proper object of the highest worship. Ahurd-Mazdao is "the creator of life, the earthly and the spiritual;"11 he has made "the celestial bodies,"12 "earth, water, and trees,"18 "all good creatures,"1 4 and "all good, true things."15 He is "good,"16 "holy,"17 "pure,"1 "true,"2 "the Holy God,"8 "the Holiest,"4 "the essence of truth,"6 "the father of all truth,"8 "the best being of all," 7 "the master of purity."8 He is supremely "happy,"9 pos- 1* Great difference of opinion exists as to the meaning of this name. It has been translated " the great giver of life" (Sir H. Rawlinson's Persian Vocabulary, ad voc . Auramazda); "the living wise" (Haug, Essays, p. 33); "the living Creator of all" (ibid. pp. 256, 257); "thedivine much-knowing" (Brockhaus, Vendidad-Sadi, pp. 347 and 385); and "the divine much-giving" (ibid.) Both elements of' the name were used com- monly to express the idea of "a god." "Haug, Essays, p. 257. 12 Yacna, xxxi. 7. "Ibid. li. 7. » Ibid. xxxi. 7. "Ibid, xliii. 2. "Ibid. xii. 1. "Ibid, xliii. 4,5. 1 Ibid. xxxv. 1. 2 Ibid. xlvi. 2. • Ibid, xliii. 5. 4 Ibid. xlv. 5. • Ibid. xxxi. 8. • Ibid. xlvii . 1. • Ibid, xliii. 2. • Ibid. xxxv. 1. • Ibid. xxxv. 3. Chap. IV. CONCEPTION OF AHURA-MAZDA 325 seasing every blessing, "health, wealth, virtue, wisdom, immor- tality."10 From him comes all good to man; on the pious and the righteous he bestows not only earthly advantages, but precious spiritual gifts, truth, devotion, "the good mind," and everlasting happiness;11 and as he rewards the good, so he punishes the bad, though this is an aspect in which he is but seldom represented.18 It has been said18 that this conception of Ahura-mazda as the Supreme Being is "perfectly identical with the notion of Elohim, or Jehovah, which we find in the books of the Old Testament." This is, no doubt, an over-statement. Ahura-mazda is less spiritual and less awful than Jehovah. He is less remote from the nature of man. The very ascription to him of health (haur- vatdt) is an indication that he is conceived of as possessing a sort of physical nature.14 Lucidity and brilliancy are assigned to him, not (as it would seem) in a mere metaphorical sense.15 Again, he is so predominantly the author of good things, the source of blessing and prosperity, that he could scarcely inspire his votaries with any feeling of fear. Still, considering the general failure of unassisted reason to mount up to the true notion of a spiritual God, this doctrine of the early Arians is very remarkable; and its approximation to the truth sufficiently explains at once the favourable light in which its professors are viewed by the Jewish prophets,16 and the favourable opinion which they form of the Jewish system.17 Evidently, the Jews and Arians, when they became known to one another, recog- nised mutually the fact that they were worshippers of the same great Being.1 Hence the favour of the Persians towards the Jews, Hang, Essays, p. 257. 11 Yacna, xxxiv. 1; xlvii . 1, 2, &c . » Ibid, xliii. 4, 6. u Haug, Essays, L s. c. "Haurvatdt(Khordddinh.tsr Persian) is translated indifferently "health," '' wholesomeness," "completeness,'' "prosperity." It is explained to be "the good condition in which every being of the good creation has been created by Ahura-mazda." (Haug, Essays, p. 177.) u Ahura-mazda is "true, lurid, shin- ing, the originator of all the best things, of the spirit in nature, and of the growth in nature, of the luminaries, and of the self-shining brightness which is in the luminaries." (Yapia, xii. 1, Haug's Translation.) He is regarded as the source of light, which most resembles him, and he is called qdtltrd, "having his own light." (Haug, Essays, p. 143, note.) "Isaiah xliv. 28; xlv. 1-4. "2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23; Ezra i . 1-4 ; vi. 10, 12. 1 This is clear from such passages as 326 THE THIRD MONARCHY. Chap. IV. and the fidelity of the Jews towards the Persians. The Lord God of the Jews being recognised as identical with Ormazd, & sympathetic feeling united the peoples. The Jews, so impatient generally of a foreign yoke, never revolted from the Persians; and the Persians, so intolerant, for the most part, of religions other than their own,2 respected and protected Judaism. The sympathy was increased by the fact that the religion of Ormazd was anti-idolatrous. In the early nature-worship, idolatry had been allowed; but the Iranic system pronounced against it from the first.8 No images of Ahura-mazda, or of the Izeds, profaned the severe simplicity of an Iranic temple. It was only after a long lapse of ages, that, in connection with a foreign worship, idolatry crept in.4 The old Zoroastrianism was in this respect as pure as the religion of the Jews, and thus a double bond of religious sympathy united the Hebrews and the Arians. Underthe supreme God, Ahura-mazda or Ormazd, the ancient Iranic system placed (as has been already observed) a number of angels.8 Some of these, as Vohu-man6, "the Good Mind Mazda, "the Wise" (?); and Aska, "the True," are scarcely distinguishable from attributes of the Divinity. Armaiti, how- ever, the genius of the Earth, and Sraosha or Serosh, an angel, are very clearly and distinctly personified.8 Sraosha is Ormazd's messenger. He delivers revelations,7 shows men the paths of happiness,8 and brings them the blessings which Ormazd has assigned to their share.9 Another of his functions is to protect the following:—" Lord God of heaven hath given me (i.e. Cyrus) all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build Aim a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel—he it the God— which is in Jerusalem." (Ezra i . 2, 3.) * See the Chapter on the Persian Religion in the "Fifth Monarchy," Infra, vol. iii. * Yacna, xxxii. 1, 2; xlv. 11; xlvi. 11; &c. * Journal of the Asiatic Society, voL iv. p. 159; Loftus, Chaldtea and Sutiana, p. 378. On the first erection of statues in honour of Anaitis, see the Chapter on the Persian Religion in the third volume of this work. * Yamtat or izedt. * "While the Ameeha Spentas," says Haug, "represent nothing but the quali- ties and gifts of Ahura-mazda ; Sraosha seems to have been considered as a per- sonality." (Essays, p. 261.) Haug even regards Armaiti as not really a person (ibid.) 'Yaho had prevUmtly intoxicated themselvee, and they appear to have been in most cases successful." (Esmys, pp. 247, 248.) These orgies may therefore be compared with those which the Greeks celebrated in honour of Bacchus, and may throw light on the supposed Indian origin of that deity. The Soma plant is said to be the acid Asclepias or Sarcostema viminalit (Wil- son in Rig-Veda Sanhita, vol. i. p. 6, note "). The important part which it holds in the Vedas will be seen by refer- ence to Mr. Wilson's translation of the Big-Veda, vol. i. pp. 6, 11, 14, 21, 25, &c., and still more by reference to Mr. Stevenson's translation of the Sama- Veda, which is devoted almost entirely to its praises. "See Yacna, xxxii. 3, and xlviii. 10. 330 Chap. IV. THE THIRD MONARCHY. pleasing to the gods, and not obscurely hinted that they them- selves indulged in similar excesses, was revolting to the religious temper of those who made the Zoroastrian reformation; and it is plain from the Gathas that the new system was intended at first to be entirely free from the pollution of so disgusting a practice. But the zeal of religious reformers outgoes in most cases the strength and patience of their people, whose spirit is too gross and earthly to keep pace with the more lofty flights of the purer and higher intelligence. The Iranian section of the Arians could not be weaned wholly from their beloved Soma feasts; and the leaders of the movement were obliged to be con- tent ultimately with so far reforming and refining the ancient ceremony as to render it comparatively innocuous. The portion of the rite which implied that the gods themselves indulged in intoxication was omitted;1 and for the intoxication of the priests was substituted a moderate use of the liquor, which, instead of giving a religious sanction to drunkenness, merely implied that the Soma juice was a good gift of God, one of the many blessings for which men had to be thankful.2 With respect to the evil spirits or intelligences, which, in the Zoroastrian system, stood over against the good ones, the teaching of the early reformers seems to have been less clear. The old divinities, except where adopted into the new creed, were in a general way called Bevae, "fiends" or "devils,"8 in 1 Instead of pouring the liquor on the fire or on the sacred grass, where the gods were supposed to sit, the Ira- nian priests simply showed it to the fire and then drank it. (Haug, Essays, p. 239.) * The restoration of the modified Soma (Homa) ceremony to the Iranian ritual is indicated in "the younger Yacna" (chs. ix. to xi.), more especially in the so-called Homa Yatht, a transla- tion of which by Buraouf is appended to the Vendidad-Sadi of Brockhaus. * There is, of course, no etymological connection between deva and "devil." Deva and the cognate diu are originally "the sky," "the air"—a meaning which diu often has in the Vedas. (Compare Lat. dium.) From this meaning, while deva passed into a general name for god, the form diu was appropriated to a particular god. Compare our use of the word "Heaven " in such expressions as "Heaven forbid," "Heaven bless you!") The particular god, the god of the air, appears in Greek as Zeis or ZSetft, in Latin as /u-piter, in old German as Tint, whence our Tuesday. Deva became Lat. deut, divot, Gr. 6e6t, Lith. diewas, &o. Thus far the word had invariably a good sense. When, however, the Western Arians broke off from their brethren, and rejected the worship of their gods, whom they regarded as evil spirits, the word deva, which they specially applied to them, came to have an evil meaning, equivalent to our " fiend" or "devil. "Devil" is of course a mere corruption of 5id/3oXos; Lat. diabolus; Ital. diavolo; French dioMe; Negro, debbcl. Chap. IV. DUALISM NOT THE PBIMITIVE CBEED. 331 contrast with the Ahuras, or "gods." These devas were repre- sented as many in number, as artful, malicious, deceivers and injurers of mankind, more especially of the Zoroastrians or Ormazd-worshippers,4 as inventors of spells 5 and lovers of the intoxicating Soma draught.6 Their leading characteristics were "deatroying" and " lying." They were seldom, or never, called by distinct names. No account was given of their creation, nor of the origin of their wickedness. No single superior intelli- gence, no great Principle of Evil, was placed at their head. Ahriman (Angrd-mainyus) does not occur in the Gathas as a proper name. Far less is there any graduated hierarchy of evil, surrounding a Prince of Darkness with a sort of court, antagonistic to the angelic host of Ormazd, as in the later portions of the Zendavesta and in the modern Parsee system. Thus Dualism proper, or a belief in two uncreated and in- dependent principles, one a principle of good and the other a principle of evil was no part of the original Zoroastrianism. At the same time we find, even in the Gathas, the earliest portions of the Zendavesta, the germ out of which Dualism sprung. The contrast between good and evil is strongly and sharply marked in the Gathas; the writers continually harp upon it, their minds are evidently struck with this sad anti- thesis which colours the whole moral world to them; they see everywhere a struggle between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, purity and impurity; apparently they are blind to the evidence of harmony and agreement in the universe, discerning nothing anywhere but strife, conflict, antagonism. Nor is this all . They go a step further, and personify the two parties to the struggle. One is a "white" or holy "Spirit" (^pento mainyus), and the other a "dark spirit" (angro mainyus)? But this personification is merely poetical or metaphorical, not real. The "white spirit" is not Ahura-mazda, and the "dark spirit" is not a hostile intelligence. Both resolve themselves on examination into mere figures of speech—phantoms of poetic * Yapta, xii. 4; xxx. 6; xxxii. 5; xliv. 16; &c. 'Ibid, xxxii. 4. • Ibid, xxxii. 3. 'See especially Jofno, xlv. 2, and compare xxx. 3-6. Chap. IV. GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF DUALISM. 333 Angrd-mainyus has now become a proper name, and designates the great spirit of evil as definitely and determinately as Ahura- mazda designates the good spirit. The antagonism between Ahura-mazda and Angrfi-mainyus is depicted in the strongest colours; it is direct, constant, and successful. Whatever good work Ahura-mazda in his benevolence creates, Angro-mainyus steps forward to mar and blast it. If Ahura-mazda forms a "delicious spot" in a world previously desert and uninhabitable to become the first home of his favourites, the Arians, Angrd- mainyus ruins it by sending into it a poisonous serpent,2 and at the same time rendering the climate one of the bitterest severity. If Ahura-mazda provides, instead of this blasted region, another charming habitation,"the second best of regions and countries,"3 Angrd-mainyus sends there the curse of murrain, fatal to all cattle. To every land which Ahura-mazda creates for his wor- shippers, Angrd-mainyus immediately assigns some plague or other. War, ravages, sickness, fever, poverty, hail, earthquakes, buzzing insects, poisonous plants, unbelief, witchcraft, and other inexpiable sins, are introduced by him into the various happy regions created without any such drawbacks by the good spirit; and a world, which should have been "very good," is by these means converted into a scene of trial and suffering. The Dualistic principle being thus fully adopted, and the world looked on as the battle-ground between two independent and equal powers engaged in perpetual strife, it was natural that the imagination should complete the picture by ascribing to these superhuman rivals the circumstantials that accompany Media Antropatone', which may be indi- cated by the Varena of § 18. (See Appendix, A.) Thus the Arians, when the document was written, had not yet spread into Media Magna, much less into Persia Proper. It must consequently be anterior to the time of the first Shal- maneser (b.C. 858-823), who found Medea and Persians beyond the Zagros range. See above, p. 101.) Dr. Haug thinks that the Fargard is anterior to B.C. 1200, because Bactria occurs in it accompanied by the epithet tredhwd-drafeha," with the tall banner" —an expression indicating that it was the centre of an empire, which Bac- tria, he think-, could not be after the rise of Assyria (B.C. 1200, according to him). See Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 477, 478, E. T. But the Assyrian re- cords render it absolutely certain that Bactria was an independent country, even at the height of the Assyrian power. 2 The mention of a serpent as the first creation of Angrd-mainyus is curious. Is it a paradisaical reminis- cence? 8 Vendidad, Farg. i. § 5. 334 Chap. IT. THE THIRD MONARCHY. a great struggle between human adversaries. The two kings required, in the first place, to have their councils, which were accordingly assigned them, and were respectively composed of six councillors. The councillors of Ahura-mazda—called Amesha Spentas, or "Immortal Saints," afterwards corrupted into Amshashpands4—were Vohu-inand (Bahman), Asha-vahista (Ardibehesht), Khshathra-vairya (Shahravar), Qpenta-Armaiti (Isfand-armat), Haurvatat (Khordad), and Ameretat (Amerdat). Those of Angrd-mainyus were Ako-manS, Indra, Qaurva, Naonhaitya, and two others whose names are interpreted as "Darkness" and " Poison."8 Vohu-mand (Bahman) means "the Good Mind." Originally a mere attribute of Ahura-mazda,6 Vohu-man6 came to be con- sidered, first as one of the high angels attendant on him, and them formally as one of his six councillors. He had a distinct sphere or province assigned to him in Ahura-mazda's kingdom, which was the maintenance of life in animals and of goodness in man. Asha-vahista (Ardibehesht) means "the Highest Truth "— "Veritas optima," or rather perhaps " Veritas lucidissima."7 He was the "Light" of the universe, subtle, all-pervading, omni- present. His special business was to maintain the splendour of the various luminaries, and thereby to preserve all those things whose existence and growth depend on light. Khshathra-vairya (Shahravar), whose name means simply "possessions," " wealth," was regarded as presiding over metals and as the dispenser of riches. ^penta-Armaiti (Isfand-armat)—the "white" or "holy Armaiti," represented the Earth. She had from the first, as we have already seen, a distinct position in the system of the Zoroastrians, where she was at once the Earth-goddess and the genius of piety.8 Haurvatat (Khordad) means "health "—" sanitas "9—and 4 Haug's Estaya, p. 260. 7 " Vahista means originally 'most 'Ibid. p. 263. Compare Windisch- splendid, beautiful,' but was afterwards mann's Zorocutruehe Studitn, p. 59, used in the general sense of 'best.'" where the original names are given as (Haug, Eisays, p. 261.) Taric and Zaric. "See above, p. 327. 'See above, p. 326. 'The most exact representative of Chap. IV. THE SIX ARCHANGELS—THE SIX DEMONS. 333 was originally one of the great and precious gifts which Ahura- mazda possessed himself and kindly bestowed on his creatures.10 When personification, and the needs of the theology, had made Haurvatat an archangel, he, together with Ameretat (Amerdat), "Immortality," took the presidency of the vegetable world, which it was the business of the pair to keep in good condition. In the council of Angro-mainyus, Ako-mand stands in direct antithesis to Vohu-man6, as "the bad mind," or, more literally, "the naught mind"11—for the Zoroastrians, like Plato, regarded good and evil as identical with reality and unreality^ro ov, and to ntf Sv. Ako-man&'s special sphere is the mind of man, where he suggests evil thoughts and prompts to bad words and wicked deeds. He holds the first place in the infernal council, as Vohu-mano does in the heavenly one. Indra, who holds the second place in the infernal council, is evidently the Vedic god whom the Zoroastrians regarded as a powerful demon, and therefore made one of Angrd-mainyus's chief councillors. He probably retained his character as the god of the storm and of war, the destroyer of crops and cities, the inspirer of armies and the wielder of the thunderbolt. The Zoroastrians, however, ascribed to him only destructive actions; while the more logical Hindoos, observing that the same storm which hurt the crops and struck down trees and buildings was also the means of fertilising the lands and purifying the air, viewed him under a double aspect, as at once terrible in his wrath and the bestower of numerous blessings.12 Qaurva, who stands next to Indra, is thought to be the Hindoo Shiva,1 who has the epithet garva in one of the Vedas! But the late appearance of Shiva in the Hindoo system" makes this highly uncertain. Haurvatat which the classical languages furnish would seem to be the Greek €u*$la. It is "the good condition in which every being of the good creation has been created by Ahura-mazda." (Haug, p. 177.) Yacna, xxiiv. 1, xlvii. 1, &c . ■ Haug, pp. 142 and 258. B For the character of Indra in the Hindoo mythology, see Wilson, Rig- Veda Sanhita, Introduction, pp. ixx-xxxii. 1 Haug, Eaays, p. 230. 2 Yajur-Veda, xvi. 28. * The name of Shiva does not occur in the Rig-Veda, from which the famous Trimurtti, or Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva is wholly absent. (Wilson, in Introduction to Rig- Veda Sanhita, vol. i. p. xxvi; Max Miiller, Ancient Samkrit Literature, p. 65.) 336 THE THIRD MONARCHY. Chap. IV. Naonhaitya, the fourth member of the infernal council, cor- responds apparently to the Vedic Nasatyas, a collective name given to the two Aswins, the Dioscuri of Indian mythology. These were favourite gods of the early Hindoos,4 to whose pro- tection they very mainly ascribed their prosperity. It was natural that the Iranians, in their aversion to their Indian brethren, should give the Aswins a seat at Angrd-mainyus's council-table; but it is curious that they should represent the twin deities by only a single councillor. Taric.and Zaric, "Darkness" and " Poison," the occupants of the fifth and sixth places, are evidently personifications made for the occasion, to complete the infernal council to its full complement of six members. As the two Principles of Good and Evil have their respective councils, so have they likewise their armies. The Good Spirit has created thousands of angelic beings, who everywhere per- form his will and fight on his side against the Evil One; and the Evil One has equally on his part called into being thousands of malignant spirits, who are his emissaries in the world, doing his work continually, and fighting his battles. These are the Devas or Divs, so famous in Persian fairy mythology. They are "wicked, bad, false, untrue, the originators of mischief, most baneful, destructive, the basest of all beings."6 The whole universe is full of them. They aim primarily at destroying all the good creations of Ahura-mazda; but if unable to destroy they content themselves with perverting and corrupting. They dog the steps of men, tempting them to sin; and, as soon as they sin, obtaining a fearful power over them.6 At the head of Ahura-mazda's army is the angel Sraosha (Serosh). Serosh is " the sincere, the beautiful, the victorious, the true, the master of truth."7 He protects the territories of 'On the large share which the Aa- I following particulars concerning Serosh wins occupied in the early Hindoo are also contained in the hymn. He worship, see Wilson, Rig- Veda Sanhita, was the inventor of the barmm, and Introduction, p. xxxv, and compare Rig- Veda, voL i. pp. 8, 50, 94-97, 127, 306-325, Ac. 5 Yacna, xii. 4. * Ibid. xxx. 6. 7 See the Serosh Yasht, or hymn in praise of Serosh (Yafna, Ivii. 2). The first taught its use to mankind. He made the music for the five earliest Gathfts, which were called the GathAa of Zoroaster. He had an earthly dwell- ing-place—a palace with 1000 pillars erected on the highest summit of Elbura Chap. IV. PRACTICAL ASPECT OF THE RELIGION. 337 the Iranians, wounds, and sometimes even slays the demons, and is engaged in a perpetual struggle against them, never slumbering night nor day, but guarding the world with his drawn sword, more particularly after sunset, when the demons have the greatest power. Angrd-mainyus appears not to possess any such general-in- chief. Besides the six councillors above mentioned, there are indeed various demons of importance, as Drukhs, "destruction;" Aeshem6, "rapine;" Daivis, "deceit;" Driwis, "poverty," &c.; but no one of these seems to occupy a parallel place in the evil world to that which is assigned to Serosh in the good. Perhaps we have here a recognition of the anarchic character of evil, whose attacks are like those of a huge undisciplined host— casual, fitful, irregular,—destitute wholly of that principle of law and order which gives to the resisting power of good a great portion of its efficacy. To the belief in a spiritual world composed of all these various intelligences—one half of whom were good, and the other half evil—the early Zoroastrians added notions with respect to human duties and human prospects far more enlightened than those which have usually prevailed among heathen nations. In their system truth, purity, piety, and industry were the virtues chiefly valued and inculcated. Evil was traced up to its root in the heart of man; and it was distinctly taught that no virtue deserved the name but such as was co-extensive with the whole sphere of human activity, including the thought, as well as the word and the deed.8 The purity required was inward as well as outward, mental as well as bodily. The industry was to be of a peculiar character. Man was placed upon the earth to preserve the good creation; and this could only be done by careful tilling of the soil, eradication of thorns and weeds, and reclamation of the tracts over which Angro-mainyus had spread the curse of barrenness. To cultivate the soil was thus a religious duty; the (the peak of Demawend ?), which waa religion. lighted within by its own light, and 1 "On the triad of thought, word, and without was ornamented with stars. ! act, see Ya^na, xii. 8, xxxii. 5, xxxiii. One of his employments was to walk 2, xxxv. 1, xlvii. 1, xlix. 4, &c.; and round the world, teaching the true j compare below, p. 338, note VOL. II. Z . 333 Chap. IV. THE THIRD MONARCHY. whole community was required to be agricultural; and either as proprietor, as farmer, or as labouring man, each Zoroas- trian must "further the works of life" by advancing tillage.9 Piety consisted in the acknowledgment of the One True God, Ahura-mazda, and of his holy angels, the Amesha Spentas or Amshashpands, in the frequent offering of prayers, praises, and thanksgivings, in the recitation of hymns, the performance of the reformed Soma ceremony, and the occasional sacrifice of animals. Of the hymns we have abundant examples in the Gathas of the Zendavesta, and in the Ya$na haptanhaiti, or Yacna of seven chapters," which belongs to the second period of the religion. A specimen from the latter source is subjoined below.10 The Soma or Homa ceremony consisted in the extrac- tion of the juice of the Homa plant by the priests during the recitation of prayers, the formal presentation of the liquid extracted to the sacrificial fire, the consumption of a small portion of it by one of the officiating priests, and the division of the remainder among the worshippers. As the juice was drunk immediately after extraction and before fermentation had set in, it was not intoxicating. The ceremony seems to have been regarded, in part, as having a mystic force, securing the favour of heaven;1 in part, as exerting a beneficial influence upon the * See Yacna, xxxiii. 3. 10 "We worship Ahura-mazda, the pure, the master of purity. We worship the Amesha Spentas, the possessors of good, the givers of good. We worship the whole creation of the true ■pint, both the spiritual and terrestrial, all that supports the welfare of the good creation and the spread of good inazda- yacna religion. "We praise all good thoughts, all good words, all good deeds, which are or shall be; and we likewise keep clean and pure all that is good. "0 Ahura-mazda, thou true, happy being 1 We strive to think, to speak, and to do only such actions as may be best fitted to promote the two lives" (i.e. the life of the body and the life of the soul). "We beseech the spirit of earth, for the sake of these our best works" (t.e. our labours in agriculture), " to grant us | beautiful and fertile fields, to the be- liever as well as to the unbeliever, to him who has riches as well as to him who has no possession." (Yacna, xxxv. 1-4. See Haug's Essays, pp. 162, 163.) 1 See the Homa Yasht (Yacna, chs. Is. and x.) It has sometimes been sup- posed that the personal Homa addressed in his Yasht, and appearing elsewhere as an object of worship to the Zoroas- trians, represents the Moon-God (Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 254) ; and the author was formerly of this opinion (Herodotus, vol. i. p. 349, 2nd edition.) But further consideration has convinced him that the Zendic Homa answers to one character only of the Vedic Soma, and not to both. Soma is at once the Moon-God and the Genius of Intoxica- tion. (Rig- Veda Sanhita, vol. i. p. 118; vol. ii. p. 311; &c.) Homa is the latter only. Chap. IV. BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 339 body of the worshipper through the curative power inherent in the Homa plant. The sacrifices of the Zoroastrians were never human. The ordinary victim was the horse ;2 and we hear of occasions on which a single individual sacrificed as many as ten of these animals.8 Mares seem to have been regarded as the most pleasing offerings, probably on account of their superior value; and if it was desired to draw down the special favour of the Deity, those mares were selected which were already heavy in foal . Oxen, sheep, and goats were probably also used as vic- tims. A priest always performed the sacrifice, slaying the animal, and showing the flesh to the sacred fire by way of con- secration, after which it was eaten at a solemn feast by the priest and worshippers. The Zoroastrians were devout believers in the immortality of the soul and a conscious future existence. They taught that immediately after death the souls of men, both good and bad, proceeded together along an appointed path to "the bridge of the gatherer" (chinvat peretu).4 This was a narrow road con- ducting to heaven or paradise, over which the souls of the pious alone could pass, while the wicked fell from it into the gulf below, where they found themselves in the place of punishment. The good soul was assisted across the bridge by the angel Serosh —"the happy, well-formed, swift, tall Serosh"6—who met the weary wayfarer and sustained his steps as he effected the dif- ficult passage. The prayers of his friends in this world were of much avail to the deceased, and greatly helped him on his journey.8 As he entered, the archangel Vohu-mano or Bahmau rose from his throne and greeted him with the words, "How happy art thou who hast come here to us from the mortality to the immortality!" Then the pious soul went joyfully onward to Ahura-mazda, to the immortal saints, to the golden throne, 2 This practice remained among the Persian Fire-worshippers to a late date. It is mentioned as chivracteristic of the Persians by Xenophon (Cyrop. viii. 3, § 24) and Ovid (Fasti, i. 385). • Yacna, xliv. 18. 'This is evidently the original of Mahomet's famous " way, extended over the middle of Hell, which is sharper than a sword and finer than a hair, over which all must pass." (Pocock, Spec. Hitt. Arab. p. 278.) ■ Vendidad, Farg. xix. 30. • Haug, Euay$, p. 156, note. z 2 340 Chap. IV. THE THIRD MONARCHY to Paradise.7 As for the wicked, when they fell into the gulf, they found themselves in outer darkness, in the kingdom of Angr6-mainyus, where they were forced to remain and to feed upon poisoned banquets. It is believed by some that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was also part of the Zoroastrian creed.8 Theopompus assigned this doctrine to the Magiand there is no reason to doubt that it was held by the priestly caste of the Arian nations in his day. We find it plainly stated in portions of the Zenda- vesta, which, if not among the earliest, are at any rate of very considerable antiquity, as in the eighteenth chapter of the Vendidad.10 It is argued that even in the Gathas there is an expression used which shows the doctrine to have been already held when they were composed; but the phrase adduced is so obscure, that its true meaning must be pronounced in the highest degree uncertain.11 The absence of any plain allusion to the resurrection from the earlier portions of the sacred volume is a strong argument against its having formed any part of the original Arian creed—an argument which is far from outweighed by the occurrence of a mere possible refer- ence to it in a single ambiguous passage. Around and about this nucleus of religious belief there grew up in course of time a number of legends, some of which possess considerable interest. Like other thoughtful races, the Iranians speculated upon the early condition of mankind, and conceived a golden age, and a king then reigning over a perfectly happy people, whom they called King Yima—Yima- • Vendidad, Farg. xix. 31, 32. • Haug, p. 266. • See Diog. Laert. Procem. § 9. 6eA- irofiiros avarhucrrffSai Kara robs M&yoirs ilal robs ivSpd'irovs, Kal fa«r6at iddva- rovt. And Mn. Gaz. Dial, de an. immort. p. 77: 0 Si Zupodarpris Tpo\iytt, us Iffrat vire xpo'cos Iv £ varruv vtupuv iv&oraais tffraf oTStv 6 Gfdiro/tiroi. And again in the Zemyad Yasht, §§ 89, 90. 11 Haug, Etsays, pp. 143 and 266. The expression relied on is frathem kerenaon ahUm, which occurs in the Gdtha ahuvanaUi (Yacna, xxx. 9), and is translated, "they perpetuate the life"— literally "they make the life lasting." Hence, it is said, was formed the sub- stantive frashd-hereti, which in the later Zend books becomes a cerium usitntum, designating the entire period of resur- rection and palingenesis at the end of time. But this only shows that the later Zoroaatrians applied a phrase taken from the older books totheirdoctrines. It does not prove that the phrase had origin- ally the meaning which they put upon it. In its literal sense the expression clearly does not go beyond the general notion of a future existence. Chap. IV. LEGENDS—YIMA—THRAETONA 341 khshaeta12—the modern Persian Jemshid. Yima, according to the legend, had dwelt originally in Aryanem vaejo—the primi- tive seat of the Arians—and had there reigned gloriously and peacefully for awhile; but the evils of winter having come upon his country, he had removed from it with his subjects, and had retired to a secluded spot where he and his people enjoyed un- interrupted happiness.18 In this place was "neither overbearing nor mean-spiritedness, neither stupidity nor violence, neither poverty nor deceit, neither puniness nor deformity, neither huge teeth nor bodies beyond the usual measure."14 The inhabitants suffered no defilement from the evil spirit. They dwelt amid odoriferous trees and golden pillars; their cattle were the largest, best, and most beautiful on the earth; they were themselves a tall and beautiful race; their food was ambrosial, and never failed them. No wonder that time sped fast with them, and that they, not noting its flight, thought often that what was really a year had been no more than a single day.15 Yima was the great hero of the early Iranians. His title, besides "the king" (khshaeta), are "the brilliant," "the happy," "the greatly wealthy," "the leader of the peoples," "the renowned in Arya- nem vaejo." He is most probably identical with the Yama of the Vedas,18 who was originally the first man, the progenitor of mankind and the ruler of the blessed in Paradise, but who was afterwards transformed into " the god of death, the inexo- rable judge of men's doings, and the punisher of the wicked."17 Next in importance to Yima among the heroes is Thraetona —the modern Persian Feridun. He was born in Varena1— which is perhaps Atropat6n4 or Azerbijan2—and was the son 12 With khihafta, the epUhlton. testa- tum of Yima, which undoubtedly means "king "—corresponding to the r&jd, which is the epithet of Yama in the Vedas—may be compared the Achseme- nian hhnhayathiya, which is the com- monest term for "king" in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions. » Vmdidad, Farg. ii. 4 to 41. » Ibid. § 29. 15 Ibid. § 41. "This identification was first made, I believe, by Burnouf. It rests on the following resemblances. Yama has habitually the title rdjd affixed to his name; Yima has the corresponding title hlishaita. Yama is the son of Vivaarat; Yima, of Vivanghvat. Yama is the first Vedic man; Yima is the first Iranic king. Yama reigns over a heavenly, Yima over an earthly paradise. "Haug, Essays, p. 234. 1 YashU, xv. 23; xvii. 33; Vmdi- dad, Farg. i . $ 18. 2 The capital of Atropatene' was sometimes called Vera or BarU, whence perhaps Varena, Or Varena may pos- 342 Chap. IV. THE THIRD MONARCHY of a distinguished father, Athwyd. His chief exploit was the destruction of Ajis-dahaka (Zohak), who is sometimes repre- sented as a cruel tyrant, the bitter enemy of the Iranian race,8 sometimes as a monstrous dragon, with three mouths, three tails, six eyes, and a thousand scaly rings, who threatened to ruin the whole of the good creation.4 The traditional scene of the destruction was the mountain of Demavend, the highest peak of the Elburz range south of the Caspian. Thraetona, like Yinia, appears to be also a Vedic hero. He may be recog- nised in Traitana,5 who is said in the Rig-Veda to have slain a mighty giant by severing his head from his shoulders. A third heroic personage known in the early times 6 was Keresaspa, of the noble Sama family. He was the son of Thrita —a distinct personage from Thraetona—and brother of Urvakh- shaya the Just,7 and was bred up in the arid country of Veh- keret (Khorassan). The "glory" which had rested upon Yima so many years became his in his day.8 He was the mightiest among the mighty, and was guarded from all danger by the fairy (pairika) Knathaiti,9 who followed him whithersoever he went. He slew Qravara, the green and venomous serpent, who swallowed up men and horses.10 He killed Gandarewa with the sibly be Ghilan, since "the initial v of the old Iranian usually becomes g in modern Persian." (Haug in Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 487.) YashU, xv. 8; and so in the Shah- nameh (Atkinson's Abridgment, pp. 12- 49). * Yacna, ix. 6. Burnouf thus trans- lates the passage: "Thraetona .... qui a tue ' le serpent homicide aux trois gueules, aux trois totes, aux six yeux, aux mille forces, cette divinity cruelle qui de'truit la purete", ce pecheur qui ra- vage les uiondes, ct qu'Ahriman a ct46 le plusennemi de lapurete' dansle monde, existant pour l'aneantiesement de la puretc' des mondes." 'So Haug (Essays, p. 235), Roth (ZciUchrift dtr 1). morgcnlandUchcn Geselltchaft, vol. ii. p. 216), and Lassen (Indigene AUcrthumnkundef additions). Professor H. H. Wilson, on the other hand, rejects the proposed identification. Rig- Veda Sanhita, voL i . p. 143, note.) 'Keresaspa is mentioned in the first Fargard of the Vendidad (§ 10); which has been already shown to be older than the first occupation by the Arians of Media Magna. (See above, p. 332, note '.) 'Yacna, ix. 7. • A special "glory" or "lustre" (qarent), the reflex of Ahura-mazda's inborn brilliancy (qdthro), attaches to certain eminent heroes, more especially to Yima and Keresaspa. (Yathtt, xix. 38.) • The fairy Knathaiti, though ori- ginally a creation of Angrd-mainyus (Vendidad, Farg. i. 10; xix. 5), "became the protecting genius of heroes, who were indebted to her for their super- natural strength." (Haug in Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 482.) 10 YashU, xix. 38-44. Compare Yacna, ix. 8, which is thus translated by Bur- nouf : "C'est lui (Kerecajpa) qui tua le serpent agile qui devorait les chevaux Chap. IV. CHAKACTER OF THE LEGENDS. 343 golden heel, and also Cnavidhaka, who had boasted that, when he grew up, he would make the earth his wheel and heaven his chariot, that he would carry off Ahura-mazda from heaven and Angro-mainyus from hell, and yoke them both as horses to his car. Keresaspa appears as Gershasp in the modern Persian legends,11 where, however, but little is said of his exploits. In the Hindoo books12 he appears as Kriv\irrovew oi Ma'yoi. (Strab. xv. 3, § 15.) 'Ibid. 14. 'Ttpiirrovaw . . . oi v- ffuvres riWd ^tirt^o*res' rods 5i tpvo-ff ffavrai . . . davarovau "Herod, iii. 16; Strab. L s. o.; Nic. Dam. Fr. 68, p. 409. 11 Some said that no part of the vic- tim was burnt. Strab. l. s. c . ; Eustath. Comment, ad Horn. II. i.) But Strabo's statement, that a small portion was consumed in the fire, seems trust- worthy. Xenophon's "whole burnt- offerings" must be a fiction. (Cjfrop. viii. 3, § 24.) Chap. IV. NATURE OF MAGISM. 347 taken that no drop of their blood should touch the water and pollute it.12 No refuse was allowed to be cast into a river, nor was it even lawful to wash one's hands in one.18 Reverence for earth was shown by sacrifice,14 and by abstention from the usual mode of burying the dead.15 The Magian religion was of a highly sacerdotal type. No worshipper could perform any religious act except by the inter- vention of a priest, or Magus, who stood between him and the divinity as a Mediator.16 The Magus prepared the victim and slew it, chanted the mystic strain which gave the sacrifice all its force, poured on the ground the propitiatory libation of oil, milk, and honey, held the bundle of thin tamarisk twigs—the Zendic barsom (barecmo)—the employment of which was essen- tial to every sacrificial ceremony.17 The Magi were a priest- caste, apparently holding their office by hereditary succession.18 They claimed to possess, not only a sacred and mediatorial character, but also supernatural prophetic powers. They ex- plained omens,19 expounded dreams,20 and by means of a certain mysterious manipulation of the barsom, or bundle of twigs, arrived at a knowledge of future events, which they commu- nicated to the pious inquirer.21 With such pretensions it was natural that the caste should assume a lofty air, a stately dress, and an entourage of cere- monial magnificence. Clad in white robes,22 and bearing upon their heads tall felt caps, with long lappets at the sides, which concealed the jaw and even the lips, each with his barsom in his hand, they marched in procession to their pyrcetheia, or fire- 12 Strab. L 8. c. u Herod, i. 138; Strab. xr. 3, § 16; Agathias, ii. 24, ad fin. "Xen. Cyrop. l. s. c. » See below, p. 350, note "Herod, i. 132. 'Arev yip S1l M&yov 00 ff). "Haug imagines that the term Magus is Zoroastrian, that it was used from very ancient times among the Arians to designate the followers of the true religion (E'tayt, pp. 160, 247), and that by degrees it came to be applied especially to the priests. For my own part I doubt the identity of the maga or maghava, which occurs twice, and twice only, in the whole of the Zendavesta (Westergaard, Introduction to Zend- avata, p. 17), with the magwl i of the cuneiform inscriptions and the Md>o» of the Greeks. a Herod. i. 101. The first real proof that we have of any close connection of the Magi with an Arian race is furnished by the Median history of Herodotus, where we find them a part, but not ap- parently an original part, of the Median nation. Their position (fifth) in the Chap. IV. RESULT OF THE CONTACT. 349 is there that Magi are first found acting in the capacity of Arian priests.26 According to all the accounts which have come down to us, they soon acquired a predominating influence, which they no doubt used to impress their own religious doctrines more and more upon the nation at large, and to thrust into the back- ground, so far as they dared, the peculiar features of the old Arian belief. It is not necessary to suppose that the Medes ever apostatized altogether from the worship of Ormazd, or formally surrendered their Dualistic faith.1 But, practically, the Magian doctrines and the Magian usages—elemental wor- ship, divination with the sacred rods, dream-expounding, incan- tations at the fire-altars, sacrifices whereat a Magus officiated —seem to have prevailed; the new predominated over the old; backed by the power of an organized hierarchy, Magism over- laid the primitive Arian creed, and, as time went on, tended more and more to become the real religion of the nation. Among the religious customs introduced by the Magi into Media, there are one or two which seem to require especial notice. The attribution of a sacred character to the four so-called elements—earth, air, fire, and water—renders it ex- tremely difficult to know what is to be done with the dead. They cannot be burnt, for that is a pollution of fire; or buried, for that is a pollution of earth; or thrown into a river, for that is a defilement of water. If they are deposited in sarcophagi, or exposed, they really pollute the air; but in this case the guilt of the pollution, it may be argued, does not rest on man, since the dead body is merely left in the element in which nature placed it. The only mode of disposal which completely avoids the defilement of every element is consumption of the dead by living beings; and the worship of the elements leads on naturally to this treatment of corpses. At present the Guebres, or Fire-worshippers, the descendants of the ancient list of tribes, last of all except the Budii, who were probably also Scyths, is only to be accounted for, when we consider their high rank and importance, by their having been added on to the nation after the four Arian tribes were constituted. * Herod, i. 107, 108. 1 It is in Media (at Behistun) that the sculptor of a Scythic inscription— probably himself a Median Scyth—in- forms his readers that Ormazd was "the god of the Arians." Remark that he says " Arians "—not "Persians "—thus including the Arian Medes. 350 Chap. IV. THE THIRD MONARCHY. Persians, expose all their dead, with the intention that they shall be devoured by birds of prey.2 In ancient times, it appears certain that the Magi adopted this practice with respect to their own dead ;8 but, apparently, they did not insist upon having their example followed universally by the laity.4 Probably a natural instinct made the Arians a%'erse to this coarse and revolting custom; and their spiritual guides, compassionating their weakness, or fearful of losing their own influence over them if they were too stiff in enforcing com- pliance, winked at the employment by the people of an entirely different practice. The dead bodies were first covered com- pletely with a coating of wax, and were then deposited in the ground.8 It was held, probably, that the coating of wax pre- vented the pollution which would have necessarily resulted had the earth come into direct contact with the corpse. The custom of divining by means of a number of rods appears to have been purely Magian. There is no trace of it in the Gathas, in the Tagna haptanhaiti, or in the older portions of the Vendidad. It was a Scythic practice;8 and probably the best extant account of it is that which Herodotus gives of the mode wherein it was managed by the Scyths of Europe. "Scythia," he says, "has an abundance of soothsayers, who foretell the future by means of a number of willow wands. A : See the author's Herodotus, voL i. p. 223, note 4, 2nd ed. Round towers of considerable height, without either door or window, are constructed by the ( Guebres, having at the top a number of iron bars, which slope inwards. The towers are mounted by means of ladders; and the bodies are placed crossways upon the bars. The vultures and crows which hover about the towers soon strip the flesh from the bones, and these latter then fall through to the bottom. The Zendavesta contains particular directions for the construction of such towers, which are called dalchmas, or "Towers of Silence." (Vendidad, Farg. v. to Farg. viii.) * Strab. xv. 3, § 20. Toi>s 5t Md- yovs ou 6&irTovow d\X' oluvoppitrrovi iuffi. Compare Herod (i . 140), who, however, seems to think that the bodies were buried after dogs or birds had par- tially devoured them. In this he was probably mistaken. 'Thisappearsfromthestatementamade by Herodotus and Strabo as to the actual practice in the passages quoted in the last note. On the other hand, if we refer the composition of the middle portion of the Vendidad (from the fifth to the eighteenth Fargard) to the times of early Magian ascendancy, we must suppose that they wished to put a stop to all burial. * Herod. l. s. c. KaTaKiiptlxravrti rd* vtmv TMpaai yy KpinrTovei. Strab. Lie. Qdirrovai KVP irepiir\dffai>res ra «riS- fiara. • SchoL Nic. Ther. 613: Kdyot Si Kai "Li iroXXois rovots p&SHou ptarrtvw- rat. Acirar Si . . (eai rait p&rteu Chap. IV. THE BAESOM—THE KHRAFCTHRAGHNA. 351 large bundle of these rods is brought and laid on the gi-ound. The soothsayer unties the bundle, and places each wand by itself, at the same time uttering his prophecy: then, while ho is still speaking, he gathers the rods together again, and makes them up once more into a bundle."7 A divine power seems to have been regarded as resting in the wands; and they were supposed to be "consulted"8 on the matter in hand, both severally and collectively. The bundle of wands thus imbued with supernatural wisdom, became naturally part of the regular priestly costume,9 and was carried by the Magi on all occasions of ceremony. The wands were of different lengths; and the number of wands in the bundle varied. Sometimes there were three, sometimes five, sometimes as many as seven or nine; but in every case, as it would seem, an odd number.10 Another implement which the priests commonly bore must be regarded, not as Magian, but as Zoroastrian. This is the khrafgthraghna, or instrument for killing bad animals,11 frogs, toads, snakes, mice, lizards, flies, &c., which belonged to the bad creation, or that which derived its origin from Angrd- mainyus. These it was the general duty of all men, and the more especial duty of the Zoroastrian priests, to put to death, whenever they had the opportunity. The Magi, it appears, adopted this Arian usage, added the khrafcthraghna to the barsom, and were so zealous in their performance of the cruel work expected from them as to excite the attention, and even draw upon themselves the rebuke, of foreigners.12 A practice is assigned to the Magi by many classical and ecclesiastical writers,1a which, if it were truly charged on them, 'Herod, iv. 67. The only difference teems to be that the European Scyths used willow wands, the Mugi twigs of the tamarisk. * The prophet Hosea evidently refers to this custom when he says (iv. 12), "My people ask counsel at their stocks; and their gtujf declareth unto them." It must therefore have been practised in Western A*ia at least as early as B.C. 700. See also Ezek. viii. 17: "And, lo, they put the branch to their nose." • Vendtdad, Farg. xviii. 1-6 ; Strab. xv. 3, §§ 14 and 15. 10 Yacna, lvii. 6. 11 Vendidad, L s. c. 12 Herodotus had evidently seen Magi pursuing their pious pastime, "killing ants and snakes, and seeming to take a delight in the employment" (i. 140). Though speaking in his usual guarded way of a religious custom, he does not fail to indicate that he was shocked as well as astonished. 1* Xanthus ap. Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 352 Chap. IT. THE THIRD MONARCHY. would leave a very dark stain on the character of their ethical system. It is said that they allowed and even practised incest of the most horrible kind—such incest as we are accustomed to associate with the names of Lot, (Edipus, and Herod Agrippa. The charge seems to have been first made either by Xanthus the Lydian, or by Ctesias. It was accepted, probably without much inquiry, by the Greeks generally, and then by the Romans, was repeated by writer after writer as a certain fact, and became finally a stock topic with the early Christian apologists. Whether it had any real foundation in fact is very uncertain. Herodotus, who collects with so much pains the strange and unusual customs of the various nations whom he visits, is evidently quite ignorant of any such monstrous prac- tice. He regards the Magian religion as established in Persia, yet he holds the incestuous marriage of Cambyses with his sister to have been contrary to existing Persian laws.14 At the still worse forms of incest of which the Magi and those under their influence are accused, Herodotus does not even glance. No doubt, if Xanthus Lydus really made the statement which Clemens of Alexandria assigns to him, it is an important piece of evidence, though scarcely sufficient to prove the Magi guilty. Xanthus was a man of little judgment, apt to relate extra- vagant tales;1 and, as a Lydian, he may have been not dis- inclined to cast an aspersion on the religion of his country's oppressors. The passage in question, however, probably did not come from Xanthus Lydus, but from a much later writer who assumed his name, as has been well shown by a living critic.8 The true original author of the accusation against the Magi and their co-religionists seems to have been Ctesias,a p. 515; Ctesias ap. Tertull. Apolog. p. 10, C.; Antiathenes ap. Athen. Deipn. v. 03, p. 220, C.; Diog. Laert. Prowm. § 7; Strab. xv. 3, § 20; Catull. Carm. xc. 3; Lucian. De Sacrific. § 5; Philo Judoeus, De decaly. p. 778; Tertull. Ad. Nat. i. 15 ; Orig. Cant. Celt. v. p. 248; Clem. Alex. Pad. i . 7, p. 131; Minucius, Octav. 31, p. 155; Ag.ithias, ii. 24. "Herod, iii. 31. 1 See his fragments in C. Muller's Pragm. Hist. Gr. vol. i. pp. 36-44 ; and especially Fra. 11, 12, and 19. * See Muller's Introduction to vol. i. of the Fragm. Hist. Gr. pp. xxi and xxii. * If the Antisthenes quoted by Athe- nrcus is the philosopher, as he was con- temporary with Ctesias, he may have been the first to make the charge. But there were at least four Greek writers who bore the name of Antisthenes. (See Diog. Laert. vi. 19.) Chap. IV. CAUSES OF THE TRIUMPH OF MAG ISM. 353 whose authority is far too weak to establish a charge intrin- sically so improbable. Its only historical foundation seems to have been the fact that incestuous marriages were occasionally contracted by the Persian kings; not, however, in consequence of any law, or religious usage, but because in the plenitude of their power they could set all law at defiance, and trample upon the most sacred principles of morality and religion.4 A minor charge preferred against the Magian morality by Xanthus, or rather by the pseudo-Xanthus, has possibly a more solid foundation. "The Magi," this writer said, "hold their wives in common: at least they often marry the wives of others with the free consent of their husbands." This is really to say that among the Magians divorce was over-facile; that wives were often put away, merely with a view to their forming a fresh marriage, by husbands who understood and approved of the transaction. Judging by the existing practice of the Persians,8 we must admit that such laxfty is in accordance with Iranic notions on the subject of marriage—notions far less strict than those which have commonly prevailed among civi- lised nations. There is, however, no other evidence, besides this, that divorce was very common where the Magian system prevailed; and the mere assertion of the writer who personated Xanthus Lydus will scarcely justify us in affixing even this stigma on the religion. Upon the whole, Magism, though less elevated and less pure than the old Zoroastrian creed, must be pronounced to have possessed a certain loftiness and picturesqueness which suited it to become the religion of a great and splendid monarchy. The mysterious fire-altars on the mountain-tops, with their prestige of a remote antiquity—the ever-burning flame believed to have 4 Herod, iii. 81. 01 /3mrtX#bi Sua- ffrol . . vireKpimrro . . il-tvpriKtvai vb~ fwr, rifi pTariXedom llipaiur i{ewai iroiiew t6 Sr /SotfXirrat. * Ker Porter says: "The lower ranks [of Persians], seldom being able to sup- port more than the privileged number of wives, are often ready to change them on any pita, when time, or any other VOL. II. cause, has a little sullied their freshness. .... When matrimonial differences arise, of sufficient magnitude to occasion a wish to separate, the grievances are stated by both parties before the judge; and if duly substantiated, and the com- plainants persist in demanding a divorce, he furnishes both with the necessary certificates." (Travelt, vol. i. p. 342.) 2 A 354 Chap. IV. THE THIRD MONARCHY. been kindled from on high—the worship in the open air under the blue canopy of heaven—the long troops of Magians in their white robes, with their strange caps, and their mystic wands— the frequent prayers—the abundant sacrifices6—the long in- cantations—the supposed prophetic powers of the priest-caste, —all this together constituted an imposing whole at once to the eye and to the mind, and was calculated to give additional grandeur to the civil system that should be allied with it. Pure Zoroastrianism was too spiritual to coalesce readily with Oriental luxury and magnificence, or to lend strength to a government based on the ordinary principles of Asiatic des- potism. Magism furnished a hierarchy to support the throne, and add splendour and dignity to the court, while they over- awed the subject-class by their supposed possession of super- natural powers, and of the right of mediating between heaven and man. It supplied a picturesque worship which at once gratified the senses and excited the fancy. It gave scope to man's passion for the marvellous by its incantations, its divining- rods, its omen-reading, and its dream-expounding. It gratified the religious scrupulosity which finds a pleasure in making to itself difficulties, by the disallowance of a thousand natural acts, and the imposition of numberless rules for external purity.7 At the same time it gave no offence to the anti-idolatrous spirit in which the Arians had hitherto gloried, but rather encouraged the iconoclasm which they always upheld and practised. It thus blended easily with the previous creed of the people, awaking no prejudices, clashing with no interests; winning its way by an apparent meekness and unpresumingness, while it was quite prepared, when the fitting time came, to be as fierce and exclusive as if it had never worn the mask of humility and moderation.8 • Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3, §§ 11 and 24; Herod, vii. 43. 7 See the minute directions for es- caping or removing impurity, contained in the Vendidad, Farg. 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17. All these chapters seem Magian rather than Zoroastrian. 8 I cannot conclude this chapter with- out expressing my obligations to Dr. Martin Haug, from whose works I hare mainly derived my acquaintance with, the real contents of the Zendavata. I have rarely ventured to differ from him in the inferences which he draws from those contents. In one important respect only do I find my views seriously at Chip. IV. MAOISM AND ZOEOASTHIANISM. 355 variance with his. I regard Magism as in its origin completely distinct from Zoroastrianism, and as the chief cause of its corruption, and of the remarkable difference between the earlier and the later of the Zendic books. In this view I am happy to find myself supported by Westergaard, who writes as follows in his " Preface " to the Zendavesta (p. 17): "The faith ascribed by Herodotus to the Persians is not the lore of Zoroaster; nor were the Magi in the time of Darius the priests of Ormazd. Their name, Magu, occurs only twice in all the ex- tant Zend testa, and here in a general sense, while Darius opposes his creed to that of the Magi, whom he treated most unmercifully. Though Darius was the mightiest king of Persia, yet his memory and that of his predecessors on the thrones of Persia and Media has long since utterly vanished from the recol- lections of the people. It was sup- planted by the foreign North-Iranian mythology, which terminates with Vish- taspa and his sons; and with these per- sons the later Persian tradition has con- nected the Achsemenian Artaxerxes, the Long-Handed, as if he especially had contributed to the propagation and es- tablishment in Western Iran of the Zo- roastrian belief. But this latter would appear early to have undergone tome modi- fication, perhaps even from the influence of Magism itself; and it may have been in this period that the Magi, turning to the faith of their sovereigns" (or, rather, turning their sovereigns to their faith), "became the priests of Ormazd." 356 Chap. V. THE THIRD MONARCHY. CHAPTER V. LANGUAGE AND WRITING. 'Ofi&y\uTT0i iropi fUKpw ol Hepirai ital oi Mi/Soi.—Strab. xv. 2, § 8. On the language of the ancient Medes a very few observations will be here made. It has been noticed already1 that the Median form of speech was closely allied to that of the Per- sians. The remark of Strabo quoted above, and another re- mark which he cites from Nearchus,2 imply at once this fact, and also the further fact of a dialectic difference between the two tongues. Did we possess, as some imagine that we do, materials for tracing out this diversity, it would be proper in the present place to enter fully on the subject, and instead of contenting ourselves with asserting, or even proving, the substantial oneness of the languages, it would be our duty to proceed to the far more difficult and more complicated task of comparing together the sister dialects, and noting their various differences. The supposition that there exist means for such a comparison is based upon a theory that in the language of the Zendavesta we have the true speech of the ancient people of Media, while in the cuneiform inscriptions of the Achsemenian kings it is beyond controversy that we possess the ancient language of Persia. It becomes necessary, therefore, to exa- mine this theory, in order to justify our abstention from an inquiry on which, if the theory were sound, we should be now called upon to enter. The notion that the Zend language was the idiom of ancient Media originated with Anquetil du Perron. He looked on Zoroaster as a native of Azerbijan, contemporary with Darius See above, ch. iii. p. 306. flidXenrTO* t&v KapfiavirCm Repffuti rt 'NtyROf Si rd ir urra W17 Kal r);* KcU Mt;SutA etpilKt. Strab. xv. 2, § 14. Chap. V. RELATION OF ZEND TO MEDIAN. 357 Hystaspis. His opinion was embraced by Kleuker, Herder, and Rask;s and again, with certain modifications, by Tychsen4 and Heeren.8 These latter writers even gave a more completely Median character to the Zendavesta, by regarding it as com- posed in Media Magna, during the reign of the great Cyaxares. The main foundation of these views was the identification of Zoroastrianism with the Magian fire-worship, which was really ancient in Azerbijan, and flourished in Media under the great Median monarch. But we have seen that Magianism and Zoroastrianism were originally entirely distinct, and that the Zendavesta in all its earlier portions belongs wholly to the latter system. Nothing therefore is proved concerning the Zend dialect by establishing a connection between the Medes and Magism, which was a corrupting influence thrown in upon Zoroastrianism long after the composition of the great bulk of the sacred writings. These writings themselves sufficiently indicate the place of their composition. It was not Media, but Bactria, or at any rate the north-eastern Iranic country, between the Bolor range and the Caspian. This conclusion, which follows from a con- sideration of the various geographical notices contained in the Zend books, has been accepted of late years by all the more profound Zend scholars. Originated by Rhode,8 it has also in its favour the names of Burnouf, Lassen, Westergaard, and Haug.7 If then the Zend is to be regarded as really a local dialect, the idiom of a particular branch of the Iranic people, there is far more reason for considering it to be the ancient speech of Bactria than of any other Arian country. Possibly the view is correct which recognises two nearly-allied dialects as exist- ing side by side in Iran during its flourishing period—one pre- 1 See his work On the Antiquity and Otnuineneu of the Zendavata. * Comment. Soc. dotting, vol. xi. pp. 112 et seq. * Asiatic Nations, vol. i . p. 322, E. T. * See hia work Die heilige Sage und dot gaammte Religionssystem. der alien Baktrer, Meder und Pcrser, oder des ZendcoUcs, Frankfort, 1820. 7 Burnouf, Commcntairc sur It Taena, note, p. xciii; Westergaard, Preface to Zendavesta, p. 16; Haug, Essays, p. 42. Dr. Donaldson appears to have adopted the Median theory after it was generally discarded on the Continent. See the second edition of his A'n» Uratylus (pub- lished in 1850), where he speaks of the Zend language as "exhibiting some strongly-marked features of the Median dialect" (pp. 126, 127). 358 Chap. V. THE THIRD MONARCHY. vailing towards the west, the other towards the east—one Medo- Persic, the other Sogdo-Bactrian—the former represented to us by the cuneiform inscriptions, the latter by the Zend texts.* Or it may be closer to the truth to recognise in the Zendic and Achsemenian forms of speech, not so much two contemporary idioms, as two stages of one and the some language, which seems to be at present the opinion of the best comparative philologists.9 In either case Media can claim no special inte- rest in Zend, which, if local, is Sogdo-Bactrian, and if not local is no more closely connected with Media than with Persia. It appears then that we do not at present possess any means of distinguishing the shades of difference which separated the Median from the Persian speech.10 We have in fact no speci- mens of the former beyond a certain number of words, and those chiefly proper names, whereas we know the latter toler- ably completely from the inscriptions. It is proposed under the head of the "Fifth Monarchy " to consider at some length the general character of the Persian language as exhibited to us in these documents. From the discussion then to be raised may be gathered the general character of the speech of the Medes. In the piesent place all that will be attempted is to show how far the remnants left us of Median speech bear out the statement that, substantially, one and the same tongue was spoken by both peoples. Many Median names are absolutely identical with Persian; e.g., Ariobarzanes,11 Artabazus,12 Artseus,18 Artembares,14 Har- • This view has been maintained by Burnouf and Lassen. It seems to be also held by Haug (Essays, pp. 42, 43), and Westergaard (Preface to Zendavesta, p. 16). * Max Muller, Languages of the Seat of War, p. 32 ; Bunsen, Philosophy of History, vol. iii. pp. 110-115. 10 If any difference can be pointed out, it is the greater fondness of the Medea for the termination -ok, which is perhaps Scythic. (Compare the terminal guttural so common in the primitive Chaldsean, and the Basque -c at the end of names, which is said to be a suffixed article.) We have this ending in Deioces (Dahai), Astyages (Aj-dahai), Arbac-es or Harpa^-us, Mandatw-es, Rhambac-as, Spitac-es, &c . And we have it again in spah, "dog." "A Median Ariobarzanes is men- tioned by Tacitus (Ann. ii. 4). 12 Artabazus is given as a Median name by Xenophen (Gyrop. i. 4. § 27). "Artseus appears as a Median king in Ctesias (ap. Diod. Sic. ii . 32, § 6), as a Persian in Herod, (vii. 66). "Herodotus has both a Persian (ix. 122) and a Median Artembares (i. 114), both a Persian (vi. 28) and a Median Harpagus (i. 108). Arbaces is probably the same name. According to CUsias Chap. V. NAMES PROVE MEDIAN AKIN TO PERSIAN. 359 pagus, Arbaces, Tiridates, &c.1 5 Others which are not abso- lutely identical approach to the Persian form so closely as to be plainly mere variants, like Theodoras and Theodosius, Adelbert and Ethelbert, Miriam, Mariam, and Mariamne'. Of this kind are Intaphres,18 another form of Intaphernes, Artynes, another form of Artanes,17 Parmises, another form of Parmys,18 and the like. A third class, neither indentical with any known Persian names, nor so nearly approaching to them as to be properly considered mere variants, are made up of known Per- sian roots, and may be explained on exactly the same principles as Persian names. Such are Ophernes, Sitraphernes, Mitra- phernes, Megabernes, Aspadas, Mazares, Tachmaspates, Xathri- tes, Spitaces, Spitamas, Rhambacas, and others. In O-phernes, Sitra-phernes, Mitra-phernes, and Mega-bernes, the second element is manifestly the pharna or frana which is found in Arta-phernes and Inta-phernes (Vida-frana),1 an active parti- cipial form from pri, "to protect." The initial element in O-phernes represents the Zend hu, Sans, su, Greek ev, as the same letter does in O-manes, O-martes, &c.2 The Sitra of Sitra-phernes has been explained as probably khshatra, "the crown,"8 which is similarly represented in the Sat ?'0-pates of Curtius, a name standing to Sitra-phernes exactly as Arta- patas to Arta-phernes4 In Mega-bernes the first element is the well-known baga, "God,"8 under the form commonly pre- (ap. Diod. Sic. ii. 32, § 5), it was borne by a Median king; according to Xeno- phon (Anab. vii. 8, } 25), by a Persian satrap. 15 Tiridates appears as the nairfte of a Mede in Nicolas of Damascus (Fr. 66, p. 402); in Q. Curtius (v. 5, § 2) and Lilian (Hut. Var. xii. 1) it is the name of a Persian. "See BeAUtun Inscription, col. iv. par. 14, § 3. For the name of Inta- phernes, see Herod, iii. 70. "Artynes is one of Ctesias's Royal Median names (Diod. Sic. ii. 34, § 1); Artanes was a brother of Darius Hys- taspis (Herod, vii. 224). "According to Ctesias (Pert. Exc. \ 3), Parmises was a son of Astyages. Parmys, according to Herodotus, was a daughter of Smerdis, the son of Cyrus (iii 88). 1 Behist. Imer, col. iv. par. 18, § 4. * See the author's Herodotut, voL iii. p. 451, 2nd edition. * Ibid. p. 453. 4 Artapatas, a name mentioned by Xenophon (Anab. i. 6, § 11), means probably "protected by fire." Arta- phernes (Herod, v. 30) means "pro- tecting the fire." So Satropates means "protected by the crown"—Sitro- phernes "protecting the crown." * See the Inscriptions, passim. The later ones almost all begin with the for- mula, Baga vazarlca Auramazda, "Deus magnus [est] Oromasdes." Baga has been well compared with the Slavonio bog. 3<5o Chap. V. THE THIRD MONARCHY. ferred by the Greeks ;6 and the name is exactly equivalent to Curtius's 5«* Col. ii. par. 13, § 7. » Diod. Sic. ii. 13, § 2. 'Opos Upbv Moi. 3^4 Chap.V. THE THIRD MONARCHY. the Hebrews and the Allahabad of the Mahometans. It is simply "the house, or place, of God "—from baga, " God," and (tana, "place, abode," the common modern Persian terminal (compare Farsi-ston, Khuzi-sfcwi, Affghani-stau, Belochi-rfan, Hindu-stan, &c.), which has here not suffered any corruption. Aspadana contains certainly as its first element the root aepa, "horse."17 The suffix dan may perhaps be a corruption of ctana, analogous to that which has produced Hama-dan. from Hagma-ctan; or it may be a contracted form of danhu, or dainhu, "a province," Aspadana having been originally the name of a district where horses were bred, and having thence become the name of its chief town. The Median words known to us, other than names of per- sons or places, are confined to some three or four. Herodotus tells us that the Median word for "dog " was spaka ;18 Xeno- phon implies, if he does not expressly state, that the native name for the famous Median robe was candya ^ Nicolas of Damascus20 informs us that the Median couriers were called Angari (ayypoi); and Hesychius says that the artab6(afrTdfirj) was a Median measure.21 The last-named writer also states that artades and devas were Magian words,22 which perhaps implies that they were common to the Medes with the Per- sians. Here, again, the evidence, such as it is, favours a close connection between the languages of Media and Persia That artahi and angarus were Persian words no less than Median, we have the evidence of Herodotus.28 Artades, "just men " (according to Hesychius), is probably akin to ars, "true, just," and may represent the ars-ddta, "made just," of the Zendavesta.24 Devas (8eva<;), which Hesychius translates "the evil gods" (tov? ktpa, and Ves- aspa. The whole country was famous for its breed of horses. "Herod, i. 110. '• Xen. Cyrop. I 3, § 2. * Nic. Dam. Fr. 10, p. 361. n Hesych. ad voc. ipr&pi). a Ibid, ad voc. ipraSes and Mas. a Herod, i. 192; viii. 98. M See the Glossary of Brockhaus (Vandidad-Sadi, p. 350). 25 This is beyond a doubt the true reading, and not rods clKclKovs 6tovs, as the text stands in our present copies. On the old Arian notions with regard to the devas, see above, ch. iv. p. 330. Crap. V. MEDIAN WRITING. 365 Mod. Pers. div. (Sans, deva, Lat. divus). In candys we have most probably a formation from qan, "to dress, to adorn." Spaka is the Zendic $pd, with the Scythic guttural suffix, of which the Medes were so fond,28 fpd itself being akin to the Sanscrit pvan, and so to kvwv and canis.27 Thus we may con- nect all the few words which are known as Median with forms contained in the Zend, which was either the mother or the elder sister of the ancient Persian. That the Medes were acquainted with the art of writing, and practised it—at least from the time that they succeeded to the dominion of the Assyrians—scarcely admits of a doubt. An illiterate nation, which conquers one in possession of a litera- ture, however it may despise learning and look down upon the mere literary life, is almost sure to adopt writing to some extent on account of its practical utility. It is true the Medes have left us no written monuments; and we may fairly conclude from that fact that they used writing sparingly; but besides the antecedent probability, there is respectable evidence that letters were known to them, and that, at any rate, their upper classes could both read and write their native tongue. The story of the letter sent by Harpagus the Mede to Cyrus in the belly of a hare,1 though probably apocryphal, is important as showing the belief of Herodotus on the subject. The still more doubtful story of a dispatch written on parchment by a Median king, Artseus, and sent to Nanarus, a provincial governor, related by Nicolas of Damascus,8 has a value, as indicating that writer's conviction that the Median monarchs habitually conveyed their commands to their subordinates in a written form. With these statements of profane writers agree certain notices which we find in Scripture. Darius the Mede, shortly after the destruc- tion of the Median empire, "signs" a decree, which his chief nobles have presented to him in writing.8 He also himself "writes" another decree addressed to his subjects generally.4 "See above, p. 358, note **. * The nearest representative of spak in modern European tongues is the Rus- sian sobaJc or tabdk. 1 Herod, i. 123. 'Nic. Dam. Fr. 10. * Dan. vi 9. "Wherefore King Da- rius signed the writing and the decree." * Dan. vi. 25. "Then King Darius wrote unto all peoples, nations, and languages," &c . 366 Chap. V THE THIRD MONARCHY. In later times we find that there existed at the Persian court a "book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia,"1 which was probably a work begun under the Median and continued under the Persian sovereigns. If then writing was practised by the Medes, it becomes inte- resting to consider whence they obtained their knowledge of it, and what was the system which they employed. Did they bring an alphabet with them from the far East, or did they derive their first knowledge of letters from the nations with whom they came into contact after their great migration? In the latter case, did they adopt, with or without modifications, a foreign system, or did they merely borrow the idea of written symbols from their new neighbours, and set to work to invent for themselves an alphabet suited to the genius of their own tongue? These are some of the questions which present them- selves to the mind as deserving of attention, when this subject is brought before it. Unfortunately we possess but very scanty data for determining, and can do little more than conjecture, the proper answers to be given to them. The early composition of certain portions of the Zendavesta, which has been asserted in this work,6 may seem at first sight to imply the use of a written character in Bactria and the adjacent countries at a very remote era. But such a conclusion is not necessary. Nations have often had an oral literature, existing only in the memories of men, and have handed down such a lite- rature from generation to generation, through a long succession of ages.7 The sacred lore of Zoroaster may have been brought by the Medes from the East-Caspian country in an unwritten shape, and may not have been reduced to writing till many 'Esther x. 2. 'Supra, ch. iv. p. 332. * It is generally allowed that the Ho- meric poems were for a long time handed down in this way. (Wolf, Prolegomena de op. Homer.; Payne Knight, Prolego- mena, pp. 38-100; Matthias Greek and Roman Literature, pp. 12-14; Grote, Hist, of Greece, vol. i. pp. 524-529, 2nd edition ; &c.) The best Orientalists be- lieve the same of the Vedas. The Druid- ical poems of the ancient Gauls (Cses. Bell. GalL vi. 13, 14), the Icelandic Skalds, the Basque tales, the Ossianic poems, the songs of the Calmuckfl, the modern Greeks, and the modern Per- sians, are all instances of an oral litera- ture completely independent of writing. It is quite possible that the Zendavesta was orally transmitted till the time of Darius Hystaspis—if not even to a later dat Chap. V. KNOWLEDGE OP LETTERS, HOW ACQUIRED. 367 centuries later. On the whole it is perhaps most probable that the Medes were unacquainted with letters when they made their great migration, and.that they acquired their first knowledge of them from the races with whom they came into collision when they settled along the Zagros chain. In these regions they were brought into contact with at least two forms of written speech, one that of the old Armenians,8 a Turanian dialect, the other that of the Assyrians, a language of the Semitic type. These two nations used the same alphabetic system, though their languages were utterly unlike; and it would apparently have been the easiest plan for the new comers to have adopted the established forms, and to have applied them, so far as was possible, to the representation of their own speech. But the extreme complication of a system which employed between three and four hundred written signs, and composed signs some- times of fourteen or fifteen wedges, seems to have shocked the simplicity of the Medes, who recognised the fact that the varie- ties of their articulations fell far short of this excessive luxu- riance. The Arian races, so far as appears, declined to follow the example set them by the Turanians of Armenia, who had adopted the Assyrian alphabet, and preferred to invent a new system for themselves, which they determined to make far more simple. It is possible that they found an example already set them. In Achsemenian times we observe two alphabets used through Media and Persia, both of which are simpler than the Assyrian: one is employed to express the Turanian dialect of the people whom the Arians conquered and dispossessed;9 the other, to express the tongue of the conquerors. It is pos- sible—though we have no direct evidence of the fact—that the Turanians of Zagros and the neighbourhood had already formed for themselves the alphabet which is found in the second columns of the Achsemenian tablets, when the Arian invaders • The Armenians may perhaps not have been acquainted with writing when the Medes first reached Zagros. But they became a literary people at least as early as the 8th century B.C., while the Medes were still insignificant. * Before this language had been ana- lyzed, it was conjectured to be Median. But Mr. E. Norris has plainly shown its Scythic or Turanian character (Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. it.); and it is now generally regarded as the speech of the subject population in Media and Persia. ?68 Cha?.T. THE THIRD MONARCHY. conquered them. This alphabet, which in respect of com- plexity holds an intermediate position between the luxuriance of the Assyrian and the simplicity of the Medo-Persic system, would seem in all probability to have intervened in order of time between the two. It consists of no more than about a hundred characters,1* and these are for the most part far less compli- cated than those of Assyria. If the Medes found this form of writing already existing in Zagros when they arrived, it may have assisted to give them the idea of making for themselves an alphabet so far on the old model that the wedge should be the sole element used in the formation of letters, but otherwise wholly new, and much more simple than those previously in use. Discarding then the Assyrian notion of a syllabarium,with the enormous complication which it involves,11 the Medes12 strove to reduce sounds to their ultimate elements, and to represent these last alone by symbols. Contenting themselves with the three main vowel sounds, a, i, and u,18 and with one breathing, a simple h, they recognised twenty consonants, which were the following, b, d, f, g,j, k, kh, m, n, ft (sound doubtful), p, r, e, sh, t, v, y, z, ch (as in much), and tr, an unnecessary compound. Had they stopped here, their characters should have been but twenty-four, the number which is found in Greek. To their ears, however, it would seem, each consonant appeared to carry with it a short o, and as this, occurring before i and u, produced the diphthongs ai and au, sounded nearly as e and d,14 it seemed necessary, where a consonant was to be directly followed by the sounds i or u, to have special forms to which the sound of a should not attach. This system, carried out completely, would have raised the forms of consonants to sixty, a multiplication Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. x. p. 33. "See above, voL i. pp. 270, 271. "It is here assumed that the Medes were the originators of the system which was afterwards employed by the Persians. There is no positive proof of this. But all the evidence which we possess favours the notion that the early Persian civili- sation—and the writing belongs to the time of Cyrus—came to them from the Medes, their predecessors in the empire. (See Herod, i. 134, 135; Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, $ 2; viii. 3, § 1; Strab. xi. 13, § 9.) "These were of course sounded broad, as in Italian—the a like a in "vast;" the ' like te in "feed;" the u like oo in "food." 14 That is, as the Italian c and o in aperlo, or as the diphthongs themselves in French, e.g. fait, faux, &c. Chap. V. MEDIAN ALPHABET. 369 that was feared as inconvenient. In order to keep down the number, it seems to have been resolved, (1.) that one form should suffice for the aspirated letters and the sibilants (viz., h, kh, ch, ph or /, s, sh, and z), and also for b, y, and tr; (2.) that two forms should suffice for the tenues, k, p, t, for the liquids n and r, and for v; and consequently (3.) that the full number of three forms should be limited to some three or four letters, as d, m,j, and perhaps g. The result is that the known alphabet of the Persians, which is assumed here to have been the inven- tion of the Medes, consists of some thirty-six or thirty-seven forms, which are really representative of no more than twenty- three distinct sounds.15 It appears then that, compared with the phonetic systems in vogue among their neighbours, the alphabet of the Medes and Persians was marked by a great simplicity. The forms of the letters were also very much simplified. Instead of conglomera- tions of fifteen or sixteen wedges in a single character, we have in the Medo-Persic letters a maximum of five wedges. The most ordinary number is four, which is sometimes reduced to three or even two. The direction of the wedges is uniformly either perpendicular or horizontal, except of course in the case of the double wedge or arrow-head, <, where the component elements are placed obliquely. The arrow-head has but one position, the perpendicular, with the angle facing towards the left hand. The only diagonal sign used is a simple wedge, placed obliquely with the point towards the right, 'Vv> which is a mere mafic of separation between the words. The direction of the writing was, as with the Arian nations generally, from left to right. Words were frequently divided, and part carried on to the next line. The characters were inscribed between straight lines drawn from end to end of the tablet on which they were written. Like the Hebrew, they often closely resembled one another, and a slight defect in the stone will cause one to be mistaken for another. The resem- blance is not between letters of the same class or kind; on the contrary, it is often between those which are most remote 15 See Sir H. Rawlinson Analysis of the Persian Alphabet in the Journal of the Afiatie Society, vol. x. pp. 153-86. VOL. II. 2 B 370 Chap. V. THE THIRD MONARCHY. from one another. Thus g nearly resembles u; ch is like d; tr like p; and so on: while k and kh, s and sh, p and ph (or/) are forms quite dissimilar. It is supposed that a cuneiform alphabet can never have been employed for ordinary writing purposes,1 but must have been confined to documents of some importance, which it was de- sirable to preserve, and which were therefore either inscribed on stone, or impressed on moist clay afterwards baked. A cursive character, it is therefore imagined, must always have been in use, parallel with a cuneiform one;' and as the Babylonians and Assyrians are known to have used a character of this kind from a very high antiquity, synchronously with their lapidary cunei- form, so it is supposed that the Arian races must have possessed, besides the method which has been described a cursive system of writing. Of this, however, there is at present no direct evidence. No cursive writing of the Arian nations at this time, either Median or Persian, has been found; and it is therefore uncertain what form of character they employed on common occasions. The material used for ordinary purposes, according to Nicolas of Damascus8 and Ctesias,4 was parchment. On this the kings wrote the dispatches which conveyed their orders to the officers who administered the government of provinces; and on this were inscribed the memorials which each monarch was careful to have composed giving an account of the chief events of his reign. The cost of land carriage probably prevented papyrus from superseding this material in Western Asia, as it did in Greece at a tolerably early date.6 Clay, so much used for writing on, both in Babylonia and Assyria,6 appears never to have approved itself as a convenient substance to the Iranians. For public documents the chisel and the rock, for private the pen and the prepared skin, seem to have been preferred by them; and in the earlier times, at any rate, they employed no other materials. 1 The cuneiform is a very convenient character for impression upon clay, or inscription upon stone. In the former case, a single touch of the instrument makes each wedge ; in the latter, three taps of the chisel with the hammer cause the wedge to fall out. But characters composed of wedges are very awkward to write. s Journal of the Adastic Society, vol. x. pp. 31 and 42. * Frag. 10. See above, p. 365, note *. 4 Ap. Diod. Sic. ii. 32, § 4. 'Herod, v. 58. * Supra, vol. i. pp. 67 and 267. Chap. VL ORIGIN OF MEDIAN NATION. 371 CHAPTER VL CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY. Media . . . quam ante regnura Cyri superioris et increment* Persidos legimufc Asise reginam totius.—Amm, Marc, xxiii. 6. The origin of the Median nation is wrapt in a profound obscu- city. Following the traces which the Zendavesta offers, taking into consideration its minute account of the earlier Arian migra- tions,1 its entire omission of any mention of the Medes, and the undoubted fact that it was nevertheless by the Medes and Per- sians that the document itself was preserved and transmitted to us, we should be naturally led to suppose that the race was one which in the earlier times of Arian development was weak and insignificant, and that it first pushed itself into notice after the ethnological portions of the Zendavesta were composed, which is thought to have been about B.C. 1000.2 Quite in accordance with this view is the further fact, that in the native Assyrian annals, so far as they have been recovered, the Medes do not make their appearance till the middle of the ninth century B.C., and when they appear are weak and unimportant, only capable of opposing a very slight resistance to the attacks of the Ninevite kings.8 The natural conclusion from these data would appear to be, that until about B.C. 850 the Median name was unknown in the world, and that previously, if Medes existed at all, it was either as a sub-tribe of some other Arian race, or at 1 See the translation of the first Far- gard of the Yendidad in the Appendix to this "Monarchy." The only other geographic notice of any considerable length which the Zendavesta contains, is in the Mithra Yasht, where the countries mentioned are Aiskata (Sagartia, Asa- garta of cuneiform inscriptions ?), Pou- r&ta (Parthia), Mouru (Meru, Merj, Margiana), Har6ya (Aria or Herat), Gau Sughdha (Sogdiana), and Qairizem (Chorasmia or Kharesm). Here, again, there is no mention of Media. 2 Haug, Essay; p. 224. In Bunsen's Egypt, the date suggested is B.C. 1200 (vol. iii. p. 478). 'See above, pp. 101 and 113. 2 B 2 372 Chap. VL THE THIRD MONARCHY. any rate as a tribe too petty and insignificant to obtain mention either on the part of native or of foreign historians. Such early insignificance and late development of what ultimately becomes the dominant tribe of a race is no strange or unprecedented phenomenon to the historical inquirer: on the contrary, it is among the facts with which he is most familiar, and would admit of ample illustration, were the point worth pursuing, alike from the history of the ancient and the modern world.4 But, against the conclusion to which we could not fail to be led by the Arian and Assyrian records, which agree together so remarkably, two startling notices in works of great authority but of a widely different character have to be set. In the Toldoth Beni Noah, or "Book of the Generation of the Sous of Noah," which forms the tenth chapter of Genesis, and which, if the work of Moses, was probably composed at least as early as B.C. 1500,5 we find the word Madai—a word elsewhere always signifying "the Medes"—in the genealogy of the sons of Japhet.8 The word is there conjoined with several other im- portant ethnic titles, as Gomer, Magog, Javan, Tubal, and Meshech; and there can be no reasonable doubt that it is intended to designate the Median people.7 If so, the people must have had already a separate and independent exist- ence in the fifteenth century B.C., and not only so, but they must have by that time attained so much distinction as to he thought worthy of mention by a writer who was only bent on affiliating the more important of the nations known to him. The other notice is furnished by Berosus. That remarkable * The Hellenes were an insignificant Greek race until the Dorian conquests (Herod, i. 58 ; Thuc. i. 2). The Latins had originally no pre-eminence among the Italic peoples. The Turks for many ages were on a par with other Tartars. The race which is now forming Italy into a kingdom has only recently shown itself superior to Lombards, Tuscans, and Neapolitans. 6 The Exodus is indeed placed by Bunsen as late as B.C. 1320, and by Lep- sius as late as B.C. 1314. But the balance of authority favours a date from 200 to 300 years earlier. • Gen. x. 2. 'Kaliach says in his comment on the passage: "Madai—these are unquestion- ably tike Medes or inhabitants of Media." (Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 166.) Note that Gomer, Magog, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Ashkenaz, To- gannah, Elishah, Tarshish, and Kittim (or Chittim) are all elsewhere through Scripture undoubtedly names of nations or countries. Note, moreover, the plural forms of Kittim and Dodanim (or Ro- danim). Chap. VI. MEDES OF BEROSUS. 373 historian, in his account of the early dynasties of his native Chaldsea, declared that, at a date anterior to B.C. 2000, the Medes had conquered Babylon by a sudden inroad, had esta- blished a monarchy there, and had held possession of the city and neighbouring territory for a period of 224 years.8 Eight kings of their race had during that interval occupied the Baby- lonian throne. It has been already observed that this narrative must represent a fact.9 Berosus would not have gratuitously invented a foreign conquest of his native land; nor would the earlier Babylonians, from whom he derived his materials, have forged a tale which was so little flattering to their national vanity. Some foreign conquest of Babylon must have taken place about the period named; and it is certainly a most im- portant fact that Berosus should call the conquerors Medes. He may no doubt have been mistaken about an event so ancient; he may have misread his authorities, or he may have described as Medes a people of which he really knew nothing except that they had issued from the tract which in his own time bore the name of Media. But, while these are mere possibilities, hypo- theses to which the mind resorts in order to escape a difficulty, the hard fact remains that he has used the word; and this fact, coupled with the mention of the Medes in the book of Genesis, does certainly raise a presumption of no inconsiderable strength against the view which it would be natural to take if the Zen- davesta and the Assyrian annals were our sole authorities on the subject. It lends a substantial basis to the theories of those who regard the Medes as one of the principal primeval races ;10 who believe that they were well known to the Semitic inhabit- ants of the Mesopotamian valley as early as the twenty-third century before Christ—long ere Abraham left Ur for Harran; and that they actually formed the dominant power in Western Asia for more than two centuries, prior to the establishment of the first Chaldsean kingdom. * Beros. Fr. 11. "Post hos, qui suc- cessione incoDcussaregnumobtinuerunt, derepente Medos collectis copiis Baby- lonem cepisse ait, ibique de suis tyrannos constituLsse. Hinc nomina quoque ty- rannorum Medorum edisserit octo, an- nosque eoruin viginti quatuor supra ducentos." * Supra, tol. i. p. 160. "As Bunsen. See his Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 5S3-597. Chap. VI. EARLY SPREAD OF THE MEDIAN RACE. 375 in the Sauro-mata (or Northern Medes) of the country between the Palus Mseotis and the Caspian,6 in the Mcetceor Mseotse of the tract about the mouth of the Don,7 and in the Mcedi of Thrace,8 we have seemingly remnants of a great migratory host which, starting from the mountains that overhang Mesopotamia, spread itself into the regions of the north and the north-west at a time which does not admit of being definitely stated, but which is clearly ante-historic Whether these races generally retained any tradition of their origin, we do not know; but a tribe which in the time of Herodotus dwelt still further to the west than even the Msedi—to wit, the Sigynnse, who occupied the tract between the Adriatic and the Danube—had a very distinct belief in their Median descent, a belief confirmed by the resemblance which their national dress bore to that of the Medes.9 Herodotus, who relates these facts concerning them, appends an expression of his astonishment at the circumstance that emigrants from Media should have proceeded to such a distance from their original home;—how it had been brought about he could not conceive. "Still," he sagaciously remarks, "nothing is impossible in the long lapse of ages."10 A further argument in favour of the early development of Median power, and the great importance of the nation in Western Asia at a peiiod anterior to the ninth century, is derivable from the ancient legends of the Greeks, which seem to have designated the Medes under the two eponyms of Medea and Andromeda. These legends indeed do not admit of being dated with any accuracy; but as they are of a primitive type, and probably older than Homer,11 we cannot well assign them to an age later than B.C. 1000. Now they connect the Median name with the two countries of Syria and Colchis, countries • Herod, iv. 21,110-117; Strab. xi. 2, & 15; Diod. Sic. ii. 42, § 6; PIin. H. N. vi. 7. 'Herod, iv. 123. In the Greek in- scriptions found in Scythia the Mtcotai of Herodotus are commonly called Ma.'tee (Mairai). "Thucyd. ii. 98; Strab. vii. 5, § 7; Polyb. x. 41, § L • Herod, v. 9. "Ibid, rieoiro d'Sw nav b T$naKpovdferai tA Kot4 ovuptjiriitoi. (Eth. Nic. viii. 4, § 6.) "See above, vol. i. pp. 160-183. "Hosea x. 14: "Thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Beth- Chap. VI. FIRST CONTACT OF MEDIA WITH ASSYRIA. 377 from B.C. 859 to B.C. 824—relates that in his twenty-fourth year (B.C. 835),after having reduced to subjection the Zimri, who held the Zagros mountain range immediately to the east of Assyria, and received tribute from the Persians, he led an expedition into Media and Arazias, where he took and destroyed a number of the towns, slaying the men, and carrying off the spoil.15 He does not mention any pitch battle; and indeed it would seem that he met with no serious resistance. The Medes whom he attacks are evidently a weak and insignificant people, whom he holds in small esteem, and regards as only deserving of a hurried mention. They seem to occupy the tract now known as Ardelan—a varied region containing several lofty ridges, with broad plains lying between them. It is remarkable that the time of this first contact of Media with Assyria—a contact taking place when Assyria was in her prime, and Media was only just emerging from a long period oi weakness and obscurity—is almost exactly that which Ctesias selects as the date of the great revolution whereby the Empire of the East passed from the hands of the Shemites into those of the Arians.16 The long residence of Ctesias among the Persians gave him a bias towards that people, which even extended to their close kin, the Medes. Bent on glorifying these two Arian races, he determined to throw back the commencement of then- empire to a period long anterior to the true date; and, feeling specially anxious to cover up their early humiliation, he assigned their most glorious conquests to the very century, and almost to the very time, when they were in fact suffering reverses at the hands of the people over whom he represented them as triumphant. There was a boldness in the notion of thus inverting history which almost deserved, and to a considerable Arbel in the day of battle." Beth-Arbel is probably Arbela, which was among the cities that joined in the revolt at the end of Shalrnaneser's reign (supra, p. 110), and which may therefore very probably have been sacked when the rebellion was put down. "See above, p. 101; and compare the Black Obelisk Inscription (Dul/lin Univ. Mag. Oct. 1853, p. "Cteaias gave to his eight Median kings anterior to Aspadas or Astyages a period of 282 years. Assuming his date for Astyages' accession to have been the same, or nearly the same, with that of Herodotus (B.C. 593), we have B.C. 875 for the destruction of the As- syrian empire and rise of the Median under Arbuces. 373 Chap. VI THE THIRD MONARCHY. extent obtained, success. The "long chronology" of Ctesias kept its ground until recently, not indeed meeting with universal acceptance,17 but on the whole predominating over the "short chronology" of Herodotus; and it may be doubted whether anything less than the discovery that the native records of Assyria entirely contradicted Ctesias would have sufficed to drive from the field his figment of early Median dominion.1■ The second occasion upon which we hear of the Medes in the Assyrian annals is in the reign of Shalmaneser's son and suc- cessor, Shamas-Vul. Here again, as on the former occasion, the Assyrians were the aggressors. Shamas-Vul invaded Media and Arazias in his third year, and committed ravages similar to those of his father, wasting the country with fire and sword, but not (it would seem) reducing the Medes to subjection, or even attempting to occupy their territory. Again the attack is a mere raid, which produces no permanent impression.1* It is in the reign of the son and successor of Shamas-Vul that the Medes appear for the first time to have made their sub- mission and accepted the position of Assyrian tributaries. A people which was unable to offer effectual resistance when the Assyrian levies invaded their country, and which had no means of retaliating upon their foe or making him suffer the evils that he inflicted, was naturally tempted to save itself from molestation by the payment of an annual tribute, so purchasing quiet at the expense of honour and independence. Towards the close of the ninth century B.C. the Medes seem to have followed the example set them very much earlier by their kindred and neighbours, the Persians,1 and to have made arrangements for 17 The "long chronology" of Ctesias was adopted, among the ancients, by Ce- phalion, Castor, Polybius, ^Smilius Sura, Trogus Pompeius, Nicolaus Damaacenus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Velleius Pater- culus, and others; among the ecclesias- tical writers, by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Augustine, Sulpicius Severus, Agathias, Eustnthius, and Syneellus; among the moderns, by Prideaux, Freret, and the French Academicians generally. Scaliger was, I believe, the first to dis- credit it. He was followed in the last century by the Abhi Sevin and Yblney. In the present century the "long chro- nology " has had few advocates. 18 Long after the superiority of the scheme of Herodotus was recognised, attempts contiuued to be made to recon- cile Ctesias with him by supposing the list of the latter to be an eatUm Median dynasty (Heeren's Manual, p. 27, E. T.), or to contain a certain number of vice- roys (Clinton, F. II. vol. i. p. 261). Compare above, p. 114. 1 The Persians paid tribute to Shai- Chap. VI. MEDES CONQUERED BY SARGON. 379 an annual payment which should exempt their territory from ravage.2 It is douhtful whether the arrangement was made by the whole people. The Median tribes at this time hung so loosely together, that a policy adopted by one portion of them might be entirely repudiated by another. Most probably the tribute was paid by those tribes only which bordered on Zagros, and not by those further to the east or to the north, into whoso territories the Assyrian arms had not yet penetrated. No further change in the condition of the Medes is known to have occurred8 until about a hundred years later, when the Assyrians ceased to be content with the semi-independent position which had been hitherto allowed them, and deter- mined on their more complete subjugation. The great Sargon, the assailant of Egypt and conqueror of Babylon, towards the middle of his reign, invaded Media with a large army, and having rapidly overrun the country, seized several of the towns, and "annexed them to Assyria," while at the same time he also established in new situations a number of fortified posts.4 The object was evidently to incorporate Media into the empire; and the posts were stations in which a standing army was placed, to overawe tha natives and prevent them from offering an effectual resistance. With the same view deporta- tion of the people on a large scale seems to have been prac- tised ;8 and the gaps thus made in the population were filled up —wholly or in part—by the settlement in the Median cities of Samaritan captives6 On the country thus rc-organized and re-arranged a tribute of a new character was laid. In lieu of maneeer II. (Black Obelisk Inscription, p. 424), and again to Skamas-Vul. They seem to have been at this time dwelling in the immediate vicinity of the Medea, probably somewhere within the limits of Media Magna. 2 See the Inscription of this king in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. jrix. p. 185. * There are grounds, however, for sus- pecting that during the obscure period of Assyrian history which divides Vul- lush IIL from Tiglath-Pileser II. (b.0. 781-744), Media became once more in- dependent, and that she was again made tributary by the last-named monarch. That monarch even sent an officer to exercise authority in the country. (Sir H. Rawlinson in the Athtnaum, No. 1869, p. 246.) 4 Oppert, Inscriptions da Sargonida, p. 25. Compare above, p. 151. * This is not stated in express terms; but Sargon says in one place that he peopled Ashdod with captives from the extreme East (Inscriptions, S'c., p. 27), while in another he reckons Media the most eastern portion of his dominions. * 2 Kings xvii. 6 ; xviii. 11. 380 Chap. VL THE THIRD MONARCHY. the money payment hitherto exacted, the Medes were required to furnish annually to the royal stud a number of horses.7 It is probable that Media was already famous for the remarkable breed which is so celebrated in later times;6 and that the horses now required of her by the Assyrians were to be of the large and highly valued kind known as "Nissean." The date of this subjugation is about B.C. 710. And here, if we compare the Greek accounts of Median history with those far more authentic ones which have reached us through the Assyrian contemporary records, we are struck by a repetition of the same device which came under our notice more than a century earlier—the device of covering up the nation's disgraces at a particular period by assigning to that very date certain great and striking successes. As Ctesias's revolt of the Medes under Arbaces and conquest of Nineveh synchronises nearly with the first known ravages of Assyria within the territories of the Medes, so Herodotus's revolt of the same people and commencement of their monarchy under Deioces falls almost exactly at the date when they entirely lost their independence.8 At there is no reason to suspect Herodotus either of partiality towards the Medes or of any wilful departure from the truth, we must regard him as imposed upon by his informants, who were probably either Medes or Persians.10 These mendacious patriots found little difficulty in palming their false tale upon the simple Halicarnassian, thereby at once extending the anti- quity of their empire and concealing its shame behind a halo of fictitious glory. After their subjugation by Sargon, the Medes of Media Magna appear to have remained the faithful subjects of Assyria for sixty or seventy years. During this period we find no notices of the great mass of the nation in the Assyrian records: only here and there indications occur that Assyria is stretching out 7 Oppert, Imcriptiom, &a, p. 25. ■ See above, p. 302. • As Herodotus gives to his four Median kings a period of exactly 150 years, and places the accession of Cyrus 78 years before the battle of Marathon, he really assigns the commencement of the Median monarchy to B.c 708 (since 480 + 78 + 150 = 708). "Herodotus speaks in one placa only (vii. 62) of deriving information from the Medes. He quotes the Persians as his authorities frequently (i. 1-5, 95; iii. 98, &c.) Chap. VX FICTITIOUS MEDIAN KINGS. 381 her arms towards the more distant and outlying tribes, especially those of Azerbijan, and compelling them to acknowledge her as mistress. Sennacherib boasts that early in his reign, about B.C. 702, he received an embassy from the remoter parts of Media—"parts of which the kings his fathers had not even heard "11—which brought him presents in sign of submission, and patiently accepted his yoke. His son, Esar-haddon, relates that, about his tenth year (b.C. 671) he invaded Bikni or Bikan,12 a distant province of Media, "whereof the kings his fathers had never heard the name;" and attacking the cities of the region one after another, forced them to acknowledge his authority.18 The country was held by a number of independent chiefs, each bearing sway in his own city and adjacent territory. These chiefs have unmistakably Arian names, as Sitriparna or Sitra- phernes, Eparna or Ophernes, Zanasana or Zanasanes, and Ramatiya or Ramates.14 Esar-haddon says that, having entered the country with his army, he seized two of the chiefs and carried them off to Assyria, together with a vast spoil and numerous other captives. Hereupon the remaining chiefs, alarmed for their safety, made their submission, consenting to pay an annual tribute, and admitting Assyrian officers into their territories, who watched, if they did not even control, the government. We are now approaching the time when Media seems to have been first consoHdated into a monarchy by the genius of an in- dividual. Sober history is forced to discard the shadowy forms of kings with which Greek writers of more fancy than judg- ment have peopled the darkness that rests upon the "origines" of the Medes. Arbaces, Maudaces,1 Sosarmus, Artycas, Arbi- 11 Fox Talbot, Journal of the Atiatic Society, vol. xix. p. 143. 12 Probably Azer-bijan. See above, p. 262, note ''. "Fox Talbot, Auyrian Tacit, pp. 15, 16; Oppert, Imcriptiom da Sargonida, p. 57. u The termination parna may be compared with the old Persian frana, which is found in Vidafrana (Inta- phernes). The initial Sitir is perhaps khs/iatra, "crown," or possibly chitra, "stock." In Zanasana we have the common Medo-Persic termination -ana (= Ok. -dvvt) suffixed to a root which is probably connected withzan, "to slay." Ramatiya has for its first element un- doubtedly rdman (&cc. rdma), "pleasant, agreeable." The remainder of the word is perhaps a mere personal suffix. Or the whole word may be a contraction of rdmd-dditya, "given to be agreeable." (Brockhaus, Yendidad-Sadi, p. 390.) 1 So Diodorus (ii. 32) and Eusebius Chap. VL GROWTH OF MEDIA IN POWER. 333 who reigned for above half a century in perfect peace with his neighbours' and who, although contemporary with Sargon, Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, and Asshur-bani-pal—all kings more or less connected with Media—is never heard of in any of their annals,7 must be relegated to the historical limbo in which repose so many " shades of mighty names;" and the Herodotean list of Median kings must, at any rate.be thus far reduced. Nothing ismore evident than that during the flourishing period of Assyria under the great Sargonidse above named, there was no grand Median kingdom upon the eastern flank of the empire. Such a kingdom had certainly not been formed up to B.C. 671, when Esar-haddon reduced the more distant Medes, finding them still under the government of a number of petty chiefs.8 The earliest time at which we can imagine the consolidation to have taken place, consistently withwhatweknowof Assyria, is about B.C. 660, or nearly half a century later than the date given by Herodotus. The cause of the sudden growth of Media in power about this period, and of the consolidation which followed rapidly upon that growth, is to be sought, apparently, in fresh migratory movements from the Arian head-quarters, the countries east and south-east of the Caspian. The Cyaxares who about the year B.C. 632 led an invading host of Medes against Nineveh, was so well known to the Arian tribes of the north-east, that, when in the reign of Darius Hystaspis a Sagartian raised the standard of revolt in that region he stated the ground of his claim to the Sagartian throne to be descent from Cyaxares.9 This great chief, it is probable, either alone, or in conjunction with his father (whom Herodotus calls Phraortes),10 led a fresh • Herod, i. 102. 7 It has been supposed by some that the Defaces of Herodotus is to be identi- fied with a certain chief of the Manni, or Minni, called Dayaukku, who was made a prisoner by Sargon, and settled at Hamath, B.C. 715. The close resem- blance of the names is certainly remark- able; but there is no reason to regard the Manni as Medes ; nor is it likely that a captured chief, settled at Hamath, in Syria, B.C. 715, could in B.C. 708 found a great kingdom in Media. ■ See above, p. 381. • See the BeJiiHun Inscription (printed in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. ad fin.), col. ii. par. 14, § 4. 10 The name Phraortes in this connec- tion is suspicious. It was borne by a Mede who raised the standard of revolt in the time of Darius Hystaspis ; who, however, laid it aside, and assumed the name of Xathrites 0eh. Inser, coL ii. par. 5, § 4). If Phraortes had been a royal name previously, it would scarcely have been made to give WAy to one 384 Chap. VI. THE THIRD MONARCHY. emigration of Arians from the Bactrian and Sagartian country to the regions directly east of the Zagros mountain chain; and having thus vastly increased the strength of the Arian race in that quarter, set himself to consolidate a mountain kingdom capable of resisting the great monarchy of the plain. Accepted, it would seem, as chief by the former Arian inhabitants of the tract, he proceeded to reduce the scattered Scythic tribes which had hitherto held possession of the high mounting region. The Zimri, Minni, Hupuska, &c., who divided among them the country lying between Media Proper and Assyria, were attacked and subdued without any great difficulty ;n and the conqueror, finding himself thus at the head of a considerable kingdom, and no longer in any danger of subjugation at the hands of Assyria, began to contemplate the audacious enterprise of himself attacking the Great Power which had been for so many hundred years the terror of Western Asia. The supineness of Asshur-bani-pal, the Assyrian king, who must at this time have i>een advanced in years, encouraged his aspirations; and about B.C. 634, when that monarch had held the throne for thirty-four years, suddenly, without warning, the Median troops debouched irom the passes of Zagros, and spead themselves over the rich country at its base. Alarmed by the nearness and greatness of the peril, the Assyrian king aroused himself, and putting himself at the head of his troops, marched out to confront the invader. A great battle was fought, probably somewhere in Adiabene', in which the Medes were completely defeated: their whole army was cut to pieces; and the father of Cyaxares was among the slain.12 which had no great associations attached to it. On the whole, it is very doubtful if the Phraortes of Herodotus ought not to be absolutely retrenched, like his Deioces. The testimony of ^Eschylus, who makes Cyaxares found the Medo-Persian em- pire (Pert. 761), and the evidence of the Behistun Inscription that the Medes traced their royal race to him, and not any higher, seem to show that he was really the founder of Median indepen- dence. Still, it has not been thought right wholly to discard the authority of Herodotus, where he is not absolutely contradicted by the monuments. "K.aTCffTpdi 'Aaavplovs K. t. X.) 1* '0 "fpaoprils ai/r6t re tit t6 iK&aroiai MpdKr. (Herod, i. 106.) 1 See above, p. 226. * See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. lvii. (vol. v. pp. 655, 656, 4to edition). 'The Samnites seem to hare had a Chap. VX SPREAD OF THE SCYTHS OVER WESTERN ASIA. 389 strict fairness, naturally leads to quarrels. The barbarous Scythians are not likely to have cared very much about fair- ness. They would press heavily upon the more fertile tracts, paying over-frequent visits to such spots, and remaining in them till the region was exhausted. The chiefs would not be able to restrain their followers from acts of pillage; redress would be obtained with difficulty; and sometimes even the chiefs themselves may have been sharers in the iujuries com- mitted. The insolence, moreover, of a dominant race so coarse and rude as the Scyths must have been very hard to bear; and we can well understand that the various nations which had to endure the yoke must have looked anxiously for an opportunity of shaking it off, and recovering their independence. Among these various nations, there was probably none that fretted and winced under its subjection more than the Medes. Naturally brave and high-spirited, with the love of independ- ence inherent in mountaineers, and with a well-grounded pride in their recent great successes, they must have chafed daily and hourly at the ignominy of their position, the postponement of their hopes, and the wrongs which they continually suffered. At first it seemed necessary to endure. They had tried the chances of a battle, and had been defeated in fair fight—what reason was there to hope that, if they drew the sword again, they would be more successful? Accordingly they remained quiet; but, as time went on, and the Scythians dispersed them- selves continually over a wider and a wider space, invading Assyria, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine,4 and again Armenia and Cappadocia,5 everywhere plundering and marauding, con- ducting sieges, fighting battles, losing men from the sword, from sickness, from excesses," becoming weaker instead of stronger, as each year went by, owing to the drain of constant wars—the Medes by degrees took heart. Not trusting, how- right of this kind in Campania, which, probably, as much as anything, caused the revolt of the Campanians and their submission to Rome in b.o. 340. (See Arnold, History of Home, vol. ii. pp. 108, 109.) Powerful Arab tribes have some- times such a right over lands usually in the occupation of inferior tribes. 4 Herod, i. 105. * Strab. xi 8, § 4. 2d*ot. .. t^s 'A/>- fi€vLas KariKT7fffav t^/r iplarriv yijv . . . Koi nixpt KainraiAiewr, KoI jiaWra tiSr irpbs Ei5{ffrVi noerurois vw d-aXoiri, irpoq\Sor. * Herod. L s. c . 39° THE THIRD MONARCHY. Chat. VI. ever, entirely to the strength of their right arms, a trust which had failed them once, they resolved to prepare the way for an outbreak by a stratagem which they regarded as justifiable. Cyaxares and his court invited a number of the Scythian chiefs to a grand banquet, and, having induced them to drink till they were completely drunk, set upon them when they were in this helpless condition, and remorselessly slew them all.7 This deed was the signal for a general revolt of the nation. The Medes everywhere took arms, and, turning upon their conquerors, assailed them with a fury the more terrible because it had been for years repressed. A war followed, the duration and circumstances of which are unknown;8 for the stories with which Ctesias enlivened this portion of his history can scarcely be accepted as having any foundation in fact. Ac- cording to him, the Parthians made common cause with the Scythians on the occasion, and the war lasted many years; numerous battles were fought with great loss to both sidea; and peace was finally concluded without either party having gained the upper hand.9 The Scyths were commanded by a queen, Zarina or Zarinsea,10 a woman of rare beauty, and as brave as she was fair; who won the hearts, when she could not resist the swords, of her adversaries. A strangely romantic love-tale is told of this beauteous Amazon.11 It is not at all * Ibid. i. 106. Herodotus says, rhe- torically, in this place, that "most of the Scythians" were destroyed by this stratagem. But he admits afterwards (iv. 1) that the great bulk of the in- vaders returned into Scythia. It is not clear whether Strabo's notice of the origin of the 2a«ita refers to this occasion or no. After relating the ex- tent of the Scythian ravages (see above, note5), he says, "the Persian generals of the time set upon them by night as they were feasting off their spoils, and com- pletely exterminated them." 8 The whole struggle is summed up by Herodotus in three words—'EfeXa- aiivrti inrb MtJSue ol ~ZKv6ls] the prophet goes on the king's business larw . . . 6 tt)v "AXros toto/iov dm to " Shushan the palace in the province 'Afftr)r iraff• Xnnth. Lyd. Fr. 19; Nic . Dam. p. 50, ed. Orelli. Herodotus does not seem to have been aware of the reduction of this town, which must therefore be re- garded as uncertain. "Strab. xiii. 1, § 22. 1 Archilochus celebrated the wealth of Oyges in the well-known line—ofl uoi tA Y&ytta toO iro xp6ffov /xAet (Ar. Rhet. iii. 17). Mimnermus de- scribed the war between Oyges and the people of Smyrna (Pausan. iv. 21, § 3). The myth of Gyges which we find in PIato (Republ. ii. 3) was probably de- rived from an early Greek poet. * The inscriptions of Asshur-bani- pal show us that the Cimmerian in- vasion of Asia Minor had commenced before the death of Gyges, whose last year is by no writer placed later than B. c. 662. The Scythic invasion has been already assigned to B.O. 632 or 631. (Supra, pp. 391, 392.) * On this subject see the author's Berodotui, vol. iii. pp. 150-156, 2nd ed. * Herodotus makes them march along the coast, the whole way; but this route is impracticable. Probably they proceeded along the foot of the Cau- casus, till they reached the Terek, which they then followed up to its source, where they would come upon the famous PyUe. Chap. VX PREVIOUS HISTORY OF LYDIA. 405 way of Cappadocia and had spread terror and devastation in every direction. Gyges, alarmed at their advance, had placed himself under the protection of Assyria, and had then confi- dently given them battle, defeated them, and captured several of their chiefs' It is uncertain whether the Assyrians gave him any material aid, but evident that he ascribed his success to his alliance with them. In his gratitude he sent an embassy to Asshur-bani-pal, king of Assyria, and courted his favour by presents and by sending him his Cimmerian captives.6 Later in his reign, however, he changed his policy, and, breaking with Assyria, gave aid to the Egyptian rebel, Psammetichus, and helped him to establish his independence. The result followed which was to be expected. Assyria withdrew her protection; and Lydia was left to fight her own battles when the great crisis came. Carrying all before them, the fierce hordes swarmed in full force into the more western districts of Asia Minor; Paphlagonia, Phrygia, Bithynia, Lydia, and Ionia were overrun;7 Gyges, venturing on an engagement, perished; the frightened inhabitants generally shut themselves up in their walled towns, and hoped that the tide of invasion might sweep by them quickly and roll elsewhere; but the Cimmerians, im- patient and undisciplined as they might be, could sometimes bring themselves to endure the weary work of a siege, and they saw in the Lydian capital a prize well worth an effort The hordes besieged Sardis, and took it, except the citadel, which was commandingly placed and defied all their attempts. A terrible scene of carnage must have followed. How Lydia withstood the blow, and rapidly recovered from it, is hard to understand; but it seems certain that within a generation she was so far restored to vigour as to venture on resuming her attacks upon the Greeks of the coast, which had been sus- * See above, p. 204. * The surrender of the captives ap- pears to Die a real acknowledgment of suzerainty. Asshur-bani-pal himself viewed the presents as "tribute." 7 On the Cimmerian ravages, see Cal- linua, Fr. 2; Herod, i. 15; iv. 12; Strab. i. 3, § 21; xiv. 1, $ 40; Calli- mach. Hymn. adDian. 248-260; Eustath. Comment, ad Mom. Od. xi. 14; Steph. Byz. ad voc. 'ArravSpot ; and Hesych. ad voc. AiySaput. Compare the author's Herodotut, voL i. pp. 299-301, 2nd edi- tion, and Mr. Grote's History of Greece, vol. ii. pp. 431-434, 2nd edition. 406 THE THIRD MONARCHY. Chap. VL pended during her period of prostration. Sadyattes, the son of Ardys, and grandson of Gyges, following the example of his father and grandfather, made war upon Miletus;8 and Alyattes, his son and successor, pursued the same policy of aggression. Besides pressing Miletus, he besieged and took Smyrna,9 and ravaged the territory of Clazomense.10 But the great work of Alyattes' reign, and the one which seems to have bad the most important consequences for lydia, was the war which he undertook for the purpose of expelling the Cimmerians from Asia Minor. The hordes had been greatly weakened by time, by their losses in war, and probably by their excesses; they had long ceased to be formidable; but they were still strong enough to be an annoyance. Alyattes is said to have " driven them out of Asia,"11 by which we can scarcely understand less than that he expelled them from his own dominions and those of his neighbours—or, in other, words, from the countries which had been the scenes of their chief ravages—Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Lydia, Phrygia, and Cilicia.12 But, to do this, he must have entered into a league with his neighbours, who must have consented to act under him for the purposes of the war, if they did not even admit the permanent hegemony of his country. Alyattes' success appears to have been complete, or nearly so;18 he cleared Asia Minor of the Cimmerians; and having thus conferred a benefit on all the nations of the region and exhibited before their eyes his great military capacity, if he had not actually constructed an Empire, he had at any rate done much to pave the way for one. Such was the political position in the regions west and south of the Halys, when Cyaxares completed his absorption of Cappadocia, and looking across the river that divided the Cappadocians from the Phrygians, saw stretched before him a region of great fertile plains, which seemed to invite an invader. • Herod, i. 15 and 18. 'Ibid. i. 16 ; Nic. Dam. p. 52, ed. Orelli. 10 Herod. L 0. c. 11 Kipfieplovt IK rrjs 'Xfflr/t Xan. Herod. L s. a "On the Cimmerian invasion of Cilicia, see Strab. i. 3, § 21. 1' According to Herodotus the Cim- merians made a permanent settlement at Sinope (iv. 12); and according to Aristotle (Fr. 190) they maintained themselves for a century at Antandros in the Troad. Otherwise they disappear from Asia. Chap. VI. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE LYDIAXS. 407 A pretext for an attack was all that he wanted, and this was soon forthcoming. A body of the nomad Scyths—probably belonging to the great invasion, though Herodotus thought otherwise14—had taken service under Cyaxares, and for some time served him faithfully, being employed chiefly as hunters. A cause of quarrel, however, arose after a while; and the Scyths, disliking their position or distrusting the intentions of their lords towards them, quitted the Median territory, and marching through great part of Asia Minor, sought and found a refuge with Alyattes, the Lydian king. Cyaxares, upon learning their flight, sent an embassy to the court of Sardis to demand the surrender of the fugitives; but the Lydian monarch met the demand with a refusal, and, fully understand- ing the probable consequences, immediately prepared for war. Though Lydia, compared to Media, was but a small state, yet her resources were by no means inconsiderable. In fer- tility she surpassed almost every other country of Asia Minor,15 which is altogether one of the richest regions in the world. At this time she was producing large quantities of gold, which was found in great abundance in the Pactolus, and probably in the other small streams that flowed down on all sides from the Tmolus mountain-chain.1 No 1. No. 2. Her people were at once war- Lydian Coma, like and ingenious. They had invented the art of coining money,2 and showed considerable taste in their devices.8 They M Herod, i. 73. Herodotus seems to have imagined that these Scythians were political refugees from his European Scythia. "On the richness and fertility of this part of Asia, see Virg. jEn. x. 141; Strabo, xiii. 4, § 5; and compare Sir C. Fellows's Asia Minor, pp. 16-42. • See Herod. i. 93; Soph. Philoct. l. 393; PIin. //. N. v. 29,30; &c. Croesus had also mines, which he worked, near Pergamus. (See Aristot. Mirab. Auscult. 52.) * Xenoph. Coloph. ap. Polluc. ix. 6, § 83 ; Herod, i. 94 ; Eustath. ad Dionye. Pericg. 840. The claim of the Lydians to be regarded as the inventors of coin- ing has been disputed by some, among others by the late Col. Leake. (Num. HeUen. Appendix: Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, vol. iv. pp. 243, 244.) I have discussed the subject in my Herodotus (vol. i. pp. 565, 566, 2nd edition). ■ Most Lydian coins bear the device of a crowned figure about to shoot an 408 Chap. VL THE TIIIRD MONARCHY. claimed also to have been the inventors of a number of games, which were common to them with the Greeks4 According to Herodotus, they were the first who made a livelihood by shop- keeping.6 They were skilful in the use of musical instru- ments,6 and had their own peculiar musical mode or style, which was in much favour among the Greeks, though con- demned as effeminate by some of the philosophers.7 At the same time the Lydians were not wanting in courage or manli- ness.8 They fought chiefly on horseback, and were excellent riders, carrying long spears, which they managed with great skill.9 Nicolas of Damascus tells us that, even under the Heraclide kings, they could muster for service cavalry to the number of 30,000.10 In peace they pursued with ardour the sports of the field,11 and found in the chase of the wild-boar a pastime which called forth and exercised every manly quality. Thus Lydia, even by herself, was no contemptible enemy; though it can hardly be supposed that, without help from others, she would have proved a match for the Great Median Empire. But such help as she needed was not wanting to her. The rapid strides with which Media had advanced towards the west had no doubt alarmed the numerous princes of Asia Minor, who must have felt that they had a power to deal with as full of schemes of conquest as Assyria, and more capable of carry- ing her designs into execution. It has been already observed arrow from a bow—which seems to be the pattern from which the Persians copied the emblem on their Danes. A few have the head of a lion, or the fore- parts of a lion and a bull (as that figured above, No. 1, which is supposed to have been struck by Croesus). Both the animal forms are in this case rendered with much spirit. * Dice, huckle-bones, ball, 4c. (Herod. i . 94). 4 UpCrroi Kdiril\oi (ytvorro. {Herod. L s. c.) * Pindar related that the magadis or pedis, a harp with sometimes as many as twenty strings, had been adopted by the Greeks from the Lydians, who used it at their banquets. (Ap. Athen. Deipn. xiv. p. 635.) Herodotus speaks of the Lydians using both this instru- ment, and also the syrinx (Pan's pipe), and the double flute, in their military expeditions (i. 17). 'PIato, Repub. iii. 10. Aristotle seems to have entertained an opposite opinion. (Pol. viii. 7, ad fin.) "Herodotus, speaking of the Ly- dians, so late as the time of Croesus, says, 'Rr Si tovto* rir Kpovov t6vot ovSiv iv Tp 'Aff/l; offre 6jtSpeu>repor oGtt dXieiMu>rf/x»> toC AvSiov (i. 79). They did not change their character till after the Persian conquest. Ht? 1 S c '• Nic. Dam. Fr. 49 (Fragm. But. Gr. voL iii. p. 382). "Herod. i. 36-43; Nic Dam. Fr. 49, p. 384. Chap. VI. COALITION AGAINST CYAXARES. 409 that the long course of Assyrian aggressions developed gra- dually among the Asiatic tribes a tendency to unite in leagues for purposes of resistance.12 The circumstances of the time called now imperatively for such a league to be formed, unless the princes of Asia Minor were content to have their several territories absorbed one after another into the growing Median Empire. These princes appear to have seen their danger. Cyaxares may perhaps have declared war specially against the Lydians, and have crossed the Halys professedly in order to chastise them; but he could only reach Lydia through the territories of other nations, which he was evidently intending to conquer on his way; and it was thus apparent that he was actuated, not by anger against a particular power, but by a general design of extending his dominions in this direction. A league seems therefore to have been determined on. We have not indeed any positive evidence of its existence till the close of the war;1a but the probabilities are wholly in favour of its having taken effect from the first. Prudence would have dictated such a course; and it seems almost implied in the fact, that a successful resistance was made to the Median attack from the very commencement. We may conclude there- fore that the princes of Asia Minor, having either met in con- clave or communicated by embassies, resolved to make common cause, if the Medes crossed the Halys; and that, having already acted under Lydia in the expulsion of the Cimmerians from their territories, they naturally placed her at their head when they coalesced for the second time. Cyaxares, on his part, was not content to bring against the confederates merely the power of Media. He requested and obtained a contingent from the Babylonian monarch, Nabopo- lassar, and may not improbably have had the assistance of other allies also. With a vast army drawn from various parts ** See above, pp. 150, 151. u The evidence of a league is found in the presence of Syennesis, king of Cilicia, at the great battle terminated the eclipse. (See below, p. 411.) is manifestly there as an ally of Lydia, just as Labynetus is present as an ally of Media. But if the distant and powerful CUician monarch joined Alyattes, and fought under him, much more may we be sure that the princes of the nearer and weaker states, Caria, Phrygia, Lycia, Paphlagonia, &c., placed themselves under his protection. 4io Chap. VL THE THIRD MONARCHY. of inner Asia, he invaded the territory of the Western Powers, and began his attempt at subjugation. We have no detailed account of the war; but we learn from the general expressions of Herodotus that the Median monarch met with a most stub- born resistance; numerous engagements were fought with varied results; sometimes the Medes succeeded in defeating their adversaries in pitched battles; but sometimes, and ap- parently as often, the Lydians and their allies gained decided victories over the Medes.14 It is noted that one of the engage- ments took place by night, a rare occurrence in ancient (as in modern) times.15 The war had continued six years, and the Medes had evidently made no serious impression,16 when a re- markable circumstance brought it suddenly to a termination. The two armies had once more met and were engaged in conflict, when, in the midst of the struggle, an ominous dark- ness fell upon the combatants and filled them with super- stitious awe. The sun was eclipsed, either totally or at any rate considerably,17 so that the attention of the two armies was attracted to it; and, discontinuing the fight, they stood to gaze at the phenomenon. In most parts of the East such an occurrence is even now seen with dread—the ignorant mass believe that the orb of day is actually being devoured or de- stroyed, and that the end of all tilings is at hand—even the chiefs, who may have some notion that the phenomenon is a recurrent one, do not understand its cause, and participate in the alarm of their followers. On the present occasion it is said 11 Herod, i. 74. 15 Some regard this "night engage- ment" as identical with the battle stopped by the eclipse, when (to use the words of Herodotus) "the day became night" (see Bahr, ad loc.). But, strictly taken, the words of Herodotus assign the night engagement to one of the first five years, whereas the eclipse is in the sixth. 10 AuHpfpovffi ti aism.Asty- Amuhiam. Nebuchad- agea. uozzar. Nebuchadnezzar and Croesus were both brothers-in-law of Astyages. * I am still unconvinced by the argu- ments of Mr. Bosanquet, who regards the eclipse as positively fixed to the year B.C. 685. The grounds of our difference are two-fold. 1. I do not think the eclipse must necessarily have been total. (See above, p. 410, note ".) And 2. I do not regard astronomical science as capable of pronouncing on the exact line taken by eclipses which happened more than 2000 years ago. The motions of the earth and of the moon are not uniform, and no astronomer can say that all the irregularities which may exist are known to him and have been taken into account with exactness in his back calculations. Fresh irregu- larities are continually discovered; and hence the calculations of astronomers as to the lines of past eclipses are continu- ally changing. (See the long note in Mr. Grote's Ilistory of Grace, voL ii. p. 418, edition of 1862.) If, however, Mr. Bosanquet should be right, and the eclipse was really that of B.O. 685, there will be no need of de- ranging on that account our entire scheme of Oriental chronology. The simple result will be that the battle must be transferred to the reign of Astyaga, to which Cicero (De Dir. i . 49), PIiny (H. N. ii. 12), and Eusebius (CAron. Can. ii. p. 331) assign it. Chap. VI. ASTYAGES AND HIS COFTIT. 4'5 subdue his contemporaries to his will by his personal ascendancy over thein, but not to influence posterity by the establishment of a kingdom, or of institutions, on deep and stable founda- tions. The Empire, which owed to him its foundation, was the most shortlived of all the great Oriental monarchies, hav- ing begun and ended within the narrow space of three score and ten years1—the natural lifetime of an individual. Astyages, who succeeded to the Median throne about B.C. 593,2 had neither his father's enterprise nor his ability. Born to an Empire, and bred up in all the luxury of an Oriental Court, he seems to have been quite content with the lot which fortune appeared to have assigned him, and to have coveted no grander position. Tradition says that he was remarkably handsome,8 cautious,4 and of an easy and generous temper.8 Although the anecdotes related of his mode of life at Ecbatana by Herodotus, Xenophon, and Nicolas of Damascus, seem to be for the most part apocryphal, and at any rate come to us upon authority too weak to entitle them to a place in history, we may perhaps gather from the concurrent descriptions of these three writers something of the general character of the Court over which he presided. Its leading features do not seem to have differed greatly from those of the Court of Assyria. The monarch lived secluded, and could only be seen by those who asked and obtained an audience.6 He was sur- rounded by guards and eunuchs, the latter of whom held most of the offices near the royal person.7 The Court was magnifi- cent in its apparel, in its banquets, and in the number and organization of its attendants. The courtiers wore long flow- ing robes of many different colours, amongst which red and 1 The real "Empire" must date, Dot from the accession of Cyaxares, but from his conquest of Nineveh, which was B.O. 625 at the earliest. From this to B.C. 558—the first year of Cyrus—is 67 years. * Eusebiua makes Astyages ascend the throne B.C. 597; but he obtains this date by assigning to Cyrus one more year, and to Astyages three more years, than Herodotus gives them. On the former point certainly, on the latter probably, he followed the sus- picious authority of Ctesias. • Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, § 'L 4 ^Eschyl. Pert. 763. $phn yip avrov Ovllov $cueoarp6tpovr. 'TewaiiTOTot. Nic. Dam. Fr. 66, p. 398. • Herod. i . 99; Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, § 8. • Nic. Dam. Fr. 66, pp. 398 and 402. THE THIRD MONARCHY. Chap. VI. purple predominated,8 and adorned their necks with chains or collars of gold, and their wrists with bracelets of the same precious metal.9 Even the horses on which they rode had sometimes golden bits to their bridles.10 One officer of the Court was especially called "the King's Eye;11 another had the privilege of introducing strangers to him ;12 a third was his cupbearer ;18 a fourth his messenger.14 Guards, torch-bearers, serving-men, ushers, and sweepers, were among the orders into which the lower sort of attendants were divided ;15 while among the courtiers of the highest rank was a privileged class known as "the King's table-companions" {pfWTpaire^ot). The chief pastime in which the Court indulged was hunting. Generally this took place in a park or " paradise " near the capital ;16 but sometimes the King and Court went out on a grand hunt into the open country, where lions, leopards, bears, wild boars, wild asses, antelopes, stags, and wild sheep abounded, and, when the beasts had been driven by beaters into a confined space, despatched them with arrows and javelins.17 Prominent at the Court, according to Herodotus,18 was the priestly caste of the Magi. Held in the highest honour by both King and people, they were in constant attendance, ready to expound omens or dreams, and to give their advice on all matters of state policy. The religious ceremonial was, as a matter of course, under their charge; and it is probable that high state offices were often conferred upon them. Of all classes of the people they were the only one that could feel they had a real influence over the monarch, and might claim to share in his sovereignty.19 The long reign of Astyages seems to have been almost un- 'Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3, § 3. 'Ibid. i. 3, § 2; ii. 4, § 6, &c. » Ibid. i. 3, § 3. 11 '0 ttaoSov. J Olroxap5o

poi, and itaXXfrovrn—the lsst divided into cleaners of the Palace and cleaners of the courts outside the Pake*. Nic. Dam. L s. c .; Dino, Ft. 7. "Xen. Cyrop. i. 4, §§ 6 and 11. "Ibid. i. 4, § 7. "Herod, i. 107, 108, and 120. "Herodotus makes the Magi say to Astyages — 26> iveareCrros /SaffiXifoi Ktd ifixop^f t6 pJpos, Kal ripAs irpbt on /neyis txo/ntr. (i . 120.) Chap. VL UNWABLIKE HABITS OF ASTYAGES. 417 disturbed, until just before its close, by wars or rebellions. Eusebius indeed relates that he, and not Cyaxares, carried on the great Lydian contest;20 and Moses of Chorene' declares that he was engaged in a long struggle with Tigranes, an Armenian king.21 But little credit can be attached to these statements, the former of which contradicts Herodotus, while the latter is wholly unsupported by any other writer. The character which Cyaxares bore among the Greeks was evi- dently that of an unwarlike king.22 If he had really carried his arms into the heart of Asia Minor, and threatened the whole of that extensive region with subjugation, we can scarcely suppose that he would have been considered so peaceful a ruler. Neither is it easy to imagine that in that case no clas- sical writer—not even Ctesias—would have taxed Herodotus with an error that must have been so flagrant. With respect to the war with Tigranes, it is just possible that it may have a basis of truth;—there may have been a revolt of Armenia from Astyages under a certain Tigranes, followed by an at- tempt at subjugation. But the slender authority of Moses is insufficient to establish the truth of his story, which is inter- nally improbable, and quite incompatible with the narrative of Herodotus.28 There are some grounds for believing24 that in one direction Astyages succeeded in slightly extending the limits of his em- pire. But he owed his success to prudent management, and not to courage or military skill. On his north-eastern frontier, occupying the low country now known as Talish and Ghilan, was ■ Chron. Can. ii. p. 331, ed. Mai. This ascription of the war to Astyages is evidently connected with a belief that the eclipse of Thales was that of B.c. 583. n Mos. Chor. Hist. Armm. i. 23-28. a This is implied in the picture drawn by Herodotus (i. 107-128), and in the brief character given by jEschylus (see above, p. 415, note'). It is expressly stated by Aristotle, who says—Krpos 'AffTvdyv i-iriTtderai xal toO §lov Kara, Kal ryp Swdfieus' dia t6 ttle fiir Svrafur i^ripr/r)Khiai, a&rbr H Tpvfiv. (Pol. v. 8, § 15.) VOL. IL 22 Moses makes Cyrus an independent prince during the reign of Astyages. He and Tigranes are in close alliance. Tigranes, and not Cyrus, attacks and de- feats Astyages and kills him. After this Cyrus assists Tigranes to conquer Media and Persia, which become parts of the Armenian king's dominions. Cyrus sinks into insignificance in the narrative of Moses. M The Cadusian story is told by Nicolas of Damascus (pp. 399, 400), who (it may be suspected) followed Dino, the father of Clitarchus, a writer of fair authority. 2 B 4i8 Chap. VL THE THIRD MONARCHY. a powerful tribe called Cadusians, probably of Arian origin* which had hitherto maintained its independence. This would not be surprising, if we could accept the statement of Diodorus that they were able to bring into the field 200,000 men.2' But this account, which probably came from Ctesias, and is wholly without corroboration from other writers, has the air of a gross exaggeration; and we may conclude from the general tenor of ancient history that the Cadusians were more indebted to the strength of their country, than to either their numbers or their prowess, for the freedom and independence which they were still enjoying. It seems that they were at this time under the government of a certain king, or chief, named Aphernes, or Onaphernes.2 7 This ruler was, it appears, doubtful of his position, and, thinking it could not be long maintained, made overtures of surrender to Astyages, which were gladly enter- tained by that monarch. A secret treaty was concluded to the satisfaction of both parties; and the Cadusians, it would seem, passed under the Medes by this arrangement, without any hostile struggle, though armed resistance on the part of the people, who were ignorant of the intentions of their chieftain, was for some time apprehended. The domestic relations of Astyages seem to have been un- happy. His "mariage de convenance" with the Lydian prin- cess Aryenis, if not wholly unfruitful, at any rate brought him no son;1 and, as he grew to old age, the absence of such a support to the throne must have been felt very sensibly, and have caused great uneasiness. The want of an heir perhaps a The name, Aphernes or Onaphernes, ia sufficient evidence of this. "Diod. Sic. ii. 33, § 3. ■ The Escurial MS. from which this fragment of Nicolas has been recovered gives both these forms. Each of them occurs once. 1 Herodotus declares this in the most express terms. Astyages, he says, was tirait tpatm ybvov (i. 109); so also Justin (i . 4); Ctesias, on the contrary, gives Astyages a son, Parmises (Pert, Exc. § 3), and Xenophon (Cyrop. i. 5, § 2) a son, Cyaxares. Moses of Chorene' is still more liberal, and makes him have several sons by his wife Anuria, who all settle in Armenia. (Hut. Arm. i. 29.) Here, as in so many other instances, the monuments confirm Herodotus. For when a pretender to the Median throne starts up in the reign of Darius, who wishes to rest his claim on descent from the Median royal house, he does Dot venture to put himself forward as the son, or even as the descendant, of Asty- ages, but goes back a generation, and says that he is " of the race of Cyaxares." (BeX Imcr. coL ii. par. 5, § i.) Chap. 71 DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF ASTYAGES. 419 led him to contract those other marriages of which we hear in the Armenian History of Moses—one with a certain Anusia, of whom nothing more is known; and another with an Armenian princess, the loveliest of her sex, Tigrania, sister of the Ar- menian king, Tigranes.2 The blessing of male offspring was still, however, denied him; and it is even doubtful whether he was really the father of any daughter or daughters. Herodotus8 and Xenophon4 indeed give him a daughter Mandane', whom they make the mother of Cyrus; and Ctesias, who denied in the most positive terms the truth of this statement,5 gave him a daughter, Amytis, whom he made the wife, first of Spitaces the Mede,6 and afterwards of Cyrus the Persian. But these stories, which seem intended to gratify the vanity of the Per- sians by tracing the descent of their kings to the great Median conqueror, while at the same time they flattered the Medes by showing them that the issue of their old monarchs was still seated on the Arian throne, are entitled to little more credit than the narrative of the Shah-nameh, which declares that Iskander (Alexander) was the son of Darab (Darius) and of a daughter of Failakus (Philip of Macedon).7 When an Oriental crown passes from one dynasty to another, however foreign and unconnected, the natives are wont to invent a relationship between the two houses,8 which both parties are commonly quite ready to accept; as it suits the rising house to be pro- vided with a royal ancestry, and it pleases the fallen one and its partisans to see in the occupants of the throne a branch of the ancient stock—a continuation of the legitimate family. Tales therefore of the above-mentioned kind are, historically speaking, valueless; and it must remain uncertain whether the second Median monarch had any child at all, either male or female. » Mos. Chor. Hist. Amen. i. 27 and 29. • Herod, i. 107. * Xen. Cyrop. i . 2, § 1. * Ctes. Pert. Eze. § 2. • Ibid. Compare Nic. Dam. Fr. 66, p. 399. 'See Atkinson's Shah-nameh, pp. 493, 494. * See the attempts made to prove that Cambyses was the son of an Egyptian princess (Herod, iii. 2), and other still more wonderful attempts to show that Alexander the Great was the son of Nectanebus. (Mos. Chor. ffist. Armea. ii. 12; Synoell. Chronograph, p. 487, B.) 2 e 2 4?o Chap. VL THE THIRD MONARCHY. Old age was now creeping upon the sonless king. If he was sixteen or seventeen years old at the time of his contract of marriage with Ary&nis, he must have been nearly seventy in B.C 558, when the revolt occurred which terminated both his reign and his kingdom . It appears that the Persian branch of the Arian race, which had made itself a home in the country lying south and south-east of Media, between the 32nd parallel and the Persian Gulf, had acknowledged some subjection to the Median kings during the time of their greatness. Dwelling in their rugged mountains and high upland plains, they had however maintained the simplicity of their primitive manners, and had mixed but little with the Medes, being governed by their own native princes of the Achsernenian house, the descend- ants, real or supposed, of a certain Achsemenes.9 These princes were connected by marriage with the Cappadocian kings;10 and their house was regarded as one of the noblest in Weatern Asia. What the exact terms were upon which they stood with the Median monarch is uncertain. Herodotus regards Persia as absorbed into Media at this time, and the Achsemenidre as merely a good Persian family;11 Nicolas of Damascus makes Persia a Median satrapy, of which Atradates, the father of Cyrus, is satrap;12 Xenophon, on the contrary, not only gives the Achsemenidse their royal rank,18 but seems to con- sider Persia as completely independent of Media;14 Moses of Chorene' takes the same view, regarding Cyrus as a great and powerful sovereign during the reign of Astyages.15 The native records lean towards the view of Xenophon and Moses. Darius declares that eight of his race had been kings before himself, and makes no difference between his own royalty and theirs." Cyrus calls himself in one inscription " the son of Cambyses, the powerful king."17 It is certain therefore that Persia con- * Herod, iii. 75, vii. 11; Bthitt. Iiucr. col. i. par. 2, § 6. 10 Diod. Sic. ap. Pilot. BiblwCJiec. p. 1158. "Herod, i. 107. OUtt) iyaBi,. "Nio. Dam. Fr. 66, p. 399. u Xen. Cyrap. i. 2, g 1. "Ibid. i. 5, §§ 3-5. u Mos. Chor. Hist. Arm. i. 24, 25. "See the Behistun Inscription, ooL i par. 4, § 2. "There are eight of my race who have been kings before me. I am the ninth." 17 This inscription has been found on a brick brought from Seukeroh. See the author's Herodotus, toL i. p. 200, note • (2nd edition). Chap. VL CAUSES OF THE REBELLION OF CYRUS. 421 tinued to be ruled by her own native monarchs during the whole of the Median period, and that Cyrus led the attack upon Astyages as hereditary Persian king. The Persian records seem rather to imply actual independence of Media; but, as national vanity would prompt to dissimulation in such a case, we may perhaps accord so much weight to the statement of Herodotus, and to the general tradition on the subject,18 as to believe that there was some kind of acknowledgment of Median supremacy on the part of the Persian kings anterior to Cyrus, though the acknowledgment may have been not much more than a formality, and have imposed no onerous obliga- tions. The residence of Cyrus at the Median Court, which is asserted in almost every narrative of his life before he became king, inexplicable if Persia was independent,19 becomes tho- roughly intelligible on the supposition that she was a great Median feudatory. In such cases the residence of the Crown Prince at the capital of the suzerain is constantly desired, or even required by the superior Power,20 which sees in the pre- sence of the son and heir the best security against disaffection or rebellion on the part of the father. It appears that Cyrus, while at the Median Court, observing the unwarlike temper of the existing generation of Medes, who had not seen any actual service, and despising the personal character of the monarch,21 who led a luxurious life, chiefly at Ecbatana, amid eunuchs, concubines, and dancing-girls,1 resolved on raising the standard of rebellion, and seeking at any rate to free his own country. It may be suspected that the Persian prince was not actuated solely by political motives. To earnest Zoroastrians, such as the Achsemenians are shown to have been by their inscriptions, the yoke of a Power which had so greatly corrupted, if it had not wholly laid aside, the worship of Ormazd,2 must have been extremely distasteful; "Dino, Ft. 7; Nio. Dam. Fr. 66; Justin, i. 4-6; &c. "Xenophon's notion of a voluntary vitit is quite contrary to all experience, in the East or elsewhere. "Compare the policy of Rome as shown with respect to the Parthian and Armenian princes (Tacit. Ann. ii. 1-3), and to the Heiods (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvl 1, 5 2; ft*). ■ Arist. PoL v. 8, $ 15. 1 'Opxv quite possible, as in later times they were certainly used by the Persians (Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1, § 30 ; viii. 8, § 11). "Feltasts, according to Nicolas : th.it is, troops whose equipment was halfway between the ordinary heavy and light armed. Chap. VL ACCOUNT OF THE STRUGGLE. 425 lay a barrier of lofty hills, only penetrated by a single narrow pass. On either side were two smooth surfaces of rock, while the mountain towered above, lofty and precipitous. The pass was guarded by ten thousand Persians. Recognising the im- possibility of forcing it, Astyages again detached a body of troops, who marched along the foot of the range till they found a place where it could be ascended, when they climbed it and seized the heights directly over the defile. The Persians upon this had to evacuate their strong position, and to retire to a lower range of hills very near to Pasargadse. Here again there was a two days' fight. On the first day all the efforts of the Medes to ascend the range (which, though low, was steep, and covered with thickets of wild olive1) were fruitless. Their enemy met them, not merely with the ordinary weapons, but with great masses of stone,2 which they hurled down with crushing force upon their ascending columns. On the second day, however, the resistance was weaker or less effective. Astyages had placed at the foot of the range, below his attack- ing columns, a body of troops with orders to kill all who refused to ascend, or who, having ascended, attempted to quit the heights and return to the valley.8 Thus compelled to advance, his men fought with desperation, and drove the Persians before them up the slopes of the hill to its very summit, where the women and children had been placed for the sake of security. There, however, the tide of success turned. The taunts and upbraidings of their mothers and wives restored the courage of the Persians; and, turning upon their foe, they made a sudden furious charge. The Medes, astonished and overborne, were driven headlong down the hill, and fell into such confusion that the Persians slew sixty thousand of them . Still Astyages did not desist from his attack. The authority whom we have been following here to a great extent fails us, and we have only a few scattered notices 4 from which to re- 1 Kfntfuiol Si vdvrri KoI dpvptuvtt | i. 6 ; PIut. De Virt. Mu/itr. p. 246, A. aypiiioi re f . 6rt 6 reraypiirot ffaTpdirris tv re Alybwry >ral rois irfpl r^1r 'Svpiar Tqv Kol\ilr Kal Hp7 $otW- (n)* da-offrdri)! yeyovev, >t.t.X. 43^ THE FOURTH MONARCHY. Chat. I. and that Nebuchadnezzar ruled, not only over these countries, but also over some portion of Arabia.17 From these statements, which, on the whole, are tolerably accordant, we may gather that the great Babylonian Empire of the seventh century B.C. inherited from Assyria all the southern and western portion of her territory, while the more northern and eastern provinces fell to the share of Media. Setting aside the statement of the Book of Judith (wholly un- confirmed as it is by any other authority), that Persia was at this time subject to Babylon, we may regard as the most eastern portion of the Empire the district of Susiana, which corre- sponded nearly with the modern Khuzistan and Luristan. This acquisition advanced the eastern frontier of the Empire from the Tigris to the Bakhtiyari Mountains, a distance of 100 or 120 miles. It gave to Babylon an extensive tract of very productive territory, and an excellent strategic boundar}\ Khuzistan is one of the most valuable provinces of modern Persia1 It consists of a broad tract of fertile alluvium, inter- vening between the Tigris and the mountains,2 well watered by numerous large streams, which are capable of giving an abundant irrigation to the whole of the low region. Above this is Luristan, a still more pleasant district, composed of alternate mountain, valley, and upland plain, abounding in beautiful glens, richly wooded, and full of gushing brooks and clear rapid rivers.8 Much of this region is of course uncultivable moun- tain, range succeeding range, in six or eight parallel lines,4 as the traveller advances to the north-east; and most of the ranges exhibiting vast tracts of bare and often precipitous rock, in the clefts of which snow rests till midsummer5 Still the lower "Beros. ap. Joseph, e. Ap. 19: KpaTqaai be tprlat t6v Bal3v\uviov (sc. Na loirxpSovdffopov) Alyfarrov, -ly-iuj, 4> IHd. p. 465. 2 Ibid. p. 459. Chap. I. PALESTINE. 447 Hermon, runs with a course which is almost due south from lat. 33° 25' to lat. 31° 47', where it is merged in the Dead Sea, which may be viewed, however, as a continuation of the valley, prolonging it to lat. 31° 8'. This valley is quite unlike any other in the whole world. It is a volcanic rent in the earth's surface, a broad chasm which has gaped and never closed up.9 Naturally, it should terminate at Merom, where the level of the Mediterranean is nearly reached.10 By some wonderful convul- sion, or at any rate by some unusual freak of Nature, there is a channel (avX ireSlov or il irtSinj; but sometimes they regard it as a proper name. (See Jerem. xxxii. 44 ; xxxiii. 14; Obad. 19 ; 1 Mac. xii. 38.) 2 Sharon (like Mishor, the term ap- plied to the trans-Jordanic table-land), is derived from "lt),> "just, straight- forward," and thence "level." (See Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 479, Appendix.) * Strab. xvi. 2, § 27. Efro Spvfiis fieyas tis. 2 G 45Q Chap. l THE FOURTH MONARCHY. watered by reedy streams 4 which flow down from the great highland. A valuable tract is this entire plain, but greatly exposed to ravage. Even the sandy belt will grow fruit-trees; and the towns which stand on it, as Gaza, Jaffa, and Ashdod, are surrounded with huge groves of olives, sycamores, and palms,6 or buried in orchards and gardens, bright with pome- granates and orange-trees' The more inland region is of mar- vellous fertility. Its soil is a rich loam, containing scarcely a pebble, which yields year after year prodigious crops of grain7— chiefly wheat—without manure or irrigation, or other cultiva- tion than a light ploughing. Philistia was the granary of Syria,8 and was important doubly, first, as yielding inexhaus- tible supplies to its conqueror, and secondly, as affording the readiest passage to the great armies which contended in these regions for the mastery of the Eastern World9 South of the region to which we have given the name of Palestine, intervening between it and Egypt, lay a tract to which it is difficult to assign any political designation. Herodotus re- garded it as a portion of Arabia, which he carried across the valley of the Arabah and made abut on the Mediterranean.10 To the Jews it was "the land of the south"11—the special country of the Amalekites. By Strabo's time it had come to be known as Idumsea,12 or the Edomite country; and under this appellation it will perhaps be most convenient to describe 4 The moder n Arabs call the upper tract of Sharon by the name of Khassab, "the Reedy." (Stanley, p. 256.) In old times the reedy character of the streams was marked by the name of Kanah (from nap, "a cane"), given to one of them. (Josh. xvi. 8 ; xvii. 9.) * Kenrick, Phoenicia, p. 28 ;Robinson, Researches, vol. ii. pp. 368, 376 ; Grove, in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, voL ii. p. 672. • Stanley, p. 253. 'Thomson, The Land and the Book, p. 552; Van de Velde, Travels, vol. ii. p. 175 ; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 254. '"Le grenier de la Syrie." (Due de Raguse, quoted in the Biblical Dictionary, rol. ii p. 673, note.) • The ordinary route of invaders from the south was along the maritime plain, and either round Carmel (which is easily rounded), or over the shoulder of the hills, into the plain of Esdraelon. Hence the march was either through Galilee to Ccele-Syria, or across the plam to Beth-Shean (Scythopolis), and thence by Apheca (FUc) and Neve (Nava) to Damascus. Invaders from the north followed the same line, but in tie re- verse direction. '• Herod, iii 5. 11 Num. xiii. 29 ; Josh. x. 40 ; 4c . "Strab. xvi. 2, § 34. I think it probable that Scylax placed Idumseans between Syria and Egypt; but his work is unfortunately defective in this place. (Pcripl. p. 102, ed. of 1700.) Chap. I. 1DI/1LEA. it here. Idumsea, then, was the tract south and south-west of Palestine from about lat. 31° 10'. It reached westward to the borders of Egypt, which were at this time marked by the Wady-el-Arish,1a southward to the range of Sinai and the Elanitic Gulf, and eastward to the Great Desert. Its chief town was Petra, in the mountains east of the Arabah valley. The character of the tract is for the most part a hard gravelly and rocky desert; but occasionally there is good herbage, and soil that admits of cultivation; brilliant flowers and luxuriantly growing shrubs bedeck the glens and terraces of the Petra range; and most of the tract produces plants and bushes on which camels, goats, and even sheep will browse, while occa- sional palm groves furnish a grateful shade and an important fruit.14 The tract divides itself into four regions—first, a region of sand, low and flat, along the Mediterranean, the ShepJtelah without its fertility; next, a region of hard gravelly plain intersected by limestone ridges, and raised considerably above the sea level, the Desert of El-Tih, or of " the Wander- ings ;" then the long, broad, low valley of the Arabah, which rises gradually from the Dead Sea to an imperceptible water- shed,18 and then falls gently to the head of the Gulf of Akabah, a region of hard sand thickly dotted with bushes, and inter- sected by numerous torrent courses; finally, a long narrow region of mountains and hills parallel with the Arabah,16 con- stituting Idumfea Proper, or the original Edom, which, though rocky and rugged, is full of fertile glens, ornamented with trees and shrubs, and in places cultivated in terraces.17 In shape » See 2 K. xxiv. 7. That the "river of Egypt" here mentioned is not the Kile, but one of the torrent-courses which run from the plateau to the Mediterranean, is indicated by the word used for "river," which is not irtj, but ytj. Of all the torrent-courses at present existing, the Wady-el-Arish is the best fitted to form a boundary. "Palm trees are found at Akabah (Stanley, p. 22); and again at the Wady Ghurundel (ib. p. 85). 1* It is scarcely yet known exactly where the water-shed is. Stanley places it about four hours (14 miles) north of the Wady-GhurundeL (Syria and Pala- tine, L s. c.) "This tract, which is the original Edom or Idumsea Proper, consists of three parallel ranges. On the west, adjoining the Arabah, are low calcareous hills. To these succeeds a range of igneous rocks, chiefly porphyry, overlaid by red sandstone, which reaches the height of 2000 feet. Further east is a range of limestone, 1000 feet higher, which sinks down gently into the pla- teau of the Arabian Desert. (BMical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 488.) "Stanley, p. 88. 2 a 2 452 Chap. I. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. the tract was a rude square or oblong, with its sides nearly- facing the four cardinal points, its length from the Mediter- ranean to the Gulf of Akabah being 130 miles, and its width from the Wady-el-Arish to the eastern side of the Petra moun- tains 120 miles. The area is thus about 1560 square miles. Beyond the Wady-el-Arish was Egypt, stretching from the Mediterranean southwards a distance of nearly eight degrees, or more than 550 miles. As this country was not, however, so much a part of the Babylonian Empire as a dependency lying upon its borders, it will not be necessary to describe it in this place. One region, however, remains still unnoticed which seems to have been an integral portion of the Empire. This is Palmy- r6ne\ or the Syrian Desert—the tract lying between Coele-Syria on the one hand and the valley of the middle Euphrates on the other, and abutting towards the south on the great Arabian Desert, to which it is sometimes regarded as belonging.18 It is for the most part a hard sandy or gravelly plain, intersected by low rocky ranges, and either barren or productive only of some sap- less shrubs and of a low thin grass. Occasionally, however, there are oases, where the fertility is considerable. Such an oasis is the region about Palmyra itself, which derived its name from the palm groves in the vicinity;19 here the soil is good, and a large tract is even now under cultivation. Another oasis is that of Karyatein, which is watered by an abundant stream, and is well wooded, and productive of grain.20 The Palmyre'ne', how- ever, as a whole, possesses but little value, except as a passage country. Though large armies can never have traversed the desert even in this upper region, where it is comparatively narrow, trade in ancient times found it expedient to avoid the long detour by the Orontes valley, Aleppo, and Bambuk, and to proceed directly from Damascus by way of Palmyra to Thapsacus on the Euphrates. Small bands of light troops also occasionally took the same course; and the great saving of dis- "Chesney, Euphrata Expedition, vol. i. p. 659. Such, at least, is the common opinion; and the name Tadmor is thought to have had a similar meaning. But both derivations are doubtful. (See Stanley, p. 8. note.) "Chesney, vol. i. pp. 622 and 580. Chap. I. THE JERAHI—THE KURAN. 455 "Yellow River "—a delightful stream of the coldest and purest water possible 9—becomes known as the Jerahi,10 and carries a large body of water as far as Fellahiyeh or Dorak. Near Dorak the waters of the Jerahi are drawn off into a number of canals, and the river is thus greatly diminished;11 but still the stream struggles on, and proceeds by a southerly course towards the Persian Gulf, which it enters near Gadi in long. 48° 52'. The course of the Jerahi, exclusively of the smaller windings, is about equal in length to that of the Tab or Hindyan. In volume, before its dispersion, it is considerably greater than that river. It has a breadth of about a hundred yards12 before it reaches Babahan, and is navigable for boats almost from its junction with the Abi Zard. Its size is, however, greatly re- duced in its lower course, and travellers who skirt the coast regard the Tab as the more important river.18 The Kuran is a river very much exceeding in size both the Tab and the Jerahi.14 It is formed by the junction of two large streams—the Dizful river and the Kuran proper, or river of Shuster. Of these the Shuster stream is the more eastern. It rises in the Zarduh Kuh, or "Yellow Mountain,"15 in lat. 32°, long. 51°, almost opposite to the river of Isfahan. From its source it is a large stream. Its direction is at first to the south-east, but after a while it sweeps round and runs con- siderably north of west; and this course it pursues through the mountains, receiving tributaries of importance from both sides, till, near Akhili, it turns round to the south, and, cutting at a right angle the outermost of the Zagros ranges, flows down with a course S.W. by S. nearly to Shuster, where, in consequence of a bund or dam1 thrown across it, it bifurcates, and passes in • Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. ix. p. 81. "This name is commonly used in the country. It is unknown, however, to the Arabian geographers. 11 Chesney, vol. i. p. 201 ; Kinneir, p. 88. "Three hundred and fifty feet. (Chesney, vol. i. p. 200.) "This was the conclusion of Mac- donald Kinneir, who travelled from Buihireto Hindyan, and thenceto Dorak. (Persian Empire, pp. 56, 67.) "Kinneir, p. 87. This writer goes so far as to say that the Kuran, in its lower course, contains " a greater body of water than either the Tigris or the Euphrates separately considered." (lb. p. 293.) "Chesney. vol. i. p. 197; Geo- graphical Journal, vol. xvi. p. 50. 1 This is the famous " Bund of Sha- pur," constructed by the conqueror of Valerian. The whole process of con- Chap. L THE KERKHAH. 457 Shat-el-Arab,10 about 22 miles below Busra. The entire course of the Kuran from its most remote source, exclusive of the lesser windings, is not less than 430 miles. The Kerkhah (anciently the Choaspes u) is formed by three streams of almost equal magnitude, all of them rising in the most eastern portion of the Zagros range. The central of the three flows from the southern flank of Mount El wand (Orontes), the mountain behind Hamadan (Ecbatana), and receives on the right, after a course of about thirty miles, the northern or Singur branch, and ten miles further on the southern or Guran branch, which i3 known by the name of the Gamas-ab. The river thus formed flows westward to Behistun, after which it bends to the south-west, and then to the south, receiving tributaries on both hands, and winding among the mountains as far as the ruined city of Rudbar. Here it bursts through the outer barrier of the great range, and, receiving the large stream of the Kirrind from the north- west, flows S.S.E. and S.E. along the foot of the range, between it and the Kebir Kuh, till it meets the stream of the Abi-Zal, when it finally leaves the hills and flows through the plain, pursuing a S.S.E. direction to the ruins of Susa, which lie upon its left bank, and then turning to the S.S.W., and running in that direction to the Shat-el-Arab, which it reaches about five miles below Kurnah. Its length is estimated at above 500 miles; its width, at some distance above its junction with the Abi-Zal, is from eighty to a hundred yards.12 The course of the Kerkhah was not always exactly such as is here described. Anciently it appears to have bifurcated at Pai Pul, 18 or 20 miles N.W. of Susa, and to have sent a branch 10 Naturally, the Kuran hag a course of its own by which it enters the Per- sian Gulf. This channel runs south- e.ist from Sablah, nearly parallel to the Bah-a-Mishir, and is about 200 yards broad. (Chesney, p. 199.) But almost ail the water now passes by the Hafar canal—an artificial cutting—into the Shat-el-Arab. 11 On the identity of these streams see the author's llcrodotus, vol. i. p. 2B0, 2nd edition; and compare Kiuueir's Persian Empire, pp. 104, 105 ; Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i . p. 204; Geographical Journal, vol. ix. pp. 87-93; vol. xvi. pp. 91-94; Loftus, Chaldcea and Susiana, pp. 425-430. 12 The course of the Kerkhah was carefully explored by Sir H. Rawlinson in the year 1836, and is accurately laid down in the map accompanying his Memoir. (See Journal of the Geo- graphical Society, vol. ix. pp. 49-93, and map opp. p. 120.) 458 Chap. L THE FOURTH MONARCHY. east of the Susa ruins, which absorbed the Shapur, a small tributary of the Dizful stream, and ran into the Kuran a little above Ahwaz.18 The remains of the old channel are still to be traced;1 4 and its existence explains the confusion, observable in ancient times, between the Kerkhah and the Kuran, to each of which streams, in certain parts of their course, we find the name Eulseus applied.15 The proper Euheus (Ulai) was the eastern branch of the Kerkhah (Choaspes) from Pai Pul to Ahwaz; but the name was naturally extended both north- wards to the Choaspes above Pai Pul16 and southwards to the Kuran below Ahwaz.17 The latter stream was, however, known also, both in its upper and its lower course, as the Pasitigris. On the opposite side of the Empire the rivers were less con- siderable. Among the most important may be mentioned the Sajur, a tributary of the Euphrates, the Koweik, or river of Aleppo, the Orontes, or river of Antioch, the Litany, or river of Tyre, the Barada, or river of Damascus, and the Jordan, with its tributaries, the Jabbok and the Hieromax. The Sajur rises from two principal sources on the southern flanks of Amanus, which, after running a short distance, unite a little to the east of Ain-Tab.18 The course of the stream from the point of junction is south-east. In this direction it flows in a somewhat tortuous channel between two ranges of hills for a distance of about 30 miles to Tel Khalid, a remark- able conical hill crowned by ruins. Here it receives an im- portant affluent—the Keraskat—from the west, and becomes suitable for boat navigation. At the same time its course changes, and runs eastward for about 12 miles; after which the stream again inclines to the south, and keeping an E.S_E. direction for 14 or 15 miles, enters the Euphrates by five mouths in about lat. 36° 37'. The course of the river measures probably about 65 miles. "Loftus, Chaldcea and Sutiana, pp. 424-4*1. "Ibid. pp. 424, 425. 1* See an article by the author on this subject in Smith's Biblical Dic- tionary, voL iii. pp. 1586, 1587, ad voc. Ulai. "Plin. H. N. vi. 81. "Arrian, Exp. Al. vii. 7. "For a full account of the Sajur, s^e Chesney, Euphratti Expedition, vol. i. p. 419. 4<3o Chat. L THE FOURTH MONARCHY. northwards for a short space, after which it turns to the north- east, and runs in a deep cleft5 along the base of Lebanon, pur- suing this direction for 15 or 16 miles to a point beyond Ribleh, nearly in lat. 34° 30'. Here the course of the river again changes, becoming slightly west of north to the Lake of Hems (Buheiret-Hems), which is nine or ten miles below Ribleh. Issuing from the Lake of Hems about lat. 34° 43', the Orontes once more flows to the north-east, and in five or six miles reaches Hems itself, which it leaves on its right bank. It then flows for twenty miles nearly due north, after which, on approaching Hamah (Hamath), it makes a slight bend to the east round the foot of Jebel Erbayn,6 and then entering the rich pasture country of El-Ghab, runs north-west and north to the " Iron Bridge" (Jisr Hadid), in lat, 30° 11'. Its course thus far has been nearly parallel with the coast of the Mediter- ranean, and has lain between two ranges of mountains, the more western of which has shut it out from the sea. At Jisr Hadid the western mountains come to an end, and the Orontes, sweeping round their base, runs first west and then south-west down the broad valley of Antioch, in the midst of the most lovely scenery,7 to the coast, which it reaches a little above the 36th parallel, in long. 35° 55'. The course of the Orontes, exclusive of lesser windings, is about 200 miles. It is a con- siderable stream almost from its source.8 At Hamah, more than a hundred miles from its mouth, it is crossed by a bridge of thirteen arches.9 At Antioch it is fifty yards in width,10 and runs rapidly. The natives now call it the Nahr-el-Asy, or " Rebel River," either from its running in an opposite direc- * From 200 to 400 feet in depth. (Porter, Handbook, L0. c.) • Cheaney, vol. i. p. 395. 7 Dean Stanley says the scenery here has been compared to that of the Wye (Sinai and Palestine, p. 400). Colonel Chesney speaks of " richly picturesque slopes;" "striking scenery;" "steep and wooded hills;" "banks adorned with the oleander, the arbutus, and other shrubs." (Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 397.) Mr. Porter suvs, "The bridle-path along the bank of the Orontes winds through luxuriant shrub- beries. Tangled thickets of myrtle, oleander, and other flowering shrubs, make a gorgeous border to the stream." (Handbook, p. 602.) Only a little south of the Orontes, in this part of its course, was the celebrated Daphne. • Porter, Handbook, p. 576. 'Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, p. 143. "Porter, p. 603. Ciur. I. THE KARA SU—THE LITANT. tion to all the other streams of the country,11 or (more pro- bably) from its violence and impetuosity.12 There is one tributary of the Orontes which deserves a cursory mention. This is the Kara Su, or "Black River," which reaches it from the Aga Denghis, or Bahr-cl-Abiyad, about five miles below Jisr Hadid and four or five above Antioch. This stream brings into the Orontes the greater part of the water that is drained from the southern side of Amanus. It is formed by a union of two rivers, the upper Kara Su and the Afrin, which flow into the Aga Denghis (White Sea), or Lake of Antioch, from the north-west, the one entering it at its northern, the other at its eastern extremity. Both are considerable streams; and the Kara Su, on issuing from the lake, carries a greater body of water than the Orontes itself,1a and thus adds largely to the volume of that stream in its lower course from the point of junction to the Mediterranean. The Litany, or river of Tyre, rises from a source at no great distance from the head springs of the Orontes. The almost imperceptible watershed of the Buka'a runs between Yunin and Baalbek, a few miles north of the latter;14 and when it is once passed, the drainage of the water is southwards. The highest permanent fountain of the southern stream seems to be a small lake near Tel Hushben,15 which lies about six miles to the south-west of the Baalbek ruins. Springing from this source the Litany flows along the lower Buka'a in a direction which is generally a little west of south, receiving on either side a number of streamlets and rills from Libanus and Anti- libanus, and giving out in its turn numerous canals for irriga- tion, which fertilise the thirsty soil. As the stream descends with numerous windings, but still with the same general course, the valley of the Buka'a contracts more and more, till finally it terminates in a gorge, down which thunders the Litany—a gorge a thousand feet or more in depth, and so "This is Mr. Porter's explanation. (Handbook, p. 576.) "So Schwarze, as quoted by Dean Stanley (Sinai and. Palestine, p. 275.) '* Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. t p. 395. 14 Porter, Handbook, p. 575. The elevation of the watershed above the sea-level is about 3200 feet. 15 Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, p. 10 ; Cbesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 398. 4C2 Chap. I. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. narrow, that in one place it is actually bridged over by masses of rock which have fallen from the jagged sides.18 Narrower and deeper grows the gorge, and the river chafes and foams through it,17 gradually working itself round to the west, and so clearing a way through the very roots of Lebanon to the low coast tract, across which it meanders slowly,18 as if wearied with its long struggle, before finally emptying itself into the sea. The course of the Litany may be roughly estimated at from 70 to 75 miles. The Barada, or river of Damascus, rises in the plain of Zebdany—the very centre of the Antilibanus. It has its real permanent source in a small nameless lake19 in the lower part of the plain, about lat. 33° 41'; but in winter it is fed by streams flowing from the valley above, especially by one which rises in lat. 33° 46', near the small hamlet of Ain Hawar.20 The course of the Barada from the small lake is at first towards the east; but it soon sweeps round and flows southward for about four miles to the lower end of the plain, after which it again turns to the east and enters a romantic glen, running between high cliffs,21 and cutting through the main ridge of the Antilibanus between tho Zebdany plain and Suk, the Abila of the ancients.22 From Suk the river flows through a narrow but lovely valley, in a course which has a general direction of south-east, past Ain Fijeh (where its waters are greatly increased),28 through a series of gorges and glens, to the point where the roots of the Anti- libanus sink down upon the plain, when it bursts forth from the mountains and scatters.24 Channels are drawn from it on either side, and its waters are spread far and wide over the Merj, which it covers with fine trees and splendid herbage. "Porter, p. 571 ; Robinson, Later Researches, p. 423. "Ibid. pp. 386, 387. "Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 398. "Porter, p. 557. The elevation of the plain of Zebdany is about 3500 feet. 20 Col. Chesney makes this the proper source of the Barada (Euphrates Expedi- tion, voL i. p. 602). Its true character is pointed out by Mr. Porter (Handbook, p. 558). Compare Robinson, Later Re- searches, p. 487. ■ Porter, p. 557. 22 On the proofs of this identity see Robinson, Later Researches, pp. 480-484. a Porter, p. 555; Robinson, p. 476. The quantity of water given out by this fountain considerably exceeds that carried by the Barada above it. 24 See the excellent description in Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 402. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. penetrate.8 Issuing from Merom in lat. 33° 3', the Jordan flows at first sluggishly6 southward to "Jacob's Bridge," passing which, it proceeds in the same direction, with a much swifter current, down the depressed and narrow cleft between Merom and Tiberias, descending at the rate of fifty feet in a mile,7 and becoming (as has been said) a sort of "continuous waterfall."8 Before reaching Tiberias, its course bends slightly to the west of south for about two miles, and it pours itself into that" sea" in about lat. 32° 53'. Quitting the sea in lat. 32° 42', it finally enters the track called the Ghor, the still lower chasm or cleft which intervenes between Tiberias and the upper end of the Dead Sea. Here the descent of the stream becomes compara- tively gentle, not much exceeding three feet per mile; for though the direct distance between the two lakes is less than seventy miles, and the entire fall above 600 feet, which would seem to give a descent of nine or ten feet a mile, yet, as the course of the river throughout this part of its career is tortuous in the extreme,9 the fall is really not greater than above indi- cated. Still it is sufficient to produce as many as twenty-seven rapids,10 or at the rate of one to every seven miles. In this part of its course the Jordan receives two important tributaries, each of which seems to deserve a few words. The Jarmuk, or Sheriat-el-Mandhur, anciently the Hieromax, drains the water, not only from Gaulonitis or Jaulan, the country immediately east and south-east of the sea of Tiberias, but also from almost the whole of the Hauran.11 At its mouth it is * Robinson, Researches, vol. Hi. p. 340. • See Col. Wildenbruch's account in the Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. xx. p. 228; and compare Lynch, Narrative, p. 311 ; Porter, Handbook, p. 427. Col. Chesney exactly inverts the real facts of the case. (Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 400.) 7 The fall between the lakes of Merom and Tiberias appears to be from 600 to 700 feet. The direct distance is little more than 9 miles. As the river does not here meander much, its entire course can scarcely exceed 13 or 14 miles. Ac- cording to these numbers, the fall would be between 43 and 54 feet per mile. * Col. Wildenbruch, in Geographical Journal,vol. xx. p. 228. Compare Porter, Handbook, p. 427 ; Lynch, Aim I uliwi, p. 311; Petermann, in Geographical Jour- nal, vol. xviii. p. 103 ; &c . 'The 70 miles of actual length are increased by these multitudinous wind- ings to 200. (Geographical Journal, vol. xviii. p. 94, note; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 277.) The remark of the English sailors deserves to be remem- bered—"The Jordan is the crookedest river what is." (Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xviii. p. 113.) » Stanley, p. 276. 11 Porter, Handbook, p. 321. Chap. L THE JARMUK—THE ZUBKA. 465 130 feet wide,11 and in the winter it brings down a great body of water into the Jordan. In summer, however, it shrinks up into an inconsiderable brook, having no more remote sources than the perennial springs at Mazarib, Dilly, and one or two other places on the plateau of Jaulan. It runs through a fertile country, and has generally a deep course far below the surface of the plain; ere falling into the Jordan it makes its way through a wild ravine, between rugged cliffs of basalt, which are in places upwards of a hundred feet in height. The Zurka, or Jabbok, is a stream of the same character with the Hieromax, but of inferior dimensions and importance. It drains a considerable portion of the land of Gilead, but has no very remote sources, and in summer only carries water through a few miles of its lower course.13 In winter, on the contrary, it is a roaring stream with a strong current, and sometimes cannot be forded. The ravine through which it flows is narrow, deep, and in some places wild. Throughout nearly its whole course it is fringed by thickets of cane and oleander, while above, its banks are clothed with forests of oak. The Jordan receives the Hieromax about four or five miles below the point where it issues from the Sea of Tiberias, and the Jabbok about half-way between that lake and the Dead Sea. Augmented by these streams, and others of less impor- tance from the mountains on either side, it becomes a river of considerable size, being opposite Beth-shan (Beisan) 140 feet wide, and three feet deep,1 4 and averaging, in its lower course, a width of ninety with a depth of eight or nine feet.15 Its entire course, from the fountain near Hasbeiya to the Dead Sea, including the passage of the two lakes through which it flows, is, if we exclude meanders, about 130, if we include them, 260 miles. It is calculated to pour into the Dead Sea 6,090,000 tons of water daily." » Porter, Handbook, p. 321. Mr. Porter is the authority for this entire notice of the Hieromax. He is far more accurate than Col. Chesney. (Eu- phrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 401.) ■ Porter, Handbook, p. 310; Biblical Dictionary, vol. i . p. 909. VOL. IX "Chesney, vol. i. p. 401; Irby and Mangles, p. 304; Burckhardt, TraveU in Syria, p. 345. "Petermann, in the Journal of tht Geographical Society, vol. xviii. p. 95. "Chesney, l. a. c. 2 H 468 Chap. L THE FOURTH MONARCHY. special notice and observation of travellers, has of late years been scientifically surveyed by officers of the American navy; and its shape, its size, and even its depth, are thus known with accuracy9 The Dead Sea is of an oblong form, and would be of a very regular contour, were it not for a remarkable projec- tion from its eastern shore near its southern extremity. In thiB place, a long and low peninsula, shaped like a human foot,10 projects into the lake, filling up two-thirds of its width, and thus dividing the expanse of water into two portions, which are connected by a long and somewhat narrow passage.11 The entire length of the sea, from north to south, is 46 miles: its greatest width, between its eastern and its western shores, is 10^ miles. The whole area is estimated at 250 geographical square miles.12 Of this space 174 square miles belong to the northern portion of the lake (the true "Sea "), 29 to the narrow channel, and 46 to the southern portion, which has been called "the back-water,"18 or "the lagoon."14 The most remarkable difference between the two portions of the lake is the contrast they present as to depth. While the depth of the northern portion is from 600 feet, at a short distance from the mouth of the Jordan, to 800, 1000, 1200, and even 1300 feet, further down, the depth of the lagoon is nowhere more than 12 or 13 feet; and in places it is so shallow that it has been found * Great credit is due to the Americans for the spirit which conceived and carried out Captain Lynch's Expedition. The results of the Expedition have been made public partly by means of the Official Report published at Baltimore in 1852, but in more detail by Captain Lynch's private Narrative, published at London in 1849. An excellent digest of the information contained in these volumes, as well as of the accounts of others, has been compiled by Mr. George Grove, and published in the third volume of Dr. Smith's Biblical Diction- ary, pp. 1173-1187. "The natives call the peninsula the Luan, comparing its shape with that of the human "tongue." 11 The passage is narrowed not only by the projecting "tongue," but also by the fact that directly opposite the tongue there is ai composed of chalk, marl, and gypsum, which projects into the natural basin of the lake, a distance of two milea, while the tongue projects about six. Thus the channel is reduced to two miles, or in dry seasons to one. (See Irby and Mangles, Travelt, p. 454.) 12 Grove, in Biblical Dictionary, vol. i . p. 1174. All these measurements are, it must be remembered, liable to a certain amount of derangement ac- cording to the time of year and the wetness or dryness of the season. Lines of drift-wood have been remarked, showing in places a difference of several miles in the water edge at different seasons. (Robinson, Researches, voL ii. pp. 488 and 672.) "Irby and Mangles, Travelt, passim. "Grove, in Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 1174. Chap. I. THE DEAD SEA AND SEA OF TIBERIAS. 469 possible, in some seasons, to ford the whole way across from one side to the other.15 The peculiarities of the Dead Sea, as compared with other lakes, are its depression below the sea- level, its buoyancy, and its extreme saltness. The degree of the depression is not yet certainly known; but there is reason to believe that it is at least as much as 1300 feet,16 whereas no other lake is known to be depressed more than 570 feet.17 The buoyancy and the saltness are not so wholly unparalleled. The waters of Lake Urumiyeh are probably as salt and as buoyant;18 those of Lake Elton in the steppe east of the Wolga, and of certain other Kussian lakes, appear to be even salter.19 But with these few exceptions (if they are exceptions), the Dead Sea water must be pronounced to be the heaviest and saltest water known to us. More than one-fourth of its weight is solid matter held in solution . Of this solid matter nearly one-third is common salt, which is more than twice as much as is contained in the waters of the ocean. Of the fresh-water lakes the largest and most important is the Sea of Tiberias. This sheet of water is of an oval shape, with an axis, like that of the Dead Sea, very nearly due north and south. Its greatest length is about thirteen, and its greatest width about six miles.w Its extreme depth, so far as has been ascertained, is 27J fathoms, or 165 feet.21 The Jordan flows into its upper end turbid and muddy, and issues forth at its southern extremity clear and pellucid. It receives also the waters of a considerable number of small streams and springs, some of which are warm and brackish; yet its own water is always sweet, cool, and transparent, and laving everywhere a shelving pebbly beach, has a bright sparkling appear- "Seetzen, Workt, vol. i . p. 428; vol. ii. p. 358; Lynch, Narrative, p. 199; Robinson, Researches, vol. ii. p. 235. "Setting aside a single barometrical observation—that of Von Schubert in 1857—all the other estimates, however made, give a depression varying between 1200 and 1450 feet (See Mr. Grove's note, Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 1176.) "The lake Assal, on the Somauli coast, opposite Aden, is said to be de- pressed to this extent. (Murchison, in Geographical Journal, vol. xiv. p. cxvi.) "Compare Geographical Journal, vol. x. p. 7. "The waters of Lake Elton (/ebon tbo?) contain from 24 to 28 per cent, of solid matter, while those of the "Red Sea" near Perekop contain about 37 per cent. The waters of the Dead Sea con- tain about 26 per cent. "Porter, Handbook, p. 418 ; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 362. "Lynch, Narrative, p. 95. 472 THE FOURTH MONARCHY. Chap. L water is a parallelogram,10 the angles of which face the cardinal points: in its greater diameter it extends somewhat more than ten miles, while it is about seven miles across.11 Its depth on the western side, where it approaches the mountains, is six or eight feet; but elsewhere it is generally more shallow, not exceeding three or four feet.u It lies in a marshy plain called El-Umk, and is thickly fringed with reeds round the whole of its circumference. From the silence of antiquity, some writers have imagined that it did not exist in ancient times ;1 2 but the observations of scientific travellers are opposed to this theory.14 The lake abounds with fish of several kinds, and the fishery attracts and employs a considerable number of the natives who dwell near it.15 Besides these lakes, there were contained within the limits of the Empire a number of petty tarns, which do not merit parti- cular description. Such were the Bahr-el-Taka,16 and other small lakes on the right bank of the middle Orontes, the Birket- el-Limum in the Lebanon,17 and the Birket-er-Ram18 on the southern flank of Hermon. It is unnecessary, however, to pursue this subject any further. But a few words must be added on the chief cities of the Empire, before this chapter is brought to a conclusion. The cities of the Empire may be divided into those of the dominant country and those of the provinces. Those of the dominant country were, for the most part, identical with the towns already described as belonging to the ancient Chaldsea. Besides Babylon itself, there flourished in the Babylonian period the cities of Borsippa, Duraba, Sippara or Sepharvaim, Opis, Psittace", Cutha, Orchoe or Erech, and Diridotis or Teredon. Chesney, vol. i. p. 396. "These dimensions, given by Rennell (Illustration* of the Expedition of Oynu, p. 65), seem to be approved by Mr. Ainsworth (Travels in the Tract, p. 62, note), who himself explored the lake. "Chesney, Euphrata Expedition, vol. i. p. 896. 1* Rennell, IUustrations of the Expedi- tion of Cyrus, p. 65. 14 Ainsworth, Researches in Mesopo- tamia, p. 299. 15 Chesney, voL i . p. 897. "Famous for its abundant fish. (Chesney, vol. i p. 395.) "Robinson, Later Researches, p. 548. n Journal of Asiatic Society, voL xvi. p. 8; Lynch, Official Report, p. 110. This is probably the ancient Phiale, which was believed to supply the foun- tain at Banias. (Joseph. B.J. Hi. 10, §7.) Chap. I. CHIEF CITIES OF THE EMPIRE. 473 The sites of most of those have been described in the first volume ;18 but it remains to state briefly the positions of some few which were either new creations or comparatively undis- tinguished in the earlier times. Opis, a town of sufficient magnitude to attract the attention of Herodotus,20 was situated on the left or east bank of the Tigris, near the point where the Diyaleh or Gyndes joined the main river. Its position was south of the Gyndes embou- chure, and it might be reckoned as lying upon either river.21 The true name of the place—that which it bears in the cunei- form inscriptions—was Hupiya; and its site is probably marked by the rains at Khafaji, near Baghdad, which place is thought to retain, in a corrupted form, the original appellation.22 Psit- tace or Sitace',28 the town which gave name to the province of Sittacene',24 was in the near neighbourhood of Opis, lying on the same side of the Tigris, but lower down, at least as low as the modern fort of the Zobeid chief. Its exact site has not been as yet discovered. Teredon, or Diridotis, appears to have been first founded by Nebuchadnezzar.25 It lay on the coast of the Persian Gulf, a little west of the mouth of the Euphrates, and protected by a quay, or a breakwater, from the high tides that rolled in from the Indian Ocean. There is great difficulty in identifying its site, owing to the extreme uncertainty as to the exact position of the coast-line, and the course of the river, in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Probably it should be sought about Zobair, or a little further inland. The chief provincial cities were Susa and Badaca in Susiana; Anat, Sirki, and Carchemish, on the Middle Euphrates; Sidikan » See pp. 20, 21. ■ Herod, i. 189. Xenophon calls it "a great city" (irdXtt pryoXiy, Anab. ii. 4, § 25). Strabo says it bad a con- siderable trade (xvi. 1, § 9). 21 Herodotus, Strabo, and Arrian [Exp. Alex. vii. 7) place it on the Tigris. Xenophon places it on the Physcus (llu- puda) or Diyaleh. "Sir H. Kawlinaon in the author's HerodotuM (vol. i. p. 261, note *, 2nd edition). a Sitace" is the form commonly used by the Greeks (Xen. Anab. ii. 4, §13; yfclian, Hist. An. xvi. 42 ; ftc.); but Stephen of Byzantium has Psittace'. In the cuneiform inscriptions the name is read as Pattita, without the Scythic guttural ending. 24 Sittaccne' is made a province of Babylonia by Strabo (xv. 3, § 12). In Ptolemy it is a province of Assyria (Gcograph. vi. 1). * Abydenus ap. Euseb. Prasv. Em. iz 41. 474 Chap. I THE FOURTH MONARCHY. on the Khabour; Harran on the Bilik; Hamath, Damascus,2* and Jerusalem, in Inner Syria; Tyre, Sidon, Ashdod, Ascalon, and Gaza, upon the coast. Of these, Susa was undoubtedly the most important; indeed, it deserves to be regarded as the second city of the Empire. Here, between the two arms of the Choaspes, on a noble and well-watered plain, backed at the distance of twenty-five miles by a lofty mountain range, the fresh breezes from which tempered the summer heats, was the ancient palace of the Kissian kings, proudly placed upon a lofty platform or mound, and commanding a wide prospect of the rich pastures at its base, which extended northwards to the roots of the hills, and in every other direction as far as the eye could reach.27 Clustered at the foot of the palace mound, more especially on its eastern side, lay the ancient town, the founda- tion of the traditional Memnon,1 who led an army to the defence of Troy,2 The pure and sparkling water of the Choaspes8—a drink fit for kings4—flowed near, while around grew palms, konars, and lemon-trees,8 the plain beyond waving with green grass and golden corn. It may be suspected that the Baby- lonian kings, who certainly maintained a palace at this place,6 and sent high officers of their court to "do their business" there,7 made it their occasional residence, exchanging, in summer and early autumn, the heats and swamps of Babylon for the com- paratively dry and cool region at the base of the Lurish hills. But, however this may have been, at any rate Susa, long the capital of a kingdom little inferior to Babylon itself, must have been the first of the provincial cities, surpassing all the rest at once in size and in magnificence. M Damascus, though destroyed by Tiglath-Pileser II., probably soon rose from its ruins, and again became an im- portant city. B For a good description of the situation of Susa see Loftus, Chaldcea and Susiana, p. 347. Compare the Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. ix. pp. 68-71. 1 Herod, v. 53. Strabo ascribes the foundation to Tithonus, Memnon's father (xv. 3, § 2). 2 Diod. Sic. ii. 22; iv. 75; Pausau. x. 31, § 2. * Geographical Journal, vol. ix. p. 89. 4 Herod, i. 188; PIutarch, De ExsU. p. 601, D; Athen. JJeipnofoph, ii. p. 171. Milton's statement— ** There Suva by Choaspes' amber stream, The drink of none but kings," is an exaggeration : for which, however, there is some classical authority. (So- linus, Pclyhist. § 41.) * Loftus, Chaldcea and Stuiana, Lac. * Dan. viii. 2. 7 Ibid, verse 27. Chap. I. BORDER COUNTRIES—MEDIA AND PERSIA. 475 Among the other cities, Carchemish on the Upper Euphra- tea, Tyre upon the Syrian coast, and Ashdod on the borders of Egypt, held the highest place. Carchemish, which has been wrongly identified with Circesium,8 lay certainly high up the river,9 and most likely occupied a site some distance to the north of Balis, which is in lat. 36° nearly. It was the key of Syria on the east, commanding the ordinary passage of the Euphrates, and being the only great city in this quarter. Tyre, which had by this time surpassed its rival, Sidon,10 was the chief of all the maritime towns; and its possession gave the mastery of the Eastern Mediterranean to the power which could acquire and maintain it. Ashdod was the key of Syria upon the south, being a place of great strength,11 and command- ing the coast route between Palestine and Egypt, which was usually pursued by armies. It is scarcely too much to say that the possession of Ashdod, Tyre, and Carchemish, involved the lordship of Syria, which could not be permanently retained except by the occupation of those cities. The countries by which the Babylonian Empire was bounded were Persia on the east, Media and her dependencies on the north, Arabia on the south, and Egypt at the extreme south- west. Directly to the west she had no neighbour, her territory being on that side washed by the Mediterranean. Of Persia, which must be described at length in the next volume, since it was the seat of Empire during the Fifth Monarchy, no more need be said here than that it was for the most part a rugged and sterile country, apt to produce a brave and hardy race, but incapable of sustaining a large population. A strong barrier separated it from the great Mesopotamian lowland;12 and the Babylonians, by occupying a few easily * There never was much ground for this identification, since Carchemish, "the fort of Chemosh," is clearly quite a distinct name from Cir-cesium. The latter is perhaps a mode of expressing the Assyrian Sirhi. * See above, p. 67. The importance of Tyre at this time is strongly marked by the pro- phecies of Easekiel (xxvi. 3-21 ; xxvii 2-36 ; xxviii. 2-19; &c.), which barely mention Sidon (xxviii. 21-23; xxxii. 30). "The strength of Ashdod, or Azotus, was signally shown by its long resist- ance to the arms of Psammetichus (Herod, ii. 157). The name is thought to be connected with the Arabic thedeed, "strong." 12 See above, vol. i . p. 206. 476 Chap. I. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. defeDsible posses, could readily prevent a Persian army from debouching on their fertile plains. On the other hand, the natural strength of the region is so great, that in the hands of brave and active men its defence is easy; and the Babylonians were not likely, if an aggressive spirit led to their pressing eastward, to make any serious impression in this quarter, or ever greatly to advance their frontier. To Media, the power which bordered her upon the north, Babylonia, on the contrary, lay wholly open. The Medes, pos- sessing Assyria and Armenia, with the Upper Tigris valley, and probably the Mons Maaius, could at any time, with the greatest ease, have marched armies into the low country, and reaumed the contest in which Assyria was engaged for so many hundred years with the great people of the south. On this side nature had set no obstacles; and, if danger threatened, resistance had to be made by means of those artificial works which are spe- cially suited for flat countries. Long lines of wall, broad dykes, huge reservoirs, by means of which large tracts may be laid un- der water, form the natural resort in such a case; and to such defences as these alone, in addition to her armies, could Baby- lonia look in case of a quarrel w ith the Medes. On this side, however, she for many years felt no fear. Political arrange- ments and family ties connected her with the Median reigning house,18 and she looked to her northern neighbour as an ally upon whom she might depend for aid, rather than as a rival whose ambitious designs were to be watched and baffled. Babylonia lay open also on the side of Arabia. Here, how- ever, the nature of the country is such that population must be always sparse; and the habits of the people are opposed to that political union which can alone make a race really formidable to others. Once only in their history, under the excitement of a religious frenzy, have the Arabs issued forth from the great peninsula on an errand of conquest. In general they are content to vex and harass without seriously alarming their neighbours. The vast space and arid character of the peninsula are adverse to the collection and the movement of armies; the love of inde- 15 Supra, pa 394, 307, 398, &c. Chap. L ARABIA AND EGYPT. 477 pendence cherished by the several tribes indisposes them to union ; the affection for the nomadic life, which is strongly felt, disinclines them to the occupation of conquests. Arabia, as a conterminous power, is troublesome, but rarely dangerous: one section of the nation may almost always be played off against another: if "their hand is against every man," "every man's hand " is also " against them;" 14 blood-feuds divide and deci- mate their tribes, which are ever turning their swords against each other; their neighbours generally wish them ill, and will fall upon them, if they can take them at a disadvantage; it is only under very peculiar circumstances, such as can very rarely exist, that they are likely even to attempt anything more serious than a plundering inroad. Babylonia, consequently, though open to attack on the side of the south as well as on that of the north, had little to fear from either quarter. The friendliness of her northern neighbour, and the practical weak- ness of her southern one, were equal securities against aggres- sion; and thus on her two largest and most exposed frontiers the Empire dreaded no attack. But it was otherwise in the far south-west. Here the Empire bordered upon Egypt, a rich and populous country, which at all times covets Syria, and is often strong enough to seize and hold it in possession." The natural frontier is moreover weak, no other barrier separating between Africa and Asia than a narrow desert, which has never yet proved a serious obstacle to an army.1 From the side of Egypt, if from no other quarter, Babylonia might expect to have trouble. Here she inherited from her predecessor, Assyria, an old hereditary feud, which might at any time break out into active hostility. Here was an "Gen. xvi. 12. "Egypt appears to have held Syria during the 18th and 19th dynasties (ab. B.C. 1500-1250), and to have disputed its possession with Assyria from about B.C. 723 to B.C. 670. In later times the Ptolemies, and in still later the Fati- mite Caliphs, ruled Syria from Egypt. In our own days the conquest was nearly effected by Ibrahim Pasha. 1 The Egyptian armies readily crossed it during the 18th and 19th dynasties— the Assyrians under Sargon and his suc- cessors—the Persians under Cambyses, Darius, Artaxerxes Longimanus, Mne- mon and Artaxerxes Ochus—the Greeks under Alexander and his successors—the Arabians under Amrou and Saladin— the French under Napoleon. As the real desert does not much exceed a hundred miles in breadth, armies can carry with them sufficient food, forage, and water. 478 Chap. I. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. ancient, powerful, and well-organised kingdom upon her borders, with claims upon that portion of her territory which it was most difficult for her to defend effectively.2 By sea8 and by land equally the strip of Syrian coast lay open to the arms of Egypt, who was free to choose her time, and pour her hosts into the country when the attention of Babylon was directed to some other quarter. The physical and political circumstances alike pointed to hostile transactions between Babylon and her south- western neighbour. Whether destruction would come from this quarter, or from some other, it would have been impossible to predict. Perhaps, on the whole, it may be said that Babylon might have been expected to contend successfully with Egypt— that she had little to fear from Arabia—that against Persia Proper it might have been anticipated that she would be able to defend herself—but that she lay at the mercy of Media. The Babylonian Empire was in truth an empire upon sufferance. From the time of its establishment with the consent of the Medes, the Medes might at any time have destroyed it. The dynastic tie alone prevented this result. When that tie was snapped, and when moreover, by the victories of Cyrus, Persian enterprise succeeded to the direction of Median power, the fate of Babylon was sealed. It was impossible for the long strag- gling Empire of the south, lying chiefly in low, flat, open regions, to resist for any considerable time the great kingdom of the north, of the high plateau, and of the mountain-chains. * See above, p. 453. 1 For the naval power of Egypt at this time, see Herod, ii. 161 and IS?. Chap. IL CLIMATE OF SCSIAN'A. 479 CHAPTER II. CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS. Utdlov irepidxrion tv8a re iroXXol AKp6KOfwi tpoiviKe s lirqpetpit! re^iWi- Kol pty Kal xpucwo zi, or "Arab nut" (ib. p. 307). 2 Ainsworth, Researches, p. 49. • Ibid. p. 48. 4 Pocock, Description of the East, vol. ii. p. 168. 'Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 107. "Mr. Porter, speaking of the lower valley of the Orontes, exclaims—" What a noble cotton-field would this valley make!" (Handbook, p. 619). And again he says of the tract about the lake of Antioch: "The ground seems adapted 486 Chap. If. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. cut timber frequently in this tract ;7 and here are found at the present day enormous planes,8 thick forests of oak, pine, and ilex, walnuts, willows, poplars, ash-trees, birches, larches, and the carob or locust tree.9 Among wild shrubs are the oleander M'ith its ruddy blossoms, the myrtle, the bay, the arbutus, the clematis, the juniper, and the honeysuckle;10 among cultivated fruit-trees, the orange, the pomegranate, the pistachio-nut, the vine, the mulberry, and the olive.11 The adis, an excellent pea, and the Lycoperdon, or wild potato, grow in the neigh- bourhood of Aleppo.12 The castor-oil plant is cultivated in the plain of Edlib.18 Melons, cucumbers,14 and most of the ordinary vegetables are produced in abundance and of good quality everywhere. In Southern Syria and Palestine most of the same forms of vegetation occur, with several others of quite a new character. These are due either to the change of latitude, or to the tropical heat of the Jordan and Dead Sea valley, or finally to the high elevation of Hermon, Lebanon, and Anti-Lebanon. The date-palm fringes the Syrian shore as high as Beyrut,1 5 and formerly flourished in the Jordan valley,18 where, however, it is not now seen, except in a few dwarfed specimens near the Tiberias lake.17 The banana accompanies the date along the coast, and even grows as far north as Tripoli.18 The prickly pear, introduced from America, has completely naturalised for the cultivation of cotton" (ib. p. 609). 'See vol. i. p. 307 : supra, p. 89, &c. ■ Mr. Ainsworth speaks of one near Bir as measuring 36 feet in circum- ference, and of another, in the vicinity of the ancient Daphne, measuring 42 feet. (Researches, p. 35.) 0 See Porter, Handbook, pp. 598, 609; Ainsworth, p. 305; Chesney, vol. i. p. 432. 10 Ibid. pp. 408, 428-430; Porter, p. 602. "Chesney, vol. i. pp. 427, 439; Porter, pp. 616, 617 ; Ainsworth, p. 292. In ancient times the wine of Laodicea (Ladikiyeh) was celebrated, and was ex- ported to Egypt in large quantities. (Strab. xvi. 2, $ 9.) 1* Chesney, vol. t p. 442. "Porter, p. 615. "Chesney, voL i. p. 439. » Ibid. p. 469; Porter, p. 403. 16 Jericho was known as " the city of Palms" (Deut. xxxiv. 3; Judg. i. 16, iii. 13), from the extensive palm-groves which surrounded it. (Strab. xvi. 2, § 41 ; Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, § 3.) Engedi was called Hazazon-Tamar, " the felling of Palms" (Gen. xiv. 7). The palms of Jericho were still flourishing in the days of the Crusaders. (Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 143.) 17 Rohinson, Researches, vol. ii. p. 265; Hooker, in Smith's Biblical Dic- tionary, vol. ii. p. 685. 1• Hooker, in Smith's Biblical Dic- tionary, L 8. c. ChiP. II. MINERAL PRODUCTS. 487 itself, and is in general request for hedging.19 The fig-mul- berry (or true sycamore), another southern form, is also com- mon, and grows to a considerable size.2* Other denizens of warm climes, unknown in Northern Syria, are the jujube, the tamarisk, the elseagnus or wild olive, the gum-styrax plant (Styrax officinalis), the egg-plant, the Egyptian papyrus, the sugar-cane, the scarlet misletoe, the solanum that produces the "Dead Sea apple" (Solanum SodomA Babylonians as it appears upon J->Tj$j| the sculptures of their neigh- ijU*' bours. This representation is not' contradicted by the few speci- Babylonian Men, mens of actual sculpture left from the Assyrian sculptures. by themselves. In these the type approaches nearly to the • The most important work of this kind is the representation of a Baby- lonian king (probably Merodach-adan- akhi) on a black stone in the British Museum, which will be found engraved at p. 560. Other instances are—1, the warrior and the priest in the tablet from Sir-Pal-i-Zohab, given at p. 7 of vol. iii., which, however, is perhaps rather Cushite than Semitic; 2, the man accompanying the Babylonian hound (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 527); and 3, the imperfect figures on the frieze represented below, p. 552. • Layard, Monument* of Nineveh, Second Series, Pis. 25, 27, and 28. 2 K 2 5oo Chap. III. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. Babylonian Woman, from the i Assyrian, while there is still such an amount of difference as renders it tolerably easy to distinguish between the productions of the two nations. The eye is larger, and not so decidedly almond-shaped; the nose is shorter, and its depression is still more marked; while the general expression of the countenance is altogether more commonplace. These differences may be probably referred to the influence which was exercised upon the physical form of the race by the primi- tive or Proto-Chald - rt uxv vepiaabv fobs fa> tin \4yew. * Diod. Sic. ii. 8, § 6. * Layard, NincvehandBabylon,p.507; Oppert, Expedition tcientijique, torn. i. pp. 143-145. Portions of a lion, of a horse, and of a human face, have been distinctly recognised. * M. Oppert agrees on this point with Mr. Layard and Sir Henry Rawlinson (Expedition, torn. i. pp. 140-156). 'M. Oppert (Expedition, torn. i. pp. 157-167) argues that the Mound of Amran represents the ancient" hanging gardens." But his own estimate of its area is 15 hectares (37 acres), while the area of the "hanging gardens" was less than four acres according to Strabo (xvi. 1, § 5) and Diodorus (ii. 10, § 2). * Beros. L s. c . HpoaKUreaitevaot rots irarpiKOis pairtlots trepa paaiia ixbneva avruf. M. Oppert wholly omits to locate the ancient palace. 2 M 2 532 Chap. IV. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. but which is wholly inapplicable to any of the other ruins. This argument would be conclusive, even if it stood alone. It has, however, received an important corroboration in the course of recent researches. From the Amran mound, and from this part of Babylon only, have monuments been recovered of an earlier date than Nebuchadnezzar.9 Here and here alone did the early kings leave memorials of their presence in Babylon; and here consequently, we may presume, stood the ancient royal residence. If, then, all the principal ruins on the east bank of the river, with the exception of the Babil mound and the long lines marking walls or embankments, be accepted as representing the "great palace " or "citadel" of the classical writers, we must recognise in the remains west of the ancient course of the river —the oblong square enclosure and the important building at its south-east angle10—the second or "smaller palace " of Ctesias, which was joined to the larger one, according to that writer, by a bridge and a tunnel.11 This edifice, built or at any rate repaired by Neriglissar,12 lay directly opposite the more ancient part of the eastern palace, being separated from it by the river, which anciently flowed along the western face of the Kasr and Amran mounds. The exact position of the bridge cannot be fixed.18 With regard to the tunnel, it is extremely unlikely that any such construction was ever made.14 The " Father of History" is wholly silent on the subject, while he carefully describes the bridge, a work far less extraordinary. The tunnel rests on the authority of two writers only—Diodorus15 and Philostratus16—who both wrote after Babylon was completely ruined. It was probably one of the imaginations of the inventive Ctesias, from whom Diodorus evidently derived all the main points of his description. 'See British Museum Series, vol. i. Pl. iii. No. 7 ; Pl. xlviii. No. 9. "See above, p. 528. 11 Diod. Sic. ii. 8, § 3; 9, § 2. ™ The bricks of this ruin are stamped with Neriglissar's name. Here too was found his cylinder with the inscription given in the British Muswm Series, vol. i. PL 67. u M. Oppert regards the bridge of Diodonis (ii. 8, § 2) as a pure invention (Exp. scientijiqu*, torn. i. p. 193). He supposes the real bridge—that of Hero- dotus and QuintusCurtius—to have been "a little south of Hillah" (ibid.). But this is a mere conjecture. "The tunnel is accepted by M. 0p> pert (L s. a). "Diod. Sic. ii. 9, § 2. »• Philostr. Vit. Apoll. Tyan. i . 25. Chap. IV. IDENTIFICATIOX OF SITES. 533 Thus far there is no great difficulty in identifying the exist- ing remains with buildings mentioned by ancient authors; but, at the point to which we are now come, the subject grows exceedingly obscure, and it is impossible to offer more than reasonable conjectures upon the true character of the remaining ruins. The descriptions of ancient writers would lead us to expect that we should find among the ruins unmistakable traces of the great temple of Belus, and at least some indication of the position occupied by the Hanging Gardens. These two famous constructions can scarcely, one would think, have wholly perished. More especially, the Belus temple, which was a stade square,17 and (according to some) a stade in height,18 must almost of necessity have a representative among the existing remains. This, indeed, is admitted on all hands; and the controversy is thereby narrowed to the question, which of two great ruins—the only two entitled by their size and situa- tion to attention—has the better right to be regarded as the great and celebrated sanctuary of the ancient Babylon. That the mound of Babil is the ziggurat or tower of a Baby- lonian temple scarcely admits of a doubt. Its square shape, its solid construction, its isolated grandeur, its careful emplacement with the sides facing the cardinal points,19 and its close resem- blance to other known Babylonian temple-towers, sufficiently mark it for a building of this character, or at any rate raise a presumption which it would require very strong reasons indeed to overcome. Its size moreover corresponds well with the ac- counts which have come down to us of the dimensions of the Belus temple,20 and its name and proximity to the other main ruins show that it belonged certainly to the ancient capital. Against its claim to be regarded as the remains of the temple of Belus two objections only can be argued:—these are the absence of any appearance of stages, or even of a pyramidical shape, from the present ruin, and its position on the same side of "Herod, i. 181; Strab. xvi. 1, § 5. "Strab. L s. c. Diod. Sic. ii. 9, § 4. "It is more usual in Babylonia for the angles of a temple-tower to face the cardinal points. But for the astro- nomical purposes which the towers sub- served (Diod. Sic. L s. c.) it was indif- ferent which arrangement was adopted. ■ See above, p. 615. 534 Chap. IV. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. the Euphrates with the palace. Herodotus expressly declares that the temple of Belus and the royal palace were upon opposite sides of the river,21 and states, moreover, that the temple was built in stages, which rose one above the other to the number of eight.22 Now these two circumstances, which do not belong at present to the Babil mound, attach to a ruin distant from it about eleven or twelve miles—a ruin which is certainly one of the most remarkable in the whole country, and which, if Babylon had really been of the size asserted by Herodotus, might possibly have been included within the walls. The Birs-i-Nimrud had certainly seven, probably eight stages, and it is the only ruin on the present western bank of the Euphrates which is at once sufficiently grand to answer to the descriptions of the Belus temple, and sufficiently near to the other ruins to make its original inclusion within the walls not absolutely impossible. Hence, ever since the attention of scholars was first directed to the subject of Babylonian topo- graphy, opinion has been divided on the question before us, and there have not been wanting persons to maintain that the Birs-i-Nimrud is the true temple of Belus,1 if not also the actual tower of Babel,2 whose erection led to the confusion of tongues and general dispersion of the sons of Adam. With this latter identification we are not in the present place concerned. With respect to the view that the Birs is the sanctuary of Belus, it may be observed in the first place, that the size of the building is very much smaller than that ascribed to the Belus temple;8—secondly, that it was dedicated to "Herod, i. 180, 181. B Ibid. 1 This opinion was first put forward by Mr. Rich. See his First Memoir on Babylon, pp. 51-56; Second Memoir, pp. 30-34. His views were opposed by Major Rennell in an article published in the Archaologia, London, 1816. They were reasserted and warmly defended by Sir R Ker Porter in 1822 (Travels, vol. ii. pp. 316-327). Heeren adopted them in 1824, in the fourth edition of his Reflections (Asiatic Nations, vol. ii pp. 172-175); and about 1826 Niebuhr spoke favourably of them in his lec- tures (Vortragc, voL i. p. 30). Recently they have been maintained and co- piously illustrated by M. Oppert (Erpi- dition scient ique, torn. i. pp. 200-216). * So Ker Porter, vol. ii p. 317; Hee- ren, As. Nat. vol. ii. p. 174; Oppert, in Dr. Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. iii. p. 1554. * Rich, measuring tie present ruins, supposed that the dimensions of the Birs would correspond sufficiently with those of the Belus temple (First Memoir, p. 49); but Sir H. Rawlinson found, on tun- Cha?. IV. DIFFICULTIES—SITE OF TEMPLE OF BELUS. 535 Nebo, who cannot be indentified with Bel; 1 and thirdly, that it is not really any part of the remains of the ancient capital, but belongs to an entirely distinct town. The cylinders found in the ruin by Sir Henry Rawlinson declare the building to have been "the wonder of Borsippa; "5 and Borsippa, according to all the ancient authorities, was a town by itself—an entirely distinct place from Babylon.8 To include Borsippa within the outer wall of Babylon,7 is to run counter to all the authorities on the subject, the inscriptions, the native writer, Berosus,'' and the classical geographers generally. Nor is the position thus assigned to the Belu3 temple in harmony with the statement of Herodotus, which alone causes explorers to seek for the temple on the west side of the river. For, though the expres- sion which this writer uses9 does not necessarily mean that the temple was in the exact centre of one of the two divisions of the town, it certainly implies that it lay towards the middle of one division—well within it—and not upon its outskirts. It is indeed inconceivable that the main sanctuary of the place, where the kings constantly offered their worship, should have been nine or ten miles from the palace! The distance between the Amran mound and Babil, which is about two miles, is quite as great as probability will allow us to believe existed between the old residence of the kings and the sacred shrine to which they were in the constant habit of resorting. Still there remain as objections to the identification of the great temple with the Babil mound the two arguments already nelling into the mound, that the original base of the Bira tower was a square of only 272 feet. The Belus temple was a square of 606 feet. * To meet this argument, M. Oppert has invented the term Bel-Nebo, for which there is absolutely no foundation. * See the author's Herodotut, vol. ii. p. 485, 2nd ed. * See Berosus, Fr. 14; Strab. xvi. 1, 7; Arrian, Fr. 20; Justin, xii. 13; Steph. Byz. ad voc. &c. 1 As M. Oppert does. See the plan, p. 512. 8 M. Oppert endeavours to reconcile his view with that of the later geo- graphers by saying that though Borsippa was originally within Babylon, i e. within the outer wall, it afterwards, when the outer wall was destroyed by Darius Hystaspis, came to be outside the town and a distinct place. But it is at the time of Cyrus's siege, when all the defences were in the most perfect condition, that Berosu3 makes Cyrus "inarch away" from Babylon to the siege of Borsippa. * 'Er Si « iv fuleg rj irii Ijv tuv Ba^u\uvluv. Chap. IV. BELUS TEMPLE PROBABLY BABIL. 537 notes on the subject.18 Or we may explain his error by supposing that he confounded a canal from the Euphrates, which seems to have anciently passed between the Babil mound and the Kasr14 (called SJiebil by Nebuchadnezzar) with the main stream. Or, finally, we may conceive that at the time of his visit the old palace lay in ruins, and that the palace of Neriglissar on the west bank of the stream was that of which he spoke. It is at any rate remarkable, considering how his authority is quoted as fixing the site of the Belus tower to the west bank, that, in the only place where he gives us any intimation of the side of the river on which he would have placed the tower, it is the east and not the west bank to which his words point. He makes those who saw the treachery of Zopyrus at the Belian and Kissian gates, which must have been to the east of the city,15 at once take refuge in the famous sanctuary,16 which he implies was in the vicinity. On the whole, therefore, it seems best to regard the Babil mound as the ziggurat of the great temple of Bel (called by some " the tomb of Belus ")17 which the Persians destroyed and which Alexander intended to restore. With regard to the "hanging gardens," as they were an erection of less than half the size of the tower,18 it is not so necessary to suppose that distinct traces must remain of them. Their debris may be confused with those of the Kasr mound, on which one writer places them.1 Or they may have stood between the Kasr and Amran ruins, where are now some mounds of no great height. "Herodotus did not always take notes. He appeals sometimes to his recollection of the numbers mentioned to him by his informants. (See ii. 125.) '* See the plan, p. 539. '* Town-gates are named in the East from the places to which they lead. (Rich, First Memoir, p. 53.) The Kis- sian gates led to Susiana, which was towards the east. The Belian probably led to Niffer, the "city of Belus." (See above, vol. i. p. 118.) Niffer lies south- east of Babylon. "Herod, iii. 158. "As by Strabo (L s. c.). When M. Oppert identifies the Babil mound with thin tomb, he is really admitting that it was the Belus temple-tower. For there is not the shadow of a doubt that the "tomb of Belus" and the "temple of Belus " are one and the same building. (Compare Strab. xvi. 1, § 6, with Arrian, vii. 17, and both with Herod, i. 183, ad fin.) "The hanging gardens were a square of 400 (Greek) feet each way; the Belus tower was a square of 600 feet. The area of the one was 160,000 square feet; that of the other 360,000, or considerably more than double. 1 Q. Curt. Hut. AUx.y.1 -.—"Super arce vulgatum Grsecorum fabulis niira- culum pensiles borti sunt." The arx oi Curtius is the palace. 538 Chap. IV. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. Or, possibly, their true site is in the modern El Homeira, the remarkable red mound which lies east of the Kasr at the distance of about 800 yards, and attains an elevation of sixty- five feet. Though this building is not situated upon the banks of the Euphrates, where Straboand Diodorus place the gardens' it abuts upon a long low valley into which the Euphrates water seems formerly to have been introduced, and which may therefore have been given the name of the river. This identi- fication is, however, it must be allowed, very doubtful . The two lines of mounds which enclose the long low valley above mentioned are probably the remains of an embankment which here confined the waters of a great reservoir. Nebu- chadnezzar relates that he constructed a large reservoir, which he calls the Yapur-Shapu, in Babylon,8 and led water into it by means of an "eastern canal"—the ShebU. The Shebil canal, it is probable, left the Euphrates at some point between Babil and the Kasr, and ran across with a course nearly from west to east to the top of the Yapur-Shapu. This reservoir seems to have been a long and somewhat narrow parallelogram, running nearly from north to south, which shut in the great palace on the east and protected it like a huge moat. Most likely it communicated with the Euphrates towards the south by a second canal, the exact line of which cannot be deter- mined. Thus the palatial residence of the Babylonian kings looked in both directions upon broad sheets of water, an agree- able prospect in so hot a climate; while, at the same time, by the assignment of a double channel to the Euphrates, its floods were the more readily controlled, and the city was preserved from those terrible inundations, which in modern times have often threatened the existence of Baghdad.4 The other lines of mound upon the east side of the river may either be Parthian works,5 or (possibly) they may be the remains of some of those lofty walls4 whereby, according to Strab. xvi. 1, § 5 ; Diod. Sic. ii. 10, II * See the translation of the Standard Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, which is given in the Appendix, Note A. 'See Loftus, CKaldai and Susiana, ]>. '. * This is the opinion of Sir H. Ki' - linson. "So M. Oppert (Exptdition ximti- jiqite, torn. i. p. 195). 540 Chap. IV. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. Diodorus, the greater palace was surrounded and defended.7 The fragments of them which remain are so placed that if the lines were produced they would include all the principal ruins on the left bank except the Babil tower. They may therefore be the old defences of the Eastern palace; though, if so, it is strange that they run in lines which are neither straight nor parallel to those of the buildings enclosed by them. The irregularity of these ramparts is certainly a very strong argu- ment in favour of their having been the work of a people considerably more barbarous and ignorant than the Baby lonians. 'Eioi Sic. ii. 8, 5 and 8. Chat. V. ARTS AND SCIENCES. £41 CHAPTER V. ARTS AND SGTENCE3. TuCri ye Siafttfku&ratT iv Ttt tpoffriK6rTus, Sri XaXSoioi peyltmp flfif if durrpo\oylq. &irivTuv ivBpiiirav txovat, Kal Suirt irlaniv fa-i/iAeiar ^iroiijiravTO Towilt r;js Beaplas.—Diod. Sic. ii. 31. That the Babylonians were among the most ingenious of all the nations of antiquity, and had made considerable progress in the arts and sciences before their conquest by the Persians, is generally admitted. The classical writers commonly parallel them with the Egyptians;1 and though, from their habit of confusing Babylon with Assyria, it is not always quite certain that the inhabitants of the more southern country—the real Babylonians—are meant, still there is sufficient reason to believe that, in the estimation of the Greeks and Romans, the people of the lower Euphrates were regarded as at least equally advanced in civilization with those of the Nile valley and the . Delta. The branches of knowledge wherein by general consent the Babylonians principally excelled were architecture and astronomy. Of their architectural works two at least were reckoned among the "Seven Wonders,"2 while others, not elevated to this exalted rank, were yet considered to be among the most curious and admirable of Oriental constructions.8 In astronomical science they were thought to have far excelled all other nations,4 and the first Greeks who made much pro- gress in the subject confessed themselves the humble disciples of Babylonian teachers.8 1 Herod, i. 93 ; ii. 109; Diod. Sit ii. 29, § 2; &c. ! The "walls" and the "hanging gardens." (Strab. xvi. 1, § 5.) Compare Q. Curt. Hint. Alex. Magn. v. 1, § 32; Hygin. Fab. § 223; Cassiodor. Variar. vii 15. * Q. Curtius says of the bridge over the Euphrates," Hie quoque inter mira- bilia Orientis opera numeratus eat." (But. Alex. Magn. v. 1, § 29.) 4 Diod. Sic. ii 31. See the heading to this chapter. * Hipparchus, who, according to De- 542 Chap. V. THE FOUETH MONARCHY. In the account, which it is proposed to give, in this place, of Babylonian art and science, so far as they are respectively known to us, the priority will be assigned to art, which is an earlier product of the human mind than science; and among the arts the first place will be given to architecture, as at once the most fundamental of all the fine arts, and the one in which the Babylonians attained their greatest excellence. It is as builders that the primitive Chaldsean people, the progenitors of the Babylonians, first appear before us in history;8 and it was on his buildings that the great king of the later Empire, Nebu- chadnezzar, specially prided himself.7 When Herodotus visited Babylon, he was struck chiefly by its extraordinary edifices;8 and it is the account which the Greek writers gave of these erections that has, more than anything else, procured for the Babylonians the fame that they possess and the position that they hold among the six or seven leading nations of the old world. The architecture of the Babylonians seems to have culmi- nated in the Temple. While their palaces, their bridges, their walls, even their private houses were remarkable, their grandest works, their most elaborate efforts, were dedicated to the honour 'and service, not of man, but of God. The Temple takes in Babylonia the same sort of rank which it has in Egypt and in Greece. It is not, as in Assyria,5 a mere adjunct of the palace. It stands by itself, in proud independence, as the great building of a city, or a part of a city:10 it is, if not absolutely larger, at any rate loftier and more conspicuous than any other lambre (IlUtoire dAstronomie ancienne, torn. i. p. 184), "laid the foundation of astronomy among the Greeks," spoke of the Babylonians as astronomical observers from a fabulously remote antiquity. (Proclus, in Tim. p. 31, C.) Aristotle admitted that the Greeks were greatly indebted for astronomical facte to the Babylonians and Egyptians. (De Ctelo, ii. 12, § 3.) Ptolemy made large use of the Babylonian observations of eclipses. Sir Cornewall Lewis allows that "the Greeks were in the habit of attributing the invention and original cultivation of astronomy either to the Babylonians or to the Egyptians, and represented the earliest scientific Greek astronomers as having derived their knowledge from Babylonian or from Egyptian priests." (Astronomy of tic Ancientt, p. 256.) He considers, indeed, that in thus yielding the credit of dis- covery to others, they departed from the truth ; but he does not give any sufficient reasons for this curious belief. • Gen. xi. 2-5. 'Dan. iv. 30. • Herod, i. 93, 178-183. • See above, p. 92. » Herod, i. 181. Chap. V. BABYLONIAN ARCHITECTURE. 543 edifice: it often boasts a magnificent adornment: the value of the offerings which are deposited in it is enormous: in every respect it rivals the palace, while in some it has a decided pre- eminence. It draws all eyes by its superior height and some- times by its costly ornamentation; it inspires awe by the re- ligious associations which belong to it; finally, it is a strong- hold as well as a place of worship, and may furnish a refuge to thousands in time of danger.11 A Babylonian temple seems to have stood commonly within a walled enclosure. In the case of the great temple of Belus at Babylon, the enclosure is said to have been a square of two stades each way,12 or, in other words, to have contained an area of thirty acres. The temple itself ordinarily consisted of two parts. Its most essential feature was a ziggurat, or tower, which was either square, or at any rate rectangular, and built in stages, the smallest number of such stages being two, and the largest known number seven.18 At the summit of the tower was probably in every case a shrine, or chapel, of greater or less size, containing altars and images. The ascent to this was on the outside of the towers, which were entirely solid; and it generally wound round the different faces of the towers, ascending them either by means of steps or by an inclined plane. Special care was taken with regard to the emplacement of the tower, either its sides or its angles being made exactly to confront the cardinal points. It is said that the temple- towers were used not merely for religious purposes but also as observatories,14 a use with a view to which this arrangement of their position would have been serviceable. Besides the shrine at the summit of the temple-tower or ziggurat, there was commonly at the base of the tower, or at any rate somewhere within the enclosure, a second shrine or chapel, in which the ordinary worshipper, who wished to spare himself the long ascent, made his offerings. Here again the "Herod, iii. 156. 12 Ibid. i . 181. Ai/o araSiuv irim), l&r Ttrpiyumr. "When Herodotus speaks of there being eight stages to the tower of the temple of Belus at Babylon, he pro- bably counts the shrine at the top as a stage. Note his words: i v St rip reu- rolf irifTfif >>7l6s ftree l. xviii. p. 10. 550 Chap. V. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. existing ruin is prolonged in an irregular manner; and it is imagined that this prolongation marks the site of a vestibule or propylseum, originally distinct from the tower, but now, through the crumbling down of both buildings, confused with its ruins. As no scientific examination has been made of this part of the mound, the above supposition can only be regarded as a conjecture. Possibly the excrescence does not so much mark a vestibule as a second shrine, like that which is said to have existed at the foot of the Belus Tower at Babylon.6 Till, however, additional researches have been made, it is in vain to think of restoring the plan or elevation of this part of the temple.7 From the temples of the Babylonians we may now pass to their palaces—constructions inferior in height and grandeur, but covering a greater space, involving a larger amount of labour, and admitting of more architectural variety. Unfortu- nately the palaces have suffered from the ravages of time even more than the temples, and in considering their plan and cha- racter we obtain little help from the existing remains. Still, something may be leamt of them from this source, and where it fails we may perhaps be allowed to eke out the scantiness of our materials by drawing from the elaborate descriptions of Diodorus such points as have probability in their favour. The Babylonian palace, like the Assyrian8 and the Susianian* stood upon a lofty mound or platform. This arrangement pro- vided at once for safety, for enjoyment, and for health. It secured a pure air, freedom from the molestation of insects, and a position only assailable at a few points.10 The ordinary shape of the palace mound appears to have been square;11 its eleva- tion was probably not less than 50 or 60 feet.12 It was com- • Herod, i. 183. • M. Oppert attempt* this restoration (see his PIates, Eitai de JUstauration de us, tour da tept Planita), but accom- plishes it in a manner which is very unsatisfactory. • Supra, vol. i. pp. 278-280. • See the author's Jlerodottu, vol. iii. pp. 207, 208, 2nd edition. Compare Loftus, ChaUkea ami S unana, pp. 343-3 45. As the sides of the platform were perpendicular, the only places at which it could be attacked were its staircases. "The square shape of the Kasr mound is very decided. See the plan, supra, p. 524. Assyrian platforms were in general rectangular (supra, vol. i . p. 280). 12 It is difficult to reconcile the state- ments of different writers as to ths THE FOURTH MONARCHY. Chap. V. bricks were always made with a mould, and were commonly stamped on one face with an inscription.20 They were, of course, ordinarily laid horizontally. Sometimes, however, there was a departure from this practice. Rows of bricks were placed vertically, separated from one another by single horizontal layers.21 This arrangement seems to have been re- garded as conducing to strength, since it occurs only where there is an evident intention of supporting a weak construc- tion by the use of special architectural expedients. The Babylonian builders made use of three different kinds of cement.22 The most indifferent was crude clay, or mud, which was mixed with chopped straw, to give it greater tenacity, and was applied in layers of extraordinary thickness.28 This was (it is probable) employed only where it was requisite that the face of the building should have a certain colour. A cement superior to clay, but not of any very high value, unless as a preventive against damp, was bitumen, which was very gene- rally used in basements and in other structures exposed to the action of water. Mortar, however, or lime cement was far more commonly employed than either of the others, and was of very excellent quality, equal indeed to the best Roman material.24 There can be no doubt that the general effect of the more ambitious efforts of the Babylonian architects was grand and imposing. Even now, in their desolation and ruin, their great size renders them impressive; and there are times and states of atmosphere under which they fill the beholder with a sort of admiring awe,28 akin to the feeling which is called forth by the 20 The stamp on Babylonian bricks is always sunk below the surface. It is of a square or rectangular form, and oc- curs commonly towards the middle of one of the two larger faces. The letters are indented upon the clay, and must consequently have stood out in relief upon the wooden or metal stamp which impressed them. M. Oppert observes that the use of such a stamp was the first beginning of printing ("un com- mencement d'imprimerie," Expedition, p. 142). The stamped face of the brick was always placed downwards. 21 This arrangement was found by I Sir Henry Rawlinson in one of the stages of the Birs-i-Nimrud (Journal of At. Society, vol. xviii. p. 10.) H Rich, Pirtt Memoir, p. 62. ■ At the Birs, the red clay cement used in the third stage has a depth of two inches. (At. Soe. Jowm. p. 8.) 24 On the excellence of the Babylonian mortar, see Rich, p. 25; Layard, Nmml i and Babylon, p. 605. a See Rich, First Memoir, pp. 35, 36. Compare M. Oppert (Expedition, torn. i. p. 200), who says: "Le Birs-Nimroud apparait bientot apres la sortie de Hillah i comme une montagne que Ton croit pou- 558 Chap. V. THE FOURTH MONARCHY. same material. Nothing more has reached us but fragments of pictorial representations too small for criticism to pronounce upon, and descriptions of ancient writers too incomplete to be of any great value. The single Babylonian sculpture in the round which has come down to our times is the colossal lion standing over the prostrate figure of a man, which is still to be seen on the Kasr mound, as has been already mentioned.1 The accounts of travellers uniformly state that it is a work of no merit2—either barbarously executed, or left unfinished by the sculptor8—and probably much worn by exposure to the weather. A sketch Lion standing over a Prostrate Man (Babylon). made by a recent visitor4 and kindly communicated to the author, seems to show that, while the general form of the animal was tolerably well hit off, the proportions were in some respects misconceived, and the details not only rudely but 'See above, p. 525. * Ker Porter calls the figure one "of very rude workmanship" (TraveU, vol. ii. p. 406). Mr. Layard says it is "either so barbarously executed as to show very little progress in art," or else "left unfinished by the sculptor." (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 507.) Mr. Loft us speaks of it as "roughly cut." (Chaldaa and Sutiana, p. 19.) M. Op- pert calls it "tres-peu digne de Baby- lone," and speaks of its " valeur minime comme oeuvre d'art." (Expedition, torn, i. p. 148.) ■ So, besides Mr. Layard (L s. c.), M. Thomas, who accompanied M. Fresnel (Journal asiatiquc, Juin, 1853, p. 525), and M. Oppert. 4 Mr. Claude Clerk, now governor of the Military Prison, Southwark. $6o Cuap. V. THE FOUBTH MONARCHY. The single figure of a king which we possess6 is clumsy and ungraceful. It is chiefly remarkable for the ela- borate ornamentation of the head-dress and the robes, which have a finish equal to that of the Assyrian specimens. The general proportions are not bad; but the form is stiff, and the drawing of the right hand is pe- culiarly faulty, since it would be scarcely pos- sible to hold arrows in the manner represented.7 The engraved animal forms have a certain amount of merit. The figure of a dog sitting, which is common on the "black stones,"8 is drawn with spirit; and a bird, sometimes regarded as a cock, but more re- sembling a bustard, is touched with a delicate hand, and may be pro- nounced superior to any "Assyrian representation Figure of a Babylonian King, probably Mcrodach- iddin-akhi. "This figure is engraved on a large black stone brought from Babylon, and now in the British Museum. It probably represents the king Merodach-iddin-akhi, who warred with Tiglath-Pileser I. about B.C. 1120. (See above, pp. 77, 78.)' 7 The artist has somewhat improved the drawing of this hand in the wood- cut. In the original more is seen of the fingers; and the thumb does not touch the arrows. 8 The dog probably represents a con- stellation orastar—perhaps the Dog-star. The type is a fixed one, and occurs on seals and gems no less than on the "black stones." (See Ker Porter, vol. ii PL 80, fig. 2; Lajard, Ctdte de Mithra, Pl. xlvi. figs. 23 and 24; Pl. liv. B fig. 15.) Chap. V. ENGRAVED ANIMAL FORMS. 56l Figure of a Dog (from a black stone of the time of Merodach-iddin-akhi, found at Babylon). of the feathered tribe. The hound on a bas-relief, given in the first volume of this work,9 is also good; and the cylinders exhibit figures of goats, cows, deer, and even mon- keys,10 which are truthful and meri- torious. (See next page.) It has been ob- served that the main characteristic of the engravings on genm and cylin- ders, considered as works of mimetic art, is their quaint- ness andgrotesque- ness. A few speci- mens, taken almost at random from the admirable col- lection of M. Felix Lajard, will suffi- ciently illustrate this feature. In one11 the central position is occu- pied by a human figure whose left arm has two elbow-joints, while towards the right two sitting figures threaten one another with their fists, in the upper quarter, and in the lower two Figure of a Bird vfrom the same stone). • See vol. i. p. 235, No. II. The date of this tablet is uncertain ; but Sir H. Rawlinson is on the whole inclined to regard it as Babylonian rather than Proto-Chaldaan. 10 For the goats and cows, see above, p. 495. The exquisite figure of a deer VOL. II. represented, p. 562, and the quaint draw- ing of a monkey playing the pipe, are given by M. Lajard (Culte de MUhra, PL liv. B, No. 8, and Pl. xxix. No. 7) from cylinders in the collections of the Due de Luynes and the Bibliotheque Royale. "Lajard, Pl. xxxiii. No. 5. 2 O 562 ChAr. V. THE FOUKTH MONARCHY. nondescript animals do the same with their jaws. The entire drawing of this design seems to be intentionally rude. The faces of the main figures are evidently intended to be ridiculous; and the heads of the two animals are extrava- gantly grotesque. On another cylinderia threenondescriptani- mals play the prin- cipal part. One of them is on the point of taking into his mouth the head of a man who vainly tries to escape by flight. Another, with the head of a pike, tries to devour the third, which has the head of a bird and the body of a goat. This kind intention seems to be disputed by a naked man with a long beard, who seizes the fish-headed monster with his right hand, and at the same time administers from be- hind a severe kick Animal Forms (from the cylinders). Grotesque Figures of Men and Animals (from a cylinder). with his right foot. The heads of the three main monsters, the tail and trousers of the principal one, and the whole of the small figure in front of the flying man, are exceedingly 12 Lajard, Pl. xiii. No. 5. CHAr. V. COMPOSITION OF THE PIGMENTS. 565 the composition of the pigments, and the preparation and appli- cation of the glaze wherewith they are covered. The red used was a sub-oxide of copper;8 the }-ellow was sometimes oxide of iron,9 sometimes antimoniate of lead—the Naples yellow of modern artists;10 the blue was either cobalt or oxide of copper;11 the white was oxide of tin.1- Oxide of lead was added in some cases, not as a colouring matter, but as a flux, to facilitate the fusion of the glaze.18 In other cases the pigment used was covered with a vitreous coat of an alkaline silicate of alumina.1I The pigments were not applied to an entirely flat surface. Prior to the reception of the colouring matter and the glaze, each brick was modelled by the hand, the figures being carefully tiaced out, and a slight elevation given to the more important objects.15 A very low bas-relief was thus produced, to which the colours were subsequently applied, and the brick was then baked in the furnace. It is conjectured that the bricks were not modelled singly and separately. A large mass of clay was (it is thought) taken," sufficient to contain a whole subject, or at any rate a considerable portion of a subject. On this the modeller made out his design in low relief. The mass of clay was then cut up into bricks, and each brick was taken and painted separately with the proper colours,17 after which they were all placed in the furnace and baked.18 When baked, they were restored to their original places in the design, a thin layer of the finest mortar serving to keep them in place. * Layard, p. 166, note. • Birch, Ancient Pottery, vol. i. p. 148. '0 Layard, L s. c. "The French chemists, who analysed bricks from the Birs towards the close of the last century, found the colouring matter of the blue tint to be cobalt (Birch, L s. c.) In the Babylonian bricks analysed by Sir H. de la Beche and Dr. Percy the blue glaze was oxide of copper. 12 Layard, 1. s. c. "Birch, p. 149. "Id. p. 148. 15 This statement is made on the au- thority of M. Oppert. (Expedition, torn, i. pp. 144, 145.) No other traveller has remarked an inequality of surface on the enamelled bricks. 10 M. Thomas, who accompanied M. Oppert as artist, is the author of this theory as to the mode in which these works of art were designed and exe- cuted. "The separate painting and enamel- ling of the bricks is proved by the fact that the colouring matter and the glaze have often run over from the side painted to all the adjoining surfaces. (Oppert, torn. i. p. 145.) 18 Mr. Birch believes that they were partially baked before the colour was applied (Ancient Pottery, vol. i. p. 12S), and returned to the kiln afterwards. 566 Chap. V. THE FOURTH MONABCHY. From the mimetic art of the Babylonians, and the branches of knowledge connected with it, we may now pass to the purely mechanical arts,—as the art by which hard stones were cut, and those of agriculture, metallurgy, pottery, weaving, carpet-making, embroidery, and the like. The stones shaped, bored, and engraved by Babylonian arti- sans were not merely the softer and more easily worked kinds, as alabaster, serpentine, and lapis-lazuli, but also the harder sorts,—cornelian, agate, quartz, jasper, sienite, loadstone, and green felspar or amazon-stone.19 These can certainly not have been cut without emery, and scarcely without such devices as rapidly revolving points, or discs, of the kind used by modern lapidaries. Though the devices are in general rude, the work is sometimes exceedingly delicate, and implies a complete mastery over tools and materials, as well as a good deal of artistic power. As far as the mechanical part of the art goes, the Babylonians may challenge comparison with the most advanced of the nations of antiquity: they decidedly excel the Egyptians,20 and fall little, if at all, short of the Greeks and Romans. The extreme minuteness of the work in some of the Babylonian seals and gems raises a suspicion that they must have been engraved by the help of a powerful magnifying-glass. A lens has been found in Assyria;21 and there is much reason to believe. that the convenience was at least as well known in the lower country.22 Glass was certainly in use,28 and was cut into such shapes as were required. It is at any rate exceedingly likely that magnifying-glasses, which were undoubtedly known to the Greeks in the time of Aristophanes,24 were employed by the artisans of Babylon during the most flourishing period of the Empire. Of Babylonian metal-work we have scarcely any direct means of judging. The accounts of ancient authors imply that the It is difficult in most instances to decide from the cylinders themselves whether they are Babylonian or As- syrian. We must be chiefly guided by the locality where they were found. It is believed that cylinders have been found in Babylonia of all these ma- terials. 20 See King's Ant. Genu, p. 127, note. "Supra, vol. i. p. 390. 15 We shall find below that, on astro- nomical grounds, the possession of lenses by the Babylonians is to be suspected. 3 The Babylonian mounds are covered with fragments of glass. (Layard, .Vin. and Bab. p. 507.) "Aristoph. A'ui. 746-743, ed. Bothe. Ckai>. V. METAL WORK. Babylonians dealt freely with the material, using gold and silver for statues, furniture, and utensils, bronze for gates and images, and iron sometimes for the latter.1 We may assume that they likewise employed bronze and iron for tools and weapons, since those metals were certainly so used by the Assyrians. Lead was made of service in building;2 where iron was also employed, if great strength was needed.8 The golden images are said to bave been sometimes solid,4 in which case we must suppose them to have been cast in a mould; but undoubtedly in most cases the gold was a mere external covering, and was applied in plates, which were hammered into shape6 upon some cheaper substance below. Silver was no doubt used also in plates, more especially when applied externally to walls,6 or internally to the wood- work of palaces;" but the silver images, ornamental figures, and utensils of which we hear, were most probably solid. The bronze works must have been remarkable. We are told that both the town and the palace gates were of this material,8 and it is implied that the latter were too heavy to be opened in the ordinary manner.9 Castings on an enormous scale would be requisite for such purposes; and the Baby- lonians must thus have possessed the art of running into a single mould vast masses of metal. Probably the gates here mentioned were solid:10 but occasionally,it would seem, the Babylonians had gates of a different kind, composed of a number of perpendicular bars, united by horizontal ones above and below, as in the accompanying woodcut.11 They had also, it would appear, metal gateways of a similar character. I 1 1 i Gate and Gateway .(from a cylinder). 1 See Daniel, iii. 1 ; v. 4; Herod, i. 181-183; Diod. Sie. ii. 8, § 7; 9, § 5. 'Herod, i. 186; Diod. Sic . ii. 10, § 5. s As in the piers of the great bridge. (Herod. L s. c.) 'Herod, i. 183. 5 Z0iv>iira. Diod. Sic. ii. 9, § 5. ■ Supra, p. 548. 'Nebuchadnezzar states frequently that the walls of his buildings are "clothed with silver." • Herod, i. 179; Diod. Sic. ii. 8, § 7. 9 They are said to have been opened by a machine. (Diod. Sic. l. s. c.) "Like those made by Herod the Great for the Temple (Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5, § 3), which required 20 men to close them (ibid. vi. 5, § 3). We have no certain representations of Babylonian town-gates; but those drawn by the Assyrians are always solid. "This gate and gateway are repre- sented upon a cylinder figured by La- jard. (Culte de Mithra, Pl. xli. fig. 5.) Chap. V. POTTERY—GLASS. 569 representations upon the cylinders,18 it appears that the shapes were often elegant. Long and narrow vases with thin necks seem to have been used for water vessels; these had rounded or pointed bases, and required therefore the support of a stand. Thin jugs were also in use, with slight elegant handles. It is conjectured that sometimes modelled figures may have been introduced at the sides as handles to the vases;19 but neither the cylinders nor the extant remains confirm this supposition. The only ornamentation hitherto observed consists in a double band which seems to have been carried round some of the vases in an incomplete spiral.20 The vases sometimes have two handles; but they are plain and small, adding nothing to the beauty of the vessels. Occasionally the whole vessel is glazed with a rich blue colour. Vases and Jug (from the cylinders). Vases in a Stand (from a cylinder). Vase with Handles (found in Babylonia). The Babylonians certainly employed glass for vessels of a small size.21 They appear not to have been very skilful blowers, since their bottles are not unfrequently misshapen. They generally stained their glass with some colouring matter, and occasionally ornamented it with a ribbing. Whether they were able to form masses of glass of any considerable size, whether they used it, like the Egyptians,22 for beads and Babil. (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 503.) Broken glass is abundant in the rubbish of the mounds generally. (Rich, First Memoir, p. 29; Ker Porter, Tra pelt, vol. ii. p. 392.) "Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptiam, vol. iu. p. 101. 18 See Lajard, Pis. xxxiii. fig. 1; fig. 3; and liv. A, fig. 9. ™ Birch, Ancient Pottery, vol. i. p. 148. M See above, woodcut No. 2, where both vases are thus ornamented. sl Several small glass bottles were found by Mr. Layard in the mound of Chap. V. A.STK0N0M1CAL ACHIEVEMENTS. 577 had notions not far from the truth with respect to the relative distance from the earth of the sun, moon, and planets. Adopt- ing, as was natural, a geocentric system, they decided that the Moon occupied the position nearest to the earth ;ls that beyond the Moon was Mercury, beyond Mercury Venus, beyond Venus Mars, beyond Mars Jupiter, and beyond Jupiter, in the remotest position of all, Saturn.14 This arrangement was probably based upon a knowledge, more or less exact, of the periodic times which the several bodies occupy in their (real or apparent) revo- lutions. From the difference in the times the Babylonians as- sumed a corresponding difference in the size of the orbits, and consequently a greater or less distance from the common centre. Thus far the astronomical achievements of the Babylonians rest upon the express testimony of ancient writers—a testi- mony confirmed in many respects by the monuments already deciphered. It is suspected that, when the astronomical tablets which exist by hundreds in the British Museum come to be thoroughly understood, it will be found that the acquaintance of the Chaklsean sages with astronomical phenomena, if not also with astronomical laws, went considerably beyond the point at which we should place it upon the testimony of the Greek and Roman writers.15 There is said to be distinct evi- dence that they observed the four satellites of Jupiter, and strong reason to believe that they were acquainted likewise with the seven satellites of Saturn. Moreover, the general laws of the movements of the heavenly bodies seem to have been so far known to them that they could state by anticipa- tion the position of the various planets throughout the year. In order to attain the astronomical knowledge which they seem to have possessed, the Babylonians must undoubtedly have employed a certain number of instruments. The invention of sun-dials, as already observed,16 is distinctly assigned to them. IJ Diod. Sic. ii. 31, § 5. "The arrangement of the great temple at Borsippa, already described, is u sufficient proof of the statement in the text. 11 The astronomical tablets discovered iu Mesopotamia have now for some time VOL. II. 2 P occupied the attention of Sir H. Ravrlin- SOXL It is to be hoped that he will give to the world, before many months are past, the results of his studies. They cannot fail to be highly interesting. "Supm, p. 570. 578 Chap. V. THE FOUKTH MONARCHY. Besides these contrivances for measuring time during the day, it is almost certain that they must have possessed means of measuring time during the night. The clepsydra, or water- clock, which was in common use among the Greeks as early as the fifth century before our era,17 was probably introduced into Greece from the East, and is likely to have been a Babylonian invention . The astrolabe, an instrument for measuring the alti- tude of stars above the horizon, which was known to Ptolemy, may also reasonably be assigned to them. It has generally been assumed that they were wholly ignorant of the telescope.18 But if the satellites of Saturn are really mentioned, as it is thought that they are, upon some of the tablets, it will follow— strange as it may seem to' us—that the Babylonians possessed optical instruments of the nature of telescopes, since it is im- possible, even in the clear and vapourless sky of Chaldsea, to discern the faint moons of that distant planet without lenses. A lens, it must be remembered, with a fair magnifying power, has been discovered among the Mesopotamian ruins.13 A people ingenious enough to discover the magnifying-glass would be naturally led on to the invention of its opposite. When once lenses of the two contrary kinds existed, the elements of a telescope were in being. We could not assume from these data that the discovery was made; but if it shall ultimately be substantiated that bodies invisible to the naked eye were observed by the Babylonians, we need feel no difficulty in ascribing to them the possession of some telescopic instrument. The astronomical zeal of the Babylonians was in general, it must be confessed, no simple and pure love of an abstract science. A school of pure astronomers existed among them;1 but the bulk of those who engaged in the study undoubtedly pursued it in the belief that the heavenly bodies had a myste- rious influence, not only upon the seasons, but upon the lives and actions of men—an influence which it was possible to dis- "See Aristoph. Acharn. 653; Vap. 1 soever. (Astronomy of the Anciattt, pp. 93, 827. 277, 278.) "Sir G. C. Lewis went so far as to "See above, vol. i. p. 390. deny to the Babylonians, in general 1 Strab. xvi. 1, § 6. terms, the use of any instruments what-