The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 42

When none of the G.o.ds was as yet produced, No name mentioned, no fate determined, Then were created the G.o.ds in their totality.

Lakhmu and Lakhamu, were created.

Days went by[5] ...

Anshar and Kishar were created.

Many days elapsed[691] ...

Anu [Bel and Ea were created].[692]

Anshar, Anu (?) ...

At this point the fragment breaks off.

Brief as it is, it affords a clear view of the manner in which the Babylonians regarded the beginning of things. Water was the primaeval element. 'Apsu' is the personified great 'ocean'--the 'Deep' that covers everything. With Apsu there is a.s.sociated Tiamat. Tiamat is the equivalent of the Hebrew T'hom,[693] which occurs in the second verse of the opening chapter of Genesis, and which is, like Apsu, the personification of the 'watery deep.' Apsu and Tiamat are, accordingly, synonymous. The combination of the two may be regarded as due to the introduction of the theological doctrine which we have seen plays so prominent a part in the systematized pantheon, namely, the a.s.sociation of the male and female principle in everything connected with activity or with the life of the universe. Apsu represents the male and Tiamat the female principle of the primaeval universe. It does not follow from this that the two conceptions are wholly dissociated from popular traditions. Theological systems, it will be found, are always attached at some point to popular and often to primitive beliefs.

Tiamat was popularly pictured as a huge monster of a forbidding aspect.

Traces of a similar conception connected with T'hom are to be met with in the poetry of the Old and New Testament.[694] The 'Rahab' and 'Leviathan' and the 'Dragon' of the apocalypse belong to the same order of ideas that produced Tiamat. All these monsters represent a popular attempt to picture the chaotic condition that prevailed before the great G.o.ds obtained control and established the order of heavenly and terrestrial phenomena. The belief that water was the original element existing in the universe and the 'source' of everything, may also have had its rise in the popular mind. It was suggested in the Euphrates Valley, in part, by the long-continued rainy season, as a result of which the entire region was annually flooded. The dry land and vegetation appeared, only after the waters had receded. The yearly phenomenon brought home to the minds of the Babylonians, a picture of primaeval chaos.

In the schools of theology that arose with the advance of culture, these two notions--water as the first element and a general conception of chaos--were worked out with the result that Apsu and Tiamat became mythical beings whose dominion preceded that of the G.o.ds. Further than this the questionings of the schoolmen did not go. They conceived of a time when neither the upper firmament nor the dry land existed and when the G.o.ds were not yet placed in control, but they could not conceive of a time when there was 'nothing' at all. This cosmological theory which we may deduce from the fragment of the first tablet of the creation series is confirmed by the accounts that have come down to us--chiefly through Damascius--of the treatment of the subject by Berosus.[695]

Damascius explicitly places the Babylonians among those nations who fail to carry back the universe to an ultimate single source. There is nothing earlier than the two beings--Apsu and Tiamat.[696]

The ma.s.sing together of the primaeval waters completes the picture of chaos in the cuneiform account. From the popular side, the commingling corresponds to the _Tohu wa Bohu_ of the Book of Genesis, but for the Babylonian theologians, this embrace of Apsu and Tiamat becomes a symbol of 's.e.xual' union.[697] As the outcome of this union, the G.o.ds are produced. This dependence of the G.o.ds upon Apsu and Tiamat is but vaguely indicated. Another theory appears to have existed according to which the G.o.ds were contemporaneous with primaeval chaos. The vagueness may therefore be the result of a compromise between conflicting schools of thought. However this may be, the moment that the G.o.ds appear, a conflict ensues between them and Apsu-Tiamat. This conflict represents the evolution from chaos to order. But before taking up this phase of the epic, a few words must be said as to the names of the G.o.ds mentioned, and as to the order in which they occur.

There are three cla.s.ses of deities enumerated. The first two cla.s.ses consist, each, of a pair of deities while the third is the well-known triad of the old Babylonian theology. Between the creation of each cla.s.s a long period elapses--a circ.u.mstance that may be regarded as an evidence of the originally independent character of each cla.s.s. Now it has recently been shown[698] that Lakhamu is the feminine of Lakhmu. The first cla.s.s of deities is, therefore, an ill.u.s.tration again of the conventional male and female principles introduced into the current theology. While there are references to Lakhmu and Lakhamu in the religious texts,[699] particularly in incantations, these two deities play no part whatsoever in the active pantheon, as revealed by the historical texts. In popular tradition,[700] Lakhmu survived as a name of a mythical monster.

Alexander Polyhistor[701] quotes Berosus as saying in his book on Babylonia that the first result of the mixture of water and chaos--_i.e._, of Apsu and Tiamat--was the production of monsters partly human, partly b.e.s.t.i.a.l. The winged bulls and lions that guarded the approaches to temples and palaces are ill.u.s.trations of this old notion, and it is to this cla.s.s of mythical beings that Lakhmu belongs. The schools of theology, seizing hold of this popular tradition, add again to Lakhmu a female mate and convert the tradition into a symbol of the first step in the evolution of order out of the original chaos. Lakhmu and Lakhamu are made to stand for an entire cla.s.s of beings that are the offspring of Apsu and Tiamat. This cla.s.s does not differ essentially from Apsu and Tiamat, nor from the 'Leviathan,' the 'Dragon,' the winged serpents, and the winged bulls that are all emanations of the same order of ideas. Accordingly, we find Lakhmu and Lakhamu a.s.sociated with Tiamat when the conflict with the G.o.ds begins. They are products of chaos and yet at the same time contemporary with chaos,--monsters not so fierce as Tiamat, but withal monsters who had to be subdued before the planets and the stars, vegetation and man could appear.

The introduction of Anshar and Kishar as intermediate between the monsters and the triad of G.o.ds appears to be due entirely to the attempt at theological systematization that clearly stamps the creation epic as the conscious work of schoolmen, though shaped, as must always be borne in mind, out of the material furnished by popular tradition. In connection with the etymology and original form of the chief of the a.s.syrian pantheon,[702] the suggestion was made that the introduction of Anshar into the creation epic is a concession made to the prominence that Ashur acquired in the north. We are now able to put this suggestion in a more definite form. The pantheon of the north, as we have seen, was derived from the south. Not that all the G.o.ds of the south are wors.h.i.+pped in the north, but those that are wors.h.i.+pped in the north are also found in the south, and originate there. The distinctive features of Ashur are due to the political conditions that were developed in a.s.syria, but the unfolding of the conceptions connected with this G.o.d which make him the characteristic deity of a.s.syria, indeed, the only distinctive a.s.syrian figure in the a.s.syrian pantheon, does not preclude the possibility, of the southern origin of Ashur.

If, as has been made plausible by Hommel, Nineveh, the later capital of the a.s.syrian empire, represents a settlement made by inhabitants of a Nineveh situated in the south, there is no reason why a southern deity bearing the name Anshar should not have been transferred from the south to the north. The attempt has been made[703] to explain the change from Anshar to Ashur. The later name Ashur, because of its ominous character, effectually effaced the earlier one in popular thought. The introduction of the older form Anshar, not merely in the first tablet of the creation series, but, as we shall presently see, elsewhere, confirms the view of a southern origin for Ashur, and also points to the great antiquity of the Anshar-Ashur cult. It is not uncommon to find colonies more conservative in matters of religious thought and custom than the motherland, and there is nothing improbable in the interesting conclusion thus reached that Ashur, the head of an empire, so much later in point of time than Babylonia, should turn out to be an older deity than the chief personage in the Babylonian pantheon after the days of Hammurabi.

But while Anshar-Ashur under this view is a figure surviving from an ancient period, he is transformed by a.s.sociation with a complementary deity Kishar into a symbol, just as we have found to be the case with Lakhmu. By a play upon his name, resting upon an arbitrary division of Anshar into _An_ and _Shar_, the deity becomes the 'one that embraces all that is above.' The element _An_ is the same that we have in _Anu_, and is the 'ideographic'[704] form for 'high' and 'heaven.' _Shar_ signifies 'totality' and has some connection with a well-known Babylonian word for 'king.' The natural consort to an all-embracing upper power is a power that 'embraces all that is below'; and since _Ki_ is the ideographic form for 'earth,' it is evident that Ki-Shar is a creation of the theologians, introduced in order to supply Anshar with an appropriate a.s.sociate. The two in combination represent a pair like Lakhmu and Lakhamu. As the latter pair embrace the world of monsters, so Anshar and Kishar stand in the theological system for the older order of G.o.ds, a cla.s.s of deities antecedent to the series of which Anu, Bel, and Ea are the representatives. Besides the antiquity of Anshar and the factor involved in the play upon the name, the prominence of the Ashur cult in the north also entered into play (as already suggested) in securing for Anshar-Ashur, a place in the systematized cosmology. The Babylonian priests, while always emphasizing the predominance of Marduk, could not entirely resist the influences that came to them from the north. Ashur was not accorded a place in the Babylonian cult, but he could not be ignored altogether. Moreover, a.s.syria had her priests and schools, and we are permitted to see in the introduction of Anshar in the creation epic, a concession that reflects the influence, no doubt indirect, and in part perhaps unconscious, but for all that, the decided influence of the north over the south. The part played by Anshar in the most important episode of the creation epic will be found to further strengthen this view.[705]

Kishar, at all events, forms no part of either the Babylonian or of the active a.s.syrian pantheon. She does not occur in historical or religious texts. Her existence is purely theoretical--a creation of the schools without any warrant in popular tradition, so far as we can see. A tablet is fortunately preserved[706] (though only in part) which enables us to come a step nearer towards determining the character of the series of powers regarded as antecedent to the well-known deities. In this tablet, no less than ten pairs of deities are enumerated that are expressly noted as 'Father-mother of Anu,' that is, as antecedent to Anu.[707]

Among these we find Anshar and Kishar, and by their side, such pairs as Anshar-gal, _i.e._, 'great totality of what is on high,' and Kishar-gal, _i.e._, 'great totality of what is below,' Enshar and Ninshar, _i.e._, 'lord' and 'mistress,' respectively, of 'all there is,' Du'ar and Da'ur, forms of a stem which may signify 'perpetuity,' Alala, _i.e._, 'strength,' and a consort Belili. Lakhmu and Lakhamu are also found in the list. While some of the names are quite obscure, and the composition of the list is due to the scholastic spirit emanating from the schools of theology, the fact that some of the deities, as Alala, Belili, Lakhmu and Lakhamu, occur in incantations shows that the theologians were guided in part by dimmed traditions of some deities that were wors.h.i.+pped prior to the ones whose cult became prominent in historic times. Anshar, Alala, Belili, Lakhmu, and Du'ar were such deities. To each of these an a.s.sociate was given, in accord with the established doctrine of 'duality' that characterizes the more advanced of the ancient Semitic cults in general. Others, like Anshar-gal and Enshar, seem to be pure abstractions--perhaps only 'variants' of Anshar, and the number ten may have some mystical significance that escapes us. So much, at all events, seems certain that even the old Babylonian pantheon, as revealed by the oldest historical texts, represents a comparatively advanced stage of the religion when some still older G.o.ds had already yielded to others and a system was already in part produced which left out of consideration these older deities. This is indicated by the occurrence of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea as early as the days of Gudea,[708] and it is this triad which in the creation epic follows upon the older series symbolized by Anshar and Kishar. The later 'theology' found a solution of the problem by a.s.suming four series of deities represented by Apsu and Tiamat, by Lakhmu and Lakhamu, by Anshar and Kishar, and by the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea.

In a vague way, as we have seen, Apsu and Tiamat are the progenitors of Lakhmu and Lakhamu. The priority, again, of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, as well as of Anshar and Kishar, is expressed by making them 'ancestors' of Anu, Bel and Ea. While in the list above referred to, Lakhmu and Lakhamu are put in a cla.s.s with Anshar and Kishar, in the creation epic they form a separate cla.s.s, and Delitzsch has justly recognized,[709] in this separation, the intention of the compilers to emphasize an advance in the evolution of chaos to order, which is the keynote of the Babylonian cosmology. Lakhmu and Lakhamu represent the 'monster' world where creatures are produced in strange confusion, whereas Anshar and Kishar indicate a division of the universe into two _distinct_ and sharply defined parts. The splitting of 'chaos' is the first step towards its final disappearance.

The creation of Anshar and Kishar marks indeed the beginning of a severe conquest which ends in the overthrow of Tiamat, and while in the present form of the epic, the contest is not decided before Anu, Bel, and Ea and the chief deities of the historic pantheon are created, one can see traces of an earlier form of the tradition in which Anshar--perhaps with some a.s.sociates--is the chief figure in the strife.

Of the first tablet, we have two further fragments supplementing one another, in which the beginnings of this terrible conflict are described. With Apsu and Tiamat there are a.s.sociated a variety of monsters who prepare themselves for the fray. The existence of these a.s.sociates shows that the 'epic' does not aim to account for the real origin of things, but only for the origin of the _order_ of the universe. At the beginning there was chaos, but 'chaos,' so far from representing emptiness (as came to be the case under a monotheistic conception of the universe) was on the contrary marked by a superabundant fullness.

Through Alexander Polyhistor,[710] as already mentioned, we obtain a satisfactory description of this period of chaos as furnished by Berosus. At the time when all was darkness and water, there flourished strange monsters, human beings with wings, beings with two heads, male and female, hybrid formations, half-man, half-animal, with horns of rams and horses' hoofs, bulls with human faces, dogs with fourfold bodies ending in fish tails, horses with heads of dogs, and various other monstrosities.

This account of Berosus is now confirmed by the cuneiform records. The a.s.sociates of Tiamat are described in a manner that leaves no doubt as to their being the monsters referred to. We are told that

Ummu-Khubur,[711] the creator of everything, added Strong warriors, creating great serpents, Sharp of tooth, merciless in attack.

With poison in place of blood, she filled their bodies.

Furious vipers she clothed with terror, Fitted them out with awful splendor, made them high of stature(?) That their countenance might inspire terror and arouse horror, Their bodies inflated, their attack irresistible.

She set up basilisks (?) great serpents and monsters[712]

A great monster, a mad dog, a scorpion-man A raging monster, a fish-man, a great bull, Carrying merciless weapons, not dreading battle.

In all, eleven monstrous beings are created by Tiamat for the great conquest. At their head she places a being Kingu, whom she raises to the dignity of a consort.

The formal installation of Kingu is described as follows:

She raised Kingu among them to be their chief.

To march at the head of the forces, to lead the a.s.sembly.

To command the weapons to strike, to give the orders for the fray.

To be the first in war, supreme in triumph.

She ordained him and clothed him with authority (?).

Tiamat then addresses Kingu directly:

Through my word to thee, I have made thee the greatest among the G.o.ds.

The rule over all the G.o.ds I have placed in thy hand.

The greatest shalt thou be, thou, my consort, my only one.

Tiamat thereupon

Gives him the tablets of fate, hangs them on his breast, and dismisses him.

'Thy command be invincible, thy order authoritative.'[713]

The plan of procedure, it would appear, is the result of a council of war held by Apsu and Tiamat, who feel themselves powerless to carry on the contest by themselves. The portion of the tablet[714] in which this council is recounted is in so bad a condition that but little can be made out of it. a.s.sociated with Apsu and Tiamat in council, is a being Mummu, and since Damascius expressly notes on the direct authority of Berosus that Apsu and Tiamat produced a son Moumis,[715] there is every reason to believe that Mummu represents this offspring. In the subsequent narrative, however, neither Apsu nor Mummu play any part.

Tiamat has transferred to Kingu and the eleven monsters all authority, and it is only after they are defeated that Tiamat--but Tiamat alone--enters the fray.

The rage of Tiamat is directed against Anshar, Kishar, and their offspring. Anu, Bel, and Ea, while standing at the head of the latter, are not the only G.o.ds introduced. When the contest begins, all the great G.o.ds and also the minor ones are in existence.

The cause of Tiamat's rage is indicated, though vaguely, in the portions preserved. In the opening lines of the epic there is a reference to the time 'when fates were not yet decided.' The decision of fates is in the Babylonian theology one of the chief functions of the G.o.ds. It const.i.tutes the mainspring of their power. To decide fates is practically to control the arrangement of the universe--to establish order. It is this function which arouses the natural opposition of Tiamat and her brood, for Tiamat feels that once the G.o.ds are in control, her sway must come to an end. On the part of the G.o.ds there is great terror. They are anxious to conciliate Tiamat and are not actuated by any motives of rivalry. Order is not aggressive. It is chaos which manifests opposition to 'order.' In the second tablet of the series, Anshar sends his son Anu with a message to Tiamat:

Go and step before Tiamat.

May her liver be pacified, her heart softened.

Anu obeys, but at the sight of Tiamat's awful visage takes flight. It is unfortunate that the second tablet is so badly preserved. We are dependent largely upon conjecture for what follows the failure of Anu's mission. From references in subsequent tablets, it seems certain that Anshar sends out Ea as a second messenger and that Ea also fails. Tiamat is determined upon destroying the G.o.ds, or at least upon keeping from them the 'decision of fates.' Anshar, it will be seen, stands at the head of the pantheon, and it seems natural that he, and not one of his offspring, should be the final victor. This indeed appears to have been the original form of the myth or at least one form of it. In a second form it was Bel to whom the victory was ascribed, and this Bel of the triad, we have seen, was En-lil, the chief G.o.d of Nippur; but both Anshar and Bel must give way to the patron deity of the city of Babylon--Marduk. Anshar-Ashur, the head of the a.s.syrian pantheon, could not be tolerated by the Babylonian priests as a power superior to Marduk. On the other hand, Anshar could not be set aside, for he survived in popular tradition. The result is a compromise. Marduk gains the victory over Tiamat, but is commissioned to do so by the a.s.sembly of the G.o.ds, including Anshar. As for the older Bel, he voluntarily transfers to Marduk his name. In this way, the G.o.d Bel of the triad becomes one with Marduk.

Perhaps in one religious center and at a time when Ea was the chief G.o.d, still another version existed which a.s.signed the triumph to Ea, for as will be pointed out, traditions waver between a.s.signing to Ea or to Bel-Marduk so fundamental a function as the creation of mankind. In short, the present form of the creation epic is 'eclectic' and embodies what the Germans call a _tendenz_. To each of the great G.o.ds, Anshar, Anu, Bel, and Ea, some part in the contest is a.s.signed, but the greatest role belongs to Marduk.

The second tablet closes with Anshar's decision to send his son Marduk against Tiamat:

Marduk heard the word of his father.

His heart rejoiced and to his father he spoke.

With joyous heart he is ready to proceed to the contest, but he at once makes good his claim to supreme control in case he is victorious. He addresses the a.s.sembled G.o.ds:

When I shall have become your avenger, Binding Tiamat and saving your life, Then come in a body, In Ubshu-kenna,[716] let yourselves down joyfully, My authority instead of yours will a.s.sume control, Unchangeable shall be whatever I do, Irrevocable and irresistible, be the command of my lips.

The declaration foreshadows the result.

The third tablet is taken up with the preliminaries for the great contest, and is interesting chiefly because of the insight it affords us into Babylonian methods of literary composition. Anshar sends Gaga[717]

to the hostile camp with the formal announcement of Marduk's readiness to take up the cause of the G.o.ds. Gaga does not face Tiamat directly, but leaves the message with Lakhmu and Lakhamu:

Go Gaga, messenger (?) joy of my liver, To Lakhmu and Lakhamu I will send thee.