The sketch furnished at the outset of this article as to the general development of the Babylono- Assyrian religion, so far as the relationship be- tween religion and the political history of the two countries is concerned, suggests a threefold division in the History of the Religion: the first extending from the earliest period known to us (c. 3500 B.C.) to the union of the Babylonian States under Hammurabi (c. 2250 B.C.) ; the second embracing the period down to the rise of the New Babylonian or Chaldzean empire under Nabopolas- sar (625 B.C.) ; the third covering the short exist- ence of this empire down to the taking of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 B.c. The Assyrian religion, in so far as it entails a separate treatment, falls within the second period, although it extends into the third—from c. 1800 B.c. down to the fall of Nineveh, 606 B.c. A sharp separation is marked only between the first and second divisions, though the third division likewise shows traits of a special character.—The further division of the general subject into (a) the Pantheon, (0) the Religious Literature, and (c) the Cultus, results from the char- acter of the material at our disposal for the study of the Babylono-Assyrian religion, which consists chiefly, as already intimated, of (1) the numerous historical and votive inscriptions of the rulers; (2) the extensive literary productions of Babylonia (as preserved chiefly in the copies of the royal library unearthed at Nineveh); and (3) in the archeeological results— still rather meagre—of the excavations of Babylonian and Assyrian sanctu- aries.
v. THE BABYLONO-ASSYRIAN PANTHEON.—The religion of Babylonia in the earliest form known to us may be defined as a combination of local cults with animistic conceptions of the powers of nature, with which man was either brought into immediate contact, or which affected his aims and his welfare. Each centre had its special patron deity, and this deity—in most cases conceived as masculine—was brought into association with some natural phenomenon. ‘The two powers most com- monly chosen were the sun and the moon, and by the side of these we find streams and stones per-
* The view formerly held, that the Sumerian belongs to the Ural-Altaic group, has been emphatically set aside by Prof. O. Donner—an eminent authority on this group—in an appendix to Haupt’s monograph, Die Akkadische Sprache (Berlin, 1881). It should also be stated that, since the appearance of Haupt’s monograph, little has been done towards elucidating the char- acter of the so-called Sumerian (or Sumero-Akkadian) speech. See Winckler’s remarkable confession ;: ‘ All attempts to establish an affinity with any language of the ancient world, even with the various languages of the neighbouring nations or of those still living, must be abandoned’ (in Helmolt’s History of the World (1908), vol. iii. p. 5).
} The recent discovery by J. H. Haynes of an extensive literary archive at Nippur, justifies the hope that at no distant day we may be able to study the religious literature to a large extent from ‘originals’ instead of from the copies prepared by the scribes of Assurbanipal. See Hilprecht’s account of the Nippur library in Explorations in Bible Lands in the Nine- teenth Century, pp. 509-532,
RELIGION OF BABYLONTA
sonified as gods. ‘The independence of the States and, in still earlier days, no doubt, of the towns of the Euphrates Valley, is sufficient to account for the fact that there should thus arise a con- siderable number of sun- and moon-deities, and it was only as a result of political development that in time a sun-god worshipped in the most im- portant centre came to be the sun-god par excel- lence, and, in the theological system, was regarded as having absorbed the attributes and prerogatives of his former associates or rivals. ‘This process of concentration was not necessarily carried out with consistency ; and when, as happened, two centres acquired equal significance and sanctity, the worship of the sun-god or of the moon-god was maintained in both, or a compromise was effected by distinguishing between the varying action of the sun at the different seasons of the year or in the division of the day, so that, in the developed theo- logical system, we have one sun-deity particularly singled out as the sun of spring or of morning, and another as the midsummer or noonday sun. The former, as the conqueror of the winter storms, would be pictured as a beneficent element, a youthful hero displaying his strength; the latter, as bringing discomfort, drought, and disease, would be invested with violence and destructive force—a grim warrior in the thick of battle.
Such a division of functions, effected as a com- promise between rival sun-deities, was the work of the priests and theologians rather than a popular process, and the example adduced will sutiice for the present to illustrate the importance of what may be called the theoretical factor in the develop- ment of the Babylonian religion. One of the main problems involved in considering the functions and traits of any particular deity is thus to distin- guish between original elements and such as have been imposed upon him (or her) by the attempts at systematization that begin at an early period, and that lead to the rise of various schools of theo- logical thought, of which traces are revealed in a careful study of the religious literature. At times, naturally, it is not an easy task to differentiate the popular conceptions connected with a deity from those unfolded in the schools. So, when two gods are viewed as father and son—like Ea and Marduk—or as father and daughter—like Sin (the moon-god) and Ishtar—or as master and servant —like Shamash (the sun-god) and Ishum, or Marduk and Nusku (the fire-god)—the process in- volved is not the same in all. Such relationships, likewise, are expressive of compromises effected between rival deities ; but in some instances, as in the:case of Ea and Marduk, popular thought is involved in specifying the relationship between the two as that of father and son. In general, however, the traces of relationship between various gods indicate the absorption in some way or an- other by one god of the attributes of his former rivals, and may be regarded as the work of the schools in their endeavour to weave the manifold threads of the pantheon into a single pattern. While, therefore, in the development of the pan- theon there may be noted a general tendency to reduce the number of deities by the recognition of those only who had acquired a relatively superior position, and which had its outcome in the Assyrian pantheon in fixing the number of really active deities at about eleven, the numerous local deities, ranging to hundreds, do not entirely disappear. They survive in invocations and incantations, the efficacy of which is supposed to be increased by the number of deities invoked: and also in proper names — particularly in Babylonia — where con- servative influences, emanating from the popular phases of the religion, have freer play. ales