Esarhaddon determined to strike at the root of Syrian dissension, and in 673B.C.led an army for the first time in Assyrian history against Egypt. An army met his own outside the borders and the result was indecisive. The Assyrians did not enter the land at all. Three years later they defeated an Egyptian army sent to meet them, crossed the border now unhindered, and marched rapidly to Memphis. The city, wholly unprepared for such unexpected attack, fell at once into their hands. It was plundered generally and laid waste. Unquestionably much of great historic value was wantonly destroyed by soldiers who were allowed to pillage at will. Statues of gods were removed to Nineveh, together with great booty—and this was the work of a man who deplored the loss of Babylon, and had undertaken to rebuild a capital not yet known when Memphis stood the wonder of the world!
The Assyrians never outgrew their ferocity, their savage thirst for ravage and murder, and their culture in Assyria's most enlightened days was but a veneer encasing old tendencies, characteristics and desires.
Over the twenty-one nomes, native princes were allowed to rule, as vassals of an Assyrian governor, set over the whole land. The king further undertook to change the names of ancient towns, giving them Assyrian names, but this never became a change at all—simply a useless attempt.
The youngest world-power had now conquered the oldest. Surely these were years wherein chart-makers would have had a sorry time trying to indicate a nation's possessions.
On its homeward march the Assyrian army made a raid into Arabia, but desert marches told quickly on the soldiers, and no lasting results came of it.
At this point Assyrian possessions—even the original kingdom itself—were threatened alarmingly by a migration starting from the southern portion of present Russia. Thither had come the Medes in an early day, and now thousands upon thousands came pouring eastward in search of new and less crowded homes. It was hopeless to stay such an onset of troops—it would wear out many an army. Places vacated today would be filled shortly by those pressing in the rear. Besides, these people had no plan of conquest or occupation of the land. They simply spread out like so many hungry cattle, seeking food where it might be found. All that could be done was to turn aside the main stream of progress. These new comers settled down in Syria, reaching east to the land of the Medes and far beyond it. In spite of watchful care, many fertile lands were lost to Assyria.
In 668 a second Egyptian campaign was planned by the king, but before starting out, he had his son, Asshur-banipal, recognized as regent of Babylonia. This was to cause much trouble in the future, because it once more divided the now united country, and made an opportunity for old jealousies to creep in again. On the march, Esarhaddon died, leaving the future to regard him as noblest among Assyrian kings—the most just and fair-minded of his race.
Asshur-banipal who succeeded to the throne in 668B.C., was naturally fond of learning and was a prodigious book-collector. By using that term for Assyrian days we mean of course a collector of clay tablets whereon were inscribed literary productions.
The Egyptian campaign had already opened, for it was plain that the conquests of two years before were practically lost. Sea-coast towns in Egypt submitted at once. Little opposition was encountered in the Land of the Pyramids, and Assyrian government was soon re-instated. The suspicion of the generals was awakened by the simplicity of their taskand withdrawing their army, they loitered not far away. No sooner had they left than the Assyrian government, tolerated in the presence of the army, was thrown off and old forms instituted. Now it was the Egyptian's turn to be surprised when the army, supposed to be far on its homeward march, reappeared in the land. The revolt was quickly put down, and the leaders killed with as great cruelty as ever blackened Assyrian pages.
In 660B.C.Egypt declared her independence and this was the first great loss of the Assyrian empire, soon to be followed by many more.
Probably before this Tyre had been forced to yield, and the king had sent his son and daughter to the Assyrian court as an indication of submission.
A raid was made into Media, some of its cities being taken and their inhabitants deported. For such experiences the Medes grew to hate the Assyrians with increasing fervor. Asshur-banipal was finding some difficulty in holding together the empire of his fathers, and when revolts occurred, they were put down with greatest severity.
Babylonia had maintained peace for fifteen years, but the people clung to the traditions of their early history, and harked back to a time when Babylon was the greatest city of the world. Now, except for freedom from tribute, they ranked as any other Assyrian province. Encouraged by the feelings of those under him, the prince-regent conceived the notion of stirring up all the provinces to revolt at the same time, hoping that Babylonian independence might be gained in time of confusion. He was urged on to this course, which was misguided and ill timed, with little chance for success. Its only hope lay in keeping secret the plot so far as the Assyrian king was concerned. There were, however, many who would gladly try to benefit themselves by unearthing any plan for revolt. There might also be governors of provinces sufficiently far-sighted to have nothing to do with any treasonable plot, and these could not be expected to guard such a secret.
At last the Chaldeans on the south, Palestine, some provinces of Syria and some Arabian tribes, promised help. The Babylonians were destined to learn how different was that from actually giving it. To allay any suspicions Asshurbanipal might have, an embassy of Babylonian nobles visited his court to give him assurance of his brother's loyalty. When the news came that the Babylonians had seized Ur and Uruk, the Assyrian king was much astonished. He spent some little time in complaint of his faithless brother; an inscription ran:
"At that time Shamash-shum-ukin, the faithless brother, to whom I had done good, and whom I had established as king of Babylon, and for whom I had made every possible kind of royal decoration, and had given him, and had gathered together soldiers, horses, and chariots, and had intrusted them to him, and had given him cities, fields, and woods, and the men dwelling in them, even more than my father had commanded—even he forgot that favor I had shown him, and he planned evil. Outwardly with his lips he spoke friendly things, while inwardly his heart plotted rebellion."
Asshur-banipal waited for a favorable omen before starting out to quell the rebellion, and it came at last in this way: "In those days a seer slept in the beginning of the night and dreamed a dream, thus: 'On the face of the Moon it is written: Whoever deviseth evil against Asshur-banipal, king of Asshur, makes enmity, a violent death I appoint for them. With the edge of the sword, the burning of fire, famine, and the judgment of the Pest-god, I will destroy their lives.' This I heard and trusted to the will of Sin, my lord. I gathered my army; against Shamash-Shum-ukin I directed the march."
Help came to the revolting Babylonians from few of the promised allies. Arabia, Chaldea, and the land of the Elamites sent troops, but in the battle waged they suffered fearful defeat. Babylon underwent a severe siege and at last the king committed suicide. Then the gates of the city were thrown open and great was the slaughter. Asshur-banipal had himself proclaimed king, and pushed on to punish the allies for their part in the rebellion. Much of the land of the Elamites was laid waste, and left smoking by this man who patronized learning. The weakening of these people left Assyria open to attacks later from the Medes.
The later years of Asshur-banipal's reign were filled with peaceful interests. He rebuilt the great palace of his father, and in one of its upper chambers was amassed the greatnumber of tablets, referred to as the library of Nineveh. In 626B.C.the king died.
Our knowledge of the reigns immediately following is scanty. Babylonia asserted her independence and the Assyrian king had a difficult task to hold the empire together. Determined to recover the kingdom to the south, he marched against its capital while its king was distant with his army. Cut off from Babylon, the king appealed to the Medes for aid. They cared not at all to help the Babylonian, but they hated with undying hatred the very name of Assyria. Their numbers had often been increased by refugees, driven from their homes by Assyrian armies, and they themselves had experienced defeat at the hands of Assyrian troops. The possibility of crippling the great power of Asia stimulated them to aid the Babylonians. They soon repulsed the Assyrian army near Babylon and drove it north. Still they pursued the fleeing army and forced the king and his army to retire into Nineveh. At last the fate the Assyrians had so often meted out to others was measured out to them. Great wealth was stored in Nineveh, and this the besieging army wished for themselves. The walls were strong and were long defended, but an assault finally carried all before it. Nineveh, built by the wealth of spoils, beautified by plunder from the known world, became the spoils of the Medes, who stripped the temples and palaces and then set fire to the city.
Nineveh fell in 606B.C.The Assyrians were scattered to the four winds and grass grew over the once smoking ruins. Two hundred years later, when Xenophon led his army over this spot on his return to Greece, none knew that they passed over the site of the once great world-city.
The civilization developed by the Babylonians had been passed on to the Assyrians. It was now left a heritage for the Chaldeans, to whom descended the legacies of both countries, and in turn they dominated the valley of the Euphrates. As for Assyrian greatness, so far-reaching and wide, the Hebrew told the story in poetic language centuries ago, and today none could set it forth more vividly.
"Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The watersmade him great, the deep set him up on high, with her rivers running round 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 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 the 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.... All the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him....
"Strangers, the terrible of the nations, have cut him off, and have left him: upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches are fallen, and his boughs are broken by all the rivers of the land; and all the people of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left him. Upon his ruin shall all the fowls of the heaven remain, and all the beasts of the field shall be upon his branches. To the end that none of all the trees by the waters exalt themselves for their height, neither shoot up their top among the thick boughs, neither their trees shall stand up in their height, all that drink water: for they are delivered unto death, to the nether parts of the earth, in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit."—Ezekiel 31.
We have found frequent mention of the Chaldeans, and it is now necessary to understand just what was their position at the fall of Nineveh.
The Chaldeans belonged to the Semitic race and their home had long been in the Sea-lands, which included districts in eastern Arabia as well as lands in Babylonia washed by the Persian Gulf. Originally a pastoral people, they had taken to trade and though long in Babylonia, they had not mingled greatly with others. They looked with envious eyes upon the fertile valley of the Euphrates and coveted the wealth of its cities. On this account they would willingly follow any leader who might enable them to gain these lands and riches for themselves. Because such a victory would unquestionably give kingship over the people, many of their princes made efforts to gain political control, causing no end of trouble to the Babylonian or Assyrian officials in charge of maintaining the peace. This makes clear the motive prompting the numerous attempts to usurp the government, already noted.
The old Babylonians had received so many infusions of blood from the Elamites, Kassites, and colonists settled in their territory by different Assyrian rulers, that the pure Babylonian stock no longer existed to any extent, although Babylonian ideas, culture and characteristics had been absorbed by those who came to dwell in the land. The empire which now grew up in the valley was essentially Chaldean. It has been called the New Empire of Babylonia.
Upon the death of Asshur-banipal, he who had previously been king-regent asserted himself as king of Babylonia, and so Nabopolassar has sometimes been called the founder of the New Chaldean Empire, although in truth he was merely one who declared Babylonian independence at a time when none were strong enough to dispute the claim. The empire, established in this way, followed Babylonian precedence inall matters. The kings concerned themselves with war only when compelled to do so, their works being works of peace—the building of temples, the construction of canals.
One foreign war of some importance occurred during the first reign—the reign of Nabopolassar. Necho II., pharaoh of Egypt, desired to regain those Asiatic possessions which Thothmes III. and later warrior kings had won for the Nile kingdom. To this end he led an army north, demanding the submission of the sea-coast towns. Gaza was quickly won, and this city was key to the east. Tyre and Sidon would pay tribute to any nation rather than have their commerce again destroyed by war. Judah alone resisted. Too long had this little country held out against a various enemy to yield tribute upon demand. Josiah was now Judah's king. He led an army against the Egyptian forces but was repulsed and he himself killed. In confusion the Hebrew army fled to Jerusalem where a younger brother of Josiah was proclaimed king. The Egyptian pharaoh now collected a heavy fine from the people of Judah and he named a king for them in place of the one just popularly crowned.
The old Assyrian empire, so long the fear of all nations, was now under control of three distinct peoples: the Chaldeans held the Euphrates valley, the Medes held the north, and Egypt had appropriated western Syria. Now the pharaoh determined to further extend his empire. He would reach the very banks of the Euphrates. This plan threatened the Chaldean state, and Nabopolassar being too old to undertake active service in the field, sent his son Nebuchadnezzar to meet the Egyptian force. This was soon put to flight. The Babylonian prince pursued and had not word come of the death of the king, his father, the Babylonian army would have been able to march victorious into Egypt. It was, however, more important to hold the kingdom at home than to pursue fleeing troops abroad, so the prince went home to be crowned Nebuchadnezzar II., king of Babylonian, and to enjoy one of the longest reigns in Babylonian history. The city of Babylon became his pride, and the erection of temples and palaces attracted him more than conquests.
Notwithstanding, the kingdom of Judah compelled attention by refusing after three years' peace to longer pay tribute.The war-party in this little state seems often to have been strong and always to have been eager for independence, while its adherents were generally so blinded by their own enthusiasm that they were unable to estimate correctly their probable chance for success. Isaiah had long been dead. Jeremiah held his place of influence and he labored diligently to show his people the folly of their intent. He succeeded only in drawing censure upon himself and in 597B.C., Nebuchadnezzar sent an army to besiege Jerusalem. The Judean king Jehoiakim, suddenly died, and a youth about eighteen years of age ascended the throne. He thought best to surrender, whereupon he, his mother and court, were taken as captives to Babylon, together with 7,000 soldiers and 1,000 artisans. The remainder of the inhabitants were left to pay tribute and remain subservient to Babylonian rule.
In Egypt, Hophra had come to the throne. Like his predecessor, he longed for Syrian possessions, and now tried to stir up the sea-coast states to rebellion. No folly could have been plainer—for Judah it meant destruction itself to set its strength against the forces of Babylonia. Jeremiah thundered his bitterest reproaches. He sought vainly to bring his countrymen to their senses and save them from utter ruin. But the spirit of rebellion was abroad, and many times it has spread similarly through a land, drawing to its cause voices seldom heard, and kindling a desire which cannot be put down by cool argument and reason. So Jeremiah continued to grow in disfavor, and was finally held a prisoner by those he tried to aid.
It has been pointed out with much force that the stricken nation of Judah had become the prey of neighboring tribes and that an insufferable situation impelled it to war, but Babylonia could alone protect it, and Babylonian protection was not to be won by rebellion against its rule. Egypt was to again prove the "bruised reed" which would fail utterly when leaned upon.
From the Babylonian standpoint the situation was this: here was a little state which for hundreds of years had been the center of western dissensions. Its revolts had already cost Babylonia and Assyria dear in fighting men and tiresome sieges, and now it must be forever quelled if attentionwas to be given to home affairs. Crippling its strength would not avail, for that had been already tried. Trusting to the vows of its kings was manifestly useless, since the king who led the revolt had sworn by his mighty God to be faithful to Babylon. That solemn pledge he had now broken. Nothing short of laying waste the land and scattering the people would apparently put an end to the trouble.
Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon were now in league with Judah and Egyptian aid was promised. The war party in Jerusalem went about shouting that Jehovah was with them—no matter, seemingly, what folly they undertook.
In 587B.C.the Babylonian army besieged Jerusalem, intending to starve the city into submission. The siege was raised when Egyptian reinforcements drew near, long enough to defeat them and send them home in confusion. Then it went on again. In 586B.C.the Babylonians broke through the walls of Jerusalem and the city was destroyed. The king who had broken faith was taken to Babylon and blinded, while his sons were slain. Such punishments as these had not been common with the old Babylonians, and they show that the Chaldeans were not of the ancient temperament,—merciful and kind. The best citizens of Jerusalem were taken captives, while the poorer ones were left to cultivate the soil. The great prophet Jeremiah was thought to be friendly to the government of Babylon, and was given permission to go where he would. He remained with the stricken band of Hebrews, who soon after journeyed into Egypt.
Tyre, as an ally, was besieged but here the problem of cutting the city off from outside communication again arose. The siege lasted for thirteen years and in the end the city paid tribute. In 567B.C.Nebuchadnezzar's army invaded Egypt, but it was merely a raid to terrorize the Egyptians and put an end to Egyptian interference.
The king was now free to give his energy to internal affairs, and his attention was chiefly centered in building and beautifying Babylon. Notable among his undertakings were the walls of the city—counted among the seven wonders of the world. They were so well constructed that had they been defended, the city could never have been taken save by treachery inside the capital itself. In 562B.C.Nebuchadnezzar died—the last great king of an ancient nation.
Of the following reign little is known, the king being assassinated in the second year of his rule. Two other uneventful reigns followed, and then Nabonidus ascended the throne. This man was a student—not a king. He did one good service for future ages; being devoted to rebuilding the temples of the gods, he had his workmen excavate deep down into the old foundations of the temple of the sun-god in Sippar, which he says had not been seen for 3200 years, for the record-tablet, always placed in the corner. Then he caused a new tablet to be inserted, repeating the history of the temple and enumerating his repairs. Modern excavators have been greatly aided by these tablets of Nabonidus. While he was thus absorbed, his country was fast plunging on to ruin. His was an age when the mere existence of a nation depended upon its aggressive policy. While the entire resources of the country were being expended upon shrines sacred to the gods, there was neither time nor money for the maintenance of an army. Matters were allowed to take their own course for awhile, and later the king's son, Belshar-usur, or Belshazzar, was left to manage government concerns. For this reason, the Hebrews recorded him as the last Babylonian king, while in truth his father bore the kingly title.
Even when danger threatened the state to such an extent that the scholar-king himself, poking around among his ancient record-tablets, was finally forced to take notice of it, he gave no thought to his kingdom or his subjects, but was simply alarmed for the safety of his statue-deities. These he had hurried into the capital from all parts of the land. So occupied was he lest perchance a god or two might some way escape him, that he had no time to prepare the city for attack, and in the end Babylon, the pride of its age, came into the hands of the conqueror without a blow!
The fact was that there were many within the kingdom who would gladly welcome outside interference. The Hebrews had settled down in their quarter and had become the leading people of commerce and loaners of money. One commercial firm alone—Egibi & Sons—filled a place for that age not unlike the modern Rothschilds. These people, who may have been of Jewish descent, hated the king who had destroyed their city of Jerusalem and his descendants, and would willinglyhelp any one who might rob Babylonian kings of their empire. It has been surmised that for aid rendered they were allowed to go back to their own country and rebuild Jerusalem on its early site.
Not only were the Hebrews an element to be reckoned with; the priests of the Babylonian gods had been repeatedly offended by Nabonidus, and they too joined the opposition, beyond doubt.
So great a city as Babylon had never before existed. No city since has had so long a history, and yet, without a blow struck in its defense, it passed into the possession of a people just taking on the ways of civilized life. It was little wonder that it fell shortly into ruins, soon to be grass-covered and like Nineveh, forgotten!
Since 606B.C.the Medes, conquerors of Assyria, had been extending their territory. They were now a people of strength, united under King Astyages.
In the land earlier called Elam, now Persia, a great conqueror appeared—Cyrus the Great. He defeated the Medes under Astyages, and so rapidly did his empire come into being, that all civilized nations were roused to the danger of a world-conqueror. In 546B.C.Egypt, Babylonia, Lydia and Sparta arrayed their forces against Cyrus, to check his power, but his camels put their cavalry to flight, and he won the decisive battle. Having annexed Asia Minor, he turned to Babylon. As we have seen, the city of Babylon might have held out indefinitely against attack, but when Belshazzar led an army against a detachment of Persian troops, none were left to defend the capital. The old tale of Herodotus that Cyrus turned the Euphrates out of its course and entered the city through its channel, is mere fiction. Such exertion was unnecessary, for the city gates swung open wide to the conqueror.
And thus we come to the end of the political history of the Tigris-Euphrates states—a mere skeleton of framework, which we can now fill out with some account of their social, industrial and religious life.
ASSYRIAN PALACE AT NINEVEH.ASSYRIAN PALACE AT NINEVEH.
To understand the Babylonian, we must take into consideration both the nature of his country and the origin of his race. Apart from these two important factors, the marked differences between himself and his Assyrian brother would not be clear.
We have found that Babylonia was an alluvial plain, sloping gently to the Persian Gulf, and made fertile by the annual overflow and deposits of two rivers. As in Egypt, so here remarkable yields of grain rewarded the sower if he but supplied necessary moisture by maintaining a system of well-regulated canals. Regarding the origin of the Babylonians, we found that they sprang from a union of Semitics with the earlier Turanian settlers of the country, receiving later infusion of blood from the Kassites and Elamites. This intermingling of races and peoples resulted in a nation whose characteristics differed widely from the purer Semitic stock that peopled Assyria.
"The Babylonian was a stout, thick-set man, somewhat short, with straight nose, wide nostrils, and square face. The Assyrian, on the other hand, was tall and muscular, his nose was slightly hooked, his lips were full, his eyes dark and piercing. His head and face showed an abundance of black curly hair....
"The Babylonian was essentially an irrigator and cultivator of the ground. The cuneiform texts are full of references to the gardens of Babylonia, and the canals by which they were watered. It was a land which brought forth abundantly all that was entrusted to its bosom.... But the fear of floods and the reclamation of the marsh lands demanded constant care and labor, the result being that the country population of Babylonia was, like the country population of Egypt, an industrious peasantry, wholly devotedto agricultural work, and disinclined to war and military operations. In the towns, where the Semitic element was stronger, a considerable amount of trade and commerce was carried on, and the cities on the sea-coast built ships and sent their merchantmen to distant lands....
"The character of the Assyrian was altogether different from that of the Babylonian. He was a warrior, a trader, and an administrator. The peaceful pursuits of the agricultural population of Babylonia suited him but little. His two passions were fighting and trading. But his wars, at all events in the later days of the Assyrian Empire, were conducted with a commercial object.... It was to destroy the trade of the Phœnician cities and to divert it into Assyrian hands, that the Assyrian kings marched their armies to the west; it was to secure the chief highways of commerce that campaigns were made into the heart of Arabia and Assyrian satraps were appointed in the cities of Syria. The Assyrian was indeed irresistible as a soldier, but the motive that inspired him was as much the interest of the trader as the desire for conquest."[1]
Side by side with the Babylonian's farming concerns, grew his love for study and his development of the peaceful arts. An elementary education was general in Babylonia. As industry and commerce brought wealth and created thus a leisure class, education and learning flourished in Babylonian cities. Schools grew into prominence, and in the realm of astronomy and certain of the sciences, some advance was made by which the Greeks later profited. Quite the reverse was true in Assyria. A feverish desire for commercial gain and for military conquest prevented progress in the arts of peace. Learning was confined to a few—professional scribes supplied secretaries for the state and even wrote private letters for private citizens. When the luxuries of the ancient world could be won as tribute, the Assyrian scorned to produce them for himself. With blood unmixed with any peace-loving people, he retained the characteristics of his earlier Arabian home. He left the cultivation of the country to slaves and dwelt in cities, when war and trade left him intermittent periods at home.
Both Babylonian and Assyrian were religious, but hereagain we find differences due to environment. The Babylonian, inheriting the conjuring and magic of the earlier Chaldean, possessed a religion which held him in constant dread of demons. The greatest aid and solace his religion afforded was to assist him in driving away foes which assailed him at every turn. The Assyrian on the contrary, showed the same proud bearing in his religious concerns as in other aspects of life. Asshur was his mighty God, strong in battle and unequaled in courage. Firm in his conviction that Asshur would give him victory, he went forth, like his Hebrew brother, to overcome all others and destroy other gods which offended the true God.
In origin and traditions alike, the Assyrian and the Hebrew in early times present many similarities, and the religion of the one is comparable at many points with that of the other.
It is supposed that in earliest times the dwellers in the Euphrates valley built their huts of reeds which grew in profusion along the river and the canals. These in time were replaced by huts of sun-dried brick. We have already learned that the low level plains of Babylonia afforded little or no stone for building purposes. Oven-dried brick was the most substantial building material known and this was so costly, on account of the scarcity of fuel, that only the temples, kings' palaces, and homes of the wealthy were made of it. The great majority of houses then, were constructed of clay mud, shaped in bricks and dried in the sun.
The more pretentious dwellings of nobles and kings were placed on artificially constructed heights—huge piles of brickwork, in order to raise them above the gnats and the malaria-breeding fogs of the marshes. The huts of the poor were located wherever opportunity offered. While these contained but one or two rooms with small apertures in the clay walls for windows, and had no floor save the ground, the houses of the wealthy were frequently several stories high, the upper floors being reached by outside stairways. The use of the arch was known in Babylonia from 4000B.C., a perfect keystone example having been found at Nippur by the University of Pennsylvania expedition. Windows were furnished with tapestries to exclude the storms and intense heat of noonday. Flat roofssupplied a place for the women to perform many household duties, or, if these were performed by slaves elsewhere, they sat here to embroider their tapestries and to chat with their friends. Here too, on hot nights, mattresses were thrown down for the hours of sleep.
Wherever possible a garden surrounded the house. The pride of the Babylonian, as of the Egyptian, was his carefully tended garden, whether it was a tiny plot of land or a vast overhanging terrace like that of Babylon's queen.
Streets were narrow and exceedingly dirty, for into them all refuse and rubbish from the houses accumulated. We learn that sometimes the entire street would be filled up to the very doors of the dwellings, and then, instead of clearing them out, an upper story was added to the houses, new doors provided, and the occupants started anew on a fresh elevation.
In homes of the wealthy the furniture was simple, and in the huts of the poor it was scanty indeed. Chairs, stools, and tables were in use; a mat often constituted the bed, although pictures of most uncomfortable looking bedsteads have been preserved, these being possessed only by the wealthy.
The Assyrians who went from Babylonia into their northern land, took with them the habits and customs there acquired. While stone was plentiful, they used it only for foundations, or for the less important portion of their buildings, continuing to make mud brick for the rest, as they had done before. While hills and elevations were now available on every hand, they still erected huge piles of brick or stone and crowned these by their buildings. The Assyrian blood, unmixed with other tribes or peoples, produced no ingenuity, no inventive genius. The Assyrian remained an imitator—never a creator. For this reason, we find close similarity between the houses of the two countries.
Certain features which became inseparable with later architecture had their beginnings in Babylonia. In early times the roof which covered the mud hut was supported by dried palm stems; gradually a more substantial support was substituted, and in this way the column had its origin and was adopted and improved upon by the Greeks. Again, interior house decoration may be traced back to these Babylonian houses built of brick. In houses of the well-to-do, the unsightly bricks were covered by a coating of stucco and upon thiswere painted various scenes and ornamentations. In Assyria, slabs of soft lime-stone were used instead of the stucco, and figures of horses and men, hunting scenes and battles, were carved in bas-relief upon them. Indeed much of our knowledge concerning the life of the people has been gained from a study of the reliefs discovered in buried palaces.
Regarding the daily lives of those who dwelt within these mud brick houses, we have less detailed information than concerning the ancient Egyptian. Fewer scenes of ordinary life were painted in the Tigris-Euphrates valleys, and whatever was entrusted to the clay stood far greater chance of being destroyed than that committed to Egyptian stone.
In considering the family life, the position accorded to woman and the marriage laws and regulations are of first importance.
In early times in Babylonia, a man received a dowry with his wife. Polygamy was not infrequent but a strong check was placed upon it by requiring the husband, in case of divorce, to return the wife's dowry to her and allow her to return home or maintain her own establishment. The income from the dowry was enjoyed by both husband and wife, but it remained the portion of the wife and could be willed according to her pleasure. In case of a woman's second marriage, her first dowry belonged to her, subject to the claim of her children for one-half of its value.
In both Babylonia and Assyria married women enjoyed many liberties. They might carry on business enterprises, borrow or loan, manage their own property and dispose of it at their will. They could seek justice in the courts, and if they belonged to the middle classes, could come and go at pleasure. The women of noble families were more carefully guarded, and seldom appeared unattended in public.
Girls who were not provided with dowries might be purchased and so become superior slaves of their husbands. Children might be sold by their parents and brothers might sell their sisters, but in these countries, slaves were not despised as inferiors and inhumanly treated. They were often adopted into families, and since those of noble birth were not infrequently taken captives in war, the slave might be superior to the owner. However, this last was not so common in Mesopotamia as it was later in Rome. The fact which alone assured slaves of good treatment was that there was generally no race difference to engender feeling between slave and master. Indeed one case is cited in those days of quickly reversed fortunes, where the slave in a few years became the master and his former owner became his property!
Marriage was both a civil and a religious ceremony, and the contract was signed in the presence of a priest. In a code of Babylonian laws compiled about 2250B.C., a law provided that "If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage-contract, that woman is not a wife." Another provided for one who is helpless: "If a man has married a wife and a disease has seized her, if he is determined to marry a second wife, he shall marry her. He shall not divorce the wife whom the disease has seized. In the home they made together she shall dwell and he shall maintain her as long as she lives."[2]
Both sons and daughters could inherit property, and according to Babylonian law, whosoever possessed property, could will it, or dispose of it, with certain well established restrictions. In case there were no children to inherit an estate, it was a common practice to adopt them. Thus families were prevented from dying out.
Children were cared for, sent to school, taught trades or professions, and probably a certain amount of family life was enjoyed while they were growing up. The rights of each member of the family were definitely recognized by law. Home life as we today understand the phrase, was unknown in antiquity.
We can contrast the condition in Babylonia, where the individual, instead of the family, was recognized by the law to that in Rome of a later time, when the family was the unit of the state, and the pater familias managed all family affairs without state interference or restriction.
[1]Sayce: Social Life Among the Assyrians and Babylonians, 18.[2]Johns: Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters, 56, 58.
[1]Sayce: Social Life Among the Assyrians and Babylonians, 18.
[1]Sayce: Social Life Among the Assyrians and Babylonians, 18.
[2]Johns: Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters, 56, 58.
[2]Johns: Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters, 56, 58.
For some years past, the French explorer De Morgan has been making extensive excavations at Susa, the capital of ancient Persia, and before the rise of Persia, the capital of Elam as early as 3000B.C.In the winter of 1901-1902, having removed layers of earth containing ruins of Persian palaces, he reached deposits contemporary with some of the old Elamite kings. Here was discovered a stone monument inscribed with the code of Hammurabi. As we have seen, this king ruled Babylonia about 2000B.C.He it was who united all the little city-states into one kingdom with its capital at Babylon. Proving himself a statesman as well as a warrior, he devoted himself to the welfare of his subjects. He repaired old canals and constructed new ones, restored the temples and above all, gave the country a uniform system of laws. These laws were not made by Hammurabi—generally speaking at least. They had been long established by custom and he merely codified such customs and earlier decisions into a system so that justice might be administered alike throughout the realm. The laws were then inscribed upon stone slabs and erected at certain places where the people could read them, and those who felt themselves injured might know what redress lay open to them.
The particular stele unearthed by De Morgan had been set up originally in the town of Sippara. Later Elamite kings became powerful enough to invade Babylonia and lay the country under tribute. During this period, one Elamite king had removed the stone monument from Sippara and taken it home with his spoils. It had graced his triumphal procession upon his return and was set up at his capital. 49 columns of inscription were engraved upon it, but the Elamite king caused 5 to be removed and the stone to be re-polished, in order that his name might be therein inserted. For some reason this was forgotten or omitted.
Of the 282 laws once carved upon the stele, all are still legible. Their discovery is most important for the historyof ancient Babylonia, as it has enabled scholars to reconstruct the standards of morality and justice current when the country came into its first strength and power. We may be sure that these laws were in vogue much earlier than the time of Hammurabi and they lived on with little change for many years after. They without doubt furnished the basis for the legal code throughout the history of Babylonia, and without some knowledge of them we would never have been able to understand the civilization of the country as it is known today. It is comparable to the "Mosaic Code," which is made up of different strata from different periods, cir. 1000B.C.to 500B.C.The similarity between the two codes harks back to an early period when the two peoples had not yet left their Arabian home, and indicates general Semitic customs. Hammurabi's code "is concerned little, if at all, with religious matters; the chief content is almost entirely civil and criminal, dealing with such subjects as marriage, the family, property rights, agricultural and commercial activities."
It is on the basis of these laws now translated that the morality of the ancient Babylonians has been worked out. We find that the people were on the borderland of retaliation, and punishments often took the form of fines. There was still the old tribal "group responsibility"—that is, the children often had to suffer for the sins of the father. Distinction was now made between intentional and unintentional injury. Trial by ordeal was sometimes allowed, especially when magic was thought to have been used. Death was a frequent punishment. Banishment might be inflicted. On the whole, the practices in Babylonia, before and after 2000B.C., were not so severe as those common in England a century ago, when petty larceny was met by extreme punishment.
The Babylonians carried the idea of contract and written agreement farther than any other ancient people. Understandings which are today made verbally between men were inscribed on clay tablets, duly impressed by the seals of the parties concerned, and carefully preserved. We find the law required receipts and written contracts as early as 2000B.C.For example, "If a merchant has given to an agent corn, wool, oil, or any sort of goods to traffic with, the agent shall write down the money value, and shall return that to the merchant. The agent shall then take a sealed receipt for themoney that he has given to the merchant. If the agent forgets and has not taken a sealed receipt for the money he gave to the merchant, money that has not been acknowledged by receipt shall not be put down in the accounts."[1]Regarding money given bankers: "If a man has given another gold, silver, or any goods whatever on deposit, all that he gives shall be shown to witnesses, and take a bond and so give on deposit. If he has given on deposit without witnesses and bonds, and has been defrauded where he made his deposit, he has no claim to prosecute."[2]
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was demanded by the Code of Hammurabi.
"If a man has knocked out the eye of a patrician, his eye shall be knocked out.
"If he has broken the limb of a patrician, his limb shall be broken.
"If he has knocked out the eye of a plebeian or has broken the limb of a plebeian, he shall pay one mana of silver.
"If a patrician has knocked out the tooth of a man that is his equal, his tooth shall be knocked out. If he has knocked out the tooth of a plebeian, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.
"If a man has struck another in a quarrel, and caused him permanent injury, that man shall swear, 'I struck him without malice,' and shall pay the doctor."[3]
Theft at a fire was made a capital offense. "If a fire has broken out in a man's house and one who has come to put it out has coveted the property of the householder and appropriated any of it, that man shall be cast into the self-same fire."[4]
Fees of the surgeon were graded by law, and severe penalties were inflicted for unskillful operations. Probably these were not strictly enforced but were intended to prevent malpractice.
Marriage laws and regulations governing inheritance were necessarily definite in a country where a man might have more than one wife. Since perpetuation of a family throughadoption was frequent, laws protected both foster children and foster parents.
"If a man has brought up a child, whom he has taken to be his son, but has not reckoned him with his sons, that foster child shall return to his father's house.
"If a craftsman has taken a child to bring up and has taught him his handiwork, he shall not be reclaimed. If he has not taught him his handicraft, that foster child shall return to his father's house."
Injury which today would necessitate the payment of damages, in ancient Babylonia might even be punished with death. "If a builder has built a house for a man, and has not made his work sound, and the house he built has fallen, and caused the death of its owner, that builder shall be put to death. If it is the owner's son that is killed, the builder's son shall be put to death.
"If he has caused the loss of goods, he shall render back whatever he has destroyed. Moreover, because he did not make sound the house he built, and it fell, at his own cost he shall rebuild the house that fell."
Workmen were required to do faithful work or make good consequent losses. "If a boatman has built a boat for a man, and has not made his work sound, and in that same year that boat is sent on a voyage and suffers damage, the boatman shall rebuild that boat, and, at his own expense, shall make it strong, or shall give a strong boat to the owner."
In a land where the cultivation of the soil was the great industry, naturally many regulations refer to the lease of ground and the rent to be paid by the farmer to the owner of the estate. Because the very production of the soil depended upon the maintenance of canals, neglect in the care of the dikes was severely punished.
"If a man has hired a field to cultivate and has caused no corn to grow on the field, he shall be held responsible for not doing the work on the field and shall pay an average rent.
"If a man has given his garden to a gardener to farm, the gardener, as long as he holds the garden, shall give the owner of the garden two-thirds of the produce of the garden and shall take one-third himself.
"If a man has neglected to strengthen his dike and hasnot kept his dike strong, and a breach has broken out in his dike, and the waters have flooded the meadow, the man in whose dike the breach has broken out shall restore the corn he has caused to be lost. If he be not able to restore the corn, he and his goods shall be sold, and the owners of the meadow whose corn the water has carried away shall share the money.
"If a man has opened his runnel for watering and has left it open, and the water has flooded his neighbor's field, he shall pay him an average crop."
That justice might be administered uniformly throughout the realm, courts were established in different cities, and Hammarabi insured the well-being of his subjects by further creating a court of appeals, held in Babylon. To this superior court anyone, thinking himself unfairly treated in the lower courts, might have a hearing. Perjury was severely punished. "If a man has borne false witness in a trial, or has not established the statement that he has made, if that case be a capital trial, that man shall be put to death.
"If he has borne false witness in a civil law case, he shall pay the damages in that suit." Judges were always restricted by law and were held to strict account in administering justice. Any suspicion of bribery expelled the judge from his seat.
"If a judge has given a verdict, rendered a decision, granted a written judgment, and afterwards has altered his judgment, that judge shall be prosecuted for altering the judgment he gave and shall pay twelvefold the penalty laid down in that judgment. Further, he shall be publicly expelled from his judgment-seat and shall not return nor take his seat with the judges at a trial."
Other public servants were required to deal justly with the people. Governors of provinces who oppressed the inhabitants or in any way were unjust to those dependent upon them, laid themselves liable to a death sentence if charges against them could be proven.
In the light of these laws we would conclude that the Babylonians had reached a high stage of morality when authentic history of their kingdom begins. Honesty, truth, fair-dealing,—these were demanded by the laws of the realm, andpenalties attached to crimes violating them. One who was injured must bring his cause before a judge and allow disinterested persons to render a decision. Instead of retaliation upon the assailant, money was sometimes received as compensation for injury. In more flagrant cases, the law imposed the penalty of death. A man could not slander his neighbor without risk of punishment.
"If the claimant of lost property has not brought the witnesses that know his lost property, he has been guilty of slander, he has stirred up strife, he shall be put to death.
"If a man has not his witnesses at hand, the judge shall set him a fixed time not exceeding six months, and if within six months he has not produced his witnesses, the man has lied; he shall bear the penalty of the suit."
Protection was assured the weak and helpless by this code. It was customary to receive hostages as security for debt—the debtor's son and slave. Such a hostage was entitled to fair treatment and a law made it an offense to misuse him. "If a hostage has died of blows or want in the house of the creditor, the owner of the hostage shall prosecute his creditor, and if the deceased were free-born, the creditor's son shall be put to death; if a slave, the creditor shall pay one-third of a mana of silver, furthermore, he shall lose whatever it was that he lent."
Regarding intemperance among the Babylonians, they used beer freely, but appear to have gone to no such excesses as were common among the Egyptians. The price of beer was fixed by law and an overcharge was punishable by drowning.
The morality of the people seems to have been very slightly influenced by their religion. While all Semitics have been strongly religious people, the Babylonians had reached a certain degree of secularism in their religion. Their temples were financial centers for the country and were of more direct interest to the people because from them they might negotiate small loans to tide them over emergencies perhaps than because the deity of the locality had there his center of worship.
A lengthy prologue setting forth the titles of Hammurabi and the gods that gave him power, preceded his code of laws. These were followed by an epilogue similar in nature. Theking calls down curses upon any future ruler who should cause his wholesome regulations to be altered. "In the future, in days to come, at any time, let the king who is in the land, guard the words of righteousness which I have written on my stele. Let him not alter the judgment of the land which I judged nor the decisions I decided. Let him not destroy my bas-relief. If that man has wisdom and is capable of directing his land, let him attend to the words which I have written upon my stele, let him apprehend the path, the rule, the law of the land which I judged, and the decision I decided for the land, and so let him guide forward the black-headed race; let him judge their judgment and decide their decision, let him cut off from his land the proud and violent, let him rejoice in the flesh of his people."[5]
Blessings were given him who should respect this code of laws and terrible curses heaped upon any who might disregard it. Much of Babylonia's prosperity appears to have resulted from the enforcement of these impartial judgments.