Part 35 (1/2)
It was in the year 559 B.C. that Evil-Merodach was murdered, and Neriglissar at once seized the throne of his brother-in-law. Berosus (as quoted by Josephus) gives no details as to his reign. In his inscriptions he states that he was (like Nabopola.s.sar and Nebuchadnezzar before him) patron of e-sagila and e-zida, the temple of Belus at Babylon and that of Nebo at Borsippa, and that the great G.o.ds had established his dominion.
After speaking of the G.o.d Nebo, he makes a reference to Ura, the G.o.d of death, which, under the circ.u.mstances, one can hardly regard as otherwise than significant-
”Nebo, the faithful son, a just sceptre has caused his hands to hold.
To keep the people, preserve the country, Ura, prince of the G.o.ds, gave him his weapon.”
He then mentions his father, Bel-um-ikun, whom he calls ”king of Babylon,” and describes the restoration and decoration of e-zida and e-sagila, together with the palace which he built for himself at Babylon, and other architectural work.
But to describe his father as ”king of Babylon” was a statement somewhat removed from the truth. In the contract-tablets of the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach, where the name of Neriglissar occurs somewhat frequently as a purchaser of houses, land, etc., he is called simply ”son of Bel-um-ikun,” without any other t.i.tle whatever (see p.
438). But perhaps Neriglissar's statement is due to some historical event of which we are ignorant.
Neriglissar died in the month Nisan or Iyyar of the fourth year of his reign, and was succeeded by his son Labai-Marduk, the Labarosoarchod of the Greek writers. According to Berosus (Josephus against Apion, i. 20), he was no more than a child, and it may be supposed that he was a younger son of Neriglissar, though concerning this we have no information. He only reigned nine months, a plot having been laid against him by his friends, and he was tormented to death, ”by reason of the very ill-temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world” (Berosus). After his death, according to the same historian, the conspirators met, and elected one of their number, Nabonnedus (Nabuna'id), as king. ”In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen,” is all that Berosus has to say with regard to the sixteen years of his reign which preceded his overthrow.
Many inscriptions of the reign of this king exist, and we are able to gain from them an excellent idea of the state of the country and the historical events of this important period. All that Nabonidus tells us concerning his origin is, that he was the son or descendant of Nabu-bala?-su-iqbi, whom he calls _rubu emqu_, ”the deeply-wise prince.” Who he may have been is not known, but there exist two tablets of the nature of letters written by a certain Nabu-bala?-su-iqbi to Aur-bani-apli, whose faithful servant he professed to be, protesting against the treatment which he had received at the hands of certain men who were hostile to him. If both these letters were written by the same person, they must belong to about the year 652 B.C. (the eponymy of Aur-na?ir, which is mentioned in one of them). As that was about one hundred years before Nabonidus came to the throne, this personage, if related to him, must have been his grandfather or great-grandfather. Other persons of the same name are mentioned in the fifth, eleventh, eighteenth, and thirty-fourth years of Nebuchadnezzar, but it seems very unlikely that the father of Nabonidus should be one of these.
According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonidus was at the beginning of his reign engaged in the west, to all appearance cutting down, among other things, trees on Mount Ama.n.u.s for building purposes at Babylon. Something also took place by the Mediterranean (_tamtim a mat Amurri_, ”the sea of the land of Amoria”). Apparently he had also troops in this district, and sacrifices were performed there.
After this there is a gap until the sixth year of his reign, the entry for which, however, refers wholly to Astyages' operations against Cyrus, and its disastrous results, for he was made prisoner, Ecbatana sacked, and the spoil brought to Anan, Cyrus's capital.
Previous to this, as Nabonidus informs us in his cylinder-inscription found by Mr. Ra.s.sam at Abu-habbah (Sippar), the Medes had been very successful in their warlike operations, and had even besieged Haran, making it impossible for Nabonidus to carry out the instructions of his G.o.d Merodach, revealed to him in a dream, to restore the temple of Sin in that city. On the king of Babylon reminding the deity of the state of things in that part, and speaking of the strength of the Median forces, he was told that in three years' time their power would be destroyed, which happened as predicted. He now caused his ”vast army” to come from Gaza and elsewhere to do the needful work, and when completed, the image of the G.o.d Sin was brought from Babylon, and placed in the restored shrine with joy and shouting. Naturally the Babylonian king was overjoyed at the release of Haran from the power of the Medes-could he have foreseen that Cyrus, their conqueror, would one day hurl him from his throne, his enthusiasm concerning the success of ”the young servant of Merodach” (as he calls him) would have been greatly abated.
In his seventh and eighth years the king was in Tema, and the crown prince (apparently Belshazzar is meant), with the great men and the army, was in Akkad (the northern part of Babylonia, of which the city of Agad or Agade was the capital). The king did not go to Babylon, Nebo did not go to Babylon, Bel did not go forth, the festival _akitu_ (new year's festival) was not performed, though the victims seem to have been offered in e-sagila and e-zida as usual, and (the king) appointed a priest (_uru-gala_) of the weapon (?) and the temple. In the ninth year also the same state of things existed, and this year the mother of the king died, to the great grief of the people. It is also recorded for this year that Cyrus, apparently in the course of one of his military expeditions, crossed the Tigris above Arbela.
From the fact that the religious processions and ceremonies are given as being unperformed every year from the seventh to the eleventh of his reign, it is clear that a great deal of discontent was caused thereby, as is, in fact, indicated by the cylinder-inscription of Cyrus detailing under what conditions he himself entered Babylon. It was evidently one of the duties of the Babylonian kings (and, as we have seen, the a.s.syrian kings conformed to this when they became kings of Babylonia) to perform the usual ceremonies, and the ruler neglecting this was certain to fall into disfavour with the priesthood, and, by their influence, with the people as well.
Whatever may have been the sins of omission of Nabonidus-whether they were trivial or otherwise-there is no doubt that they made a bad impression on the people, and gave rise to all kinds of statements against him when the days of misfortune came. For the scribe who drew up Cyrus's record after the taking of Babylon, all Nabonidus's doings with regard to the temples and statues of the G.o.ds were to be quoted against him. The temple dues had been allowed to fail, and the G.o.ds quitted their shrines, angry at the thought that Nabonidus had brought foreign G.o.ds to u-anna (a part of Babylon). With regard to this last accusation, it may be remarked that a popular ruler would in all probability have been praised for bringing the G.o.ds of other places to Babylon-it would have been either a tribute to the power of Babylonia in war (a power conferred upon her, in their opinion, by her G.o.ds); or else the payment of homage by the G.o.ds of other cities to those of Babylon, acknowledging at the same time their (and her) supremacy.
The fact is, Nabonidus was either the most intelligent, or one of the most intelligent, men in Babylonia. To all appearance he was not a ruler, but a learned man, full of love for his country and its inst.i.tutions, and desirous of knowledge, which he obtained at all costs. Whenever he had to restore a temple, he at once excavated in its foundations for the records of early kings which he knew to be there, and he was often successful in finding what he wanted. As he always recorded what he found, his cylinder-inscriptions nearly always possess a value far beyond those of other kings of Babylon. He seems to have delighted in what he saw when engaged in this work-he not only tells you that he read the texts thus discovered, but he refers to their perfect condition, and nearly always says something about the ruler who caused them to be placed in the foundations. He, too, is worthy of a statue in every place where the language of his native land is studied.
Naturally, his antiquarian researches, necessitating, as they did, the destruction of a part of the fabric of the temple under repair at the time, were not looked upon altogether with favour by the priests and the people, hence the dissatisfaction to which the scribes, who were probably of the priestly caste, afterwards gave vent. Besides this, was it not necessary that they should justify themselves for accepting a foreign ruler, of a different religion from their own?
Nabonidus gives no hint in his inscriptions that he was aware of any dissatisfaction at what he was doing. In all probability he was as religious as any of his predecessors had been, and his son Belshazzar was as the second ruler in the kingdom. Records exist showing that Belshazzar sent offerings to the temple at Sippar whilst he was in that neighbourhood, and the king's own offerings are sometimes mentioned with them. The king had therefore a good deputy performing his work. With regard to the bringing of foreign G.o.ds to u-anna, Cyrus's scribe probably refers to the deities of Haran, which were taken thither before the siege of the place by the Medes. When the enemy had departed, Nabonidus restored the temple in that city, and replaced the deities referred to in their shrines. The transport of the idols may have been merely to place them for the time being in a place of greater security.
There is, then, every probability that Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, was the real ruler. What an excellent understanding existed between him and his father may be gained from the inscription which Nabonidus caused to be composed to place in the foundations of the temple of the Moon (the G.o.d Sin) at Ur (identified with Ur of the Chaldees), the concluding lines of which run as follows-
”As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, from sin against thy great divinity save me, and a life of remote days give as a gift; and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son, the offspring of my heart, the fear of thy great divinity cause thou to exist in his heart, and let not sin possess him, let him be satisfied with fulness of life.”
The text being undated, there is no means of ascertaining in what year the restoration of the temple of the Moon at Ur took place.
The story of the downfall of the Babylonian empire and the end of native rule in Babylonia is told by the Babylonian Chronicle as follows-
”(Year 17th), Nebo to go forth (?) from Borsippa ... the king entered the temple E-tur-kalama. In the month (?) ... and the lower sea, revolted ...
went (?). Bel went forth, the festival Akitu (new year's festival) they held as usual (?). In the month ... the G.o.ds (?) of Marad, Zagaga and the G.o.ds of the city of Ki, Beltis and the G.o.ds of ?ursag-kalama, entered Babylon. At the end of the month Elul the G.o.ds of the land of Akkad who were above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere entered Babylon, the G.o.ds of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month Tammuz Cyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The people of Akkad raised a revolt; people were killed; Sippar was taken on the 14th day without fighting. Nabonidus fled. On the 16th day Ugbaru (Gobryas), governor of the land of Gutium, and the soldiers of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting-after Nabonidus they pursued (?), he was captured in Babylon. At the end of the month the regiment (?) of the land of Gutium surrounded (?) the gates of e-sagila (the temple of Belus). A celebration (?) of anything, in e-sagila and the shrines, was not being made, and a (lunar ?) festival was not proceeding. Marcheswan, the third day, Cyrus descended to Babylon; they filled the roads before him. Peace was established to the city-Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, all of it.
Gubaru (Gobryas), his governor, appointed governors in Babylonia, and from the month Kisleu to the month Adar the G.o.ds of the land of Akkad, whom Nabonidus had sent down to Babylon, returned to their places. The month Marcheswan, the night of the 11th day, Ugbaru (Gobryas) (went?) against ... and the son (?) of the king died. From the 27th of the month Adar to the third of the month Nisan, there was weeping in Akkad, all the people bowed down their heads. On the 4th day Cambyses, son of Cyrus, went to e-nig-?ad-kalama-ummu ('the house where the sceptre of the world is given,' the temple of Nebo). The man of the temple of the sceptre of Nebo....”
(The remainder is mutilated, and the sense not clear-to all appearance it refers to religious ceremonies and sacrifices in which Cambyses took part.)
Here, again, the suggestion seems to be, that because the king thought fit to send the statues of the various G.o.ds of the land to other cities than their own ”on a visit,” as it were, the priesthood was justified in renouncing allegiance to him (and in this the people naturally followed them), and in delivering the kingdom to a foreigner. It has been said that the success of Cyrus was in part due to the aid given to him by the Jews, who, sympathizing with him on account of his monotheism, helped him in various ways; but in all probability he could never have achieved success had not the Babylonian priests (as indicated by their own records) spread discontent among the people.