The impression made was, however, one of horror rather than of alarm.
Scarcely had the Assyrians returned to Nineveh, when fresh troubles
broke out. Saul-Mugina, discontented with his position, which was one of
complete dependence upon his brother, rebelled, and, declaring himself
king of Babylon in his own right, sought and obtained a number of
important allies among his neighbors. Umman-ibi, though he had received
his crown from Asshur-bani-pal, joined him, seduced by a gift of
treasure from the various Babylonian temples. Vaiteha, a powerful
Arabian prince, and Nebo-belsumi, a surviving grandson of
Merodach-Baladan, came into the confederacy; and Saul-Mugina had fair
grounds for expecting that he would be able to maintain his
independence. But civil discord--the curse of Elam at this period--once
more showed itself, and blighted all these fair prospects. Tammarit, the
brother of Ummman-ibi, finding that the latter had sent the flower of
his army into Babylonia, marched against him, defeated and slew him, and
became king of all Elam. Maintaining, however, the policy of his
brother, he entered into alliance with Saul-Mugina, and proceeded to put
himself at the head of the Elamitic contingent, which was serving in
Babylonia. Here a just Nemesis overtook him. Taking advantage of his
absence, a certain Inda-bibi (or Inda-bigas), a mountain-chief from the
fastnesses of Luristan, raised a revolt in Elam, and succeeded in
seating himself upon the throne. The army in Babylonia declining to
maintain the cause of Tammarit, he was forced to fly and conceal
himself, while the Elamitic troops returned home. Saul-Mugina then lost
the most important of his allies at the moment of his greatest danger
for his brother had at length marched against him at the head of an
immense army, and was overrunning his northern provinces. Without the
Elamites it was impossible for Babylon to contend with Assyria in the
Open field.

All that Saul-Mugina could do was to defend his towns, which
Asshur-bani-pal besieged and took, one after another. The rebel fell
into his brother’s hands, and suffered a punishment more terrible than
any that the relentless conqueror had as yet inflicted on his captured
enemies. Others had been mutilated, or beheaded; Saul-Mugina was burnt.
The tie of blood, which was held to have aggravated the guilt of his
rebellion, was not allowed to be pleaded in mitigation of his sentence.

A pause of some years’ duration now occurred. The relations between
Assyria and Susiana were unfriendly, but not actually hostile. Inda-bibi
had given refuge to Nebo-bel-sumi at the time of Saul Mugina’s
discomfiture, and Asshur-bani-pal repeatedly but vainly demanded the
surrender of the refugee. He did not, however, attempt to enforce his
demand by an appeal to arms; and Inda-bibi might have retained his
kingdom in peace, had not domestic troubles arisen to disturb him. He
was conspired against by the commander of his archers, a second
Umman-aldas, who killed him and occupied his throne. Many pretenders, at
the same time, arose in different parts of the country; and
Asshur-bani-pal, learning how Elam was distracted, determined on a fresh
effort to conquer it. He renewed his demand for the surrender of
Nebo-bel-sumi, who would have been given up had he not committed
suicide. Not content with this success, he (ab. B.C. 645) invaded Elam,
besieged and took Bit-Inibi, which had been strongly fortified, and
drove Umunan-aldas out of the plain country into the mountains. Susa and
Badaca, together with twenty-four other cities, fell into his power; and
Western Elam being thus at his disposal, he placed it under the
government of Tammarit, who, after his flight from Babylonia, had become
a refugee at the Assyrian court. Umman-aldas retained the sovereignty of
Eastern Elam.

But it was not long before fresh changes occurred. Tammarit, finding
himself little more than puppet-king in the hands of the Assyrians,
formed a plot to massacre all the foreign troops left to garrison this
country, and so to make himself an independent monarch. His intentions,
however, were discovered, and the plot failed. The Assyrians seized him,
put him in bonds, and sent him to Nineveh. Western Elam passed under
purely military rule, and suffered, it is probable, extreme severities.
Under these circumstances, Umman-aldas took heart, and made ready, in
the fastnesses to which he had fled, for another and a final effort.
Having levied a vast army, he, in the spring of the next year, made
himself once more master of Bit-Imbi, and, establishing himself there,
prepared to resist the Assyrians. Their forces shortly appeared; and,
unable to hold the place against their assaults, Umman-aldas evacuated
it with his troops, and fought a retreating fight all the way back to
Susa, holding the various strong towns and rivers in succession.
Gallant, however, as was his resistance it proved ineffectual. The lines
of defence which he chose were forced, one after another; and finally
both Susa and Badaca were taken, and the country once more lay at
Asshur-bani-pal’s mercy. All the towns made their submission.
Asshur-bani-pal, burning with anger at their revolt, plundered the
capital of its treasures, and gave the other cities up to be spoiled by
his soldiers for the space of a month and twenty-three days. He then
formally abolished Susianian independence, and attached the country as a
province to the Assyrian empire. Thus ended the Susianian war, after it
had lasted, with brief interruptions, for the space of (probably) twelve
years.

The full occupation given to the Assyrian arms by this long struggle
encouraged revolt in other quarters. It was probably about the time when
Asshur-bani-pal was engaged in the thick of the contest with Umman-ibi
and Saul-Mugina that Psammetichus declared himself independent in Egypt,
and commenced a war against the princes who remained faithful to their
Assyrian suzerain. Gyges, too, in the far north-west, took the
opportunity to break with the formidable power with which he had
recently thought it prudent to curry favor, and sent aid to the Egyptian
rebel, which rendered him effective service. Egypt freed herself from
the Assyrian yoke, and entered on the prosperous period which is known
as that of the twenty-sixth (Saite) dynasty. Gyges was less fortunate.
Assailed shortly by a terrible enemy, which swept with resistless force
over his whole land, he lost his life in the struggle. Assyria was well
and quickly avenged; and Ardys, the new monarch, hastened to resume the
deferential attitude toward Asshur-bani-pal which his father had
unwisely relinquished.

Asshur-bani-pal’s next important war was against the Arabs. Some of the
desert tribes had, as already mentioned, lent assistance to Saul-Mugina
during his revolt against his suzerain, and it was to punish this
audacity that Asshur-bani-pal undertook his expedition. His principal
enemy was a certain Vaiteha, who had for allies Natun, or Nathan, king
of the Nabathivans, and Ammu-ladin, king of Kedar. The fighting seems to
have extended along the whole country bordering the Euphrates valley
from the Persian Gulf to Syria, and thence southwards by Damascus to
Petra. Petra itself, Muhab (or Moab), Hudumimtukrab (Edom), Zaharri
(perhaps Zoar), and several other cities were taken by the Assyrians.
The final battle was fought at a place called Kutkhuruna, in he
mountains near Damascus, where the Arabians were defeated with great
slaughter, and the two chief, who had led the Arab contingent to the
assistance of Saul-Mugina were made prisoners by the Assyrians.
Asshur-bani-pal had them conducted to Nineveh, and there publicly
executed.

The annals of Asshur-bani-pal here terminate. They exhibit him to us as
a warrior more enterprising and more powerful than any of his
predecessors, and as one who enlarged in almost every direction the
previous limits of the empire. In Egypt he completed the work which his
father Esar-haddon had begun, and established the Assyrian dominion for
some years, not only at Sais and at Memphis, but at Thebes. In Asia
Minor he carried the Assyrian arms far beyond any former king,
conquering large tracts which had never before been invaded, and
extending the reputation of his greatness to the extreme western limits
of the continent. Against his northern neighbors he contended with
unusual success, and towards the close of his reign he reckoned, not
only the Minni, but the Urarda, or true Armenians, among his
tributaries. Towards the south, he added to the empire the great country
of Susiana, never subdued until his reign: and on the west, he signally
chastised if he did not actually conquer, the Arabs.

To his military ardor Asshur-bani-pal added a passionate addiction to
the pleasure of the chase. Lion-hunting was his especial delight.
Sometimes along the banks of reedy streams, sometimes borne mid-channel
in his pleasure galley, he sought the king of beasts in his native
haunts, roused him by means of hounds and beaters from his lair, and
despatched him with his unerring arrows. Sometimes he enjoyed the sport
in his own park of paradise. Large and fierce beasts, brought from a
distance, were placed in traps about the grounds, and on his approach
were set free from their confinement, while he drove among them in his
chariot, letting fly his shafts at each with a strong and steady hand,
which rarely failed to attain the mark it aimed at. Aided only by two or
three attendants armed with spears, he would encounter the terrific
spring of the bolder beasts, who rushed frantically at the royal
marksman and endeavored to tear him from the chariot-board. Sometimes he
would even voluntarily quit this vantage-ground, and, engaging with the
brutes on the same level, without the protection of armor, in his
everyday dress, with a mere fillet upon his head, he would dare a close
combat, and smite them with sword or spear through the heart.

When the supply of lions fell short, or when he was satiated with this
kind of sport. Asshur-bani-pal would vary his occupation, and content
himself with game of an inferior description. Wild bulls were probably
no longer found in Assyria or the adjacent countries, so that he was
precluded from the sport which, next to the chase of the lion occupied
and delighted the earlier monarchs. He could indulge, however, freely in
the chase of the wild ass still to this day a habitant of the
Mesopotamian region; and he would hunt the stag, the hind, and the ibex
or wild goat. In these tamer kinds of sport he seems, however, to have
indulged only occasionally--as a light relaxation scarcely worthy of a
great king.

Asshur-bani-pal is the only one of the Assyrian monarchs to whom we can
ascribe a real taste for learning and literature. The other kings were
content to leave behind them some records of the events of their reigns,
inscribed on cylinders, slabs, bulls, or lions, and a few dedicatory
inscriptions, addresses to the gods whom they especially worshipped.
Asshur-bani-pal’s literary tastes were far more varied--indeed they were
all-embracing. It seems to have been under his direction that the vast
collection of clay tablets--a sort of Royal Library--was made at
Nineveh, from which the British Museum has derived perhaps the most
valuable of its treasures. Comparative vocabularies, lists of deities
and their epithets, chronological lists of kings and eponyms, records of
astronomical observations, grammars, histories, scientific works of
various kinds, seems to have been composed in the reign, and probably at
the bidding of this prince, who devoted to their preservation certain
chambers in the palace of his grandfather, where they were found by Mr.
Layard. The clay tablets on which they were inscribed lay here in such
multitudes in some instances entire, but more commonly broken into
fragments--that they filled the chambers _to the height of a foot or
more from the floor_. Mr. Layard observes with justice that “the
documents thus discovered at Nineveh probably exceed [in amount of
writing] all that has yet been afforded by the monuments of Egypt.” They
have yielded of late years some most interesting results, and will
probably long continue to be a mine of almost inexhaustible wealth to
the cuneiform scholar.

As a builder, Asshur-bani-pal aspired to rival, if not even to excel,
the greatest of the monarchs who had preceded him. His palace was built
on the mound of Koyunjik, within a few hundred yards of the magnificent
erection of his grandfather, with which he was evidently not afraid to
challenge comparison. It was built on a plan unlike any adopted by
former kings. The main building consisted of three arms branching from
at common centre, and thus in its general shape resembled a gigantic T.
The central point was reached by a long ascending gallery lined with
sculptures, which led from a gateway, with rooms attached, at a corner
of the great court, first a distance of 190 feet in a direction parallel
to the top bar of the T, and then a distance of 80 feet in a direction
at right angles to this, which brought it down exactly to the central
point whence the arms branched. The entire building was thus a sort of
cross, with one long arm projecting from the top towards the left or
west. The principal apartments were in the lower limb of the cross. Here
was a grand hall, running nearly the whole length of the limb, at least
145 feet long by 28 feet broad, opening towards the east on a great
court, paved chiefly with the exquisite patterned slabs of which a
specimen has already been given, and communicating towards the west with
a number of smaller rooms, and through them with a second court, which
looked towards the south-west and the south. The next largest apartment
was in the right or eastern arm of the cross. It was a hall 108 feet
long by 24 feet wide, divided by a broad doorway in which were two
pillar-bases, into a square antechamber of 24 feet each way, and an
inner apartment about 80 feet in length. Neither of the two arms of the
cross was completely explored; and it is uncertain whether they extended
to the extreme edge of the eastern and western courts, thus dividing
each of there into two; or whether they only reached into the courts a
certain distance. Assuming the latter view as the more probable, the two
courts would have measured respectively 310 and 330 feet from the
north-west to the south-east, while they must have been from 230 to 250
feet in the opposite direction. From the comparative privacy of the
buildings, and from the character of the sculptures, it appears probable
that the left or western arm of the cross formed the hareem of the
monarch.

The most remarkable feature in the great palace of Asshur-bani-pal was
the beauty and elaborate character of the ornamentation. The courts were
paved with large slabs elegantly patterned. The doorways had sometimes
arched tops beautifully adorned with rosettes, lotuses, etc. The
chambers and passages were throughout lined with alabaster slabs,
bearing reliefs designed with wonderful spirit, and executed with the
most extraordinary minuteness and delicacy. It was here that were found
all those exquisite hunting scenes which have furnished its most
interesting illustrations to the present history. Here, too, were the
representations of the private life of the monarch, of the trees and
flowers of the palace garden, of the royal galley with its two banks of
oars, of the libation over four dead lions, of the temple with pillars
supported on lions, and of various bands of musicians, some of which
have been already given. Combined with these peaceful scenes and others
of a similar character, as particularly a long train, with game, nets,
and dogs, returning from the chase, which formed the adornment of a
portion of the ascending passage, were a number of views of sieges and
battles, representing the wars of the monarch in Susiana and elsewhere.
Reliefs of a character very similar to these last were found by Mr.
Layard in certain chambers of the palace of Sennacherib, which had
received their ornamentation from Asshur-bani-pal. They were remarkable
for the unusual number and small size of the figures, for the variety
and spirit of the attitudes, and for the careful finish of all the
little details of the scenes represented upon them. Deficient in
grouping, and altogether destitute of any artistic unity, they yet give
probably the best representation that has come down to us of the
confused _melee_ of an Assyrian battle, showing us at one view, as they
do, all the various phases of the flight and pursuit, the capture and
treatment of the prisoners, the gathering of the spoil, and the cutting
off the heads of the slain. These reliefs form now a portion of our
National Collection. A good idea may be formed of them from Mr. Layard’s
Second Series of Monuments, where they form the subject of five
elaborate engravings.

Besides his own great palace at Koyun-jik, and his additions to the
palace of his grandfather at the same place, Asshur-bani-pal certainly
constructed some building, or buildings, at Nebbi Yunus, where slabs
inscribed with his name and an account of his wars have been found. If
we may regard him as the real monarch whom the Greeks generally intended
by their Sardanapalus, we may say that, according to some classical
authors, he was the builder of the city of Tarsus in Cilicia, and
likewise of the neighboring city of Anchialus; though writers of more
authority tells us that Tarsus, at any rate, was built by Sennacherib.
It seems further to have been very generally believed by the Greeks that
the tomb of Sardanapalus was in this neighborhood. They describe it as a
monument of some height, crowned by a statue of the monarch, who
appeared to be in the act of snapping his fingers. On the stone base was
an inscription in Assyrian characters, of which they believed the sense
to run as follows:--“Sardanapalus, son of Anacyndaraxes, built Tarsus and
Anchialus in one day. Do thou, O stranger, eat, and drink, and amuse
thyself; for all the rest of human life is not worth so much as
_this_”--“this” meaning the sound which the king was supposed to be
making with his fingers. It appears probable that there was some figure
of this kind, with an Assyrian inscription below it, near Anchialus;
but, as we can scarcely suppose that the Greeks could read the cuneiform
writing, the presumed translation of the inscription would seem to be
valueless. Indeed, the very different versions of the legend which are
given by different writers sufficiently indicate that they had no real
knowledge of its purport. We may conjecture that the monument was in
reality a stele containing the king in an arched frame, with the right
hand raised above the left, which is the ordinary attitude, and an
inscription below commemorating the occasion of its erection. Whether it
was really set up by this king or by one of his predecessors, we cannot
say. The Greeks, who seem to have known more of Asshur-bani-pal than of
any other Assyrian monarch, in consequence of his war in Asia Minor and
his relations with Gyges and Ardys, are not unlikely to have given his
name to any Assyrian monument which they found in these parts, whether
in the local tradition it was regarded as his work or no.

Such, then, are the traditions of the Greeks with respect to this
monarch. The stories told by Ctesias of a king, to whom he gives the
same name, and repeated from him by later writers, are probably not
intended to have any reference to Asshur-bani-pal, the son of
Esar-haddon, but rather refer to his successor, the last king. Even
Ctesias could scarcely have ventured to depict to his countrymen the
great Asshur-bani-pal, the vanquisher of Tirhakah, the subduer of the
tribes beyond the Taurus, the powerful and warlike monarch whose
friendship was courted by the rich and prosperous Gyges, king of Lydia,
as a mere voluptuary, who never put his foot outside the palace gates,
but dwelt in the seraglio, doing woman’s work, and often dressed as a
woman. The character of Asshur-bani-pal stands really in the strongest
contrast to the description--be it a portrait, or be it a mere sketch
from fancy--which Ctesias gives of his Sardanapalus. Asshur-bani-pal,
was beyond a doubt one of Assyria’s greatest kings. He subdued Egypt and
Susiana; he held quiet possession of the kingdom of Babylon; he carried
his arms deep into Armenia; he led his troops across the Taurus, and
subdued the barbarous tribes of Asia Minor. When he was not engaged in
important wars, he chiefly occupied himself in the chase of the lion,
and in the construction and ornamentation of temples and palaces. His
glory was well known to the Greeks. He was no doubt one of the “two
kings called Sardanapalus,” celebrated by Hellanicus; he must have been
“the warlike Sardanapalus” of Cailisthenes; Herodotus spoke of his great
wealth; and Aristophanes used his name as a by-word for magnificence. In
his reign the Assyrian dominions reached their greatest extent, Assyrian
art culminated, and the empire seemed likely to extend itself over the
whole of the East. It was then, indeed, that Assyria most completely
answered the description of the Prophet--“The Assyrian was a cedar in
Lebanon, with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of high
stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him
great; the deep set him up on high with her rivers running about his
plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.
Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and
his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long, because of the
multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of the heaven
made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the
beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt
_all great nations_. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of
his branches for his root was by great waters. The cedars in the garden
of God could not hide him; the fir-trees were not like his boughs; and
the chestnut-trees were not like his branches; _nor any tree in the
garden of God was like unto him in his beauty_.”

In one respect, however, Assyria, it is to be feared, had made but
little advance beyond the spirit of a comparatively barbarous time. The
“lion” still “tore in pieces for his whelps, and strangled for his
lionesses, and filled his holes with prey, and his dens with ravin.”
 Advancing civilization, more abundant literature, improved art, had not
softened the tempers of the Assyrians, nor rendered them more tender and
compassionate in their treatment of captured enemies. Sennacherib and
Esar-haddon show, indeed, in this respect, some superiority to former
kings. They frequently spared their prisoners, even when rebels, and
seem seldom to have had recourse to extreme punishments. But
Asshur-bani-pal reverted to the antique system of executions,
mutilations, and tortures. We see on his bas-reliefs the unresisting
enemy thrust through with the spear, the tongue torn from the mouth of
the captive accused of blasphemy, the rebel king beheaded on the field
of battle, and the prisoner brought to execution with the head of a
friend or brother hung round his neck. We see the scourgcrs preceding
the king as his regular attendants, with their whips passed through
their girdles; we behold the operation of flaying performed either upon
living or dead men; we observe those who are about to be executed first
struck on the face by the executioner’s fist. Altogether we seem to have
evidence, not of mere severity, which may sometimes be a necessary or
even a merciful policy, but of a barbarous cruelty, such as could not
fail to harden and brutalize alike those who witnessed and those who
inflicted it. Nineveh, it is plain, still deserved the epithet of “a
bloody city,” or “a city of bloods.” Asshur-bani-pal was harsh,
vindictive, unsparing, careless of human suffering--nay, glorying in his
shame, he not merely practised cruelties, but handed the record of them
down to posterity by representing them in all their horrors upon his
palace walls.

It has been generally supposed that Asshur-bani-pal died about B.C. 648
or 647, in which case he would have continued to the end of his life a
prosperous and mighty king. But recent discoveries render it probable
that his reign was extended to a much greater length--that, in fact, he
is to be identified with the Cinneladanus of Ptolemy’s Canon, who held
the throne of Babylon from B.C. 647 to 626. If this be so, we must place
in the later years of the reign of Asshur-bani-pal the commencement of
Assyria’s decline--the change whereby she passed from the assailer to
the assailed, from the undisputed primacy of Western Asia to a doubtful
and precarious position.

This change was owing, in the first instance, to the rise upon her
borders of an important military power in the centralized monarchy,
established, about B.C. 640, in the neighboring territory of Media.

The Medes had, it is probable, been for some time growing in strength,
owing to the recent arrival in their country of fresh immigrants from
the far East. Discarding the old system of separate government and
village autonomy, they had joined together and placed themselves under a
single monarch; and about the year B.C. 634, when Asshur-bani-pal had
been king for thirty-four years, they felt themselves sufficiently
strong to undertake an expedition against Nineveh. Their first attack,
however, failed utterly. Phraortes, or whoever may have been the real
leader of the invading army, was completely defeated by the Assyrians;
his forces were cut to pieces, and he himself was among the slain.
Still, the very fact that the Medes could now take the offensive and
attack Assyria was novel and alarming; it showed a new condition of
things in these parts, and foreboded no good to the power which was
evidently on the decline and in danger of losing its preponderance. An
enterprising warrior would doubtless have followed up the defeat of the
invader by attacking him in his own country before he could recover from
the severe blow dealt him; but the aged Assyrian monarch appears to have
been content with repelling his foe, and made no effort to retaliate.
Cgaxares, the successor of the slain Median king, effected at his
leisure such arrangements as he thought necessary before repeating his
predecessor’s attempt. When they were completed--perhaps in B.C. 632--he
led his troops into Assyria, defeated the Assyrian forces in the field,
and, following up his advantage, appeared before Nineveh and closely
invested the town. Nineveh would perhaps have fallen in this year; but
suddenly and unexpectedly a strange event recalled the Median monarch to
his own country, where a danger threatened him previously unknown in
Western Asia.

When at the present day we take a general survey of the world’s past
history, we see that, by a species of fatality--by a law, that is, whose
workings we cannot trace--there issue from time to time out of the
frozen bosons of the North vast hordes of uncouth savages--brave,
hungry, countless--who swarm into the fairer southern regions
determinedly, irresistibly; like locusts winging their flight into a
green land. How such multitudes come to be propagated in countries where
life is with difficulty sustained, we do not know; why the impulse
suddenly seizes them to quit their old haunts and move steadily in a
given direction, we cannot say: but we see that the phenomenon is one of
constant recurrence, and we therefore now scarcely regard it as being
curious or strange at all. In Asia. Cimmerians, Scythians, Parthians,
Mongols, Turks; in Europe, Gauls, Goths, Huns, Avars, Vandals,
Burgundians, Lombards, Bulgarians, have successively illustrated the
law, and made us familiar with its operation. But there was a time in
history before the law had come into force; and its very existence must
have been then unsuspected. Even since it began to operate, it has so
often undergone prolonged suspension, that the wisest may be excused if,
under such circumstances, they cease to bear it in mind, and are as much
startled when a fresh illustration of it occurs, as if the like had
never happened before. Probably there is seldom an occasion of its
coming into play which does not take men more or less by surprise, and
rivet their attention by its seeming strangeness and real
unexpectedness.

If Western Asia had ever, in the remote ages before the Assyrian
monarchy was established, been subject to invasions of this
character--which is not improbable--at any rate so long a period had
elapsed since the latest of them, that in the reigns of Asshur-pani-pal
and Cyaxares they were wholly forgotten and the South reposed in happy
unconsciousness of a danger which might at any time have burst upon it,
had the Providence which governs the world so willed. The Asiatic
steppes had long teemed with a nomadic population, of a war-like temper,
and but slightly attached to its homes, which ignorance of its own
strength and of the weakness and wealth of its neighbors had alone
prevented from troubling the great empires of the South. Geographic
difficulties had at once prolonged the period of Ignorance, and acted as
obstructions, if ever the idea arose of pushing exploring parties into
the southern regions; the Caucasus, the Caspian, the sandy deserts of
Khiva and Kharesm, and the great central Asiatic mountain-chains,
forming barriers which naturally restrained the northern hordes from
progressing in this direction. But a time had now arrived when these
causes were no longer to operate; the line of demarcation which had so
long separated North and South was to be crossed; the flood-gates were
to be opened, and the stream of northern emigration was to pour itself
in a resistless torrent over the fair and fertile regions from which it
had hitherto been barred out. Perhaps population had increased beyond
all former precedent; perhaps a spirit of enterprise had arisen;
possibly some slight accident--the exploration of a hunter hard pressed
for food, the chattering tongue of a merchant, the invitation of a
traitor--may have dispelled the ignorance of earlier times, and brought
to the knowledge of the hardy North the fact that beyond the mountains
and the seas, which they had always regarded as the extreme limit of the
world, there lay a rich prey inviting the coming of the spoiler.

The condition of the northern barbarians, less than two hundred years
after this time, has been graphically portrayed by two of the most
observant of the Greeks, who themselves visited the Steppe country to
learn the character and customs of the people. Where civilization is
unknown, changes are so slow and slight, that we may reasonably regard
the descriptions of Herodotus and Hippocrates, though drawn in the fifth
century before our era, as applying, in all their main points, to the
same race two hundred years earlier. These writers describe the
Scythians as a people coarse and gross in their habits, with large
fleshy bodies, loose joints, soft swollen bellies, and scanty hair. They
never washed themselves; their nearest approach to ablution was a
vapor-bath, or the application of a paste to their bodies which left
them glossy on its removal. They lived either in wagons, or in felt
tents of a simple and rude construction; and subsisted on mare’s milk
and cheese, to which the boiled flesh of horses and cattle was added, as
a rare delicacy, occasionally. In war their customs were very barbarous.
The Scythian who slew an enemy in battle immediately proceeded to drink
his blood. He then cut off the head, which he exhibited to his king in
order to obtain his share of the spoil; after which he stripped the
scalp from the skull and hung it on his bridle-rein as a trophy.
Sometimes he flayed his dead enemy’s right arm and hand, and used the
skin as a covering for his quiver. The upper portion of the skull he
commonly made into a drinking-cup. The greater part of each day he spent
on horseback, in attendance on the huge herds of cattle which he
pastured. His favorite weapon was the bow, which he used as he rode,
shooting his arrows with great precision. He generally carried, besides
his bow and arrows, a short spear or javelin, and sometimes bore also a
short sword or a battleaxe. [PLATE CXLVI., Fig. 3.]

The nation of the Scythians comprised within it a number of distinct
tribes. At the head of all was a royal tribe, corresponding to the
“Golden Horde” of the Mongols, which was braver and more numerous than
any other, and regarded all the remaining tribes in the light of slaves.
To this belonged the families of the kings, who ruled by hereditary
right, and seem to have exercised a very considerable authority. We
often hear of several kings as bearing rule at the same time; but there
is generally some indication of disparity, from which we gather that--in
times of danger at any rate--the supreme power was really always lodged
in the hands of a single man.

The religion of the Scythians was remarkable, and partook of the
barbarity which characterized most of their customs. They worshipped the
Sun and Moon, Fire, Air, Earth, Water, and a god whom Herodotus calls
Hercules. But their principal religious observance was the worship of
the naked sword. The country was parcelled out into districts, and in
every district was a huge pile of brushwood, serving as a temple to the
neighborhood, at the top of which was planted an antique sword or
scimitar. On a stated day in each year solemn sacrifices, human and
animal, were offered at these shrines; and the warm blood of the victims
was carried up from below and poured upon the weapon. The human
victims--prisoners taken in war--were hewn to pieces at the foot of the
mound, and their limbs wildly tossed on high by the votaries, who then
retired, leaving the bloody fragments where they chanced to fall. The
Scythians seem to have had no priest caste; but they believed in
divination; and the diviners formed a distinct class which possessed
important powers. They were sent for whenever the king was ill, to
declare the cause of his illness, which they usually attributed to the
fact that an individual, whom they named, had sworn falsely by the Royal
Hearth. Those accused in this way, if found guilty by several bodies of
diviners, were beheaded for the offence, and their original accusers
received their property. It must have been important to keep on good
terms with persons who wielded such a power as this.

Such were the most striking customs of the Scythian people, or at any
rate of the Scythians of Herodotus, who were the dominant race over a
large portion of the Steppe country. Coarse and repulsive in their
appearance, fierce in their tempers, savage in their habits, not
individually very brave, but powerful by their numbers, and by a mode of
warfare which was difficult to meet, and in which long use had given
them great expertness, they were an enemy who might well strike alarm
even into a nation so strong and warlike as the Medes. Pouring through
the passes of the Caucasus--whence coming or what intending none
knew--horde after horde of Scythians blackened the rich plains of the
South. On they came, as before observed, like a flight of locusts,
countless, irresistible--swarming into Iberia and Upper Media--finding
the land before them a garden, and leaving it behind them a howling
wilderness. Neither age nor sex would be spared. The inhabitants of the
open country and of the villages, if they did not make their escape to
high mountain tops or other strongholds, would be ruthlessly massacred
by the invaders, or at best, forced to become their slaves. The crops
would be consumed, the herds swept off or destroyed, the villages and
homesteads burnt, the whole country made a scene of desolation. Their
ravages would resemble those of the Huns when they poured into Italy, or
of the Bulgarians when they overran the fairest provinces of the
Byzantine Empire. In most instances the strongly fortified towns would
resist them, unless they had patience to sit down before their walls and
by a prolonged blockade to starve them into submission. Sometimes,
before things reached this point, they might consent to receive a
tribute and to retire. At other times, convinced that by perseverance
they would reap a rich reward, they may have remained till the besieged
city fell, when there must have ensued an indescribable scene of havoc,
rapine, and bloodshed. According to the broad expression of Herodotus,
the Scythians were masters of the whole of Western Asia from the
Caucasus to the borders of Egypt for the space of twenty-eight years.
This statement is doubtless an exaggeration; but still it would seem to
be certain that the great invasion of which he speaks was not confined
to Media, but extended to the adjacent countries of Armenia and Assyria,
whence it spread to Syria and Palestine. The hordes probably swarmed
down from Media through the Zagros passes into the richest portion of
Assyria, the flat country between the mountains and the Tigris. Many of
the old cities, rich with the accumulated stores of ages, were besieged,
and perhaps taken, and their palaces wantonly burnt, by the barbarous
invaders. The tide then swept on. Wandering from district to district,
plundering everywhere, settling nowhere, the clouds of horse passed over
Mesopotamia, the force of the invasion becoming weaker as it spread
itself, until in Syria it reached its term through the policy of the
Egyptian king, Psammetichus. This monarch, who was engaged in the siege
of Ashdod, no sooner heard of the approach of a great Scythian host,
which threatened to overrun Egypt, and had advanced as far as Ascalon,
than he sent ambassadors to their leader and prevailed on him by rich
gifts to abstain from his enterprise. From this time the power of the
invaders seems to have declined. Their strength could not but suffer by
the long series of battles, sieges, and skirmishes in which they were
engaged year after year against enemies in nowise contemptible; it would
likewise deteriorate through their excesses; and it may even have
received some injury from intestine quarrels. After awhile, the nations
whom they had overrun, whose armies they had defeated, and whose cities
they had given to the flames, began to recover themselves. Cyaxares, it
is probable, commenced an aggressive war against such of the invaders as
had remained within the limits of his dominions, and soon drove them
beyond his borders. Other kings may have followed his example. In a
little while long, probably, before the twenty-eight years of Herodotus
had expired--the Scythian power was completely broken. Many bands may
have returned across the Caucasus into the Steppe country. Others
submitted, and took service under the native rulers of Asia. Great
numbers were slain and except in a province of Armenia which
henceforward became known as Sacasene, and perhaps in one Syrian town,
which we find called Scythopolis, the invaders left no trace of their
brief but terrible inroad.

If we have been right in supposing that the Scythian attack fell with as
much severity on the Assyrians as on any other Asiatic people, we can
scarcely be in error if we ascribe to this cause the rapid and sudden
decline of the empire at this period. The country had been ravaged and
depopulated, the provinces had been plundered, many of the great towns
had been taken and sacked, the palaces of the old kings had been burnt,
and all the gold and silver that was not hid away had been carried off.
Assyria, when the Scythians quitted her, was but the shadow of her
former self. Weak and exhausted, she seemed to invite a permanent
conqueror. If her limits had not much shrunk, if the provinces still
acknowledged her authority, it was from habit rather than from fear, or
because they too had suffered greatly from the northern barbarians. We
find Babylon subject to Assyria to the very last; and we seem to see
that Judaea passed from the rule of the Assyrians under that of the
Babylonians, without any interval of independence or any need of
re-conquest. But if these two powers at the south-eastern and the
south-western extremities of the empire continued faithful, the less
distant nations could scarcely have thrown off the yoke.

Asshur-bani-pal, then, on the withdrawal of the barbarians, had still an
empire to rule, and he may be supposed to have commenced some attempts
at re-organizing and re-invigorating the governmental system to which
the domination of the Scythe must have given a rude shock. But he had
not time to effect much. In B.C. 626 he died, after a reign of forty-two
years, and was succeeded by his son, Asshur-emid-ilin, whom the Greeks
called Saracus. Of this prince we possess but few native records; and,
unless it should be thought that the picture which Ctesias gave of the
character and conduct of his last Assyrian king deserves to be regarded
as authentic history, and to be attached to this monarch, we must
confess to an almost equal dearth of classical notices of his life and
actions. Scarcely anything has come down to us from his time but a few
legends on bricks, from which it appears that he was the builder of the
south-east edifice at Nimrud, a construction presenting some remarkable
but no very interesting features. The classical notices, apart from the
tales which Ctesias originated, are limited to a few sentences in
Abydenus, and a word or two in Polyhistor. Thus nearly the same
obscurity which enfolds the earlier portion of the history gathers about
the monarch in whose person the empire terminated; and instead of the
ample details which have crowded upon us now for many consecutive
reigns, we shall be reduced to a meagre outline, partly resting upon
conjecture, in our portraiture of this last king.

Saracus, as the monarch may be termed after Abydenus, ascended the
throne at a most difficult and dangerous crisis in his country’s
history. Assyria was exhausted; and perhaps half depopulated by the
Scythic ravages. The bands which united the provinces to the sovereign
state, though not broken, had been weakened, and rebellion threatened to
break out in various quarters. Ruin had overtaken many of the provincial
towns; and it would require a vast outlay to restore their public
buildings. But the treasury was wellnigh empty, and did not allow the
new monarch to adopt in his buildings the grand and magnificent style of
former kings. Still Saracus attempted something. At Calah he began the
construction of a building which apparently was intended for a palace,
but which contrasts most painfully with the palatial erections of former
kings. The waning glory of the monarchy was made patent both to the
nation and to strangers by an edifice where coarse slabs of common
limestone, unsculptured and uninscribed, replaced the alabaster
bas-reliefs of former times; and where a simple plaster above the slabs
was the substitute for the richly-patterned enamelled bricks of Sargon,
Sennacherib, and Asshur-bani-pal. A set of small chambers, of which no
one exceeded forty-five feet in length and twenty-five feet in its
greatest breadth, sufficed for the last Assyrian king, whose shrunken
Court could no longer have filled the vast halls of his ancestors. The
Nimrud palace of Saracus seems to have covered less than one-half of the
space occupied by any former palace upon the mound; it had no grand
facade, no magnificent gateway; the rooms, curiously misshapen, as if
taste had declined with power and wealth, were mostly small and
inconvenient, running in suites which opened into one another without
any approaches from courts or passages, roughly paved with limestone
flags, and composed of sun-dried bricks faced with limestone and
plaster. That Saracus should have been reduced even to contemplate
residing in this poor and mean dwelling is the strongest possible proof
of Assyria’s decline and decay at a period preceding the great war which
led to her destruction.

It is possible that this edifice may not have been completed at the time
of Saracus’s death, and in that case we may suppose that its extreme
rudeness would have received certain embellishments had he lived to
finish the structure. While it was being erected, he must have resided
elsewhere. Apparently, he held his court at Nineveh during this period;
and was certainly there that he made his last arrangements for defence,
and his final stand against the enemy, who took advantage of his weak
condition to press forward the conquest of the empire.

The Medes, in their strong upland country, abounding in rocky hills, and
running up in places into mountain-chains, had probably suffered much
less from the ravages of the Scyths than the Assyrians in their
comparatively defenceless plains. Of all the nations exposed to the
scourge of the invasion they were evidently the first to recover
themselves, partly from the local causes here noticed, partly perhaps
from their inherent vigor and strength. If Herodotus’s date for the
original inroad of the Scythians is correct, not many years can have
elapsed before the tide of war turned, and the Medes began to make head
against their assailants, recovering possession of most parts of their
country, and expelling or overpowering the hordes at whose insolent
domination they had chafed from the first hour of the invasion. It was
probably as early as B.C. 627, five years after the Scyths crossed the
Caucasus, according to Herodotus, that Cyaxares, having sufficiently
re-established his power in Media, began once more to aspire after
foreign conquests. Casting his eyes around upon the neighboring
countries, he became aware of the exhaustion of Assyria, and perceived
that she was not likely to offer an effectual resistance to a sudden and
vigorous attack. He therefore collected a large army and invaded Assyria
from the east, while it would seem that the Susianians, with whom he had
perhaps made an alliance, attacked her from the south.

To meet this double danger. Saracus, the Assyrian king, determined on
dividing his forces: and, while he entrusted a portion of them to a
general, Nabopolassar, who had orders to proceed to Babylon and engage
the enemy advancing from the sea, he himself with the remainder made
ready to receive the Medes. In idea this was probably a judicious
disposition of the troops at his disposal; it was politic to prevent a
junction of the two assailing powers, and, as the greater danger was
that which threatened from the Medes, it was well for the king to
reserve himself with the bulk of his forces to meet this enemy. But the
most prudent arrangements may be disconcerted by the treachery of those
who are entrusted with their execution; and so it was in the present
instance. The faithless Nabopolassar saw in his sovereign’s difficulty
his own opportunity and, instead of marching against Assyria’s enemies,
as his duty required him, he secretly negotiated an arrangement with
Cyaxares, agreed to become his ally against the Assyrians, and obtained
the Median king’s daughter as a bride for Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest
son. Cyaxares and Nabopolassar then joined their efforts against
Nineveh; and Saracus, unable to resist them, took counsel of his
despair, and, after all means of resistance were exhausted, burned
himself in his palace. It is uncertain whether we possess any further
historical details of the siege. The narrative of Ctesias may embody a
certain number of the facts, as it certainly represented with truth the
strange yet not incredible termination. But on the other hand, we cannot
feel sure, with regard to any statement made solely by that writer, that
it has any other source than his imagination. Hence the description of
the last siege of Nineveh, as given by Diodorus on the authority of
Ctesias, seems undeserving of a place in history, though the attention
of the curious may properly be directed to it.

The empire of the Assyrians thus fell, not so much from any inherent
weakness, or from the effect of gradual decay, as by an unfortunate
combination of circumstances--the occurrence of a terrible inroad of
northern barbarians just at the time when a warlike nation, long settled
on the borders of Assyria, and within a short distance of her capital,
was increasing, partly by natural and regular causes, partly by
accidental and abnormal ones, in greatness and strength. It will be
proper, in treating of the history of Media, to trace out, as far as our
materials allow, these various causes, and to examine the mode and
extent of their operation. But such an inquiry is not suited for this
place, since, if fully made, it would lead us too far away from our
present subject, which is the history of Assyria; while, if made
partially, it would be unsatisfactory. It is therefore deferred to
another place. The sketch here attempted of Assyrian history will now be
brought to a close by a few observations on the general nature of the
monarchy, or its extent in the most flourishing period, and on the
character of its civilization.

The independent kingdom of Assyria covered a space of at least a
thousand years; but the empire can, at the utmost, be considered to have
lasted a period short of seven centuries, from B.C. 1300 to B.C. 625 or
624--the date of the conquest of Cyaxares. In reality, the period of
extensive domination seems to have commenced with Asshur-ris-ilim, about
B.C. 1150, so that the duration of the true empire did not much exceed
five centuries. The limits of the dominion varied considerably within
this period, the empire expanding or contracting according to the
circumstances of the time and the personal character of the prince by
whom the throne was occupied. The extreme extent appears not to have
been reached until almost immediately before the last rapid decline set
in, the widest dominion belonging to the time of Asshur-bani-pal, the
conqueror of Egypt, of Susiana, and of the Armenians. In the middle part
of this prince’s reign Assyria was paramount over the portion of Western
Asia included between the Mediterranean and the Halys on the one hand,
the Caspian Sea and the great Persian desert on the other. Southwards
the boundary was formed by Arabia and the Persian Gulf; northwards it
seems at no time to have advanced to the Euxine or to the Caucasus, but
to have been formed by a fluctuating line, which did not in the most
flourishing period extend so far as the northern frontier of Armenia.
Besides her Asiatic dominions, Assyria possessed also at this time a
portion of Africa, her authority being acknowledged by Egypt as far as
the latitude of Thebes. The countries included within the limits thus
indicated, and subject during the period in question to Assyrian
influence, were chiefly the following: Susiana, Chaldaea, Babylonia,
Media, Matiene or the Zagros range, Mesopotamia; parts of Armenia,
Cappadocia, and Cilicia; Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine. Idummaea, a
portion of Arabia, and almost the whole of Egypt. The island of Cyprus
was also, it is probable, a dependency. On the other hand, Persia
Proper, Bactria, and Sogdiana, even Hyrcania, were beyond the eastern
limit of the Assyrian sway, which towards the north did not on this side
reach further than about the neighborhood of Kasvin, and towards the
south was confined within the barrier of Zagros. Similarly on the west,
Phrygia, Lydia, Lycia, even Pamphylia, were independent, the Assyrian
arms having never, so far as appears, penetrated westward beyond Cilicia
or crossed the river Halys.

The nature of the dominion established by the great Mesopotamian
monarchy over the countries included within the limits above indicated,
will perhaps be best understood if we compare it with the empire of
Solomon. Solomon reigned over _all the kingdoms_ from the river
(Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of
Egypt: they _brought presents_ and served Solomon all the days of his
life. The first and most striking feature of the earliest empires is
that they are a mere congeries of kingdoms: the countries over which the
dominant state acquires an influence, not only retain their distinct
individuality, as is the case in some modern empires, but remain in all
respects such as they were before, with the simple addition of certain
obligations contracted towards the paramount authority. They keep their
old laws, their old religion, their line of kings, their law of
succession, their whole internal organization and machinery; they only
acknowledge an external suzerainty which binds them to the performance
of certain duties towards the Head of the Empire. These duties, as
understood in the earliest times, may be summed up in the two words
“homage” and “tribute;” the subject kings “serve” and “bring presents.”
 They are bound to acts of submission; must attend the court of their
suzerain when summoned, unless they have a reasonable excuse; must there
salute him as a superior, and otherwise acknowledge his rank; above all,
they must pay him regularly the fixed tribute which has been imposed
upon them at the time of their submission or subjection, the
unauthorized withholding of which is open and avowed rebellion. Finally,
they must allow his troops free passage through their dominions, and
must oppose any attempt at invasion by way of their country on the part
of his enemies. Such are the earliest and most essential obligations on
the part of the subject states in an empire of the primitive type like
that of Assyria; and these obligations, with the corresponding one on
the part of the dominant power of the protection of its dependants
against foreign foes, appear to have constituted the sole links which
joined together in one the heterogeneous materials of which that empire
consisted.

It is evident that a government of the character here described contains
within it elements of constant disunion and disorder. Under favorable
circumstances, with an active and energetic prince upon the throne,
there is an appearance of strength, and a realization of much
magnificence and grandeur. The subject monarchs pay annually their due
share of “the regulated tribute of the empire;” and the better to secure
the favor of their common sovereign, add to it presents, consisting of
the choicest productions of their respective kingdoms. The material
resources of the different countries are placed at the disposal of the
dominant power; and skilled workmen are readily lent for the service of
the court, who adorn or build the temples and the royal residences, and
transplant the luxuries and refinements of their several states to the
imperial capital. But no sooner does any untoward event occur, as a
disastrous expedition, a foreign attack, a domestic conspiracy, or even
an untimely and unexpected death of the reigning prince, than the
inherent weakness of this sort of government at once displays
itself--the whole fabric of the empire falls asunder--each kingdom
re-asserts its independence--tribute ceases to be paid--and the mistress
of a hundred states suddenly finds herself thrust back into her
primitive condition, stripped of the dominion which has been her
strength, and thrown entirely upon her own resources. Then the whole
task of reconstruction has to be commenced anew--one by one the rebel
countries are overrun, and the rebel monarchs chastised--tribute is
re-imposed, submission enforced, and in fifteen or twenty years the
empire has perhaps recovered itself. Progress is of course slow and
uncertain, where the empire has continually to be built up again from
its foundations, and where at any time a day may undo the work which it
has taken centuries to accomplish.

To discourage and check the chronic disease of rebellion, re-course is
had to severe remedies, which diminish the danger to the central power,
at the cost of extreme misery and often almost entire ruin to the
subject kingdoms. Not only are the lands wasted, the flocks and herds
carried off, the towns pillaged and burnt, or in some cases razed to the
ground, the rebel king deposed and his crown transferred to another, the
people punished by the execution of hundreds or thousands as well as by
an augmentation of the tribute money; but sometimes wholesale
deportation of the inhabitants is practised, tens or hundreds of
thousands being carried away captive by the conquerors, and either
employed in servile labor at the capital or settled as colonists in a
distant province. With this practice the history of the Jews, in which
it forms so prominent a feature, has made us familiar. It seems to have
been known to the Assyrians from very early times, and to have become by
degrees a sort of settled principle in their government. In the most
flourishing period of their dominion--the reigns of Sargon, Sennacherib,
and Esar-haddon--it prevailed most widely, and was carried to the
greatest extent. Chaldaeans were transported into Armenia, Jews and
Israelites into Assyria and Media, Arabians, Babylonians, Susianians,
and Persians into Palestine--the most distant portions of the empire
changed inhabitants, and no sooner did a people become troublesome from
its patriotism and love of independence, than it was weakened by
dispersion, and its spirit subdued by a severance of all its local
associations. Thus rebellion was in some measure kept down, and the
position of the central or sovereign state was rendered so far more
secure; but this comparative security was gained by a great sacrifice of
strength, and when foreign invasion came, the subject kingdoms, weakened
at once and alienated by the treatment which they had received, were
found to have neither the will nor the power to give any effectual aid
to their enslaver.

Such, in its broad and general outlines, was the empire of the
Assyrians. It embodied the earliest, simplest, and most crude conception
which the human mind forms of a widely extended dominion. It was a
“kingdom-empire,” like the empires of Solomon, of Nebuchadnezzar, of
Chedor-laomer, and probably of Cyaxares, and it the best specimen of its
class, being the largest, the longest in duration, and the best known of
all such governments that has existed. It exhibits in a marked way both
the strength and weakness of this class of monarchies--their strength in
the extraordinary magnificence, grandeur, wealth, and refinement of the
capital; their weakness in the impoverishment, the exhaustion, and the
consequent disaffection of the subject states. Ever falling to pieces,
it was perpetually reconstructed by the genius and prowess of a long
succession of warrior princes, seconded by the skill and bravery of the
people. Fortunate in possessing for a longtime no very powerful
neighbor, it found little difficulty in extending itself throughout
regions divided and subdivided among hundreds of petty chiefs incapable
of union, and singly quite unable to contend with the forces of a large
and populous country. Frequently endangered by revolts, yet always
triumphing over them, it maintained itself for five centuries gradually
advancing its influence, and was only overthrown after a fierce struggle
by a new kingdom formed upon its borders, which, taking advantage of a
time of exhaustion, and leagued with the most powerful of the subject
states, was enabled to accomplish the destruction of the long-dominant
people.

In the curt and dry records of the Assyrian monarchs, while the broad
outlines of the government are well marked, it is difficult to
distinguish those nicer shades of system and treatment which no doubt
existed, and in which the empire of the Assyrians differed probably from
others of the same type. One or two such points, however, may perhaps be
made out. In the first place, though religious uniformity is certainly
not the law of the empire, yet a religious character appears in many of
the wars, and attempts at any rate seem to be made to diffuse everywhere
a knowledge and recognition of the gods of Assyria. Nothing is more
universal than the practice of setting up in the subject countries the
laws of Asshur or “altars to the Great Gods.” In some instances not only
altars but temples are erected, and priests are left to superintend the
worship and secure its being properly conducted. The history of Judaea
is, however, enough to show that the continuance of the national worship
was at least tolerated, though some formal acknowledgment of the
presiding deities of Assyria on the part of the subject nations may not
improbably have been required in most cases.

Secondly, there is an indication that in certain countries immediately
bordering on Assyria endeavors were made from time to time to centralize
and consolidate the empire, by substituting, on fit occasions, for the
native chiefs, Assyrian officers as governors. The persons appointed are
of two classes--“collectors” and “treasurers.” Their special business
is, of course, as their names imply, to gather in the tribute due to the
Great King, and secure its safe transmission to the capital; but they
seem to have been, at least in some instances, entrusted with the civil
government of their respective districts. It does not appear that this
system was ever extended very far, Lebanon on the west, and Mount Zagros
on the east, may be regarded as the extreme limits of the centralized
Assyria. Armenia, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, most of Phoenicia,
Palestine, Philistia, retained to the last their native monarchs; and
thus Assyria, despite the feature here noticed, kept upon the whole her
character of a “kingdom-empire.”

The civilization of the Assyrians is a large subject, on which former
chapters of this work have, it is hoped, thrown some light, and upon
which only a very few remarks will be here offered by way of
recapitulation. Deriving originally letters and the elements of learning
from Babylonia, the Assyrians appear to have been content with the
knowledge thus obtained, and neither in literature nor in science to
have progressed much beyond their instructors. The heavy incubus of a
dead language lay upon all those who desired to devote themselves to
scientific pursuits; and, owing to this, knowledge tended to become the
exclusive possession of a learned or perhaps a priest class, which did
not aim at progress, but was satisfied to hand on the traditions of
former ages. To understand the genius of the Assyrian people we must
look to their art and their manufactures. These are in the main probably
of native growth; and from them we may best gather an impression of the
national character. They show us a patient, laborious, pains-taking
people, with more appreciation of the useful than the ornamental, and of
the actual than the ideal. Architecture, the only one of the fine arts
which is essentially useful, forms their chief glory; sculpture, and
still more painting, are subsidiary to it. Again, it is the most useful
edifice--the palace or house--whereon attention is concentrated--the
temple and the tomb, the interest attaching to which is ideal and
spiritual, are secondary, and appear (so far as they appear at all)
simply as appendages of the palace. In the sculpture it is the actual
the historically true--which the artist strives to represent. Unless in
the case of a few mythic figures connected with the religion of the
country, there is nothing in the Assyrian bas-reliefs which is not
imitated from nature. The imitation is always laborious, and often most
accurate and exact. The laws of representation, as we understand them,
are sometimes departed from, but it is always to impress the spectator
with ideas in accordance with truth. Thus the colossal bulls and lions
have five legs, but in order that they may be seen from every point of
view with four; the ladders are placed edgewise against the walls of
besieged towns, but it is to show that they are ladders, and not mere
poles; walls of cities are made disproportionately small, but it is
done, like Raphael’s boat, to bring them within the picture, which would
otherwise be a less complete representation of the actual fact. The
careful finish, the minute detail, the elaboration of every hair in a
beard, and every stitch in the embroidery of a dress, reminds us of the
Dutch school of painting, and illustrates strongly the spirit of
faithfulness and honesty which pervades the sculptures, and gives them
so great a portion of their value. In conception, in grace, in freedom
and correctness of outline, they fall undoubtedly far behind the
inimitable productions of the Greeks; but they have a grandeur and a
dignity, a boldness, a strength, and an appearance of life, which render
them even intrinsically valuable as works of art, and, considering the
time at which they were produced, must excite our surprise and
admiration. Art, so far as we know, had existed previously only in the
stiff and lifeless conventionalism of the Egyptians. It belonged to
Assyria to confine the conventional to religion, and to apply art to the
vivid representation of the highest scenes of human life. War in all its
forms--the-march, the battle, the pursuit, the siege of towns, the
passage of rivers and marshes, the submission and treatment of captives,
and the “mimic war” of hunting the chase of the lion, the stag, the
antelope, the wild bull, and the wild ass, are the chief subjects
treated by the Assyrian sculptors; and in these the conventional is
discarded; fresh scenes, new groupings, bold and strange attitudes
perpetually appear, and in the animal representations especially there
is a continual advance, the latest being the most spirited, the most
varied, and the most true to nature, though perhaps lacking somewhat of
the majesty and grandeur of the earlier. With no attempt to idealize or
go beyond nature, there is a growing power of depicting things as they
are--an increased grace and delicacy of execution, showing that Assyrian
art was progressive, not stationary, and giving a promise of still
higher excellence, had circumstances permitted its development.

The art of Assyria has every appearance of thorough and entire
nationality; but it is impossible to feel sure that her manufactures
were in the same sense absolutely her own. The practice of borrowing
skilled workmen from the conquered states would introduce into Nineveh
and the other royal cities the fabrics of every region which
acknowledged the Assyrian sway; and plunder, tribute, and commerce would
unite to enrich them with the choicest products of all civilized
countries. Still, judging by the analogy of modern times, it seems most
reasonable to suppose that the bulk of the manufactured goods consumed
in the country would be of home growth. Hence we may fairly assume that
the vases, jars, bronzes, glass bottles, carved ornaments in ivory and
mother-of-pearl, engraved gems, bells, dishes, earrings, arms, working
implements, etc., which have been found at Nimrud, Khorsabad, and
Koyunjik, are mainly the handiwork of the Assyrians. It has been
conjectured that the rich garments represented as worn by the kings and
others were the product of Babylon, always famous for its tissues; but
even this is uncertain; and they are perhaps as likely to have been of
home manufacture. At any rate the bulk of the ornaments, utensils,
etc’., may be regarded as native products. They are almost invariably of
elegant form, and indicate a considerable knowledge of metallurgy and
other arts as well as a refined taste. Among them are some which
anticipate inventions believed till lately to have been modern.
Transparent glass (which, however, was known also in ancient Egypt) is
one of these; but the most remarkable of all is the lens discovered at
Nimrud, of the use of which as a magnifying agent there is abundant
proof. If it be borne in mind, in addition to all this, that the
buildings of the Assyrians show them to have been well acquainted with
the principle of the arch, that they constructed tunnels, aqueducts, and
drains, that they knew the use of the pulley, the lever, and the roller,
that they understood the arts of inlaying, enamelling, and overlaying
with metals, and that they cut gems with the greatest skill and finish,
it will be apparent that their civilization equalled that of almost any
ancient country, and that it did not fall immeasurably behind the
boasted achievements of the moderns. With much that was barbaric still
attaching to them, with a rude and inartificial government, savage
passions, a debasing religion, and a general tendency to materialism,
they were, towards the close of their empire, in all the ordinary arts
and appliances of life, very nearly on a par with ourselves; and thus
their history furnishes a warning--which the records of nations
constantly repeat--that the greatest material prosperity may co-exist
with the decline--and herald the downfall--of a kingdom.

APPENDIX.

[Illustration: PAGE 508]

[Illustration: PAGE 509]

[Illustration: PAGE 510]

[Illustration: PAGE 511]

[Illustration: PAGE 512]

[Illustration: PAGE 513]

LIST OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS QUOTED IN THE NOTES.

ABULPHARAGIUS, Chronicon Syriacum, ed. J. Bruno, Lipsim, 1789.
Agathangelus, Historia Regni Tiridatis, in C. Muller’s Fragm. Hist.
     Gr. vol. v.,Parisiis, 1870.
Agathias, in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byz. of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnm, 1828.
Ammianus Marcellinus, ed. Gronovius, Lugd. Bat., 1693.
Analecta Grmca, ed. Benedict., Lutetite Parisioruin, 1688.
Annales de l’Institut Archeologique, Paris, 1828, &c.
Anonymus (continuator of Dio Cassius),in the Fragm. Hist. Gr.,
     vol. iv., Parisiis, 1851.
Antonini Itinerarium, ed. Parthey et Pinder, Berolini, 1848.
Appianus, Historia Romana, ed. H. Stephanus, Parisiis. 1592.
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, ed.Tauchnitz, Lipsim, 1831.
Arrianus, Exped. Alex., ed. Tauchnitz, Lipsim, 1829. Fragments of,
     in the Fragm. Hist.Greec. of C. MUller, vol. iii., Parisiis, 1849.
     Historia Indica. in C. Muller’s Geographi Minores, Parisiis, 1855-1861.
Asseman, Bibliotheca Orientalis, Romae, 1719-1728.
Athanasius, Opera, ed. Benedict., Parisiis, 1698.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistw,ed. Schweighmuser, Argentorat., 1801-1807.
Atkinson, Firdausi, in the Publications of the Oriental Translation
     Committee, London, 1832.
Augnstinus, Opera, ed. Benedict., Antwerpim, 1700.
Aurelius Victor, Hist. Rom. Breviarium, ed. Pitiscus, Traject.
     ad. Rhen., 1696.

BASILIUS STUs., Opera, ed. Benedict., Peruses, 17,21-17.10.
Behistun inscription, ed. H. C. Rawlinson. in the
     Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vols. X.. xi., &c.
Berosus, in the Fragments Histor. Grmorum of C. Miiller,
     vol. ii., Paris, 1847.
Bohlen, Das alte Indien, Konigsberg, 1830.
Botta, Monument de Ninive, Paris, 1850, Bunsen, Chevalier,
     Philosophy (if Universal History. London, 1854.
Burton, Dr., Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries,
     Oxford,1831.

CAPITOLINUS. JULIUS, in the Historiai,  Augustm Scriptores of Jordan
     and  Eyssenhardt, Berolini, 1864.
Cedrenus, in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byzant. of B, G. Niebuhr, Bonnm, 1838.
Champagny, Les Caesars du Troisieme Siecle, Paris, 1865.
Chardin, Voyage en Perse. Amsterdam, 1735.
Chronicon Paschale, in the Corpus  Script. Hist. Byzant. of
     B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1832.
Cicero, Opera, ed. Ernesti, Londini, 1819.
Claudianus. Opera, in the Corpus Poetarum Latinorum of G. S. Walker,
     Loudini, 1865.
Clinton, Fasti Romani, Oxford,1845-1850.
Cosnias Iudicopleustes, Topographia
Christiana, in Montfaucon’s Collectio nova Patrons, q. v.
Creuzer, Symbolik and Mythologie, Leipzig, 1819-1821.
Curtius, Quietus. Vita Alexandri Magni, ed. Pitiscus. Hague, 1708.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Opera, ed. Aubert, Parisiis, 1638.
Cyrillus Monachus, Vita Euthymii, in the Analecta Grmca, q. v.

D’ANVILLE, Geographie Ancienne, Paris, 1768.
De Sacy, Memoire surdiverses Antiquities de la Perse, Paris, 1793.
D’Herbelot, Bibliothoque Orientale, Paris, 1781.
Dino, in the Fragm. Hist. Grace. of C. Muller, vol. ii., Paris 1845.
Dio Cassius, ed. Fabricius, Hamburgi, 1750-1752.
Dio Chrysostomus, ed. Morell, Parisiis, 1604.
Diodorus Siculus, ed. Dindorf, Parisiis, 1843-4.
Diogenes Laertius, ed. Wetstein, Amstelodami, 1692.

ECKHEL, Doctrina, Nummorum Veterum, Vindobonae, 1792.
Elisaeus translated into French by M. l’Abbe Kabaragy Garabed,
     Paris, 1844.
Epiphanies, Opera, ed. Valesius, Coloniae, 1682.
Ethnological Journal, London, 1869, &c.
Eunapius, Vitae Philosophorum, ex officin. P. Stephani, Parisius, 1616.
Eusebius Pamphili, Vita Constantini Magni, Ac., ed. Heinichen, Lugd.
     Bat., 1562.
Eutropius. Brevarinm Hist. Rom., ed Verheyk. Ladg. Bat., 1762.
Eutychius, Annales, Oxonii, 1654-1656.
Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Reading, Cantabrigiae, 1720.

FABRICIUS. Bibliotheca Graeca, ed. Harles, Hamburgi. 1590-1809.
Fanstus of Byzantium, in the Fragm. Hist. Grace. of C. Muller,
     vol. v., Paris, 1850.
Fergusson, James, History of Architecture, London, 1873.
Festus (Sext. Rufus). Breviarium rerum gestarum populi Romani,
     ed. Verheyk. (See Eutropius.).
Firdausi, edited by Atkinson, in the series published by the Oriental
     Translation Fund, 1839-71.
Flandin. Voyage en Peise, Paris, 1851,
Fraser, Journey into Khorasan, London, 1825.

GEOGRAPHIA ARMENICA, in Whiston’s edition of Moses of Chorene, q v.
Georgius Pisida, ed. Bekker. in the Corp. Hist. Byzant. of
     B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae,1836.
Gesenius, De Inscriptione Phoenico-Greeca in Cyrenaica nuper reperta,
     Halle, 1825.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Dr. W. Smith, London,
     1854-1855.
Gregorius Nazianzenus. Opera, ed. Morell, Lutetiae Parisiorum., 1609.
Grote, History of Greece, London, 1862.

HAUG, DR. MARTIN, Essays on the Sacred Writings of the Parsees, Bombay,
     1862.
     --Die Gathas, Leipzig, 1858-1860.
     --Old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary, Bombay and London. 1870.
Haxthausen. Baron, Transcaucasia, London, 1854.
Herodianus. Historiarum libri octo, Oxoniae, 1699.
Herodotus, ed, Bahr, Lipsiae, 1856-1831.
     --English Translation of. by the Author, 2nd ed., London, 1862.
Hieronymus, Opera, ed. Benedict., Parisiis. 1093-1706.
Historim Angastm Scriptores, ed. Jordan et Eyssenhardt, Berolini. 1864.
Historiae. Byzantinae Scriptores, ed. B.G. Niebuhr. Bonnae, l828. &c.
Horatius, Opera, ed. Doring, Oxonii, 1838.
Hyde. De Religione Veterum Persarum, Oxonii, 1760 (2nd edition).

IBN KHALLIKAN. Biographical Dictionary, in the series published by the
     Oriental Translation Fund, Paris, 1868.
Inscriptions of Sassanian kings. (See De Sacy.)
Irving, Washington. Successors of Mahomet, in the collected edition
     of his Works, London, 1854.
Isidorus Characenus, in the Geographi Minores of C. Muller, Parisiis,
     1855-1861.

JOHANNES ANTIOCHENUS, in the Fragm. Hist. Grmc. of C. Miiller, vol. iv.,
     Parisiis, 1851.
     --Epiphaniensis, in the same.
     --Lydus. in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae,
     1831.
     --Malalas, in the same, Bonnae, 1835.
Johannsen, Historiae Yemanae, Bonnae, 1838.
Jornandes, De Gothorum Rebus gestis, ed. Closs, Stuttgartiae, 1866.
Josephus, Opera, ed. Tauchnitz, Lipsiae, 1850.
Journal Asiatique, Paris, 1850, fic.
Journal of the Geographical Society, London, 1840, &c.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1846, &c.
Julianus, Opera. Parisiis, 1630.
Justinus, ed. Gronovius, Lugd. Bat., 1560.

KER PORTER, Sir R., Travels, London, 1821-1832.
Kinneir, Persian Empire, London, 1813.

LACTANTIUS, De Morte Persecutorum, ed. Bauldri, Traject. ad Rhenum,
     1692.
Lajard, Culte de Mithra. Paris, 1852.
Lampridius, AElius, in the Historiae Augustae Scriptores of Jordan
     and Eyssenhardt. q. v.
Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, Second Series, London, 1863.
     --Nineveh and Babylon, London. 1853.
Lazare de Parbe, translated into French by M. l’Abbe Kabaragy Garabed,
     Paris, 1843.
Libanius, Opera, ed. Morellus, Lutetiae, 1627.
Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana. London, 1857.
Longperier, Modailles des Sassanides, Paris, 1840.

MACOUDI. Prairies d’Or, Paris, 1861-1871 (Persian and French).
Malcolm. Sir J., History of Persia, London, 1815.
Marcellinus, Ammianus. (See Ammianus.)
Marcellinus, Conies, Chronicou. ed. Sirmondi, Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1619.
Mathim, Handbook of Creek and Roman Literature, Oxford, 1841.
Menander Protector, in the Fragm. Hist. Graec. of C. Muller, vol. iv.,
     Paris, 1851.
Milman, Dean, History of Christianity, London, 1863
     --History of the Jews. London, 1829.
Mionnet, Description des Medailles Antique, Paris, 1806-1837.
Mirkhond, Histoire des Sassanides, in De Sacy’s Memoire, q. v.
Mold, Translation of the Modjmel-al-Tewarikh in the Journal Asiatique
     for 1811
Moutfancon, Collectio nova Patrum, Paris 1706
Moore, Thomas. Lalla Rookh, in his Works, London, 1854.
Mordtmann, in the Zeitschrift der deutsehen Morgenlandischen
     Gesellschaft, Leipzig, 1847. &c.
Moses Chorenensis, Hist. Armen., ed. Whiston, Londini, 1736
     (Armenian and Latin).
Muller, C., Fragmenta Historicorum  Graecorum. Parisiis, 1811-1850
     --Geographi Minores, Parisiis, 1855-1801.
Muller, Max, in Bunsen’s Philosophy of History, London. 1854.
     --Languages of the Seat of War, 2nd edition, London, 1853.

NEMESIANUS, Cynegetica, ed. Stern, Halis Saxonom. 1832.
Nicephorus Callistus. Eccles. Hist. libri xviii., Lutetia Parisiornni,
     1630.
Nicephorus Constantinopolitantis, Breviarium rerun post JMauricium
     gestarum, ell. Bekker, in the, Corpus Hist. Byzant. of B. G.
     Niebuhr, Bonnae. 1837.
Nicolaus Demascenus, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. of C. Mu11er, vol. iii.,
     Paris, 1849.
Niebuhr, B. G., Lectures on Ancient History (Eng1. Tr.), London, 1849.
     --C., Voyage en Arabie, Amsterdam, 1780.
Numismatic Chronicle, First Series, London, 1839, &c.
Numismatic Chronicle, Second Series, London, 1861, &c.

OCKLEY, History of the Saracens, in Bohn’s Standard Library. London,
     1847.
Olympiodorus, in the Bibliotheca of Photius. q. v.
Orosius, Paulus, Historiae Coloniae, 1536.
Ouseley, Sir W. G., Travels, London, 1814-1823.
Ovidius, Opera, ed. Bipont., Argentorati, 1807.

PACATUS, Panegyricus, ed. Balduin, Parisiis, 1652.
Pagius. Critica historico-chronologica in Annales Ecclesiasticos Baronii,
     Antverpiae, 1727.
Patkanian, Essai sur l’histoire des Sassanides, in the Journal Asiatique
     for 1866.
Patrocles, Fragments in the Fragm. Hist. Grac. of C. Muller, vol. it.,
     Parisiis, 1848.
Petrus Patricius, in the Fragm. Mist. Grac, of C. Muller, vol. iv.,
     Parisiis. 1851.
Philostorgius Historia Ecclesiastica, in the collection of Reading,
     Cantabrigiae, 1720.
Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. Hiisehel, Rouen, 1653.
Plato, Opera, ed. Stallbaum, Lipsia, 1821-1825.
Plnius. Historia Naturalis, ed. Sillig, Hamburgi et Gothae, 1851-1857.
Plutarchus, Vitae Parallel., ed. Tauchnitz. Lipsiae, 1845.
Polybius, Opera. ed. Schweighauser, Oxonii, 1822 1823.
Pottinger, Travels in Beloochistan, London, 1810.
Price, Major, Principal Events of Mohammedan History. London, 1816.
Prichard, Dr., Natural History of Man, London, 1813.
Priscus Panites, in the Fragmenta Hist. Graecorurn of C. Muller,
     vol. iv., Parisiis. 1851.
Procopius, Opera, in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr,
     Bonnae, 1833-38.
Ptolemaeus, Geographia, ed. Bertius, Amstelodami, 1618.
Pusey. Dr., Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, Oxford, 1869 (3rd edition).

RAWLINSON, G., Five Ancient Oriental Monarchies. 2nd ed., London, 1871,
     --Sixth Oriental Monarchy, London, 1873.
     --Translation of Herodotus, with Notes, 2nd ed., London. 1862.
     --H C., Inscriptions of Persia, in the Journal of the Royal
     Asiatic Society, London, 1840-1849.
Rich, Kurdistan. London, 1836.
Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, Oxonii, 1814-1818.
Rutinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Romae, 1741.
Rufus, Sextus, Breviarium Hist. Romanae, ed Verheyk, Lugd. Bat., 1762.
     (See Festus.)

ST. MARTIN, VIVIEN DE, Les Huns Blancs, ou Ephthalites, Paris, 1849.
St. Martin, J., Memoires sur l’Armenie, Paris, 1818-9.
     --Notes to Lebeau’s Bas Empire, Paris, 1827.
Scholia, in Nicandri Theriaca, Parisiis, 1557.
Sepeos, Histoire d’Heraclius. translation by Patkanian, St. Petersburg,
     1863.
Sidonius Apollinaris, ed. Sirntondi, Parisiis, 1652.
Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, London, 1830.
     --Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. London. 1854.
Socrates, in the Historia Eccles. Scriptures of Reading, Cantabrigiae,
     1720.
Sophocles. ed. Wunder, Gothae et Erfordiae, 1833-40.
Sozomen, in the Historix Eccles. Scriptores, Colonix Allobrog., 16512.
Spiegel, Grammatik der Huzvaresch Sprache, Wien. 1856.
     Zendavesta, Berlin, 1851-1858.
Strabo, Geographia, ed. Kramer, Berolini, 1844-1852.
Suidas, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford, Oxonii,1834.
Syncellus, Chronographia, in the Hist. Byzant. Script. of B. G. Niebuhr,
     Bonnw, 1829:
Synesius, Opera, ed. Petavius, Lutetiee, 1612.

TABARI, Chronique (translation of Hermann Zotenberg), Paris, 1867-1871.
     Annales Regum atque Legatorum Dei (translation of
     J. G. L. Kosegarten), Gryphiswaldix, 1831.
Tacitus, Opera, ed. Walther, Halis Saxonum, 1831.
Texier, Description de l’Armenie, de la Perse, et de la Mesopotamie,
     Paris, 1852.
Themistius, Orationes, ed. Petavius, Parisiis, 1684.
Theodoretus, Opera, in the Historia Eccles. Scriptores of Reading,
     Cantabrigis, 1720.
Theophanes Byzantinus, in the Hist. Gra’c. Fragmenta of C. Muller,
     vol. iv., Parisiis, 1851.
Theophanes. Chronographia. in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of
     B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1839.
Theophylactus Simocatt. in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of
     B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1834.
Thirlwall, Bp., History of Greece, in Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopadia,
     London, 1835, &c.
Thomas, Sassanian Inscriptions. in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic
     Society, vol. iii., New Series, London, 1861, &c.
Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs Romains, Paris, 1697.
Tristram, Canon, Land of Moab, London, 1874.
Tzetzes. Chiliades sive Historia varia, ed. Kiessling, Lipsi’e, 1826.

VALERIUS MAXIMUS, ed. Redmayne, Loudini, 1673.
Vaux, Persia from the Earliest Period to the Arab Conquest, London, 1875.
Virgilius, Opera, ed. Forbiger, Lipsim, 1836-9.
Vopiscus, in the list. August. Scriptures of Jordan and Eyssenhardt,
     Berolini, 1864.

WEIL, Geschichte der Chalifen, Mannheim. 1846, &c.
Westergaard, Zendavesta, Copenhagen, 1852-1854.
Wilson, H. H., Ariana Antiqua, London, 1841.
Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien, Munchen, 1862.
     --Ueber die Persische Anahita odes Anaitis, Munchen, 1846.

XENOPHON, Opera, ed. Schneider et Dindorf, Oxonii, 1826.

ZEITSCHRIFT der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig. 1847, &c.
Zeuss, Die Deutschen and die Nachharstamme, Miinchen, 1837.
Zonaras, in the Corpus Hist. Byz. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae,
     1841, 1874.
Zosimus, in the same, Bonnm, 1837.