The only complete Egyptian Creation myth yet recovered is preserved in a late papyrus in the British Museum, which was published some years ago by Dr. Budge.(1) It occurs under two separate versions embedded in "The Book of the Overthrowing of Apep, the Enemy of Ra". Here Ra, who utters the myth under his late t.i.tle of Neb-er-tcher, "Lord to the utmost limit", is self-created as Khepera from Nu, the primaeval water; and then follow successive generations of divine pairs, male and female, such as we find at the beginning of the Semitic-Babylonian Creation Series.(2) Though the papyrus was written as late as the year 311 B.C., the myth is undoubtedly early. For the first two divine pairs Shu and Tefnut, Keb and Nut, and four of the latter pairs' five children, Osiris and Isis, Set and Nephthys, form with the Sun-G.o.d himself the Greater Ennead of Heliopolis, which exerted so wide an influence on Egyptian religious speculation. The Ennead combined the older solar elements with the cult of Osiris, and this is indicated in the myth by a break in the successive generations, Nut bringing forth at a single birth the five chief G.o.ds of the Osiris cycle, Osiris himself and his son Horus, with Set, Isis, and Nephthys. Thus we may see in the myth an early example of that religious syncretism which is so characteristic of later Egyptian belief.

(1) See Archaeologia, Vol. LII (1891). Dr. Budge published a new edition of the whole papyrus in Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum (1910), and the two versions of the Creation myth are given together in his G.o.ds of the Egyptians, Vol. I (1904), Chap. VIII, pp. 308 ff., and more recently in his Egyptian Literature, Vol. I, "Legends of the G.o.ds" (1912), pp. 2 ff. An account of the papyrus is included in the Introduction to "Legends of the G.o.ds", pp.

xiii ff.

(2) In G.o.ds of the Egyptians, Vol. I, Chap. VII, pp. 288 ff., Dr. Budge gives a detailed comparison of the Egyptian pairs of primaeval deities with the very similar couples of the Babylonian myth.

The only parallel this Egyptian myth of Creation presents to the Hebrew cosmogony is in its picture of the primaeval water, corresponding to the watery chaos of Genesis i. But the resemblance is of a very general character, and includes no etymological equivalence such as we find when we compare the Hebrew account with the princ.i.p.al Semitic-Babylonian Creation narrative.(1) The application of the Ankh, the Egyptian sign for Life, to the nostrils of a newly-created being is no true parallel to the breathing into man's nostrils of the breath of life in the earlier Hebrew Version,(2) except in the sense that each process was suggested by our common human anatomy. We should naturally expect to find some Hebrew parallel to the Egyptian idea of Creation as the work of a potter with his clay, for that figure appears in most ancient mythologies. The Hebrews indeed used the conception as a metaphor or parable,(3) and it also underlies their earlier picture of man's creation. I have not touched on the grosser Egyptian conceptions concerning the origin of the universe, which we may probably connect with African ideas; but those I have referred to will serve to demonstrate the complete absence of any feature that presents a detailed resemblance of the Hebrew tradition.

(1) For the wide diffusion, in the myths of remote peoples, of a vague theory that would trace all created things to a watery origin, see Farnell, Greece and Babylon, p. 180.

(2) Gen. ii. 7 (J).

(3) Cf., e.g., Isaiah xxix. 16, xlv. 9; and Jeremiah xviii.

2f.

When we turn to Babylonia, we find there also evidence of conflicting ideas, the product of different and to some extent competing religious centres. But in contrast to the rather confused condition of Egyptian mythology, the Semitic Creation myth of the city of Babylon, thanks to the latter's continued political ascendancy, succeeded in winning a dominant place in the national literature. This is the version in which so many points of resemblance to the first chapter of Genesis have long been recognized, especially in the succession of creative acts and their relative order. In the Semitic-Babylonian Version the creation of the world is represented as the result of conflict, the emergence of order out of chaos, a result that is only attained by the personal triumph of the Creator. But this underlying dualism does not appear in the more primitive Sumerian Version we have now recovered. It will be remembered that in the second lecture I gave some account of the myth, which occurs in an epitomized form as an introduction to the Sumerian Version of the Deluge, the two narratives being recorded in the same doc.u.ment and connected with one another by a description of the Antediluvian cities. We there saw that Creation is ascribed to the three greatest G.o.ds of the Sumerian pantheon, Anu, Enlil, and Enki, a.s.sisted by the G.o.ddess Ninkharsagga.

It is significant that in the Sumerian version no less than four deities are represented as taking part in the Creation. For in this we may see some indication of the period to which its composition must be a.s.signed. Their a.s.sociation in the text suggests that the claims of local G.o.ds had already begun to compete with one another as a result of political combination between the cities of their cults. To the same general period we must also a.s.sign the compilation of the Sumerian Dynastic record, for that presupposes the existence of a supreme ruler among the Sumerian city-states. This form of political const.i.tution must undoubtedly have been the result of a long process of development, and the fact that its existence should be regarded as dating from the Creation of the world indicates a comparatively developed stage of the tradition. But behind the combination of cities and their G.o.ds we may conjecturally trace anterior stages of development, when each local deity and his human representative seemed to their own adherents the sole objects for worship and allegiance. And even after the demands of other centres had been conceded, no deity ever quite gave up his local claims.

Enlil, the second of the four Sumerian creating deities, eventually ousted his rivals. It has indeed long been recognized that the role played by Marduk in the Babylonian Version of Creation had been borrowed from Enlil of Nippur; and in the Atrakhasis legend Enlil himself appears as the ultimate ruler of the world and the other G.o.ds figure as "his sons". Anu, who heads the list and plays with Enlil the leading part in the Sumerian narrative, was clearly his chief rival. And though we possess no detailed account of Anu's creative work, the persistent ascription to him of the creation of heaven, and his familiar t.i.tle, "the Father of the G.o.ds", suggest that he once possessed a corresponding body of myth in Eanna, his temple at Erech. Enki, the third of the creating G.o.ds, was naturally credited, as G.o.d of Wisdom, with special creative activities, and fortunately in his case we have some independent evidence of the varied forms these could a.s.sume.

According to one tradition that has come down to us,(1) after Anu had made the heavens, Enki created Aps or the Deep, his own dwelling-place. Then taking from it a piece of clay(2) he proceeded to create the Brick-G.o.d, and reeds and forests for the supply of building material. From the same clay he continued to form other deities and materials, including the Carpenter-G.o.d; the Smith-G.o.d; Arazu, a patron deity of building; and mountains and seas for all that they produced; the Goldsmith-G.o.d, the Stone-cutter-G.o.d, and kindred deities, together with their rich products for offerings; the Grain-deities, Ashnan and Lakhar; Siris, a Wine-G.o.d; Ningishzida and Ninsar, a Garden-G.o.d, for the sake of the rich offerings they could make; and a deity described as "the High priest of the great G.o.ds," to lay down necessary ordinances and commands. Then he created "the King", for the equipment probably of a particular temple, and finally men, that they might practise the cult in the temple so elaborately prepared.

(1) See Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen, pp. 32 ff.

(2) One of the t.i.tles of Enki was "the Potter"; cf. Cun.

Texts in the Brit. Mus., Pt. XXIV, pl. 14 f., ll. 41, 43.

It will be seen from this summary of Enki's creative activities, that the text from which it is taken is not a general Creation myth, but in all probability the introductory paragraph of a composition which celebrated the building or restoration of a particular temple; and the latter's foundation is represented, on henotheistic lines, as the main object of creation. Composed with that special purpose, its narrative is not to be regarded as an exhaustive account of the creation of the world. The incidents are eclective, and only such G.o.ds and materials are mentioned as would have been required for the building and adornment of the temple and for the provision of its offerings and cult. But even so its mythological background is instructive. For while Anu's creation of heaven is postulated as the necessary precedent of Enki's activities, the latter creates the Deep, vegetation, mountains, seas, and mankind. Moreover, in his character as G.o.d of Wisdom, he is not only the teacher but the creator of those deities who were patrons of man's own constructive work. From such evidence we may infer that in his temple at Eridu, now covered by the mounds of Abu Shahrain in the extreme south of Babylonia, and regarded in early Sumerian tradition as the first city in the world, Enki himself was once celebrated as the sole creator of the universe.

The combination of the three G.o.ds Anu, Enlil, and Enki, is persistent in the tradition; for not only were they the great G.o.ds of the universe, representing respectively heaven, earth, and the watery abyss, but they later shared the heavenly sphere between them. It is in their astrological character that we find them again in creative activity, though without the co-operation of any G.o.ddess, when they appear as creators of the great light-G.o.ds and as founders of time divisions, the day and the month. This Sumerian myth, though it reaches us only in an extract or summary in a Neo-Babylonian schoolboy's exercise,(1) may well date from a comparatively early period, but probably from a time when the "Ways" of Anu, Enlil, and Enki had already been fixed in heaven and their later astrological characters had crystallized.

(1) See The Seven Tablets of Creation, Vol. I, pp. 124 ff.

The tablet gives extracts from two very similar Sumerian and Semitic texts. In both of them Anu, Enlil, and Enki appear as creators "through their sure counsel". In the Sumerian extract they create the Moon and ordain its monthly course, while in the Semitic text, after establishing heaven and earth, they create in addition to the New Moon the bright Day, so that "men beheld the Sun-G.o.d in the Gate of his going forth".

The idea that a G.o.ddess should take part with a G.o.d in man's creation is already a familiar feature of Babylonian mythology. Thus the G.o.ddess Aruru, in co-operation with Marduk, might be credited with the creation of the human race,(1) as she might also be pictured creating on her own initiative an individual hero such as Enkidu of the Gilgamesh Epic. The role of mother of mankind was also shared, as we have seen, by the Semitic Ishtar. And though the old Sumerian G.o.ddess, Ninkharsagga, the "Lady of the Mountains", appears in our Sumerian text for the first time in the character of creatress, some of the t.i.tles we know she enjoyed, under her synonyms in the great G.o.d List of Babylonia, already reflected her cosmic activities.(2) For she was known as "The Builder of that which has Breath", "The Carpenter of Mankind", "The Carpenter of the Heart", "The Coppersmith of the G.o.ds", "The Coppersmith of the Land", and "The Lady Potter".

(1) Op. cit., p. 134 f.

(2) Cf. Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus., Pt. XXIV, pl. 12, ll. 32, 26, 27, 25, 24, 23, and Poebel, Hist. Texts, p.

34.

In the myth we are not told her method of creation, but from the above t.i.tles it is clear that in her own cycle of tradition Ninkhasagga was conceived as fashioning men not only from clay but also from wood, and perhaps as employing metal for the manufacture of her other works of creation. Moreover, in the great G.o.d List, where she is referred to under her t.i.tle Makh, Ninkhasagga is a.s.sociated with Anu, Enlil, and Enki; she there appears, with her dependent deities, after Enlil and before Enki. We thus have definite proof that her a.s.sociation with the three chief Sumerian G.o.ds was widely recognized in the early Sumerian period and dictated her position in the cla.s.sified pantheon of Babylonia. Apart from this evidence, the important rank a.s.signed her in the historical and legal records and in votive inscriptions,(1) especially in the early period and in Southern Babylonia, accords fully with the part she here plays in the Sumerian Creation myth. Eannatum and Gudea of Lagash both place her immediately after Anu and Enlil, giving her precedence over Enki; and even in the Ka.s.site Kudurru inscriptions of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries, where she is referred to, she takes rank after Enki and before the other G.o.ds. In Sumer she was known as "the Mother of the G.o.ds", and she was credited with the power of transferring the kingdom and royal insignia from one king to his successor.

(1) See especially, Poebel, op. cit., pp. 24 ff.

Her supreme position as a G.o.ddess is attested by the relative insignificance of her husband Dunpae, whom she completely overshadows, in which respect she presents a contrast to the G.o.ddess Ninlil, Enlil's female counterpart. The early clay figurines found at Nippur and on other sites, representing a G.o.ddess suckling a child and clasping one of her b.r.e.a.s.t.s, may well be regarded as representing Ninkharsagga and not Ninlil. Her sanctuaries were at Kesh and Adab, both in the south, and this fact sufficiently explains her comparative want of influence in Akkad, where the Semitic Ishtar took her place. She does indeed appear in the north during the Sargonic period under her own name, though later she survives in her synonyms of Ninmakh, "the Sublime Lady", and Nintu, "the Lady of Child-bearing". It is under the latter t.i.tle that Hammurabi refers to her in his Code of Laws, where she is tenth in a series of eleven deities. But as G.o.ddess of Birth she retained only a pale reflection of her original cosmic character, and her functions were gradually specialized.(1) (1) Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 33. It is possible that, under one of her later synonyms, we should identify her, as Dr.

Poebel suggests, with the Mylitta of Herodotus.

From a consideration of their characters, as revealed by independent sources of evidence, we thus obtain the reason for the co-operation of four deities in the Sumerian Creation. In fact the new text ill.u.s.trates a well-known principle in the development of myth, the reconciliation of the rival claims of deities, whose cults, once isolated, had been brought from political causes into contact with each other. In this aspect myth is the medium through which a working pantheon is evolved. Naturally all the deities concerned cannot continue to play their original parts in detail. In the Babylonian Epic of Creation, where a single deity, and not a very prominent one, was to be raised to pre-eminent rank, the problem was simple enough. He could retain his own qualities and achievements while borrowing those of any former rival. In the Sumerian text we have the result of a far more delicate process of adjustment, and it is possible that the brevity of the text is here not entirely due to compression of a longer narrative, but may in part be regarded as evidence of early combination. As a result of the a.s.sociation of several competing deities in the work of creation, a tendency may be traced to avoid discrimination between rival claims. Thus it is that the a.s.sembled G.o.ds, the pantheon as a whole, are regarded as collectively responsible for the creation of the universe. It may be added that this use of ilani, "the G.o.ds", forms an interesting linguistic parallel to the plural of the Hebrew divine t.i.tle Elohim.

It will be remembered that in the Sumerian Version the account of Creation is not given in full, only such episodes being included as were directly related to the Deluge story. No doubt the selection of men and animals was suggested by their subsequent rescue from the Flood; and emphasis was purposely laid on the creation of the niggilma because of the part it played in securing mankind's survival. Even so, we noted one striking parallel between the Sumerian Version and that of the Semitic Babylonians, in the reason both give for man's creation. But in the former there is no attempt to explain how the universe itself had come into being, and the existence of the earth is presupposed at the moment when Anu, Enlil, Enki, and Ninkharsagga undertake the creation of man. The Semitic-Babylonian Version, on the other hand, is mainly occupied with events that led up to the acts of creation, and it concerns our problem to inquire how far those episodes were of Semitic and how far of Sumerian origin. A further question arises as to whether some strands of the narrative may not at one time have existed in Sumerian form independently of the Creation myth.

The statement is sometimes made that there is no reason to a.s.sume a Sumerian original for the Semitic-Babylonian Version, as recorded on "the Seven Tablets of Creation";(1) and this remark, though true of that version as a whole, needs some qualification. The composite nature of the poem has long been recognized, and an a.n.a.lysis of the text has shown that no less than five princ.i.p.al strands have been combined for its formation. These consist of (i) The Birth of the G.o.ds; (ii) The Legend of Ea and Aps; (iii) The princ.i.p.al Dragon Myth; (iv) The actual account of Creation; and (v) the Hymn to Marduk under his fifty t.i.tles.(2) The a.s.syrian commentaries to the Hymn, from which considerable portions of its text are restored, quote throughout a Sumerian original, and explain it word for word by the phrases of the Semitic Version;(3) so that for one out of the Seven Tablets a Semitic origin is at once disproved. Moreover, the majority of the fifty t.i.tles, even in the forms in which they have reached us in the Semitic text, are demonstrably Sumerian, and since many of them celebrate details of their owner's creative work, a Sumerian original for other parts of the version is implied. Enlil and Ea are both represented as bestowing their own names upon Marduk,(4) and we may a.s.sume that many of the fifty t.i.tles were originally borne by Enlil as a Sumerian Creator.(5) Thus some portions of the actual account of Creation were probably derived from a Sumerian original in which "Father Enlil" figured as the hero.

(1) Cf., e.g., Jastrow, Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc., Vol.

x.x.xVI (1916), p. 279.

(2) See The Seven Tablets of Creation, Vol. I, pp. lxvi ff.; and cf. Skinner, Genesis, pp. 43 ff.

(3) Cf. Sev. Tabl., Vol. I, pp. 157 ff.

(4) Cf. Tabl. VII, ll. 116 ff.

(5) The number fifty was suggested by an ideogram employed for Enlil's name.

For what then were the Semitic Babylonians themselves responsible? It seems to me that, in the "Seven Tablets", we may credit them with considerable ingenuity in the combination of existing myths, but not with their invention. The whole poem in its present form is a glorification of Marduk, the G.o.d of Babylon, who is to be given pre-eminent rank among the G.o.ds to correspond with the political position recently attained by his city. It would have been quite out of keeping with the national thought to make a break in the tradition, and such a course would not have served the purpose of the Babylonian priesthood, which was to obtain recognition of their claims by the older cult-centres in the country. Hence they chose and combined the more important existing myths, only making such alterations as would fit them to their new hero. Babylon herself had won her position by her own exertions; and it would be a natural idea to give Marduk his opportunity of becoming Creator of the world as the result of successful conflict. A combination of the Dragon myth with the myth of Creation would have admirably served their purpose; and this is what we find in the Semitic poem. But even that combination may not have been their own invention; for, though, as we shall see, the idea of conflict had no part in the earlier forms of the Sumerian Creation myth, its combination with the Dragon motif may have characterized the local Sumerian Version of Nippur. How mechanical was the Babylonian redactors' method of glorifying Marduk is seen in their use of the description of Tiamat and her monster brood, whom Marduk is made to conquer. To impress the hearers of the poem with his prowess, this is repeated at length no less than four times, one G.o.d carrying the news of her revolt to another.

Direct proof of the manner in which the later redactors have been obliged to modify the original Sumerian Creation myth, in consequence of their incorporation of other elements, may be seen in the Sixth Tablet of the poem, where Marduk states the reason for man's creation. In the second lecture we noted how the very words of the princ.i.p.al Sumerian Creator were put into Marduk's mouth; but the rest of the Semitic G.o.d's speech finds no equivalent in the Sumerian Version and was evidently inserted in order to reconcile the narrative with its later ingredients. This will best be seen by printing the two pa.s.sages in parallel columns:(1) (1) The extract from the Sumerian Version, which occurs in the lower part of the First Column, is here compared with the Semitic-Babylonian Creation Series, Tablet VI, ll. 6-10 (see Seven Tablets, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.). The comparison is justified whether we regard the Sumerian speech as a direct preliminary to man's creation, or as a rea.s.sertion of his duty after his rescue from destruction by the Flood.

SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION

"The people will I cause to ... "I will make man, that man may in their settlements, (...).

Cities ... shall (man) build, I will create man who shall in their protection will I cause inhabit (...), him to rest, That he may lay the brick of our That the service of the G.o.ds may house in a clean spot, be established, and that (their) shrines (may be built).

That in a clean spot he may But I will alter the ways of the establish our ... !" G.o.ds, and I will change (their paths); Together shall they be oppressed, and unto evil shall (they ...)!"

The welding of incongruous elements is very apparent in the Semitic Version. For the statement that man will be created in order that the G.o.ds may have worshippers is at once followed by the announcement that the G.o.ds themselves must be punished and their "ways" changed. In the Sumerian Version the G.o.ds are united and all are naturally regarded as worthy of man's worship. The Sumerian Creator makes no distinctions; he refers to "our houses", or temples, that shall be established. But in the later version divine conflict has been introduced, and the future head of the pantheon has conquered and humiliated the revolting deities. Their "ways" must therefore be altered before they are fit to receive the worship which was accorded them by right in the simpler Sumerian tradition. In spite of the epitomized character of the Sumerian Version, a comparison of these pa.s.sages suggests very forcibly that the Semitic-Babylonian myth of Creation is based upon a simpler Sumerian story, which has been elaborated to reconcile it with the Dragon myth.

The Semitic poem itself also supplies evidence of the independent existence of the Dragon myth apart from the process of Creation, for the story of Ea and Aps, which it incorporates, is merely the local Dragon myth of Eridu. Its inclusion in the story is again simply a tribute to Marduk; for though Ea, now become Marduk's father, could conquer Aps, he was afraid of Tiamat, "and turned back".(1) The original Eridu myth no doubt represented Enki as conquering the watery Abyss, which became his home; but there is nothing to connect this tradition with his early creative activities. We have long possessed part of another local version of the Dragon myth, which describes the conquest of a dragon by some deity other than Marduk; and the fight is there described as taking place, not before Creation, but at a time when men existed and cities had been built.(2) Men and G.o.ds were equally terrified at the monster's appearance, and it was to deliver the land from his clutches that one of the G.o.ds went out and slew him. Tradition delighted to dwell on the dragon's enormous size and terrible appearance. In this version he is described as fifty beru(3) in length and one in height; his mouth measured six cubits and the circuit of his ears twelve; he dragged himself along in the water, which he lashed with his tail; and, when slain, his blood flowed for three years, three months, a day and a night. From this description we can see he was given the body of an enormous serpent.(4) (1) Tabl. III, l. 53, &c. In the story of Bel and the Dragon, the third of the apocryphal additions to Daniel, we have direct evidence of the late survival of the Dragon motif apart from any trace of the Creation myth; in this connexion see Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha, Vol.

I (1913), p. 653 f.

(2) See Seven Tablets, Vol. I, pp. 116 ff., lxviii f. The text is preserved on an a.s.syrian tablet made for the library of Ashur-bani-pal.

(3) The beru was the s.p.a.ce that could be covered in two hours' travelling.

(4) The Babylonian Dragon has progeny in the later apocalyptic literature, where we find very similar descriptions of the creatures' size. Among them we may perhaps include the dragon in the Apocalypse of Baruch, who, according to the Slavonic Version, apparently every day drinks a cubit's depth from the sea, and yet the sea does not sink because of the three hundred and sixty rivers that flow into it (cf. James, "Apocrypha Anecdota", Second Series, in Armitage Robinson's Texts and Studies, V, No.

1, pp. lix ff.). But Egypt's Dragon motif was even more prolific, and the Pistis Sophia undoubtedly suggested descriptions of the Serpent, especially in connexion with Hades.

A further version of the Dragon myth has now been identified on one of the tablets recovered during the recent excavations at Ashur,(1) and in it the dragon is not entirely of serpent form, but is a true dragon with legs. Like the one just described, he is a male monster. The description occurs as part of a myth, of which the text is so badly preserved that only the contents of one column can be made out with any certainty. In it a G.o.d, whose name is wanting, announces the presence of the dragon: "In the water he lies and I (...)!" Thereupon a second G.o.d cries successively to Aruru, the mother-G.o.ddess, and to Pallil, another deity, for help in his predicament. And then follows the description of the dragon: In the sea was the Serpent cre(ated).

Sixty beru is his length; Thirty beru high is his he(ad).(2) For half (a beru) each stretches the surface of his ey(es);(3) For twenty beru go (his feet).(4) He devours fish, the creatures (of the sea), He devours birds, the creatures (of the heaven), He devours wild a.s.ses, the creatures (of the field), He devours men,(5) to the peoples (he ...).

(1) For the text, see Ebeling, a.s.surtexte I, No. 6; it is translated by him in Orient. Lit.-Zeit., Vol. XIX, No. 4 (April, 1916).

(2) The line reads: 30 beru sa-ka-a ri-(sa-a-su). Dr.

Ebeling renders ri-sa-a as "heads" (Kopfe), implying that the dragon had more than one head. It may be pointed out that, if we could accept this translation, we should have an interesting parallel to the description of some of the primaeval monsters, preserved from Berossus, as {soma men ekhontas en, kephalas de duo}. But the common word for "head" is kakkadu, and there can be little doubt that risa is here used in its ordinary sense of "head, summit, top" when applied to a high building.

(3) The line reads: a-na 1/2 ta-am la-bu-na li-bit en(a- su). Dr. Ebeling translates, "auf je eine Halfte ist ein Ziegel (ihrer) Auge(n) gelegt". But libittu is clearly used here, not with its ordinary meaning of "brick", which yields a strange rendering, but in its special sense, when applied to large buildings, of "foundation, floor-s.p.a.ce, area", i.e. "surface". Dr. Ebeling reads ena-su at the end of the line, but the sign is broken; perhaps the traces may prove to be those of uzna su, "his ears", in which case li-bit uz(na-su) might be rendered either as "surface of his ears", or as "base (lit. foundation) of his ears".

(4) i.e. the length of his pace was twenty beru.

(5) Lit. "the black-headed".

The text here breaks off, at the moment when Pallil, whose help against the dragon had been invoked, begins to speak. Let us hope we shall recover the continuation of the narrative and learn what became of this carnivorous monster.

There are ample grounds, then, for a.s.suming the independent existence of the Babylonian Dragon-myth, and though both the versions recovered have come to us in Semitic form, there is no doubt that the myth itself existed among the Sumerians. The dragon motif is constantly recurring in descriptions of Sumerian temple-decoration, and the twin dragons of Ningishzida on Gudea's libation-vase, carved in green steat.i.te and inlaid with sh.e.l.l, are a notable product of Sumerian art.(1) The very names borne by Tiamat's brood of monsters in the "Seven Tablets" are stamped in most cases with their Sumerian descent, and Kingu, whom she appointed as her champion in place of Aps, is equally Sumerian. It would be strange indeed if the Sumerians had not evolved a Dragon myth,(2) for the Dragon combat is the most obvious of nature myths and is found in most mythologies of Europe and the Near East. The trailing storm-clouds suggest his serpent form, his fiery tongue is seen in the forked lightning, and, though he may darken the world for a time, the Sun-G.o.d will always be victorious. In Egypt the myth of "the Overthrowing of Apep, the enemy of Ra" presents a close parallel to that of Tiamat;(3) but of all Eastern mythologies that of the Chinese has inspired in art the most beautiful treatment of the Dragon, who, however, under his varied forms was for them essentially beneficent. Doubtless the Semites of Babylonia had their own versions of the Dragon combat, both before and after their arrival on the Euphrates, but the particular version which the priests of Babylon wove into their epic is not one of them.

(1) See E. de Sarzec, Decouvertes en Chaldee, pl. xliv, Fig. 2, and Heuzey, Catalogue des antiquites chaldeennes, p. 281.

(2) In his very interesting study of "Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Beginnings", contributed to the Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc., Vol. x.x.xVI (1916), pp. 274 ff., Professor Jastrow suggests that the Dragon combat in the Semitic- Babylonian Creation poem is of Semitic not Sumerian origin.

He does not examine the evidence of the poem itself in detail, but bases the suggestion mainly on the two hypotheses, that the Dragon combat of the poem was suggested by the winter storms and floods of the Euphrates Valley, and that the Sumerians came from a mountain region where water was not plentiful. If we grant both a.s.sumptions, the suggested conclusion does not seem to me necessarily to follow, in view of the evidence we now possess as to the remote date of the Sumerian settlement in the Euphrates Valley. Some evidence may still be held to point to a mountain home for the proto-Sumerians, such as the name of their early G.o.ddess Ninkharsagga, "the Lady of the Mountains". But, as we must now regard Babylonia itself as the cradle of their civilization, other data tend to lose something of their apparent significance. It is true that the same Sumerian sign means "land" and "mountain"; but it may have been difficult to obtain an intelligible profile for "land" without adopting a mountain form. Such a name as Ekur, the "Mountain House" of Nippur, may perhaps indicate size, not origin; and Enki's a.s.sociation with metal-working may be merely due to his character as G.o.d of Wisdom, and is not appropriate solely "to a G.o.d whose home is in the mountains where metals are found" (op. cit., p. 295). It should be added that Professor Jastrow's theory of the Dragon combat is bound up with his view of the origin of an interesting Sumerian "myth of beginnings", to which reference is made later.

(3) Cf. Budge, G.o.ds of the Egyptians, Vol. I, pp. 324 ff.

The inclusion of the two versions of the Egyptian Creation myth, recording the Birth of the G.o.ds in the "Book of Overthrowing Apep", does not present a very close parallel to the combination of Creation and Dragon myths in the Semitic-Babylonian poem, for in the Egyptian work the two myths are not really combined, the Creation Versions being inserted in the middle of the spells against Apep, without any attempt at a.s.similation (see Budge, Egyptian Literature, Vol. I, p. xvi).

We have thus traced four out of the five strands which form the Semitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to a Sumerian ancestry. And we now come back to the first of the strands, the Birth of the G.o.ds, from which our discussion started. For if this too should prove to be Sumerian, it would help to fill in the gap in our Sumerian Creation myth, and might furnish us with some idea of the Sumerian view of "beginnings", which preceded the acts of creation by the great G.o.ds. It will be remembered that the poem opens with the description of a time when heaven and earth did not exist, no field or marsh even had been created, and the universe consisted only of the primaeval water-G.o.ds, Aps, Mummu, and Tiamat, whose waters were mingled together. Then follows the successive generation of two pairs of deities, Lakhmu and Lakhamu, and Anshar and Kishar, long ages separating the two generations from each other and from the birth of the great G.o.ds which subsequently takes place. In the summary of the myth which is given by Damascius(1) the names of the various deities accurately correspond to those in the opening lines of the poem; but he makes some notable additions, as will be seen from the following table: DAMASCUS "SEVEN TABLETS" I

{'Apason--Tauthe} Aps--Tiamat | {Moumis} Mummu {Lakhos--Lakhe}(2) Lakhmu--Lakhamu {'a.s.soros--Kissare} Anshar--Kishar {'Anos, 'Illinos, 'Aos} Anu, ( ), Nudimmud (= Ea) {'Aos--Dauke} | {Belos}

(1) Quaestiones de primis principiis, cap. 125; ed. Kopp, p. 384.

(2) Emended from the reading {Dakhen kai Dakhon} of the text.

In the pa.s.sage of the poem which describes the birth of the great G.o.ds after the last pair of primaeval deities, mention is duly made of Anu and Nudimmud (the latter a t.i.tle of Ea), corresponding to the {'Anos} and {'Aos} of Damascius; and there appears to be no reference to Enlil, the original of {'Illinos}. It is just possible that his name occurred at the end of one of the broken lines, and, if so, we should have a complete parallel to Damascius. But the traces are not in favour of the restoration;(1) and the omission of Enlil's name from this part of the poem may be readily explained as a further tribute to Marduk, who definitely usurps his place throughout the subsequent narrative. Anu and Ea had both to be mentioned because of the parts they play in the Epic, but Enlil's only recorded appearance is in the final a.s.sembly of the G.o.ds, where he bestows his own name "the Lord of the World"(2) upon Marduk. The evidence of Damascius suggests that Enlil's name was here retained, between those of Anu and Ea, in other versions of the poem. But the occurrence of the name in any version is in itself evidence of the antiquity of this strand of the narrative. It is a legitimate inference that the myth of the Birth of the G.o.ds goes back to a time at least before the rise of Babylon, and is presumably of Sumerian origin.

(1) Anu and Nudimmud are each mentioned for the first time at the beginning of a line, and the three lines following the reference to Nudimmud are entirely occupied with descriptions of his wisdom and power. It is also probable that the three preceding lines (ll. 14-16), all of which refer to Anu by name, were entirely occupied with his description. But it is only in ll. 13-16 that any reference to Enlil can have occurred, and the traces preserved of their second halves do not suggestion the restoration.

(2) Cf. Tabl. VII, . 116.

Further evidence of this may be seen in the fact that Anu, Enlil, and Ea (i.e. Enki), who are here created together, are the three great G.o.ds of the Sumerian Version of Creation; it is they who create mankind with the help of the G.o.ddess Ninkharsagga, and in the fuller version of that myth we should naturally expect to find some account of their own origin. The reference in Damascius to Marduk ({Belos}) as the son of Ea and Damkina ({Dauke}) is also of interest in this connexion, as it exhibits a G.o.ddess in close connexion with one of the three great G.o.ds, much as we find Ninkharsagga a.s.sociated with them in the Sumerian Version.(1) Before leaving the names, it may be added that, of the primaeval deities, Anshar and Kishar are obviously Sumerian in form.

(1) Damkina was the later wife of Ea or Enki; and Ninkharsagga is a.s.sociated with Enki, as his consort, in another Sumerian myth.