i. 609, appears to me valuable in proof of the transition

from ancestral to solar worship, or at least of their interfusion:--"The sun was probably named in Babylonia both San and Sanei, before his title took the definite _Semitic_ form of _Shamas_, by which he is known in Assyrian and _in all_ the languages of _that family_." Now, standing by itself, this might not appear very significant; but compare it with the following passages connecting _Ham_ with the sun:--"By the Syrians the sun and heat were called ... Chamba; by the Persians, Hama; and the temple of the sun, the temple of _Am_mon or _Ham_mon." Mr Bryant shows that Ham was esteemed the Zeus of Greece and the Jupiter of Latium. Mr G. Higgins' "Anacalypsis," p. 45. Bryant says, "the worship of Ham, _or the sun_, as it was the most ancient, so it was the most universal of any in the world." These passages may possibly be so interpreted as to support a solar theory, but is it not at least suspicious to see the name of the central luminary so apparently identified with historical characters whose memory is distinctly preserved _aliunde_ in the traditions of their descendants? Compare Nimrod, ch. viii. 164, _et seq._

It is true that the majority of the inscriptions, p. 169, assert that Nin was the son of Bel-Nimrod. This may be referred to that tendency, previously noted in ancient nations, to place the ancestor with whom they were themselves identified at the head of every genealogy. One inscription, however, "makes Bel-Nimrod the son of Nin instead of his father." Nin, in any case, is unquestionably brought into close historical relationship with Bel-Nimrod, an historical character, and we must, in fine, choose whether we shall admit him to be Noah--to whom all the epithets would apply--or whether, upon the more literal construction of the inscriptions, we shall believe him to be some nameless son or successor of Nimrod.

There is one god more in whom I fancy I see a counterpart of Noah, or at least a counterpart of Hoa and Nin--viz.

NEBO.

I base my conclusion upon the epithets applied to him in common with Hoa and Nin, and inconsistently applied if, according to the evidence, p. 177, "mythologically he was a deity of no very great eminence," but in no way conflicting with the supposition that he represented the tradition of Noah, the counterpart to the tradition of Hoa and Nin, among some subordinate nationality, and such appears to be the fact. "When Nebo first appears in Assyria, it is as a foreign god, whose worship is brought thither from Babylonia," p. 178.

Of Nebo it is said, "his name is the same or nearly so, both in Babylonian and Assyrian, and we may perhaps assign it a _Semitic_ derivation, from the root _'nibbah,' to prophesy_. It is his special function to preside over _knowledge_ and _learning_. He is called 'the god who possesses intelligence'--'he who hears from afar'--'he who _teaches_,' or 'he who teaches and instructs.' In this point of view he of course approximates to Hoa, _whose son_ he is called in some inscriptions, and to whom he bears a general resemblance. Like Hoa, he is symbolised by the simple wedge or arrow-head, the primary and essential element of cuneiform writing, to mark his _joint_ presidency with that god over writing and literature. At the same time Nebo has, like so many of the Chaldæan gods, a number of general titles, implying divine powers, which, if they had belonged to him only, would have seemed to prove him the supreme deity. He is 'the lord of lords, who has no equal in power,' _'the supreme chief_,' '_the sustainer_,' 'the supporter,' the 'ever ready,' 'the guardian over the heavens and the earth,' 'the lord of the constellations,' 'the holder of the sceptre of power,' 'he who grants to kings the sceptre of royalty for the _governance_ of their people'" (Rawlinson, i. 177).

There is just a possibility, however, that Nebo may be Sem or Shem. He would be the son of Hoa as Nebo was stated to be.

I think, moreover, a striking resemblance will be seen between the above epithets and the traditions concerning _Shem_, collected by Calmet (Dict. "Sem.")

"The Jews attribute to Sem the theological _tradition_ of the _things which Noah taught to the first men_.... They say that he is the same as Melchisedek.... In fine, the Hebrews believe that he taught _men the law of justice_, the manner of counting the months and years, and the intercalations of the months. They pretend that _God gave him the spirit of prophecy_ one hundred years after the Deluge, and that he continued _to prophesy_ during four hundred years, with little fruit among mankind, who had become very corrupt. Methodius says that he remained in the isle of the sun, that he invented astronomy, and that he was _the first king who ruled over the earth_."[164]

[164] Rawlinson says that there is no doubt that Nebo represents the planet Mercury, and between the attributes of Mercury or Hermes, the epithets of Nebo, and the traditions concerning Shem, there is something in common. He is the god of eloquence and persuasion--the god of alliances and peace. "He contributed to civilise the manners and cultivate the minds of the people." "He united them by commerce and good laws." The Egyptian Mercury or Thaut first invented landmarks. Finally, "He was consulted by the Titans, his relations, _as an augur_, which gave occasion to the poets to describe him as interpreter of the will of the gods."--_L'Abbe de Tressan, "Mythology."_

The difficulty, however, is in understanding how the worship of Shem came to Assyria _from_ Babylonia. I can only reconcile it upon a theory that _all_ idolatry came from Babylonia, _i.e._ from the Hamitic race.

There remains a difficulty which will doubtless occur to every one who has read the chapter in Rawlinson to which I must acknowledge myself so much indebted, and it is a difficulty which I ought, perhaps, to have dealt with before; and that is, that there is in the pages of Rawlinson (I. vii. 184) the most distinct identification of Noah with Xisuthrus. Of this there can be no doubt, from his direct connection with the Deluge, the circumstances of which are perfectly recorded in the Babylonian tradition.[165] This establishes the fact that the tradition of Noah and the Deluge was still among them when Berosus wrote. But if Xisuthrus is Noah, then it may be said Hoa, Oannes, and Nin cannot be Noah. It is a _non sequitur_, but will still, I fear, be very influential with many. It is difficult to understand the tendency to reduplication, and still more difficult to realise how a tradition so clear and decided could be contemporaneous with other identical traditions so entangled and confused. I believe this explanation to be that the account of Xisuthrus was part of the esoteric tradition to which Rawlinson refers, and which was also the tradition of their learned men--"Vixere fortes ante Agamemnon";--and we cannot suppose that Berosus (of whom we should have known nothing if his works had not been preserved to us at third or fourth hand) was the first chronicler of his nation.[166]

[165] "Notwithstanding the difficulty of ascending to so distant a period, there will always be found some traces by which truth may be discovered.... The historian Josephus relates that the Chaldæans from the _earliest_ times _carefully preserved_ the remembrance of past events by public inscriptions on their monuments. He says they caused these annals to be written by the wisest men of their nation."--_L'Abbe de Tressan, "Hist. of Heathen Mythology."_ London, 1806.

[166] I had come to the above conclusion upon the perusal of Rawlinson, and before I had read Bryant, who, I find, had already come to this identical conclusion. ("Mythology," iii. 109.) Speaking of Berosus' account of Oannes and Xisuthrus, he says, "The latter was undoubtedly taken from the archives of the Chaldæans. The former is allegorical and obscure, and was copied from _hieroglyphical representations_ which could not be precisely deciphered.... In consequence of his borrowing from records so very different, we find him, without his being apprized of it, giving _two histories of the same person_. Under the character of _the man of the sea_, whose _name was Oannes_, we have _an allegorical representation of the great patriarch_; whom _in his other history he calls Sisuthrus_."

I shall pursue this inquiry into the classical mythology in the next chapter, and then recapitulate the results as regards this inquiry.