* 2 Kings xiii. 14-19.

** 2 Kings xiv. 7; cf. 2 Gliron. xxv. 11, 12. Sela was rebuilt, and received the name of Joktheel from its Hebrew masters. The subjection of the country was complete, for, later on, the Hebrew chronicler tells of the conquest of Elath by King Azariah, son of Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 22).

*** 2 Kings xiv. 8-16. cf. 2 Ghron. xxv. 17-24.

Jeroboam II. completed that rehabilitation of Israel, of which his father had but sketched the outline; he maintained his suzerainty, first over Amaziah, and when the latter was assassinated at Lachish (764),* over his son, the young Azariah.** After the defeat of Ben-hadad near Aphek, Damascus declined still further in power, and Hadrach, suddenly emerging from obscurity, completely barred the valley of the Orontes against it. An expedition under Shalmaneser IV. in 773 seems to have precipitated it to a lower depth than it had ever reached before: Jeroboam was able to wrest from it, almost without a struggle, the cities which it had usurped in the days of Jehu, and Gilead was at last set free from a yoke which had oppressed it for more than a century. Tradition goes so far as to affirm that Israel reconquered the Bekaa, Hamath, and Damascus, those northern territories once possessed by David, and it is quite possible that its rivals, menaced from afar by Assyria and hard pressed at their own doors by Hadrach, may have resorted to one of those propitiatory overtures which eastern monarchs are only too ready to recognise as acts of submission. The lesser southern states, such as Ammon, the Bedawin tribes of Hauran, and, at the opposite extremity of the kingdom, the Philistines,*** who had bowed themselves before Hazael in the days of his prosperity, now transferred their homage to Israel.

* 2 Kings xiv. 19, 20; cf. 2 Ghron. xxv. 27, 28.

** The Hebrew texts make no mention of this subjection of Judah to Jeroboam II.; that it actually took place must, however, be admitted, at any rate in so far as the first half of the reign of Azariah is concerned, as a necessary outcome of the events of the preceding reigns.

*** The conquests of Jeroboam II. are indicated very briefly in 2 Kings xiv. 25-28: cf. Amos vi. 14, where the expressions employed by the prophet imply that at the time at which he wrote the whole of the ancient kingdom of David, Judah included, was in the possession of Israel.

Moab alone offered any serious resistance. It had preserved its independence ever since the reign of Mesha, having escaped from being drawn into the wars which had laid waste the rest of Syria. It was now suddenly forced to pay the penalty of its long prosperity. Jeroboam made a furious onslaught upon its cities—Ar of Moab, Kir of Moab, Dibon, Medeba, Heshbon, Elealeh—and destroyed them all in succession. The Moabite forces carried a part of the population with them in their flight, and all escaped together across the deserts which enclose the southern basin of the Dead Sea. On the frontier of Edom they begged for sanctuary, but the King of Judah, to whom the Edomite valleys belonged, did not dare to shelter the vanquished enemies of his suzerain, and one of his prophets, forgetting his hatred of Israel in delight at being able to gratify his grudge against Moab, greeted them in their distress with a hymn of joy—"I will water thee with my tears, O Heshbon Elealeh: for upon thy summer fruits and upon thy harvest the battle shout is fallen. And gladness is taken away and joy out of the fruitful fields; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither joyful noise; no treader shall tread out wine in the presses; I have made the vintage shout to cease. Wherefore my bowels sound like an harp for Moab, and my inward parts for Kir-Heres. And it shall come to pass, when Moab presenteth himself, when he wearieth himself upon the high place, and shall come to his sanctuary to pray, he shall not prevail!"*

* Isa. xv. 1-9; xvi. 1-12. This prophecy, which had been pronounced against Moab "in the old days," and which is appropriated by Isaiah (xvi. 13, 14), has been attributed to Jonah, son of Amittai, of Gath-Hepher, who actually lived in the time of Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiv. 25). It is now generally recognised as the production of an anonymous Judsean prophet, and the earliest authentic fragment of prophetic literature which has come down to us.

This revival, like the former greatness of David and Solomon, was due not so much to any inherent energy on the part of Israel, as to the weakness of the nations on its frontiers. Egypt was not in the habit of intervening in the quarrels of Asia, and Assyria was suffering from a temporary eclipse. Damascus had suddenly collapsed, and Hadrach or Mansuati, the cities which sought to take its place, found themselves fully employed in repelling the intermittent attacks of the Assyrian; the Hebrews, for a quarter of a century, therefore, had the stage to themselves, there being no other actors to dispute their possession of it. During the three hundred years of their existence as a monarchy they had adopted nearly all the laws and customs of the races over whom they held sway, and by whom they were completely surrounded. The bulk of the people devoted themselves to the pasturing and rearing of cattle, and, during the better part of the year, preferred to live in tents, unless war rendered such a practice impossible.* They had few industries save those of the potter** and the smith,*** and their trade was almost entirely in the hands of foreigners.

* Cf. the passage in 2 Kings xiii. 5, "And the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as beforetime." Although the word ohel had by that time acquired the more general meaning of habitation, the context here seems to require us to translate it by its original meaning tent.

** Pottery is mentioned in 2 Sam. xvii. 28; numerous fragments dating from the monarchical period have been found at Jerusalem and Lachish.

*** The story of Tubal-Cain (Gen. iv. 22) shows the antiquity of the ironworker's art among the Israelites; the smith is practically the only artisan to be found amongst nomadic tribes.

We find, however, Hebrew merchants in Egypt,* at Tyre, and in Coele-Syria, and they were so numerous at Damascus that they requested that a special bazaar might be allotted to them, similar to that occupied by the merchants of Damascus in Samaria from time immemorial.**

* The accurate ideas on the subject of Egypt possessed by the earliest compilers of the traditions contained in Genesis and Exodus, prove that Hebrew merchants must have been in constant communication with that country about the time with which we are now concerned.

** 1 Kings xx. 34; cf. what has been said on this point in vol. vi. pp. 432, 441.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from sketches by Warren.

The Hebrew monarchs had done their best to encourage this growing desire for trade. It was only the complicated state of Syrian politics that prevented them from following the example of Solomon, and opening communications by sea with the far-famed countries of Ophir, either in competition with the Phoenicians or under their guidance. Indeed, as we have seen, Jehoshaphat, encouraged by his alliance with the house of Omri, tried to establish a seagoing fleet, but found that peasants could not be turned into sailors at a day's notice, and the vessel built by him at Eziongeber was wrecked before it left the harbour.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs of the Black Obelisk.

In appearance, the Hebrew towns closely resembled the ancient Canaanite cities. Egyptian influences still predominated in their architecture, as may be seen from what is still left of the walls of Lachish, and they were fortified in such a way as to be able to defy the military engines of besiegers. This applies not only to capitals, like Jerusalem, Tirzah, and Samaria, but even to those towns which commanded a road or mountain pass, the ford of a river, or the entrance to some fertile plain; there were scores of these on the frontiers of the two kingdoms, and in those portions of their territory which lay exposed to the attacks of Damascus, Moab, Edom, or the Philistines.* The daily life of the inhabitants was; to all intents, the same as at Arpad, Sidon, or Gaza; and the dress, dwellings, and customs of the upper and middle classes cannot have differed in any marked degree from those of the corresponding grades of society in Syria.

* 2 Chron. xi. 6-10, where we find a list of the towns fortified by Rehoboam: Bethlehem, Etam, Beth-zur, Soco, Adullam, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah, Zorah, Ajalon, Hebron.



Drawn by Boudier, from Layard. These figures are taken from a bas-relief which represents Sennacherib receiving the submission of Judah before Lachish.

The men wore over their tunic a fringed kaftan, with short sleeves, open in front, a low-crowned hat, and sandals or shoes of pliant leather; * they curled their beards and hair, painted their eyes and cheeks, and wore many jewels; while their wives adopted all the latest refinements in vogue in the harems of Damascus, Tyre, or Nineveh.** Descendants of ancient families paid for all this luxury out of the revenues of the wide domains they had inherited; others kept it up by less honourable means, by usury, corruption, and by the exercise of a ruthless violence towards neighbours who were unable to defend themselves.

* The kaftan met with in these parts seems to correspond to the meil (R.V. "ephod ") of the biblical texts (1 Sam. ii. 19; xviii. 4, etc.).

** Isa. iii. 16-24 describes in detail the whole equipment of jewels, paint, and garments required by the fashionable women of Jerusalem during the last thirty years of the eighth century B.C.

Illustration: 191.jpg WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF JUDAEA

Drawn by Boudier, from Layard.

The king himself set them an evil example, and did not hesitate to assassinate one of his subjects in order that he might seize a vineyard which he coveted;* it was not to be wondered at, therefore, that the nobles of Ephraim "sold the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes;"** that they demanded gifts of wheat, and "turned the needy from their right" when they sat as a jury "at the gate."*** From top to bottom of the social ladder the stronger and wealthier oppressed those who were weaker or poorer than themselves, leaving them with no hope of redress except at the hands of the king.****

* Cf. the well-known episode of Naboth and Ahab in 1 Kings xxi.

** Amos ii. 6.

*** Amos v. 11, 12.

**** 2 Kings vi. 26-30; viii. 3-8, where, in both instances, it is a woman who appeals to the king. Cf. for the period of David and Solomon, 2 Sam. xiv. 1-20, and 1 Kings iii. 16-27.

Unfortunately, the king, when he did not himself set the example of oppression, seldom possessed the resources necessary to make his decisions effective. True, he was chief of the most influential family in either Judah or Israel, a chief by divine appointment, consecrated by the priests and prophets of Jahveh, a priest of the Lord,* and he was master in his own city of Jerusalem or Samaria, but his authority did not extend far beyond the walls.

* Cf. the anointing of Saul (1 Sam. ix. 16; x. 1; and xiv. 1), of David (1 Sam. xvi. 1-3, 12, 13), of Solomon (1 Kings i. 34, 39, 45), of Jehu (2 Kings ix. 1-10), and compare it with the unction received by the priests on their admission to the priesthood (Exod. xxix. 7; xxx. 22, 23; cf. Lev. viii. 12, 30; x. 7).

It was not the old tribal organisation that embarrassed him, for the secondary tribes had almost entirely given up their claims to political independence. The division of the country into provinces, a consequence of the establishment of financial districts by Solomon, had broken them up, and they gradually gave way before the two houses of Ephraim and Judah; but the great landed proprietors, especially those who held royal fiefs, enjoyed almost unlimited power within their own domains. They were, indeed, called on to render military service, to furnish forced labour, and to pay certain trifling dues into the royal treasury;* but, otherwise, they were absolute masters in their own domains, and the sovereign was obliged to employ force if he wished to extort any tax or act of homage which they were unwilling to render. For this purpose he had a standing army distributed in strong detachments along the frontier, but the flower of his forces was concentrated round the royal residence to serve as a body-guard. It included whole companies of foreign mercenaries, like those Cretan and Carian warriors who, since the time of David, had kept guard round the Kings of Judah;** these, in time of war,*** were reinforced by militia, drawn entirely from among the landed proprietors, and the whole force, when commanded by an energetic leader, formed a host capable of meeting on equal terms the armies of Damascus, Edom, or Moab, or even the veterans of Egypt and Assyria.

* 1 Kings xv. 22 (cf. 2 Ohron. xvi. 6), where "King Asa made a proclamation unto all Judah; none was exempted," the object in this case being the destruction of Ramah, the building of which had been begun by Baasha.

** The Carians or Cretans are again referred to in the history of Athaliah (2 Kings xi. 4).

*** Taking the tribute paid by Menahem to Pul (2 Kings xv. 19, 20) as a basis, it has been estimated that the owners of landed estate in Israel, who were in that capacity liable to render military service, numbered 60,000 in the time of that king; all others were exempt from military service.

The reigning prince was hereditary commander-in-chief, but the sharzaba, or captain of the troops, often took his place, as in the time of David, and thereby became the most important person in the kingdom. More than one of these officers had already turned against their sovereign the forces which he had entrusted, to them, and these revolts, when crowned with success, had, on various occasions, in Israel at any rate, led to a change of dynasty: Omri had been shar zaba when he mutinied against Zimri, the assassin of Elah, and Jehu occupied the same position when Elisha deputed him to destroy the house of Omri.

The political constitutions of Judah and Israel were, on the whole, very similar to those of the numerous states which shared the territory of Syria between them, and their domestic history gives us a fairly exact idea of the revolutions which agitated Damascus, Hamath, Carchemish, Arpad, and the principalities of Amanos and Lebanon about the same period. It would seem, however, that none of these other nations possessed a literary or religious life of any great intensity. They had their archives, it is true, in which were accumulated documents relating to their past history, their rituals of theology and religious worship, their collections of hymns and national songs; but none of these have survived, and the very few inscriptions that have come down to us merely show that they had nearly all of them adopted the alphabet invented by the Phoenicians. The Israelites, initiated by them into the art of writing, lost no time in setting down, in their turn, all they could recall of the destinies of their race from the creation of the world down to the time in which they lived. From the beginning of the monarchical epoch onwards, their scribes collected together in the Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Book of Jashar, and in other works the titles of which have not survived, lyrics of different dates, in which nameless poets had sung the victories and glorious deeds of their national heroes, such as the Song of the Well, the Hymn of Moses, the triumphal Ode of Deborah, and the blessing of Jacob.* They were able to draw upon traditions which preserved the memory of what had taken place in the time of the Judges;** and when that patriarchal form of government was succeeded by a monarchy, they had narratives of the ark of the Lord and its wanderings, of Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon,*** not to mention the official records which, since then, had been continuously produced and accumulated by the court historians.****

* The books of Jashar and of the Wars of the Lord appear to date from the IXth century B.C.; as the latter is quoted in the Elohist narrative, it cannot have been compiled later than the beginning of the VIIIth century B.C. The passage in Numb. xxi. lib, 15, is the only one expressly attributed by the testimony of the ancients to the Book of the Wars of the Lord, but modern writers add to this the Song of the Well (Numb. xxi. 17b, 18), and the Song of Victory over Moab (Numb. xxi. 27&-30). The Song of the Bow (2 Sam. i. 19-27) admittedly formed part of the Book of Jashar. Joshua's Song of Victory over the Amorites (Josh. x. 13), and very probably the couplet recited by Solomon at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings viii, 12, 13, placed by the LXX. after verse 53), also formed part of it, as also the Song of Deborah and the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 1-27).

** Wellhausen was the first to admit the existence of a Book of Judges prior to the epoch of Deuteronomy, and his opinion has been adopted by Kuenen and Driver. This book was probably drawn upon by the two historians of the IXth and VIIIth centuries B.C. of whom we are about to speak; some of the narratives, such as the story of Abimelech, and possibly that of Ehud, may have been taken from a document written at the end of the Xth or the beginning of the IXth centuries B.C.

*** The revolutions which occurred in the family of David (2 Sam. ix.-xx.) bear so evident a stamp of authenticity that they have been attributed to a contemporary writer, perhaps Ahimaaz, son of Zadok (2 Sam. xv. 27), who took part in the events in question. But apart from this, the existence is generally admitted of two or three books which were drawn up shortly after the separation of the tribes, containing a kind of epic of the history of the first two kings; the one dealing with Saul, for instance, was probably written in the time of Jeroboam.

**** The two lists in which the names of the principal personages at the court of David are handed down to us, mention a certain Jehoshaphat, son of Ahilud, who was mazhir, or recorder; he retained his post under Solomon (1 Kings iv. 3).

It may be that more than one writer had already endeavoured to evolve from these materials an Epie of Jahveh and His faithful people, but in the second half of the IXth century B.C., perhaps in the time of Jehoshaphat, a member of the tribe of Judah undertook to put forth a fresh edition.*

* The approximate date of the composition and source of this first Jehovist is still an open question., Reuss and Kuenen, not to mention others, believe the Jehovist writer to have been a native of the northern kingdom; I have adopted the opposite view, which is supported by most modern critics.

He related how God, after creating the universe out of chaos, had chosen His own people, and had led them, after trials innumerable, to the conquest of the Promised Land. He showed, as he went on, the origin of the tribes identified with the children of Israel, and the covenants made by Jahveh with Moses in the Arabian desert; while accepting the stories connected with the ancient sanctuaries of the north and east at Shechem, Bethel, Peniel, Mahanaim, and Succoth, it was at Hebron in Judah that he placed the principal residence of Abraham and his descendants. His style, while simple and direct, is at the same time singularly graceful and vivacious; the incidents he gives are carefully selected, apt and characteristic, while his narrative passes from scene to scene without trace of flagging, unburdened by useless details, and his dialogue, always natural and easy, rises without effort from the level of familiar conversation to heights of impassioned eloquence. His aim was not merely to compile the history of his people: he desired at the same time to edify them, by showing how sin first came into the world through disobedience to the commandments of the Most High, and how man, prosperous so long as he kept to the laws of the covenant, fell into difficulties as soon as he transgressed or failed to respect them. His concept of Jahveh is in the highest degree a concrete one: he regards Him as a Being superior to other beings, but made like unto them and moved by the same passions. He shows anger and is appeased, displays sorrow and repents Him of the evil.* When the descendants of Noah build a tower and a city, He draws nigh to examine what they have done, and having taken account of their work, confounds their language and thus prevents them from proceeding farther.** He desires, later on, to confer a favour on His servant Abraham: He appears to him in human form, and eats and drinks with him.*** Sodom and Gomorrah had committed abominable iniquities, the cry against them was great and their sin very grievous: but before punishing them, He tells Abraham that He will "go down and see whether they have done according to the cry of it which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know."****

* Exod. iv. 14 and xxxii. 10, anger of Jahveh against Moses and against Israel; Gen. vi. 6, 7, where He repents and is sorry for having created man; and Exod. xxxii. 14, where He repents Him of the evil He had intended to do unto Israel.

** Gen. xi. 5-8.

*** Gen. xviii.

**** Gen. xviii. and xix.

Elsewhere He wrestles a whole night long with Jacob;* or falls upon Moses, seeking to kill him, until appeased by Zipporah, who casts the blood-stained foreskin of her child at her husband's feet.** This book, though it breathes the spirit of the prophets and was perhaps written in one of their schools, did not, however, include all the current narratives, and omitted many traditions that were passing from lip to lip; moreover, the excessive materialism of its treatment no longer harmonised with that more idealised concept of the Deity which had already begun to prevail. Consequently, within less than a century of its appearance, more than one version containing changes and interpolations in the narrative came to be circulated,*** till a scribe of Ephraim, who flourished in the time of Jeroboam II., took up the subject and dealt with it in a different fashion.****

* Gen. xxxii. 24, 25.

** Exod. iv. 24-26.

*** Schrader and Wellhausen have drawn attention to contradictions in the primitive history of humanity as presented by the Jehovist which forbid us to accept it as the work of a single writer. Nor can these inconsistencies be due to the influence of the Elohist, since the latter did not deal with this period in his book. Budde has maintained that the primitive work contained no account of the Deluge, and traced the descent of all the nations, Israel included, back to Cain, and he declares he can detect in the earlier chapters of Genesis traces of a first Jehovist, whom he calls J1. A second Jehovist, J2, who flourished between 800 and 700 B.C., is supposed to have added to the contribution of the first, certain details borrowed from the Babylonian tradition, such as the Deluge, the story of Noah, of Nimrod, etc. Finally, a third Jehovist is said to have thrown the versions of his two predecessors into one, taking J2 as the basis of his work.

**** The date and origin of the Elohist have given rise to no less controversy than those of the Jehovist: the view most generally adopted is that he was a native of the northern kingdom, and flourished about 750 B.C.

Putting on one side the primitive accounts of the origin of the human race which his predecessors had taken pleasure in elaborating, he confined his attention solely to events since the birth of Abraham;* his origin is betrayed by the preference he displays for details calculated to flatter the self-esteem of the northern tribes. To his eyes, Joseph is the noblest of all the sons of Jacob, before whom all the rest must bow their heads, as to a king; next to Joseph comes Reuben, to whom—rather than to Judah**—he gives the place as firstborn. He groups his characters round Bethel and Shechem, the sanctuaries of Israel; even Abraham is represented as residing, not at Hebron in Judea, but at Beersheba, a spot held in deep veneration by pilgrims belonging to the ten tribes.*** It is in his concept of the Supreme Being, however, that he differs most widely from his predecessors. God is, according to him, widely removed from ordinary humanity. He no longer reveals Himself at all times and in all places, but works rather by night, and appears to men in their dreams, or, when circumstances require His active interference, is content to send His angels rather than come in His own person.****

* Budde seems to have proved conclusively that the Elohist did not write any part of the primitive history of mankind.

** Gen. xxxvii. 21, 22, 29, 30; xlii. 22, 27; whereas in Gen. xliii. 3, 8-10, where the narrative is from the pen of the Jehovist, it is Judah that plays the principal part: it is possible that, in Gen. xxxvii. 21, Reuben has been substituted in the existing text for Judah.

*** Gen. xxi. 31, 33; xxii. 19; the importance of Beersheba as a holy place resorted to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom is shown in 1 Kings xix. 3, and Amos v. 5; viii. 14.

**** Gen. xx. 3-8; xxviii. 11-15; xxxi 24; Numb. xxii. 8-12, 20.

Indeed, such cases of active interference are of rare occurrence, and He prefers to accomplish His purpose through human agents, who act unconsciously, or even in direct contravention of their own clearly, expressed intentions.* Moreover it was only by degrees that He revealed His true nature and title; the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, had called Him Elohim, or "the gods," and it was not until the coming of Moses that He disclosed His real name of Jahveh to His worshippers.**

* Gen. 1. 20, end of the story of Joseph: "And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive."

** Exod. iii. 13, 14; verse 15 is an interpolation of much later date.



After Painting by Gerome



In a word, this new historian shows us in every line that the theological instinct has superseded popular enthusiasm, and his work loses unmistakably in literary interest by the change. We feel that he is wanting in feeling and inspiration; his characters no longer palpitate with life; his narrative drags, its interest decreases, and his language is often deficient in force and colour. But while writers, trained in the schools of the prophets, thus sought to bring home to the people the benefits which their God had showered on them, the people themselves showed signs of disaffection towards Him, or were, at any rate, inclined to associate with Him other gods borrowed from neighbouring states, and to overlay the worship they rendered Him with ceremonies and ideas inconsistent with its original purity. The permanent division of the nation into two independent kingdoms had had its effect on their religion as well as on their political life, and had separated the worshippers into two hostile camps. The inhabitants of Judah still continued to build altars on their high places, as they had done in the time before David; there, the devout prostrated themselves before the sacred stones and before the Asherah, or went in unto the kedeshoth in honour of Astarte, and in Jahveh's own temple at Jerusalem they had set up the image of a brazen serpent to which they paid homage.* The feeling, however, that the patron deity of the chosen people could have but one recognised habitation—the temple built for Him by Solomon—and that the priests of this temple were alone qualified to officiate there in an effective manner, came to prevail more and more strongly in Judaea. The king, indeed, continued to offer sacrifices and prayer there,** but the common people could no longer intercede with their God except through the agency of the priests.

* Cf. what we are told of idolatrous practices in Judah under Rehoboam and Abraham (1 Kings xiv. 22-24; xv. 3), and of the tolerance of high places by Asa and Jehoshaphat (1 Kings xv. 14; xxii. 44); even at the period now under consideration neither Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 4) nor Azariah (2 Kings xv. 4) showed any disposition to prohibit them. The brazen serpent was still in existence in the time of Hezekiah, at the close of the VIIIth century B.C. (2 Kings xviii. 4).

** 2 Kings xvi. 10-16, where Ahaz is described as offering sacrifice and giving instructions to the high priest Urijah as to the reconstruction and service of the altar; cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-21, where similar conduct on the part of Uzziah is recorded, and where the leprosy by which he was attacked is, in accordance with the belief of later times, represented as a punishment of the sacrilege committed by him in attempting to perform the sacrifice in person.

The latter, in their turn, tended to develop into a close corporation of families consecrated for generations past to the priestly office; they came in time to form a tribe by themselves, which took rank among the other tribes of Israel, and claimed Levi, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, as its ancestor. Their head, chosen from among the descendants of Zadok, who had been the first high priest in the reign of Solomon, was by virtue of his office one of the chief ministers of the crown, and we know what an important part was played by Jehoiadah in the revolution which led to the deposition of Athaliah; the high priest was, however, no less subordinate to the supreme power than his fellow-ministers, and the sanctity of his office did not avail to protect him from ill-treatment or death if he incurred the displeasure of his sovereign.* He had control over a treasury continually enriched by the offerings of the faithful, and did not always turn his trust to the best uses; in times of extreme distress the king used to borrow from him as a last resource, in order to bring about the withdrawal of an invader, or purchase the help of a powerful ally.** The capital of Israel was of too recent foundation to allow of its chapel royal becoming the official centre of national worship; the temple and priesthood of Samaria never succeeded in effacing the prestige enjoyed by the ancient oracles, though in the reign of both the first and second Jeroboam, Dan, Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah had each its band of chosen worshippers.***

* In order to form an idea of the relative positions occupied by the king and the high priest, we must read what is told of Jehoiadah and Joash (2 Kings xii. 6-16), or Urijah and Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 10-16); the story runs that Zechariah was put to death by Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 22).

** Asa did so in order to secure Ben-hadad's help against Baasha (1 Kings xv. 18, 19; cf. 2 Chron. xvi. 2, 3): as to the revenues by which the treasury of the temple was supported and the special dues appropriated to it, cf. 2 Kings xii. 4, 5, 7-16, and xxii. 4-7, 9.

*** In the time of Jeroboam II., Bethel, Gilgal, and Dan are mentioned by Amos (iv. 4; v. 5, 6; viii. 14), by Hosea (iv. 15; ix. 15; xii. 12). Mizpah is mentioned by Hosea (v. 1), and so is Tabor. The altar of Jahveh on Mount Carmel was restored by Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 30).

At these centres adoration was rendered to the animal presentment of Jahveh,* and even prophets like Elijah and Elisha did not condemn this as heretical; they had enough to do in hunting down the followers of Baal without entering into open conflict with the worshippers of the golden calf. The priesthood of the northern kingdom was not confined to members of the family of Levi, but was recruited from all the tribes; it levied a tithe on the harvest, reserved to itself the pick of the offerings and victims, and jealously forbade a plurality of sanctuaries,** The Book of the Covenant*** has handed down to us the regulations in force at one of these temples, perhaps that of Bethel, one of the wealthiest of them all.

* The golden calves at Dan and Bethel are referred to by Amos (viii. 14) and Hosea (x. 5), where Bethel is called Beth-aven; as to the golden calf at Samaria, cf. Amos viii. 14 and Hos. viii. 5, 6.

** Amos iv. 4, 5; v. 21-23.

*** This is the title given in Exod. xxiv. 7 to a writing in which Moses is said to have entered the covenant made between Jahveh and Israel; it is preserved, with certain interpolations and alterations, in Exod. xx. 23?—xxiii. 33. It was inserted in its entirety in the Elohist narrative, there taking the place at present occupied by Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, viz. that of the covenant made between Jahveh and Israel prior to the crossing of the Jordan (Kuenen, H. C. Onderzoek, i. Sec. 13, No. 32). Reuss tries to make out that it was the code promulgated on the occasion of Jehoshaphat's legal reforms, which is only referred to in 2 Chron. xvii. 7-9; cf. xix. 5. A more probable theory is that it was the "custom" of one of the great sanctuaries of the northern kingdom reduced to writing at the end of the Xth or during the IXth century B.C.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a restoration by Naville.

The directions in regard to ritual are extremely simple, and the moral code is based throughout on the inexorable lex talionis, "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."* This brief code must have been almost universally applicable to every conjuncture of civil and religious life in Judah no less than in Israel. On one point only do we find a disagreement, and that is in connection with the one and only Holy of Holies to the possession of which the southern kingdom had begun to lay claim: in a passage full of significance Jahveh declares, "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen: in every place where I record My name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee. And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."**

* Exod. xxi. 23-25.

** Exod. xx. 24-26.

The patriarchs and early ancestors of the race had performed their sacrifices in the open air, on rude and low altars, differing widely from lofty and elaborately ornamented erections like those at Jerusalem, which seem to have borne a resemblance to the altars of the Egyptians: the author of the Book of the Covenant advises the faithful to follow the example of those great men rather than that of the Levites of Judah. Nevertheless this multiplicity of high places was not without its dangers; it led the common people to confuse Jahveh with the idols of Canaan, and encouraged the spread of foreign superstitions. The misfortunes which had come thick and fast upon the Israelites ever since the division of the kingdom had made them only too ready to seek elsewhere that support and consolation which they could no longer find at home. The gods of Damascus and Assur who had caused the downfall of Gath, of Calneh, and of Hamath,* those of Tyre and Sidon who lavished upon the Phoenicians the wealth of the seas, or even the deities of Ammon, Moab, or Edom, might well appear more desirable than a Being Who, in spite of His former promises, seemed powerless to protect His own people. A number of the Israelites transferred their allegiance to these powerful deities, prostrated themselves before the celestial host, flocked round the resting-places of Kevan, the star of El, and carried the tabernacles of the King of heaven;** nor was Judah slow to follow their example. The prophets, however, did not view their persistent ill-fortune in the same light as the common people; far from accepting it as a proof of the power of other divinities, they recognised in it a mark of Jahveh's superiority.

* Amos vi. 2; with regard to the destruction of Gath by Hazael.

** Amos v. 26, 27

In their eyes Jahveh was the one God, compared with Whom the pagan deities were no gods at all, and could not even be said to exist. He might, had He so willed it, have bestowed His protection on any one of the numerous races whom He had planted on the earth: but as a special favour, which He was under no obligation to confer, He had chosen Israel to be His own people, and had promised them that they should occupy Canaan so long as they kept free from sin. But Israel had sinned, Israel had followed after idols; its misfortunes were, therefore, but the just penalty of its unfaithfulness. Thus conceived, Jahveh ceased to be merely the god of a nation—He became the God of the whole world; and it is in the guise of a universal Deity that some, at any rate, of the prophets begin to represent Him from the time of Jeroboam II. onwards.

This change of view in regard to the Being of Jahveh coincided with a no less marked alteration in the character of His prophets. At first they had taken an active part in public affairs; they had thrown themselves into the political movements of the time, and had often directed their course,* by persuasion when persuasion sufficed, by violence when violence was the only means that was left to them of enforcing the decrees of the Most High. Not long before this, we find Elisha secretly conspiring against the successors of Ahab, and taking a decisive part in the revolution which set the house of Jehu on the throne in place of that of Omri; but during the half-century which had elapsed since his death, the revival in the fortunes of Israel and its growing prosperity under the rule of an energetic king had furnished the prophets with but few pretexts for interfering in the conduct of state affairs.

* Cf. the part taken by Nathan in the conspiracy which raised Solomon to the throne (1 Kings i. 8, et seq.), and previous to this in the story of David's amour with Bathsheba (2 Sam. xii. 1-25). Similarly, we find prophets such as Ahijah in the reign of Jeroboam I. (1 Kings xi. 29- 39; cf. xiv. 1-18; xv. 29, 30), and Shemaiah in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kings xii. 22-24), Jehu son of Hananiah under Baasha (1 Kings xvi. 1-4, 7, 12, 13), Micaiah son of Imla, and Zedekiah under Ahab (1 Kings xxii. 5-28), not to speak of those mentioned in the Chronicles, e.g. Azariah son of Oded (2 Ghron. xv. 1-8), and Hanani under Asa (2 Ghron. xvi. 7-10), Jahaziel (2 Ghron. xx. 14-19), and Eliezer, son of Dodavahu (2 Ghron. xx. 37), in the time of Johoshaphat. No trace of any writings composed by these prophets is found until a very late date; but in Chronicles, in addition to a letter from Elijah to Jehoram of Juda (2 Ghron. xxi. 12-15), we find a reference to the commentary of the prophet Iddo in the time of Abijah (2 Ghron. xiii. 22), and to the "History of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is inserted in the book of the kings of Israel" (2 Chron. xx. 34), in the time of Jehoshaphat.

They no longer occupied themselves in resisting the king, but addressed themselves to the people, pointed out the heinousness of their sins, and threatened them with the wrath of Jahveh if they persisted in their unfaithfulness: they came to be spiritual advisers rather than political partisans, and orators rather than men of action like their predecessors. Their discourses were carefully prepared beforehand, and were written down either by themselves or by some of their disciples for the benefit of posterity, in the hope that future generations would understand the dangers or witness the catastrophes which their contemporaries might not live to see. About 760 B.C., Amos of Tekoa,* a native of Judaea, suddenly made his appearance at Bethel, in the midst of the festivals which pilgrims had flocked to celebrate in the ancient temple erected to Jahveh in one of His animal forms.

* The title of the Book of Amos fixes the date as being "in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel" (i. 1), and the state of affairs described by him corresponds pretty closely with what we know of this period. Most critics fix the date somewhere between 760 and 750 B.C., but nearer 760 than 750.

His opening words filled the listening crowd with wonder: "The high places of Isaac shall be desolate," he proclaimed, "and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword."*

* Amos vii. 9.

Yet Jeroboam had by this time gained all his victories, and never before had the King of Samaria appeared to be more firmly seated on the throne: what, then, did this intruder mean by introducing himself as a messenger of wrath in the name of Jahveh, at the very moment when Jahveh was furnishing His worshippers with abundant signs of His favour? Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, interrupted him as he went on to declare that "Jeroboam should die by the sword, and Israel should surely be led away captive out of his land." The king, informed of what was going on, ordered Amos into exile, and Amaziah undertook to communicate this sentence to him: "O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there: but prophesy not again any more at Bethel: for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a royal house." And Amos replied, "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was a herdman, and a dresser of sycomore trees: and the Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto My people Israel. Now therefore hear thou the word of the Lord: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac: therefore thus saith the Lord: Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou thyself shalt die in a land that is unclean, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land."*

* Amos vii. 9-17.

This prophecy, first expanded, and then written down with a purity of diction and loftiness of thought which prove Amos to have been a master of literary art,* was widely circulated, and gradually gained authority as portents indicative of the divine wrath began to accumulate, such as an earthquake which occurred two years after the incident at Bethel,* an eclipse of the sun, drought, famine, and pestilence.*** It foretold, in the first place, the downfall of all the surrounding countries—Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah; then, denouncing Israel itself, condemned it to the same penalties for the same iniquities. In vain did the latter plead its privileges as the chosen people of Jahveh, and seek to atone for its guilt by endless sacrifices. "I hate, I despise your feasts," declared Jahveh, "and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer Me your burnt offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream."****

* S. Jerome describes Amos as "rusticus" and "imperitus sermone," but modern writers are generally agreed that in putting forward this view he was influenced by the statement as to the peasant origin of the prophet.

** Amos i. 1; reference is made to it by the unknown prophet whose words are preserved in Zech. xiv. 5.

*** The famine is mentioned in Amos iv. 6, the drought in Amos iv. 7, 8, the pestilence in Amos iv. 10.

**** Amos v. 21-24.

The unfaithfulness of Israel, the corruption of its cities, the pride of its nobles, had sealed its doom; even at that moment the avenger was at hand on its north-eastern border, the Assyrian appointed to carry out sentence upon it.* Then follow visions, each one of which tends to deepen the effect of the seer's words—a cloud of locusts,** a devouring fire,*** a plumb-line in the hands of the Lord,**** a basket laden with summer fruits—till at last the whole people of Israel take refuge in their temple, vainly hoping that there they may escape from the vengeance of the Eternal. "There shall not one of them flee away, and there shall not one of them escape. Though they dig into hell, thence shall Mine hand take them; and though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down. And though they hide themselves in the top of Oarmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from My sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them. And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them; and I will set Mine eyes upon them for evil and not for good."^

* Most commentators admit that the nation raised up by Jahveh to oppress Israel "from the entering in of Hamath unto the brook of the Arabah" (Amos vi. 14) was no other than Assyria. At the very period in which Amos flourished, Assurdan made two campaigns against Hadrach, in 765 and 755, which brought his armies right up to the Israelite frontier (Schrader, Keilinschrift. Bibliothec, vol. i. pp. 210- 213).

** Amos vii. 1-3.

*** Amos vii. 4-6.

**** Amos vii. 7-9. It is here that the speech delivered by the prophet at Bethel is supposed to occur (vii. 9); the narrative of what afterwards happened follows immediately (Amos vii. 10-17).

^ Amos viii. 1-3.; Amos ix. 1-4.

For the first time in history a prophet foretold disaster and banishment for a whole people: love of country was already giving place in the heart of Amos to his conviction of the universal jurisdiction of God, and this conviction led him to regard as possible and probable a state of things in which Israel should have no part. Nevertheless, its decadence was to be merely temporary; Jahveh, though prepared to chastise the posterity of Jacob severely, could not bring Himself to destroy it utterly. The kingdom of David was soon to flourish anew: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of My people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God."*

The voice of Amos was not the only one raised in warning. From the midst of Ephraim, another seer, this time a priest, Hosea, son of Beeri,** was never weary of reproaching the tribes with their ingratitude, and persisted in his foretelling of the desolation to come.

* Amos ix. 13-15.

** Hoshea (or Hosea) was regarded by the rabbis as the oldest of the lesser prophets, and his writings were placed at the head of their collected works. The title of his book (Hos. i. 1), where he begins by stating that he preached "in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash (Jehoash), King of Israel," is a later interpolation; the additional mention of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, is due to an attempted analogy with the title of Isaiah. Hosea was familiar with the prophecies of Amos, and his own predictions show that the events merely foreseen by his predecessor were now in course of fulfilment in his day. The first three chapters probably date from the end of the reign of Jeroboam, about 750 B.C.; the others were compiled under his successors, and before 734-733 B.C., since Gilead is there mentioned as still forming part of Israel (Hos. vi. 8; xii. 12), though it was in that year laid waste and conquered by Tiglath-pileser III. Duhm has suggested that Hosea must have been a priest from the tone of his writings, and this hypothesis is generally accepted by theologians.

The halo of grandeur and renown with which Jeroboam had surrounded the kingdom could not hide its wretched and paltry character from the prophet's eyes; "for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to cease. And it shall come to pass at that day that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel."* Like his predecessor, he, too, inveighed against the perversity and unfaithfulness of his people. The abandoned wickedness of Gomer, his wife, had brought him to despair. In the bitterness of his heart, he demands of Jahveh why He should have seen fit to visit such humiliation on His servant, and persuades himself that the faithlessness of which he is a victim is but a feeble type of that which Jahveh had suffered at the hands of His people. Israel had gone a-whoring after strange gods, and the day of retribution for its crimes was not far distant: "The children of Israel shall abide many days without king and without prince, and without sacrifice and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim; afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall come with fear unto the Lord and to His goodness in the latter days."**

* Hos. i. 4, 5.

**Hos. i.-iii. Is the story of Hosea and his wife an allegory, or does it rest on a basis of actual fact? Most critics now seem to incline to the view that the prophet has here set down an authentic episode from his own career, and uses it to point the moral of his work.

Whether the decadence of the Hebrews was or was not due to the purely moral and religious causes indicated by the prophets, it was only too real, and even the least observant among their contemporaries must have suspected that the two kingdoms were quite unfitted, as to their numbers, their military organisation, and monetary reserves, to resist successfully any determined attack that might be made upon them by surrounding nations. An armed force entering Syria by way of the Euphrates could hardly fail to overcome any opposition that might be offered to it, if not at the first onset, at any rate after a very brief struggle; none of the minor states to be met upon its way, such as Damascus or Israel, much less those of Hamath or Hadrach, were any longer capable of barring its progress, as Ben-hadad and Hazael had arrested that of the Assyrians in the time of Shalmaneser III. The efforts then made by the Syrian kings to secure their independence had exhausted their resources and worn out the spirit of their peoples; civil war had prevented them from making good their losses during the breathing-space afforded by the decadence of Assyria, and now that Nature herself had afflicted them with the crowning misfortunes of famine and pestilence, they were reduced to a mere shadow of what they had been during the previous century. If, therefore, Sharduris, after making himself master of the countries of the Taurus and Amanos, had turned his steps towards the valley of the Orontes, he might have secured possession of it without much difficulty, and after that there would have been nothing to prevent his soldiers from pressing on, if need be, to the walls of Samaria or even of Jerusalem itself. Indeed, he seems to have at last made up his mind to embark on this venture, when the revival of Assyrian power put a stop to his ambitious schemes. Tiglath-pileser, hard pressed on every side by daring and restless foes, began by attacking those who were at once the most troublesome and most vulnerable—the Aramaean tribes on the banks of the Tigris. To give these incorrigible banditti, who boldly planted their outposts not a score of leagues from his capital, a free hand on his rear, and brave the fortune of war in Armenia or Syria, without first teaching them a lesson in respect, would have been simply to court serious disaster; an Aramaean raid occurring at a time when he was engaged elsewhere with the bulk of his army, might have made it necessary to break off a successful campaign and fall back in haste to the relief of Nineveh or Calah (Kalakh), just as he was on the eve of gaining some decisive advantage. Moreover, the suzerainty of Assyria over Karduniash entailed on him the duty of safeguarding Babylon from that other horde of Aramaeans which harassed it on the east, while the Kalda were already threatening its southern frontier. It is not quite clear whether Nabunazir who then occupied the throne implored his help:* at any rate, he took the field as soon as he felt that his own crown was secure, overthrew the Aramaeans at the first encounter, and drove them back from the banks of the Lower Zab to those of the Uknu: all the countries which they had seized to the east of the Tigris at once fell again into the hands of the Assyrians.

* Nabunazir is the Nabonassar who afterwards gave his name to the era employed by Ptolemy.

This first point gained, Tiglath-pileser crossed the river, and made a demonstration in force before the Babylonian fortresses. He visited, one after another, Sippar, Nipur, Babylon, Borsippa, Kuta, Kishu, Dilbat, and Uruk, "cities without peer," and offered in all of them sacrifices to the gods,—to Bel, to Zirbanit, to Nebo, to Tashmit, and to Nirgal. Karduniash bowed down before him, but he abstained from giving any provocation to the Kalda, and satisfied with having convinced Nabunazir that Assyria had lost none of her former vigour, he made his way back to his hereditary kingdom.*

* Most historians believe that Tiglath-pileser entered Karduniash as an enemy: that he captured several towns, and allowed the others to ransom themselves on payment of tribute. The way in which the texts known to us refer to this expedition seems to me, however, to prove that he set out as an ally and protector of Nabonazir, and that his visit to the Babylonian sanctuaries was of a purely pacific nature.

The lightly-won success of this expedition produced the looked-for result. Tiglath-pileser had set out a king de facto; but now that the gods of the ancient sanctuaries had declared themselves satisfied with his homage, and had granted him that religious consecration which had before been lacking, he returned a king de jure as well (745 B.C.). His next campaign completed what the first had begun. The subjugation of the plain would have been of little advantage if the highlands had been left in the power of tribes as yet unconquered, and allowed to pour down with impunity bands of rapacious freebooters on the newly liberated provinces: security between the Zab and the Uknu could only be attained by the pacification of Namri, and it was, therefore, to Namri that the sea of war was transferred in 744 B.C. All the Cossaean and Babylonian races intermingled in the valleys on the frontier were put to ransom one after another.



These included the Bit-Sangibuti, the Bit-Khamban, the Barrua, the Bit-Zualzash, the Bit-Matti, the Umliash, the Parsua, the Bit-Zatti, the Bit-Zabdadani, the Bit-Ishtar, the city of Zakruti, the Nina, the Bustus, the Arakuttu, by which the conqueror gradually made his way into the heart of Media, reaching districts into which none of his predecessors had ever penetrated. Those least remote he annexed to his own empire, converting them into a province under the rule of an Assyrian governor; he then returned to Calah with a convoy of 60,500 prisoners, and countless herds of oxen, sheep, mules, and dromedaries. Whilst he was thus employed, Assur-dainani, one of his generals to whom he had entrusted the pick of his army, pressed on still further to the north-east, across the almost waterless deserts of Media. The mountainous district on the shores of the Caspian had for centuries enjoyed a reputation for wealth and fertility among the races settled on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris. It was from thence that they obtained their lapis-lazuli, and the hills from which it was extracted were popularly supposed to consist almost entirely of one compact mass of this precious mineral. Their highest peak, now known as the Demavend, was then called Bikni,* a name which had come to be applied to the whole district.

* The country of Bikni is probably Rhagian Media and Mount Bikni, the modern Demavend.

To the Assyrians it stood as the utmost boundary mark of the known world, beyond which their imagination pictured little more than a confused mist of almost fabulous regions and peoples. Assur-dainani caught a distant glimpse of the snow-capped pyramid of Demavend, but approached no nearer than its lower slopes, whence he retraced his steps after having levied tribute from their inhabitants. The fame of this exploit spread far and wide in a marvellously short space of time, and chiefs who till then had vacillated in their decision now crowded the path of the victor, eager to pay him homage on his return: even the King of Illipi thought it wise to avoid the risk of invasion, and hastened of his own accord to meet the conqueror. Here, again, Tiglath-pileser had merely to show himself in order to re-establish the supremacy of Assyria: the races of the plain, for many years familiar with defeat, made no pretence of serious resistance, but bowed their necks beneath a fresh yoke almost without protest.



Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. de Morgan.

Having thus secured his rear from attack for some years at any rate, Tiglath-pileser no longer hesitated to try conclusions with Urartu. The struggle in which he now deliberately engaged could not fail to be a decisive one; for Urartu, buoyed up and borne on the wave of some fifty years of prosperity, had almost succeeded in reaching first rank among the Asiatic powers: one more victory over Nineveh, and it would become—for how long none might say—undisputed mistress of the whole of Asia. Assyria, on the other hand, had reached a. point where its whole future hung upon a single issue of defeat or victory. The prestige with which the brilliant campaigns of Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III. had invested its name, if somewhat diminished, had still survived its recent reverses, and the terror inspired by its arms was so great even among races who had witnessed them from a distance, that the image of Assyria rose involuntarily before the eyes of the Hebrew prophets as that of the avenger destined to punish Israel for its excesses.*

* Cf. Amos vi. 4.

No doubt, during the last few reigns its prosperity had waned and its authority over distant provinces had gradually become relaxed; but now the old dynasty, worn out by its own activity, had given place to a new one, and with this change of rulers the tide of ill-fortune was, perhaps, at last about to turn. At such a juncture, a successful campaign meant full compensation for all past disasters and the attainment of a firmer position than had ever yet been held; whereas another reverse, following on those from which the empire had already suffered, would render their effect tenfold more deadly, and, by letting loose the hatred of those whom fear alone still held in check, complete its overthrow. It was essential, therefore, before entering on the struggle, to weigh well every chance of victory, and to take every precaution by which adverse contingencies might be, as far as possible, eliminated. The army, encouraged by its success in the two preceding campaigns, was in excellent fighting order, and ready to march in any direction without a moment's hesitation, confident in its ability to defeat the forces of Urartu as it had defeated those of the Medes and Aramaeans; but the precise point of attack needed careful consideration. Tiglath-pileser must have been sorely tempted to take the shortest route, challenge the enemy at his most vulnerable point on the shores of Lake Van, and by a well-aimed thrust deal him a blow from which he would never, or only by slow degrees, recover. But this vital region of Urartu, as we have already pointed out, presented the greatest difficulties of access. The rampart of mountain and forest by which it was protected on the Assyrian side could only be traversed by means of a few byways, along which bands of guerrillas could slip down easily enough to the banks of the Tigris, but which were quite impassable to any army in full marching order, hampered by its horses, chariots, and baggage-train: compelled to thread its way, with columns unduly extended, through the woods and passes of an unknown country, which daily use had long made familiar to its adversaries, it would have run the risk of being cut to pieces man by man a dozen times before it could hope to range its disciplined masses on the field of battle. Former Assyrian invasions had, as a general rule, taken an oblique course towards some of the spurs of this formidable chain, and had endeavoured to neutralise its defences by outflanking them, either by proceeding westwards along the basins of the Supnat and the Arzania, or eastwards through the countries bordering on Lake Urumiah; but even this method presented too many difficulties and too little certainty of success to warrant Tiglath-pileser in staking the reviving fortunes of his empire on its adoption. He rightly argued that Sharduris would be most easily vulnerable in those provinces whose allegiance to him was of recent date, and he resolved to seek out his foe in the heart of Northern Syria.



Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Binder. Taken at Julamerk, near the junction of the mountain tracks leading from the Zab valley to the south-eastern corner of the basin of Lake Van.

There, if anywhere, every chance was in his favour and against the Armenian. The scene of operations, while it had long been familiar to his own generals and soldiers, was, on the other hand, entirely new ground to those of the enemy; the latter, though unsurpassed in mountain warfare, lost much of their superiority on the plains, and could not, with all their courage, make up for their lack of experience. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that a victory on the banks of the Afrin or the Orontes would have more important results than a success gained in the neighbourhood of the lakes or of Urartu. Not only would it free the Assyrians from the only one of their enemies whom they had any cause to fear, but it would also bring back the Hittite kings to their allegiance, and restore the Assyrian supremacy over the wealthiest regions of Western Asia: they would thus disable Urartu and reconquer Syria at one and the same time. Tiglath-pileser, therefore, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of 743 B.C., neither Matilu of Agusi, Kushtashpi of Kummukh, nor their allies daring to interfere with his progress. He thus advanced as far as Arpad, and, in the first moment of surprise, the town threw open its gates before him.*

* Different writers have given different versions of this campaign. Some think that Arpad resisted, and that Tiglath- pileser was laying siege to it, when the arrival of Sharduris compelled him to retire; others prefer to believe that Arpad was still in the hands of the Assyrians, and that Tiglath-pileser used it as his base of operations. The formula ina Arpadda in the Eponym Canon proves that Tiglath- pileser was certainly in Arpad: since Arpad belonged to the Bit-Agusi, and they were the allies or vassals of Sharduris, we must assume, as I have done here, that in the absence of the Urartians they did not dare to resist the Assyrians, and opened their gates to them.

There, while he was making ready to claim the homage of the surrounding countries, he learnt that Sharduris was hastening up to the rescue. He at once struck his camp and marched out to meet his rival, coming up with him in the centre of Kummukh, not far from the Euphrates, between Kishtan and Khalpi. Sharduris was at the head of his Syrian contingents, including the forces of Agusi, Melitene, Kummukh, and Gurgum—a formidable army, probably superior in point of numbers to that of the Assyrians. The struggle lasted a whole day, and in the course of it the two kings, catching sight of one another on the field of battle, engaged in personal combat: at last, towards evening, the chariots and cavalry of Urartu gave way and the rout began. The victors made their way into the camp at the heels of their flying enemies. Sharduris abandoned his chariot, and could find nothing but a mare to aid him in his flight; he threw himself upon her back, careless of the ridicule at that time attached to the use of such a mount in Eastern countries,* fled at a gallop all through the night, hard pressed by a large body of cavalry, crossed the hills of Sibak, and with much difficulty reached the bridge over the Euphrates.

* So, too, later on, in the time of Sargon, Rusas, when defeated, gets on the back of a mare and rides off.

His pursuers drew rein on the river-bank, and Sharduris re-entered his kingdom in safety. He had lost nearly 73,000 men, killed or taken prisoners, in addition to his chariots, and nearly the whole train of horses, asses, servants, and artisans attached to his army; he left his tent still standing, and those who were first to enter it laid hands on his furniture and effects, his royal ornaments, his bed and portable throne, with its cushions and bearing-poles, none of which had he found time to take with him. Tiglath-pileser burnt them all on the spot as a thank-offering, to the gods who had so signally favoured him; the bed alone he retained, in order that he might dedicate it as a trophy to the goddess Ishtar of Nineveh.

He had covered himself with glory, and might well be proud of his achievement, yet the victory was in no way a decisive one. The damage inflicted on the allies, considerable though it was, had cost him dear: the forces left to him were not sufficient to enable him to finish the campaign, and extort oaths of allegiance from the Syrian princes before they had recovered from the first shock of defeat. He returned to Nineveh, and spent the whole winter in reorganising his troops; while his enemies, on the other hand, made preparations to repel the attack energetically. Sharduris could not yet venture outside his mountain strongholds, but the hope of being reinforced by him, as soon as he had got together another army, encouraged the Syrian kings to remain faithful to him in spite of his reverses.*

* The part played by Sharduris in the events of the years which followed, passing mention of which was made by Winckler (Gesch. Bab. und Ass,, pp. 224, 225), have been fully dealt with by Belck and Lehmann (Chaldische Forschungen, in Veriiand. der Berliner anthropol. Gesellschaft, 1895, pp. 325-336).

Matilu of Agusi, unable to carry the day against the Assyrians in the open field, distributed his men among his towns, and resisted all attacks with extraordinary persistence, confident that Sharduris would at length come to help him, and with this hope he held out for three years in his town of Arpad. This protracted resistance need no longer astonish us, now that we know, from observations made on the spot, the marvellous skill displayed in the fortification of these Asiatic towns. The ruins of Arpad have yet to be explored, but those of Samalla have been excavated, and show us the methods adopted for the defence of a royal residence about the middle of the century with which we are now concerned. The practice of building citadels on a square or rectangular plan, which prevailed so largely under the Egyptian rule, had gradually gone out of fashion as the knowledge of engineering advanced, and the use of mines and military engines had been more fully developed among the nations of Western Asia. It was found that the heavily fortified angles of the enclosing wall merely presented so many weak points, easy to attack but difficult to defend, no matter how carefully they might be protected by an accumulation of obstacles. In the case of fortresses built on a plain, where the plan was not modified by the nature of the site, the enclosing wall was generally round or oval in shape, and free from useless angles which might detract from its strength. The walls were surmounted by battlements, and flanked at short intervals by round or square towers, the tops of which rose but little, if indeed at all, above the level of the curtain. In front of this main wall was a second lower one, also furnished with towers and battlements, which followed the outline of the first all the way round at an interval of some yards, thus acting as a sort of continuous screen to it. The gates were little less than miniature citadels built into each line of ramparts; the gate of the outer wall was often surrounded by lower outworks, two square bastions and walls enclosing an outer quadrangle which had to be crossed before the real gate was reached.



A reproduction by Faucher-Gudin of the first plan published by Luschan.

When a breach had been made in this double enclosure, though the town itself might be taken, the labours of the attacking force were not yet over. In the very centre of the place, on a sort of artificial mound or knoll, stood the royal castle, and resistance on the part of its garrison would make it necessary for the enemy to undertake a second siege no less deadly and protracted than the first. The keep of Zinjirli had only a single gate approached by a narrow causeway.



Reproduction by Faucher-Gudin of the sketch published by Luschan.

Within, it was divided by walls into five compartments, each of which was independent of the rest, and had to be attacked separately. Ma-tilu knew he could hope for no mercy at the hands of the Assyrians; he therefore struggled on to the last, and when at length obliged to surrender, in the year 740 B.C., he paid for his obstinacy by the loss of his throne, and perhaps also of his life.*

* Our knowledge of these events is imperfect, our only information being derived from the very scanty details given in the Eponym Canon; up to the present we can do no more than trace the general course of events.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the plan published in Luschan.

The inaction of Sharduris clearly showed that he was no longer in a position to protect his allies, and that the backbone of his kingdom was broken; the kings who had put faith in his help now gave him up, and ambassadors flocked in from all parts, even from those which were not as yet directly threatened. Kushtashpi of Kummukh, Tark-hulara of Gturgum, Pisiris of Carchemish, Uriaik of Kui, came to Arpad in person to throw themselves at the conqueror's feet, bringing with them offerings of gold and silver, of lead and iron, of ivory, carved and in the tusk, of purple, and of dyed or embroidered stuffs, and were confirmed in the possession of their respective territories; Hiram II. of Tyre, moreover, and Eezin of Damascus sent their greetings to him.*

* Annals of Tiglath-pileser III., where the statement at the close indicates that Tiglath-pileser received the tributary kings of Syria "in Arpad," after he had captured that city.

The Patina, who in days gone by had threatened the fortunes of Assur-nazir-pal, once again endeavoured to pose as the rivals of Assyria, and Tutammu, sovereign of Unki, the most daring of the minor states into which the Patina had been split up, declined to take part in the demonstrations made by his neighbours. Tiglath-pileser marched on Kinalua, sacked it, built a fortress there, and left a governor and garrison behind him: Agusi and Unki henceforth sank down to the level of mere provinces, administered by royal officers in the king's name, and permanently occupied by Assyrian troops.

Northern Syria was thus again incorporated with the empire, but Urartu, although deprived of the resources with which Syria had supplied it, continued to give cause for apprehension; in 739 B.C., however, a large proportion of the districts of Nairi, to which it still clung, was wrested from it, and a fortress was built at Ulluba, with a view to providing a stable base of operations at this point on the northern frontier. A rebellion, instigated, it may be, by his own agents, recalled Tiglath-pileser to the Amanus in the year 738. The petty kings who shared with Assyria the possession of the mountains and plains of the Afrin could not succeed in living at peace with one another, and every now and then their disputes broke out into open warfare. Samalla was at that time subject to a family of which the first members known to history, Qaral and Panammu, shared Yaudi equally between them. Barzur, son of Panammu I., had reigned there since about 765 B.C., and there can be little doubt that he must have passed through the same vicissitudes as his neighbours; faithful to Urartu as long as Sharduris kept the upper hand, and to Assyria as soon as Tiglath-pileser had humiliated Urartu, he had been killed in a skirmish by some rival. His son, Panammu IL, came to the throne merely as a nominee of his suzerain, and seems to have always rendered him faithful service; unfortunately, Yaudi was no longer subject to the house of Panammu, but obeyed the rule of a certain Azriyahu, who chafed at the presence of an alien power.*

* Azriyahu of Yaudi was identified with Azariah of Judah by G. Smith, and this identification was for a long time accepted without question by most Assyriologists. After a violent controversy it has finally been shown that the Yaudi of Tiglath-pileser III.'a inscriptions ought to be identified with the Yadi or Yaudi of the Zinjirli inscriptions, and consequently that Azriyahu was not king of Judah, but a king of Northern Syria. This view appears to me to harmonise so well with what remains of the texts, and with our knowledge of the events, that I have had no hesitation in adopting it.

Azriyahu took advantage of the events which kept Tiglath-pileser fully occupied in the east, to form a coalition in favour of himself among the states on the banks of the Orontes, including some seventeen provinces, dependencies of Hamath, and certain turbulent cities of Northern Phoenicia, such as Byblos, Arka, Zimyra, Usnu, Siannu, Coele-Syria, and even Hadrach itself. It is not quite clear whether Damascus and the Hebrews took part in this movement. Jeroboam had died in 740, after a prosperous reign of forty-one years, and on his death Israel seems to have fallen under a cloud; six months later, his son Zechariah was assassinated at Ibleam by Shallum, son of Jabesh, and the prophecy of Amos, in which he declared that the house of Jeroboam should fall beneath the sword of Jahveh,* was fulfilled. Shallum himself reigned only one month: two other competitors had presented themselves immediately after his crime;** the ablest of these, Menahem, son of Gadi, had come from Tirzah to Samaria, and, after suppressing his rivals, laid hands on the crown.*** He must have made himself master of the kingdom little by little, the success of his usurpation being entirely due to the ruthless energy invariably and everywhere displayed by him; as, for instance, when Tappuakh (Tiphsah) refused to open its gates at his summons, he broke into the town and slaughtered its inhabitants.****

* Amos vii. 9.

** The nameless prophet, whose prediction is handed down to us in Zech. ix.—xi., speaks of three shepherds cut off by Javeh in one month (xi. 8); two of these were Zechariah and Shallum; the third is not mentioned in the Book of Kings.

*** 2 Kings xiv. 23-29; xv. 8-15.

**** 2 Kings xv. 16. The Massoretic text gives the name of the town as Tipsah, but the Septuagint has Taphot, which led Thenius to suggest Tappuakh as an emendation of Tipsah: Stade prefers the emendation Tirzah.

All the defects of organisation, all the sources of weakness, which for the last half-century had been obscured by the glories of Jeroboam II., now came to the surface, and defied all human efforts to avert their consequences. "Then," as Hosea complains, "is the iniquity of Ephraim discovered, and the wickedness of Samaria; for they commit falsehood: and the thief entereth in, and the troop of robbers spoileth without. And they consider not in their hearts that I (Jahveh) remember all their wickedness: now have their own doings beset them about; they are before My face. They make the king glad with their wickedness and the princes with their lies. They are all adulterers; they are as an oven heated by the baker.... They... devour their judges; all their kings are fallen; there is none among them that calleth unto Me."* In Judah, Azariah (Uzziah) had at first shown some signs of ability; he had completed the conquest of Idumsea, Edom, and had fortified Elath,** but he suddenly found himself stricken with leprosy, and was obliged to hand over the reins of government of Jotham.***

* Sos. vii. 1-4, 7.

** 2 Kings xiv. 22; in 2 Ghron. xxvi. 6-15 he is credited with the reorganisation of the army and of the Judsean fortress, in addition to campaigns against the Philistines and Arabs.

*** 2 Kings xv. 5; cf. 2 Ghron. xxvi. 19-21. Azariah is also abbreviated into Uzziah. Tappuakh was a town situated on the borders of Ephraim and Manasseh (Josh. xvi. 8; xvii. 7, 8).

His long life had been passed uneventfully, and without any disturbance, under the protection of Jeroboam; but the very same defects which had led to the ruin of Israel were at work also in Judah, and Menahem, in spite of his enfeebled condition, had nothing to fear in this direction.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a sketch published by Layard.

The danger which menaced him came rather from the east and the north, where Damascus, aroused from its state of lethargy by Rezon [Rezin] II., had again begun to strive after the hegemony of Syria.*

* The name of this king, written Rezin in the Bible (2 Kings xv. 37; xvi. 5, 6, 9), is given as Razunu in the Assyrian texts; he was therefore Ilezon II. A passage in the Annals seems to indicate that Rezin's father was prince of a city dependent on Damascus, not king of Damascus itself; unfortunately the text is too much mutilated to warrant us in forming any definite conclusion on this point.

All these princes, when they found that the ambition of Tiglath-pileser threatened to interfere with their own intrigues, were naturally tempted to combine against him, and were willing to postpone to a more convenient season the settlement of their own domestic quarrrels. But Tiglath-pileser did not give them time for this; he routed Azriyahu, and laid waste Kullani,* the chief centre of revolt, ravaged the valley of the Orontes, and carried off the inhabitants of several towns, replacing them with prisoners taken the year before during his campaign in Nairi.

* Kullani is the Calno or Calneh mentioned by Isaiah (x. 9) and Amos (vi. 2), which lay somewhere between Arpad and Hamath; the precise spot is not yet known.

After this feat the whole of Syria surrendered. Rezin and Menahem were among the first to tender their homage, and the latter paid a thousand talents of silver for the firman which definitely confirmed his tenure of the throne; the princes of Tyre, Byblos, Hamath, Carchemish, Milid, Tabal, and several others followed their example—even a certain Zabibi, queen of an Arab tribe, feeling compelled to send her gifts to the conqueror.

A sudden rising among the Aramaean tribes on the borders of Elam obliged Tiglath-pileser to depart before he had time to take full advantage of his opportunity. The governors of Lullumi and Nairi promptly suppressed the outbreak, and, collecting the most prominent of the rebels together, sent them to the king in order that he might distribute them throughout the cities of Syria: a colony of 600 prisoners from the town of Amlati was established in the territory of Damaunu, 5400 from Dur were sent to the fortresses of Unki, Kunalia, Khuzarra, Tai, Tarmanazi, Kulmadara, Khatatirra, and Sagillu, while another 10,000 or so were scattered along the Phoenician seaboard and among the adjacent mountains. The revolt had meanwhile spread to the nations of Media, where it was, perhaps, fomented by the agents of Urartu; and for the second time within seven years (737 B.C.) Tiglath-pileser trampled underfoot the countries over which he had ridden in triumph at the beginning of his career—the Bit-Kapsi, the Bit-Sangibuti, the Bit-Tazzakki, the Bit-Zulazash, the Bit-Matti, and Umliash. The people of Upash, among the Bit-Kapsi, entrenched themselves on the slopes of Mount Abirus; but he carried their entrenchments by storm. Ushuru of Taddiruta and Burdadda of Nirutakta were seized with alarm, and hid themselves in their mountain gorges; but he climbed up in pursuit of them, drove them out of their hiding-places, seized their possessions, and made them prisoners. Similar treatment was meted out to all those who proved refractory; some he despoiled, others he led captive, and "bursting upon the remainder like the downpour of Bamman," permitted none of them to escape. He raised trophies all along his line of march: in Bau, a dependency of Bit-Ishtar, he set up a pointed javelin dedicated to Ninip, on which he had engraved a panegyric of the virtues of his master Assur; near Shilkhazi, a town founded, in bygone days, by the Babylonians, he erected a statue of himself, and a pillar consecrated to Marduk in Til-ashshur. In the following year he again attacked Urartu and occupied the mountain province of Nal, which formed one of its outlying defences (736). The year after he entered on the final struggle with Sharduris, and led the flower of his forces right under the walls of Dhuspas,* the enemy's capital.

* The name is written Turuspas in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III.

Dhuspas really consisted of two towns joined together. One of these, extending over the plain by the banks of the Alais and in the direction of the lake, was surrounded by fertile gardens and villas, in which the inhabitants spent the summer at their ease. It was protected by an isolated mass of white and red nummulitic chalk, the steep sides of which are seamed with fissures and tunnelled with holes and caverns from top to bottom.



Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Binder.

The plateau in which it terminates, and which rises to a height of 300 feet at its loftiest point, is divided into three main terraces, each completely isolated from the other two, and forming, should occasion arise, an independent fortress, Ishpuinis, Menuas, Argistis, and Sharduris II. had laboured from generation to generation to make this stronghold impregnable, and they had succeeded in the attempt.



Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Binder.

There can be little or no doubt, however, that this is merely a variant of the name usually written as Tuspas, Tuspana, Dhuspana, the Thospia of classical times; properly speaking, it was the capital of Biainas. The only access to it was from the western side, by a narrow bridle-path, which almost overhung the precipice as it gradually mounted to the summit. This path had been partially levelled, and flanked with walls and towers which commanded the approach throughout its whole length; on the platforms at the summit a citadel had been constructed, together with a palace, temples, and storehouses, in which was accumulated a sufficient supply of arms and provisions to enable the garrison to tire out the patience of any ordinary foe; treason or an unusually prolonged siege could only get the better of such a position. Tiglath-pileser invested the citadel and ravaged its outskirts without pity, hoping, no doubt, that he would thus provoke the enemy into capitulating. Day after day, Sharduris, perched in his lofty eyrie, saw his leafy gardens laid bare under the hatchet, and his villages and the palaces of his nobles light up the country round as far as the eye could reach: he did not flinch, however, and when all had been laid waste, the Assyrians set up a statue of their king before the principal gate of the fortress, broke up their camp, and leisurely retired. They put the country to fire and sword, destroyed its cities, led away every man and beast they could find into captivity, and then returned to Nineveh laden with plunder. Urartu was still undaunted, and Sharduris remained king as before; but he was utterly spent, and his power had sustained a blow from which it never recovered. He had played against Assur with the empire of the whole Asiatic world as the stake, and the dice had gone against him: compelled to renounce his great ambitions from henceforth, he sought merely to preserve his independence. Since then, Armenia has more than once challenged fortune, but always with the same result; it fared no better under Tigranes in the Roman epoch, than under Sharduris in the time of the Assyrians; it has been within an ace of attaining the goal of its ambitions, then at the last moment its strength has failed, and it has been forced to retire worsted from the struggle. Its position prevented it from exercising very wide influence; hidden away in a corner of Asia at the meeting-point of three or four great mountain ranges, near the source of four rivers, all flowing in different directions, it has lacked that physical homogeneity without which no people, however gifted, can hope to attain supremacy; nature has doomed it to remain, like Syria, split up into compartments of unequal size and strength, which give shelter to half a score of independent principalities, each one of them perpetually jealous of the rest. From time to time it is invested with a semblance of unity, but for the most part it drags on an uneventful existence, dismembered into as many fragments as there happen to be powerful states around it, its only chance of complete reunion lying in the possibility of one or other of these attaining sufficient predominance to seize the share of the others and absorb it.