“578. THE RAVENOUS BIRD—JEREMIAH 6:22; 50:42”

The Ravenous Bird—Jer_6:22; Jer_50:42

It is a noticeable fact that we have Scripture authority—and that too, the authority of Jeremiah himself—-for including the Persians especially in our illustrations of mercilessness. For the prophet, in foretelling the eventual fall of Babylon herself, declares, the “people from the north,” that is, the Persians who are to execute the Lord’s sentence upon her—“are cruel, and will not show mercy;” giving them in fact, precisely the same character in this respect, which he had previously given to the Babylonians themselves.

But we have not yet done with the Babylonians—wishing to direct attention to a few more examples of the kind which we yesterday described to be truly illustrative of a people’s character. In considering this subject, the mind instantly reverts to the singular instances of Babylonian cruelty which the book of Daniel offers: the being cast alive into “burning fiery furnaces,” and into dens of lions, and the being hewn in pieces—all, for such offences as refusing to worship a golden image, for praying to any God but the king, or for speaking “anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.” The two former punishments are unique, so far as we know; and it is remarkable, that the only piece of oriental antiquity in which anything like a lion’s den appears, is in a coin of Babylon.

Lion Standing over a Man, from Babylon

One of the very few pieces of sculpture found at Babylon, however, represents a lion standing over the prostrate body of a man. An engraved gem also represents a man combating with or subduing two lions; and at Shus (Susa), not far from the tomb of Daniel, a bas-relief has been found, representing two lions, each with a paw upon the head of a man half naked, with his hands bound behind him.

Hewing in Pieces

Of hewing in pieces we have a representation in Assyrian sculpture, where three men are represented as hacking a prostrate figure to pieces with hatchets, having already separated the arms. It has indeed been suggested, that this is the image of some god, composed of precious metal: if so, it would be a good illustration of the maltreatment of conquered idols. But we rather believe it to be a human being, because men do not cut up metal with axes; and because the scene is not in any town, or near any temple, but in a wild hilly country, where an important captive might be taken, but where men do not set up the precious images of their gods.

There is, however, another instance of Babylonian cruelty which has been less noticed. In describing the atrocities which the Babylonians had committed on and after the taking of Jerusalem, the prophet says, “Princes were hanged up by their hand.”—Lam_5:10. Some understand this as meaning, that they were hanged by the hands of the Chaldeans; others, that they laid violent hands upon themselves, as not being able to bear the hardship and disgrace to which they were subjected. There are objections to both these interpretations, and especially to the latter, seeing that the Jews were not addicted to suicide under affliction, and that we are expressly told that the princes were slain by the king of Babylon at Riblah, at the same time that Zedekiah received his punishment. This text, however, more probably refers to the mode of execution. Gill says, “I should rather think this to be understood of hanging them, not by the neck, but by the hand, could any instance be given of such a kind of punishment, so early used, and by this people, which has been in other nations, and in more modern times.” These conditions are too rigid. He is alluding, probably, to the tortures of the Inquisition, and not to modern eastern customs. And that a peculiar punishment existed in the East now, is a good argument for its former existence. Besides, any one who examines the sculpture of the Assyrians, will doubt that any mode, practicable to them, of inflicting torturing death or punishment, had escaped the cruel ingenuity of this people. The peculiar species of impalement to which we have already had occasion to refer is in this respect analogically illustrative. Be this as it may, “no punishment,” as Mr. Roberts reports, in his Oriental Illustrations, “is more common than this in the East, especially for slaves and refractory children. Thus, has a master an obstinate slave—has he committed some great offence with his hands—several men are called, who tie the offender’s hands, and hoist him from the roof till he begs forgiveness. School-boys who are in the habit of playing truant are also thus punished. To tell a man you will hang him by the hands, is extremely provoking. See, then, the lamentable condition of the princes; they were ‘hanged up by their hands’ as common slaves.”

In reference to the analogous character given to the Persians, it is remarkable, that in the parallel prophecy of Isaiah (Isa_46:11), their leader, as representative of the army, is characterized as a “ravenous bird from the east.” There may perhaps be an allusion little suspected in this. In the Assyrian sculptures we constantly see birds of prey hovering over and accompanying the army, especially near the person of the king or chief, being apparently trained for the purpose. Sometimes we see these birds contending with the wounded, as eagles and falcons, when contending with large and powerful prey, at once attack the eyes of their victims; sometimes they are represented as flying off with the entrails of the slain; and sometimes as bearing off their heads, which have been cut off by the captors.

Eagle Carrying a Human Head

In one instance of the king’s triumphal procession after victory, the royal chariot is preceded by minstrels, and by soldiers carrying a head in each hand; while an eagle hovers above the chariot, as if taught to take a part in the ovation, bearing a head in its claws. This may obviously suggest that the Persians were similarly attended by “ravenous birds;” and hence the special emphasis of the designation used by the prophet. This is rendered the more probable, from the fact that this custom of training birds of prey for aggression, has been preserved to a very recent period. Chardin gives a particular account of the mode in which powerful falcons were, in Persia, trained to assist in the chase, by flying at the heads of even large animals, beating their eyes out with their wings, and rending them with beak and claws, so as to retard and confuse the flight even of animals too large and powerful to be killed by them. They were trained to this by their food being fastened to the heads of stuffed figures, mounted on wheels, of the creatures they were designed to be employed against, so that they learned to fly at animals of the same kind whenever they saw them in motion. Chardin goes on to say, that down to the commencement of the preceding century [the sixteenth], it was usual to train these birds to attack men in this manner; and he was informed that birds so trained were still kept in the royal falconry. These birds, if not quickly recalled by the voice, or by a small drum used for the purpose, became so excited that the call was not heeded by them, and nothing could prevent them from continuing to tear the face of their victim with the utmost inveteracy. The traveller had seen nothing of this himself; but he had heard that Ali Khouli Khan, governor of Tauris, with whom he had been himself particularly acquainted, had been much addicted to this dangerous and cruel diversion—even flying the birds at his friends, but taking care to recall them in time to prevent serious harm. It happened one day, however, that having let loose a bird upon a young gentleman, and not being sufficiently quick in calling him off, the bird tore out his eyes, and he died of the injury and fright. When the king heard of this, his displeasure was great; and the incident contributed much to the disgrace into which this nobleman soon after fell. Note: Voyages de Chevalier Chardin, in Perse et autres Lieux de l’Orient. tom iii. p. 396-7. Ed. Langles, Paris, 1811. It may be doubted whether the king’s displeasure was not more awakened by the khan’s encroachment on a royal prerogative, than at the barbarity of the deed.

Autor: JOHN KITTO