y domain, but
there passed the remaining seven years of his life in peace, if not in
idleness. He died in 860 B.C., after a reign of twenty-five years. His
portraits represent him as a vigorous man, with a brawny neck and broad
shoulders, capable of bearing the weight of his armour for many hours at
a time. He is short in the head, with a somewhat flattened skull and low
forehead; his eyes are large and deep-set beneath bushy eyebrows, his
cheek-bones high, and his nose aquiline, with a fleshy tip and wide
nostrils, while his mouth and chin are hidden by moustache and beard.
The whole figure is instinct with real dignity, yet such dignity as
is due rather to rank and the habitual exercise of power, than to the
innate qualities of the man.*

* Perrot and Chipiez do not admit that the Assyrian
sculptors intended to represent the features of their kings;
for this they rely chiefly on the remarkable likeness
between all the figures in the same series of bas-reliefs.
My own belief is that in Assyria, as in Egypt, the sculptors
took the portrait of the reigning sovereign as the model for
all their figures.

The character of Assur-nazir-pal, as gathered from the dry details
of his Annals, seems to have been very complex. He was as ambitious,
resolute, and active as any prince in the world; yet he refrained from
offensive warfare as soon as his victories had brought under his rule
the majority of the countries formerly subject to Tiglath-pileser I. He
knew the crucial moment for ending a campaign, arresting his progress
where one more success might have brought him into collision with some
formidable neighbour; and this wise prudence in his undertakings
enabled him to retain the principal acquisitions won by his arms. As a
worshipper of the gods he showed devotion and gratitude; he was just to
his subjects, but his conduct towards his enemies was so savage as to
appear to us cruel even for that terribly pitiless age: no king ever
employed such horrible punishments, or at least none has described with
such satisfaction the tortures inflicted on his vanquished foes.

Perhaps such measures were necessary, and the harshness with which he
repressed insurrection prevented more frequent outbreaks and so averted
greater sacrifice of life. But the horror of these scenes so appals the
modern reader, that at first he can only regard Assur-nazir-pal as a
royal butcher of the worst type.

[Illustratio