A feature of the incantation texts is the appeal to the gods, which is seldom, if ever, wanting. Just as the kings sought, by the enumeration of a large pantheon, to secure the protection of as large a number of powers as possible, so the priests endeavored to strengthen their magic formulas by including the mention of all the chief and a varying number of the minor deities. This invocation of groups of deities, as the invocation of groups of spirits, became more or less conventional, so much so that, instead of mentioning the gods individually, the scribe would content himself with an indication, at the proper point, of the number of gods to be appealed to,--six, ten, fifteen, as the case may be, to as many as fifty.[364] Precisely what gods he had in mind we are no longer in a position to know, but no doubt the chief members of the pantheon were included in the first place. Lists of these deities are often added. The superior triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, head the list, at times accompanied by their consorts, at times standing alone. The second class of triads, Sin, Shamash, and Ramman, follow, and then the other great gods, Nin-ib, Marduk, Nergal, Nusku, and Gibil; and finally the chief goddesses are added, notably Ishtar, Nin-karrak, or Gula, and Bau. But besides the chief deities, an exceedingly large number of minor ones are found interspersed through the incantation texts. Some are well known, as Nin-girsu, Zamama, and Papsukal. Many of them are found in other branches of the religious literature or in invocations attached to historical texts, commemorative of some work undertaken and completed by the kings; but a large proportion of these powers, not often distinguishable from mere spirits, only appear once in the literary remains of Babylonia. It is manifestly impossible, under such circumstances, to specify their traits. In most cases, indeed, the phonetic reading is unknown or uncertain. While a considerable proportion may be put down as local gods, enjoying an independent, albeit obscure, existence, at least an equal number will turn out to be mere epithets of gods already known. In all cases where the god's name actually appears as an epithet, we may be certain that such is the case. So when a god is called simply _Dainu_, _i.e._, Judge, there can be little doubt that Shamash, the sun-god, is meant; a god, 'great mountain,' is none other than Bel; and similarly, such names as 'merciful,' 'hearer of prayer,' 'conqueror of enemy' are manifestly titles belonging to certain well-known deities, and used much as among the Greeks the gods were often referred to by the traits, physical or moral, that distinguished them. As for the residue, who are independent deities, while of course our knowledge of the Babylonian religion would be increased did we know more of them than their names, it is not likely that the worship of these gods, nor the conceptions connected with them, involved any new principle. A mere enumeration would of course be of