https://4banks.net / Mes-lit / Notes / 33.htm  –  Version 1, Not yet closed

Mesopotamian Literature

Notes

Notes to Chapter 33. The profane sphere

Giorgio Buccellati – August 2023

General notes on Chapter 33
33.1 The struggle of admirable facts: Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta
33.2 The long-distance struggle: Inanna and Nisaba
      33.2.1 The performative dimension
      33.2.2 Setting
      33.2.3 Telling voice
      33.2.4 Pauses
      33.2.5 Dialogue
      33.2.6 Pantomime
33.3 TITLE
33.4 TITLE

ERRORS in databases:
  • "Boson1918Assiriologia.d": duplicate bibliography "Boson1918Assiriologia" for site "Akk-lg".
  • "Bottero1992Reasoning.d": duplicate bibliography "Bottero1992Reasoning" for site "Mes-rel".
  • "Buccellati1972Teodicea.d": duplicate bibliography "Buccellati1972Teodicea" for site "Mes-lit".
  • "Cauvin2000Birth.d": duplicate bibliography "Cauvin2000Birth" for site "Mes-rel".
  • "DMB.d": duplicate bibliography "DMB" for site "Mes-rel".
  • "Edzard2003Sumerian.d": duplicate bibliography "Edzard2003Sumerian" for site "Mes-rel".
  • "Oshima2014Sufferers.d": duplicate bibliography "Oshima2014Sufferers" for site "Mes-rel".
  • "Trinkaus1983Shanidar.d": duplicate bibliography "Trinkaus1983Shanidar" for site "Mes-rel".

Back to top

General notes on Chapter 33

  1. Main references:

    Online items:

    • 2016: [Verderame, *Letterature*](http://www.mondadorieducation.it/media/contenuti/universita/verderame_letterature_mesopotamia/index.html)
    • n.d.: [Ludlul](http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cams/ludlul/corpus) (accessed October 2016)
    • n.d.: [Ludlul, Tablet II](https://www.soas.ac.uk/baplar/recordings/the-poem-of-the-righteous-sufferer-ludlul-bl-nmeqi-tablet-ii-entire-tablet-read-by-karl-hecker.html), by Karl Hecker (accessed October 2016)

    Textual notes:

    ... ...

         1. muštālu «onnipresente»: from the root ša'ālu "to ask", in the reflexive form "to reflect, deliberate". Marduk is thus the one who deliberates carefully, beyond human ken (hence his meting out good and evil in ways that are not understood). The translation "omnipresent" aims to render this quality of full control.

    i 9-14
    ša nakbat qātīšu
         lā inaššū šama'ū
    rittuš rabbati
         ukaššu mīta
    ša ina libbātīšu
         uptattā qabrātum
    inūšu ina karāši
         ušatbī maqtam     		the heavens cannot sustain
         the thrust of his hand
    and yet his gentle holding hand
         revives the dead.
    at whose furious anger
         the gates of hell are opened –
    at the same time that from the abyss
         he brings up the one who had fallen.
    ... ...

         9. nakbatu is literally «the place of weiging», and it describes the main contingent of an army in a tactical situation. Here it descibes metaphorically the hand of Marduk as if an army thrusting against an enemy.
         10. rittu is the human hand as it holds or grasps, hence an «open holding hand», further defined here as rabbatu «gentle». It is aptly opposed to the hand that strikes as if an army.
         13. Oshima 2014 Poems, p. 176, refers to the use of qabrātum for underground brick graves as the place of demons, hence the notion of "gates of hell" (with reference to Lundström).
         14. karāšum refers to a catastrophic disaster. I use the term «abyss» to emphasize the parallelism with the burials or gates of hell.
    i 33-34
    		Erica Reiner's interpretation:
    ana "kī kabtat qassu"
         libbašu rēmēn
    ana "kī gaşşu kakkašu"
         kabattašu mušneššat    		 To (him who says): " How heavy can his hand be!"
         his heart shows copassion,
    to (him who says): "How trenchant is his sword!"
         in his innermost he wants to give life

    Standard interpretation.
    ana kī kabtat qassu
         libbašu rēmēn
    ana kī gaşşu kakkašu
         kabattašu mušneššat    		 In comparison to how heavy his hand may be,
         his heart is tender (lit., compassionate),
    in comparison to how trenchant his sword may be
         in his innermost he wants to give life

    The two interpretations.
         Reiner 1985 Thwarts" p. 112, offers a bold interpretation of this passage, that helps explain, as she emphasizes, the rather strange beginning of Tablet III. It proposes that acceptance is what eventually brings about the reversal of bacd luck. Syntactically, the sentence is very abrupt, in that it deletes the clause presumably referring to the person who says what is enclosed in quotes.
         In the standard interpretation, the meaning of ana kī as "in comparison with" is unusual. In the sense of akī "as soon as" one would expect a finite verb, not a nominal predicate. "In comparison to" would stand for "(as) to how," which seems rather forced.

         34. kakka-šu is a generic weapon; I use "sword" which renders more effectively the sense of an aggressive weapon.
         There are two roots from which gaşşu may be deerived, one meaning "to rage,", and the other meanng "to cut": both would apply here, hence the translation as "trenchant."
         kabattu refers to "liver" as the source of emotion, hence here "innermost" in the sense of "soul."
    i 40
    hissassu damiqtu
         [lem]našinā litbál?    		 How could his friendly disposition
         remove their evil?

         I take hissatu damiqtu as referring to Marduk's «good thinking», hence a favorable disposition towards men (nišē of the previous verse).
         [lem]našinā is conjectural, just as [ar]našinā that is genreally assumed. It fits the context of the potential interrogative better.
         I take litbál as a precative with a potential value in an interrogative sentence. The interrogative is not marked in Akkadian, except possibly by stress (hence litbál). I assume this to be case here, since it fits well the context: it is the question to which the rest of the poem gives an answer.
         The "dead" who is revived is in reality one who is in such a bad state as to seem dead.
    i 51
    dalhā tērētū'a
         nuppuhu uddakam    		 my omens were confused,
         falre reports were a daily routine.

         With Lenzi 2012 "Curious", p. 44, n. 22, I take nuppuhū as a denominative of niphu in the sense of a false report. However, I do not take it as the predicate of tērētū''a, because one would expect nuppuhā (the final long vowel is generally respected in the text). I take it instead as the subject of the adverb uddakam used as a predicate (the enclitic -ma to mark the nominal predicate would be more explicit, but is not required), hence: "the false report (resulting from swollenness) was (happening) daily."
    ii 6-7
    ... ...

    7. For maššakku see Oshima 2014 Poems, pp. 222-228. I choose the transaltion as «incense», which is presumed to have helped induce a dream.
    ii 11-12, 22
    āmur-ma
         arkat ridāti ipperī
    kī ša tamqītum
         ana ili lā uktinnu
    ...
         ...
    anāku
         amšal     		I looked and behold
         what pursues me is defamation:
    like one who to his personal god
         did not make libations
    (like one who ...).
         ...
    I, indeed,
         thus was considered.

    11. āmur-ma: I take the particle -ma to introduce the nominal sentence "the substance of persecution is my defamation."
         ippiru: in CADI, p. 165 a, the point is made that the word properly has a meaning "rivalry, fighting." I take it to refer here to the animosity that people have towards him, resulting in making the untrue statements that follow, hence "defamation."
         arkatum: «that which is behind», hence «circumstances» (CADA1 p. 277 b), or «the matter, the substance» of something.
         I understand the nominal sentence arkat ridāti ipperī as follows: the «matter» or «substance» (arkatum) of the «persecution» (ridātum) which is taking shape is «my defamation» (ipperī).

    12. mašālu regularly governs the preposition ana, but occasionally, like here, the comparative kī at the beginning of the strophe, in line 12..
    iii 47-48
    ... ...


         The verb in final position is broken at the end. I interpret it as a present ukallam instead of a preterite ukallim, in the sense that this is the content of the message (šipirtu) which has come to the sufferer as he awoke.
    v 47-52

    47 ina Ká.GIZKIM.babbarak
    iddatū'a immerā    		 At the Gate of limpid omens
    my omens were made clear
    52 ina Ká.silimak
    itti Marduk annamir    		 At the Gate of Well-being
    I was seen with Marduk


         47. For the interpretation of the name of the gate see ;Reiner 1985 Thwarts" p. 117. See also Lenzi 2015 "Gates" p. 741.
         52. See Lenzi 2015 "Gates" p. 742f.
    v 53
    šēp Zarpanītum annašiq the feet of Zarpanitum I started kissing

    Alternatively:
    ana šēp Zarpanītum annabik I fell down at the feet of Zarpanitum

         annašiq is an unsual N-stem from našīqu, presumably with an inchoative meaning.
         annabik is the preterite of the N-stem of abāku B (CADA1 p. 9b).
         Reiner 1985 Thwarts" p. 113 chooses the form annabik in the translation, but on p. 118 gives arguments for either form.
         For my argument, either form is pertinent: the poet has a direct confronttion with a statue.



    ...
    ... ...

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

Back to top

33.1 The struggle of admirable facts: Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta

  1. Judgments about the literary quality of the poem vary greatly. Thus, next to Oppenheim’s negative judgment: “Technically the composition is primitive” (Reiner 1985 Thwarts), we have a statement like the one in Foster 1996 Muses, p. 308: “One of the finest literary monuments of Mesopotamian antiquity”.

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

Back to top

33.2 The long-distance struggle: Inanna and Nisaba

  1. “The language of the poem is rich in rare words. The author was steeped in the scholarly lore of his age, including medical texts; some of the pathological terms used are otherwise attested only in diagnostic treatises. The author makes use of every poetic device in the Akkadian repertory. He is fond of wordplays, alliteration, rhyme, intricate parallelism, inclusion by opposites” (Foster 1996 Muses, p. 307).

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

  2. The division in strophes follows the one articulated in detail by Reiner 1985 Thwarts, except for strophe 3, which I divide further into three parts.

    [To be later moved to section 33.2.4.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

  3. For a presumed additional 4th tablet see Oshima 2012 Tablets.

    [To be later moved to section 33.2.5.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

  4. On the question of authorship see Oshima 2014 Sufferers, especially pp. 15-17.

    On the various passages where the effectiveness of the divinatory system is called in question, see Lenzi 2012 Curious, pp. 43-51. On p. 51 f. Lenzi cites another text that has similar laments about divinatory failure, and adds: “Although this and other texts demonstrate that the complaint about ritual and divinatory failure in Ludlul is not unique, Ludlul is unique in the frequency with which this motif comes up and in the highly developed lamentation and religious doubt that are expressed in conjunction with the protagonist’s undiagnosed, untreatable suffering.”

    [To be later moved to section 33.2.8.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

  5. See the basic article Foster 1983 Self Reference.

    [To be later moved to section 33.2.9.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

33.2.1 The performative dimension

  1. Foster 1983 Self Reference deals with the use of the first person on the part of the poet.

    Reiner 1985 Thwarts, chapter VI, gives a detailed formal analysis of Tablet II.

    The count of 120 verses (= lines) for each tablet applies presumably also to tablet IV, of which we do not have the ending.

    Reiner 1985 Thwarts, p. 102, suggests the use of the term “canto” for a tablet in Ludlul.

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

33.2.2 Setting

  1. The Latin term “geminus” refers to the peculiarity of the Roman god Ianus as having two faces, which represent two contrasting aspects of reality, such as past and future, war and peace. The image below is from the 16th century Palace Magnani in Reggio Emilia.


    Mer.šà.kúš.è eziz u muš-tal sabus u tajjār, DN (a name of Marduk) is fierce and circumspect, angry and forgiving (explaining the Sumerian name) En. el. VI 137 (CADM 284A).

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

Back to top

33.3 TITLE

  1. Oppenheim1977Ancient, p. 272 defines Ludlul as “primitive,” see Reiner 1978 Literatur.

    For the relationship to hymnic literature, see Lenzi 2015 Language.

    [To be later moved to section 33.3.1.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

  2. See Buccellati 2012 Quando, 11.1, for the concept of divination as the mythology of fate and 13.11 for the concept of magics as the cult of fate.

    The proverbs are in Gordon 1968 Proverbs, nos 2.14, 2.13, 2.12, 2.11.

    The importance of the “sovereignty of Marduk” is stressed in Lenzi 2012 Curious, p.41, and Lenzi 2015 Language, p. 100f. He sees this as an interpretive key for the understanding of the whole poem, in that it signals the inscrutability of divine power and the need to accept it without questioning. This is in line my interpretation of Marduk as icon of fate, which obviously goes considerably further, considering this “sovereignty” as reflecting an incipient perception of an absolute that resides on an altogether different ontological plane.

    Lenzi 2015 Language, p. 83, stresses the fact that “the protagonist in Ludlul turns and looks in lines 2 and 10 [of Tablet II] but not to Marduk, in fact, never to a high god anywhere in the poem, for help” whereas “an appeal to a high god to remedy just such a situation is very common in shuila-prayers.” Lenzi goes on to say: “Marduk’s inscrutable sovereignty is a major theme in the ideological purpose of the poem. His inexplicable anger is both a prerogative of this sovereignty and a precondition for the poem’s theological agenda. Marduk is not a slave to the ritual apparatus; he is above it. He will restore people to health. But he will do so whenever he pleases. A direct or even an indirect supplication to Marduk (e.g., in a shuila-prayer), which would have to be denied at this point in the unfolding of events (at least, as the poem would have us understand them), would speak against the god’s mercy, which though inevitable is only distributed on his timetable. The beginning of Tablet II is not the time for mercy. The supplicant cannot turn or look to Marduk – not yet.” This is relevant to my interpretation of Marduk being considered, in Ludlul as an icon of fate.

    [To be later moved to section 33.3.2.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

  3. “Non c’è in effetti menzione di un singolo responso negativo né di uno positivo”: a statement like išaknānim-ma idāti piritti “signs of great fear accumulated against me” (i 49) refer not to the diviner’s response, but to the subjective psychological impact of a sign on the sufferer.

    The expression tērēū‘a dalhā occurs in the prayers, as well as the indication that the omina are not clear; see Lenzi 2015 Language, p. 76.

    [To be later moved to section 33.3.3.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

  4. On the scribal setting of Ludlul, see Lenzi 2012 Curious, pp. 62-63.

    On the notion of “summodeism”, see Voegelin …, and Scotti Muth 2011 Scoprire.

    [To be later moved to section 33.3.5.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

Back to top

33.4 TITLE

  1. Considering that “the stability of the existing order in society” is a paramount concern, “sages in Egypt and Mesopotamia were embarrassed by the fact that in actual experience the order in which they believed, and of which they saw so much evidence in nature and society, was disrupted by occasional vicissitudes”: Ludlul, like Job, aims at providing reassurance. See Gray 1970 Job, p. 253.

    “The author of Job makes clear that Job’s suffering had nothing to do with his righteousness, but was a test of faith. Here the speaker says that, so far as he knows, he has been righteous, and whatever his fault may have been (who can know?), he is sorry for it and begs forgiveness. There is none of the defiance and bitterness of Job. In short, this text sees suffering and redemption as signs of divine power, while Job sees them as tests of human strength” (Foster 1996 Muses, p. 307 f.).

    “The author of Job, adopting a literary technique similar to the one used by the author of Ludlul, utilized common revelatory means in an unusual manner to address the anomaly and to incorporate it into his theological system, Yahwism, in an acceptable way. In so doing he buttressed the community’s confidence in YHWH and maintained communal solidarity” (Lenzi 2012 Curious, p. 65).

    Following Westermann, “Job is not ultimately about the question of suffering abstractly considered but about the righteous devotee’s existential plight that has arisen in the midst of suffering, which may seem (or, in fact, be) divinely-disregarded, allowed, or imposed. […] “Ludlul and the Book of Job, despite many differences, are both ultimately iconic narratives that demonstrate the same concept: the proper human response to inscrutable, divine sovereignty” (Lenzi 2015 Language, pp. 99-100).

    [To be later moved to section 33.4.1.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]

  2. On the benchmark (even pinnā), see S. Hughey PhD dissertation.

    [To be later moved to section 33.4.2.]

    – [ Giorgio Buccellati, January 2022]