THE MELAMMU PROJECT http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/
“The Babylonian Science of the Translation and the Ideological Adjustment of the Sumerian Text to the ‘Target Culture’” STEFANO SEMINARA
Published in Melammu Symposia 3: A. Panaino and G. Pettinato (eds.), Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena. Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. Held in Chicago, USA, October 27-31, 2000 (Milan: Università di Bologna & IsIao 2002), pp. 245-55. Publisher: http://www.mimesisedizioni.it/
This article was downloaded from the website of the Melammu Project: http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/
The Melammu Project investigates the continuity, transformation and diffusion of Mesopotamian culture throughout the ancient world. A central objective of the project is to create an electronic database collecting the relevant textual, art-historical, archaeological, ethnographic and linguistic evidence, which is available on the website, alongside bibliographies of relevant themes. In addition, the project organizes symposia focusing on different aspects of cultural continuity and evolution in the ancient world.
The Digital Library available at the website of the Melammu Project contains articles from the Melammu Symposia volumes, as well as related essays. All downloads at this website are freely available for personal, non-commercial use. Commercial use is strictly prohibited. For inquiries, please contact [email protected].
SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION
STEFANO SEMINARA Roma
The Babylonian Science of the Translation and the Ideological Adjustment of the Sumerian Text to the ‘Target Culture’
s the most recent theories on the nian culture represents a particular situa- translation science consider this tion of bilingualism, defined by J. S. Aactivity more and more an inter- Cooper 1 “literary bilingualism”: the spo- cultural phenomenon, rather than only an ken language (spoken and written in the interlinguistic one, I thought this Sympo- practical and every day use) is Akkadian, sium was the appropriate place to present while the literary language is, together this paper, a further elaboration of some with the Akkadian, the Sumerian too. ideas risen from my doctoral dissertation During the Old Babylonian period, the on the Akkadian translation of the Lugal- ancient works of the Sumerian literature e myth. started being translated into Akkadian. Starting from the 2nd millennium (that The aim of this paper is to answer to the is, from the beginning of the period following question: how and why did the known as Old Babylonian), the Babylo- Babylonians translate the Sumerian?
Did a translation ‘theory’ exist?
The Babylonians did not leave a ‘man- term, p 1 J.S. Cooper, Sumero-Akkadian Literary Bilingualism (Chicago, 1969). A. Panaino & G. Pettinato (eds.) MELAMMU SYMPOSIA III (Milano 2002) ISBN 88-8483-107-5 245 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION of the root (“something placed transver- specularity and symmetry would exist sally”). It is not unlikely that the two between the two languages. terms refer to as many types of equiva- But now, are these formulations of a lences: linear the first one, “transversal,” theoretical nature confirmed in the maybe, the second one. Babylonian accepted practice of the Furthermore, at the line 20 of the same Sumerian texts’ translation, which can be text, it is written that the Sumerian lan- reconstructed through the analysis of the guage is a “mirror” (nì-sè-ga in Sume- Akkadian ‘versions’ of the Sumerian rian, tamš lu in Akkadian) of the Ak- works? kadian language. Therefore, a relation of The translation as a divination form and the Sumerian terminology for “translating” (inim-bal ) The symmetry is an important concept the reality). in the Babylonian way of imagining the From this point of view, also a Sume- reality. In fact, the idea of symmetry was rian text or, more exactly, each writing totally congenial to the Babylonian con- sign, due to its quality of ‘container’ of a ception of the cosmos intended as a plurality of meanings, becomes a sign to whole of the reality’s layers perfectly be interpreted. Therefore, the ‘conver- corresponding with each other. This is sion’ of a Sumerian text into the Ak- exactly the image of the cosmos de- kadian language can be defined, rather scribed in the poem En 2 More rarely eme-bal, “to turn the tongue.” 246 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION (giskim) or “dreams” (ma-mú.d), em- the two techniques of the ‘translation’ phasizing even more the relation between (as we call it) and divination. The translation as ‘decoding’ of each single sign or a ‘selection’ between various meanings of a sign For the Babylonians, what we call meanings are given, each one with its “translation” is an inverse or specular Sumerian interpretation and correspon- process compared to the operation of dent translation into Akkadian. 3 But the writing. At this point, I need to make a thorough examination of all possible consideration for introducing a further meanings of the sign proceeds through a equivalence. In origin, the writing had pure speculation and a chaining of “se- represented the ‘coding’ process of the mantic associations,” until such a point realia in the writing signs, in conse- that meanings (that is, translations into quence of which the reality’s constitutive Akkadian), never attested in the Sume- elements had been dismembered to be rian written tradition, but rather deduced then gathered into ‘sets’ on the basis of through associations based on the Ak- their affinity – we would say: on the ba- kadian equivalences themselves, are of- sis of semantic associations – and each ten attributed to a sign. This way, it can set had been expressed with its own sign. happen that a sign is translated with an Now, as in origin the writing had been (Akkadian) term which is rather an anto- the ‘coding’ process – and still was in all nym of its original value (in Sumerian). its aspects, at least virtually –, the trans- As an example, a lexical list gives the lation is nothing but the ‘decoding’ of a sign UD – which generally means “day,” sign through a ‘thorough examination’ of but also “light,” “sun,” and so on – also the numerous meanings contained, in or- the meaning of “night” (value which has der to find the meaning (theoretically the never been attested for the sign UD in only possible one) that the sign assumes Sumerian!). within a determined context. Based on what has been said up to Of course, this applies only to the now, we can therefore conclude that the translation of ‘continuous texts,’ mytho- translation is always the result of a logical, epic and similar (the only ones choice, that is the selection of one or where the signs are input within a com- more meanings within the range of those plete sense context). On the contrary, in accepted by the sign itself. the lexical lists of each sign, all possible From the sign to the text At this point, it should be easier to un- Babylonian translation of a Sumerian text derstand the opening statement: that the is first of all a search inside the single 3 Sometimes, however, it can happen that also in after we will call this translation technique “al- continuous texts a sign is translated twice, that is with ternative”). two of the possible Akkadian equivalences (herein- 247 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION signs of the writing. Another aspect of damental principles of the Babylonian the Babylonian translations derives from translation technique). The Sumerian text the above said: the very little attention saying “May you serve to saw off the paid to the unity and internal coherence horns of the bull who knows the Moun- of the ‘target text.’ In the translation, in tain!” becomes in the Akkadian version: fact, each sign becomes an autonomous “Because of your betrayal, I will tear you nucleus of meaning, therefore it can hap- to pieces with my horns!”. This unusual pen that some lines of the Akkadian translation is necessary to harmonize the translation turn out to be not very ‘natu- sense of this line with that of the previ- ral,’ and even ‘illegible,’ or not very co- ous one (549), where the Babylonian herent, and even contradictory, with the translator, dissociating himself again context. from the Sumerian source text, has de- However, there’s a contrary trend: that nounced the silica’s ‘double-cross’ dur- the ancient translator does violence to ing the cosmic conflict. In fact, the Sum- the source Sumerian text in order to re- erian text says more or less: “What is an cover a certain coherence in the target alliance between the weak against a text through the connection of verses higher power for?” Completely different which are often very far from each other. the Akkadian version: “You who run The search of coherence can occur with the hare and the hunt with the within a limited context, for example a hounds (literally: now on a side, then on single narrative section. At the line 550 the other)” (this is Ninurta speaking to of the Lugal-e , the god Ninurta con- the silica). demns the ‘silica’ stone, one of his ene- In other cases, the ‘literal’ translation mies in the mythical war he has fought of the source text is sacrificed in favor of against the ‘monster’ Asag, to saw off the need to harmonize verses very far throughout eternity the horns “of the bull from each other. For example, at the who knows the Mountain,” in Sumerian lines 578 and 428 of the Lugal-e , two am kur-zu-a. In the Akkadian transla- Sumerian synonymous expressions, but tion, the syntagma am kur-zu-a is ex- not totally coinciding (sìg and gaz-ede pressed with the unexpected ana til, respectively “to tear into pieces” and muštapt Principles, rules and techniques of the translation The fundamental rules of the transla- structure of the writing system. tion activity were connatural in the 248 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION The translation through homophony The pictographic matrix – from which words X and Y are homophonous and A the cuneiform could never completely and B are their respective equivalences free itself, despite of the constantly in- in Akkadian, you can translate X with B creasing formal stylization of the signs – (even if the latter is actually the equiva- has certainly contributed to giving sub- lent of Y) and, vice-versa, Y with A. stance to the idea – not exclusive, For example, at the line 167 4 of the though, of the Mesopotamian people – poem Angimdimma , the Sumerian term that between the name and the repre- me, which means “essence, divine po- sented thing there was a relation which wer,” is translated into Akkadian with was neither historical nor conventional, thzu , “battle,” due to its homophony nor incidental, but natural and necessary. with mè, which means “battle” in Sume- If the name is not a mere convention – rian. In this case, the scribe, compiling that is, it doesn’t simply represent, but the bilingual text, substitutes the original ‘is’ the thing –, we do understand that lectio of the monolingual text (me) with also the sequence of sounds composing the one which has acted as intermediary each word has to be meaningful. There- to the translation (mè). Other times, the fore, the phonetic affinities between na- intermediary can remain ‘unexpressed,’ mes, too, even semantically very distant, making the scholar’s task difficult. This cannot be incidental: a deep relation has way, at the line 68 of the Lugal-e , the to exist between homophonous names. ‘syntagma’ alan-za, “on your statue,” is Actually, both nature and fate are re- translated, completely unexpectedly, with corded in the name of each being. This the Akkadian m Alternative translation Due to its polysemous nature, each two Akkadian translations, equivalent to sign of the cuneiform writing includes a as many meanings potentially included in more or less large number of meanings, the sign, correspond to a sign-word of among which it isn’t always possible to the Sumerian text (because in the Sume- find the logical or semantic connection rian writing a sign is generally sufficient (if we exclude the evident cases of syn- to express a lexeme). onymy or homophony). In the translation This translating method can be defined of a continuous text, it can happen that “alternative translation.” 4 The same thing occurs also in Lugal-e 483. 249 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION Some examples will be useful to make Sumerian text. For example, to the line this ‘technique’ clearer. In the Sumerian 409 of the Sumerian text of the Lugal-e – d prayers called Eršahunga , the god Enlil Nin-tu á-še 1 7 -ba/bi(-šè) díb-bé-šè, is often called with the traditional name “O Nintu, pass through these fresh of am, “savage bull.” Now, in some bi- places!” – correspond two different lines lingual exemplars (but not in all), the in the Akkadian version: dB let-il ša term am is translated with a double Ak- itâtuša ilu mamman l ittiqu, “B let-il , kadian equivalence: the first one is the the limits of which no god violates” literal r mu (that is “savage bull”), the (409) and dB let-il ina tan hti tišb , “O second one is b lu 5 (“lord”). The latter, a B let-il , sit down peacefully!” (409a). secondary equivalence (also documented The double line is the result of a double in the lexical lists), which has been de- interpretation of the sign díb, which is rived from the first one through semantic translated with et qu (“to violate” which association (alluding to the strength and is actually equivalent of the homopho- noble ‘lordliness’ of the bull), had been nous dib) at the line 409, with tišb , im- probably used by the Babylonian trans- perative of aš bu (“to sit down,” in Sum- lator for ‘purifying’ the image of the god erian tuš, another way of reading, to- from those theriomorphic features which, gether with díb, the sign KU), at the line common in the theological imaginary of 409a. 6 the 3rd millennium, had gradually died The use of this ‘translating’ method is away in the subsequent developments of very frequent in the so-called ‘onomastic the Mesopotamian religiousness. commentaries,’ which are nothing but At the line 500 of the Lugal-e , the god translation forms elaborated in detail. It’s Ninurta says to the Magnetite: šul ní- a typical way of the Babylonian philol- tuku giš-nu 1 1 bar-šè gál, “pious young ogical science, where Sumerian names man, making the light reflect on the ex- are accompanied by a commentary as a ternal surface.” In the Akkadian transla- translation in Akkadian language. One of tion of the passage, though, the sense of the most typical exemplars of this way is the god’s apostrophe to the stone is com- represented by the so-called “Commen- pletely changed: e#lu na’du ša n š n 5 For some examples, see S. M. Maul, ‘Herzberuhigungs- 6 Other philological artifices of the ancient translator klagen’. Die sumerisch-akkadischen Eršahunga-Gebete are too sophisticated to be analysed in this context. (Wiesbaden, 1988), 98 and 112. 250 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION 17 translations of the commentary result, the highest refinement – is operative in then, from the combination of the homo- the composition of the so-called section phonous principle with the alternative on the ‘50 names of Marduk,’ final part one. So, at line 1, the name of the temple of the En The translation through metathesis In the most archaic cuneiform texts the As an example, at the line 549 of the pictograms were placed more or less Lugal-e , Ninurta, reprimanding the un- freely – that is on the basis of considera- ruly Silica for the fact that an alliance tions of an aesthetical or space’s econ- between two persons cannot win the omy kind – within the subsections of the strength of a superior entity, says: lú- tablet. This means that the signs’ posi- min a-na-bi, “what are (a-na-bi) two tion order (graphotaxis) did not coincide (min) men (lú)?” The late reviewer re- with the ‘reading’ logical sequence. combines the signs’ sequence of the Therefore, it was up to the scribe to in- source text through metathesis between terpret the text, by choosing the sequence min and a, obtaining lú-a-min-na-bi. As to recombine the writing signs. the sign a is homophonous of á, which The Babylonian tradition recovers this means “side” (and one of the late sources archaic aspect of the cuneiform writing, even substitutes a with á ), the Sumerian reserving the possibility of modifying the syntagma now means (more or less): writing signs sequence of the Sumerian “two sided man,” thing that authorizes text, with the effect of obtaining an Ak- the Akkadian version for the late trans- kadian version very different from the lator: ša anniš u ullîš , “you who (stood) source text. now on a side, then on the other.” The ‘law’ of the specularity or symmetry The need of inverting the signs’ order text is clearly explained in the light of of the source (Sumerian) text in order to another fundamental ‘rule’ of the Baby- justify their recombination in the target lonian translation practice: the specular- 7 An addition as a commentary provides the transla- see A. R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts , tion key, giving the following explanatory equiva- OLA 40 (Leuven, 1992), 80-81. lences: sa 12 =šarru, sa 12 =agû, íl= našû . For this text, 251 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION ity (or bi-univocal correspondence or text. However, from other evidence, it symmetry) between Sumerian text and seems clear that the symmetry between Akkadian version. the two texts was the result of a coherent The search of specularity between the and systematic will. The specularity in- Sumerian and Akkadian texts has its own volves all text’s levels: morphology, mythic grounds and a theoretical justifi- syntax. 9 cation. According to the poem of Enmer- The ‘violence’ to which the two texts’ kar and the Lord of Aratta , at the begin- languages are submitted makes the ning of the human history, there was a search of symmetry evident. The mecha- time in which all peoples of the Earth (at nism is of a circular type: on one side, least of that known then) – Sumer and the Akkadian text has ‘to submit’ to the Akkad, Šubur, Hamazi and Martu – Sumerian (up to result, in some cases, spoke to Enlil “in the same language” (in unnatural, illegible or not too much co- Sumerian: eme-diš-àm). herent with the context); on the other This myth has been subject to several side, the Sumerian text is ‘revised’ in or- (and often opposing) interpretation at- der ‘to second, to back up’ the Akkadian tempts. But the theme, we are here con- version (up to create real calques from cerned with, holds good that the region the Akkadian language). This way, the of Sumer and Akkad is linguistically dif- Sumerian text of the bilingual versions ferentiated from the other parts of the wanders more and more from the original world (each one of which is, in its turn, (that of the monolingual versions). distinguished by a qualifying name) The ‘calques’ can be of various kinds. through the attribute eme-ha-mun, The lexical ones are rare: for example, at probably translated by the Akkadians the line 42 of the myth of the Marriage into liš n mithurti, literally “language of of Sud , the Sumerian sù-ga (“empty- the correspondence,” or “language of the handed”) is translated into Akkadian symmetry” or “specular language.” 8 through the adverb r qiš (from r qu From a later tradition we know that “empty”). As it is a hapax , it’s not un- Nabû – god of the scribe art, among the likely it is a calque. other things – was appointed to the con- The semantic calques are another type. trol of the correct correspondence, func- For example, at the line 257 of the tion that he exercised as “guardian of the Lugal-e , zú-ŠEŠ, “with bitter teeth,” is symmetry” (in Akkadian: sniq mithurti ). translated literally ša šinn marr < (“the The symmetry is already implicit in teeth of whom are bitter”), even if the the text’s paging up, as it is mainly a verb mar ru (“to be bitter”) is never oth- matter of interlinear translations, where erwise documented in association with there’s always an Akkadian version cor- “teeth.” responding to each line of the source Another consequence of the search of 8 It seems that, at least at the beginning, ha-mun tionally avoided (S.M. Maul, “Küchensumerisch oder referred to a particular type of fish, which, split in hohe Kunst der Exegese? Überlegungen zur Bewer- two parts, was then left to dry. Referred to the coun- tung akkadischer Interlinearübersetzungen von Eme- tries of Sumer and Akkad, then the attribute would sal-Texten,” in B. Pongratz-Leisten – H. Kühne – P. mean “(lands) the languages of which are one to the Xella (eds.). Ana šad Labn ni l < allik. Beiträge zu other as the two parts of a fish cut along the bone.” altorientalistischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. 9 However, there are translations where the symmetry Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig (Neukirchen-Vluyn, between the Sumerian and Akkadian text is inten- 1997), 253-267). 252 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION the symmetry is that type of translation ding only to em Why did they translate? According to what has been said up to bylonian translator seems to be that of now, it is clear that the Akkadian version using his own deep knowledge of the of a Sumerian text was not conceived as Sumerian to achieve sophisticated inter- a support to the comprehension of the pretations of the source text rather than source text, even if we cannot exclude to offer a tool for its comprehension. In the use of the bilingual material for synthesis, the knowledge of the Sumerian scholastic purposes. The aim of the Ba- seems a starting point, not a final one. The ‘obscurity’ of the Sumerian Anyhow, the ancient sources agree in Now, as the obscurity to which the verbs underlining the ‘obscurity’ (dul in Sume- dul and $ullulu allude is the one obtained rian, sbullulu in Akkadian) of the Sume- interposing a screen between the view rian language. In the scholastic text point and the light source, it is evident known as Examenstext A , the scribe asks that the Babylonians accepted two com- his son (or pupil): “Do you know how to prehension levels of a Sumerian text: the interpret the hidden sense 10 of all you first one superficial, the second deeper have learnt in Sumerian?.” In another (or hidden or obscure). Therefore, the scholastic text (entitled Eduba D ), a stu- translation of a Sumerian text doesn’t so dent answers to a colleague who boasted much consist in its conversion into the of “speaking” the Sumerian (inim-bal): Akkadian language, as rather in the “As you say! But the sense of the Sume- ‘penetration of the veil’ hiding the deep rian remains obscure for you too!” 11 sense of the original. Free or literal translation? The continuous mixture of the two ture of two translation ‘strategies,’ literal meaning levels within the bilingual text the first one, free the second (respec- can generate a feeling of a singular mix- tively corresponding to the two meaning 10 nì-dul-bi in Sumerian, katimtašu in Akkadian. 11 The term is again dul. 253 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION levels, superficial and deep). Actually, exist in the same sign, in every respect. this distinction between free and literal It’s up to the translator, in every moment translation – which has always been fun- of his work, to privilege a level or the damental in the Western translation, from other one: the ancient translator’s the first theorizations in translation mat- ‘choice’ and interpretation ‘freedom’ be- ters – is alien to the Babylonian thought, come important once again. just because the two meaning levels co- The ideological ‘adjustment’ of the Sumerian text In the most delicate passages of the vice to a ‘heroic’ standard, transforms text – in particular the ones of a theo- the text this way: “do not draw your arm logical or ideological importance – it is away (á-zu ba-ra-mu-un-gi in the Sum- evident that the translator’s choice erian text, idka l tani’ amma in the cor- among the various possibilities of ex- responding Akkadian translation) from pressing a sign is not casual at all; on the Inanna’s game!,” that is: “do not back contrary, most of the times, it is aimed at out!,” exploiting the homography (or the attempt to recover the Sumerian homophony) between the signs ZI and GI source text to a type of cultural and re- (the latter, homophonous of gi 4, “to go ligious sensibility closer to the ‘target back” in Sumerian, then equivalent of the context’ (where the translator lives). Akkadian nê’u of the form tani’ amma ). Particularly significant are the cases At the line 182 of the Lugal-e, An, the where the translator tries to recover the god of the sky, in front of the terrible ancient divinities of the Sumerian pan- devastations of Asag, is afraid, “he trem- theon to the type of ‘divine imaginary’ bled with fear” or, to say it with the which had gradually established itself in Sumerian context, íb-dúb, where the the 2nd millennium, mainly through the syllable íb expresses a sequence of ver- reduction of the theriomophic features bal prefixes (/i/+/b/), while dúb renders (or excessively ‘naturalistic’) that had the ‘verbal root’ or the base lexical unit characterized the Sumerian conception of (“to tremble with fear”). The translator – the divine world and, vice-versa, by un- surely, or almost, to redeem the image of derlining the aspects of majesty and dig- An, not much respected by his Sumerian nity of the divinities. colleague – renders íb-dúb with the Ak- For example, at the line 137 of the kadian verbal form gug , “he got angry.” Lugal-e , Šarur, the weapon of the god But how does he arrive to this transla- Ninurta, in order to dissuade its lord tion? He completely neglects the verbal from engaging a ‘duel’ with the terrible root dúb, while assumes as ‘bearer of Asag, says so: “do not raise your arm (á- meaning’ the sign íb, corresponding to zu ba-ra-ni-zi) for Inanna’s dance (that the Akkadian ag gu (“to get angry”) as is: “for the war”)!” The Babylonian lexical equivalent (both in the lists and in translator, perhaps to rehabilitate Ni- the praxis of the other bilingual texts). nurta’s image and to recover Šarur’s ad- In the Lamentation called URUHU- 254 SEMINARA T HE BABYLONIAN SCIENCE OF THE TRANSLATION LAKE 12 (lines 2 and 12), the term mušen, homophony between mušen and mu-tin “bird,” epithet of the invoked divinity, is (Sumerian equivalent of ardatu ). translated with ardatu , that is “young The bilingual literature in cuneiform is woman,” probably on the basis of the full of such examples. The inversion of sense In this ‘purification’ process of the taššâ , that is “you were the only one who Sumerian text, the translator can go as didn’t attack me,” with the evident addi- far as the mystification and distortion of tion of a negative particle ( l). What may the original text, in particular when the have induced the translator to a version possibility of ‘recovery’ of the text is not opposite of its original? It’s because the included in one of the various sign’s alabaster, as we can notice in the fol- senses. In such cases, the translator can lowing lines, is blessed by Ninurta, and, go as far as the interpolation, mainly consequently, the Babylonian translator through the input (or suppression) of has probably considered that this stone negative particles or through translation cannot have attacked him (in fact, it is based on antonyms. likely that the sentence of the Sumerian For example, at the line 517 of the text has to be intended in a concessive Lugal-e, Ninurta, speaking to the ala- sense: “even though you attacked me, I baster stone, says: “only you attacked bless you,” this should be the final sense me” (šu dili-zu mu-e-ni-zi-zi-i), which of the god’s sentence). is then translated as qtka išt n(i) l Conclusions We can conclude that we have to af- from the Lugal-e , they have many paral- firmatively answer to the opening ques- lels in the bilingual literature in cunei- tion: “Did a Babylonian translation sci- form. An exhaustive presentation of all ence exist?.” Even though almost all the material will be provided in one of my examples mentioned in this paper are next works, ready to be printed. 12 M.E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (Potomac, 1988), 253f. 255