On Authorship in Akkadian Literature
BENJAMIN R. FOSTER
On Authorship in Akkadian Literature
That the names of the authors of major works of Akkadian literature are unknown seemsstrange to us, to whom authorship implies a named authorl. Only a f-ew works of Akkadian literature can bc identified with a specific author. Some of these make use of the device " ", known as signature where the author's name is given in the text. Examples include the Gula Hymn of Bullutsarabi2. and the Erra Epic (discussedbelow). Others use acrosticsthat spell the namc of the author. Examples include the Theodicy3 (the work of a certair.t (E)saggilkinam ubbib)a. the prayers of Nabu u5eb5is.and the acrostic hymn to Marduk by or in the name of Assurbanipal (see below). Signed compositions are rare (King. BBS 6), though scribes sometimes signed inscriptions (see Weidner. AfO 17 ll954l6l. 264) or were associatedwith specific versions of texts (see Geller. BSOAS 53 [1990], 209ff.). A special problem is raised by certain texts, such as the Marduk acrostic and Assurbanipal's Hyrnn to Shamash (see below), that mention the reigning king as if he were the author. While it is possible that some of these were actually composed by the king hrmseli others may be products of court poets whose work rellects the personality and interests of the sovreign6. For the majority of Akkadian texts. however. the author's name is unknown. and one has sometimes susoectedthat there was in fact no
I Fr:lr generaidiscussions of Mesopotamian authorship. sce Hallo. IEJ l2 (1962). l3fi.: Hecker. ArOr 15 (l91ll. 2.{9ff..with aclditionalbibliographl-. ' W.G. Lambert. OrNS 36 (1967). l05ll'. 3 W.(1. Lambert, BWL. 6-.lfi'. a Sce Finkel in E. Leichty cd.. A Stienti/ic Huntuni.yt.StLrdict in Mentor.t of Abruhurrt ^Sar/i.r(Philadelphia: i98-5).1,1.1. 5 W.G. Lamborl. JAOS llti (l96lJ).l30ff; Sweet.OrNS 3u (1969)..1591. o W. von Soden. Hcrrsrlrcr int ullen Orien,t(Berlin: 1954).5. r8 B. R. Foster I2l
single author for such texts7. Yet the reasons for the anonymity of Akkadian literary works are to be sought elsewhere than in a simple assumption that they did not have authors as we understand the term. Anonymity can of course be accounted fbr mechanically.Unless the author's name was mentioned in the text. there was no sure means of transmitting it with the text. This is becausecolophons to manuscripts referred to a text only by its opening line and not by its author; the rest of the colophon dealt primarily with manuscript matters such as the number of lines and tablets. who copied it and when and where. and from what original B. In the absenceof a sure means of transmitting the name with the text, the name could be forgotten over generations of manuscript transmission.While manuscript transmissiontechniques might in some cases lead to the anonymity of authors, they are not by themselvesa sulficient explanation. fbr other manuscript literatures have succeededin transmitting the names of authors with their texts through the simple expediencyof putting the author's name at the top or bottom of the composition. Mesopotamian scholars of the first millennium had views on authorship to the ertent that they paired certain literary and scholarly works with gods and sages of the past as if those had been their q. authors There is little reason to believe that this is reliable " " bibliographr in the modern sense:it appears rather in some casesto be a claim that certain uorks and the disciplinesthese works pertained to were extremell ancient and thereby authoritative. Lists of literary works from earlier periods do not include author's names, but only titlesl0. Beginningat the primar-vlevel of inquiry. one can pose the question. " " Was there an author'} While the relationship between author and text is a favorite topic o1' critical inquiry, so far as I know, no one has " " discussed seriously the possibility of an authorless text. On the contrary. there ma1' be more than one author present in a Mesopotamian literary work as now known. for there can be no certainty that an Akkadian text as it is known today is all that one author wrote of it, no more. no less. Yet there n'as a conception in ancient Mesopotamia that " " such a pristine text was the best one, as will be shown below. For the
.i:i.. r Black. AIO 22 (1980). 154: compare Leichty. Studies Sachs(note 4), 261; Livingstone. :t#: SAA 3. xii. 5d: B Hunger. AOAT 2 (1968): Lcichty, Studics Oppenhaitn(1964). l47fi. q W.G. Lambert,JCS 1l (1957) lff.; ll2: JCS l6 (196]),59ff. 10 -185. ..,ii Krecher. RLA 5. 478 ir:: Li; !5r,: {+:':
!::!
1..: t3l On Authorship in Akkadian Literature l9
" ", ..one present, one has to answer yes, always an author but then ask. " author or more'1 Certain compositions bear sufficient stamp of inclividuality rn terms of language,arl. content. and r.rnityof purpose or message.as ro suggesr that that they are in lact primarily the work of one author 1r. Some of these same texts furthermore contain passagesthat imply or insist that this is the case and give the reader to understanclthat the circumstances of authorship are crucial to evaluating the text in question. Such passages give us clues to Mesopotamian notions of authorship. one can best begin by citing a passagein a text that both names the author and cites the circumstances of the text's composition. This is fbund in the Erra Epic (Tablet V lines 40 61)rr.
dEr .iu ru i gu gu t/td ano ,\u,p(tn ntatati',,"" i lul lu uq ni ii Lr:rlt r,i ku rur pu ni .iu (40) dl.ium ma lik ,ii Li ni t1u .iu ttta i,zi tbut ri ba ni i.i tKab dMar ka sir kunt mi .iu ti-,iloni,,."\ tluk mdr tDa bi hi inct .iat mu ,ii u sub-ri iu rua ki i id inu nlu no ut ti id hu bu a u an1-ma ul i! ti e' da iu-nru ul u rud di u na mulr hi dEr i.i nte .iu rtru ra irtr 1i judgment rhis is occasionallyhinted at by others. lbr example. Landsberger,JNES (1961). "odd 20 154 note l. rvho ref'ersto the and confused diction of the poet'. of thc Creation Epic; and Reiner.JNES l7 (1958).41. who rel'ersto the.'awkwarclnessol.the " scribc poet of Erra. 12 Ftrr the text. sce I-. Cagni, L Epopea tli Erru. Stutli Surtitit'i-14 (1969). l26lT. For cliscussionof individual lines and other renderings, see cagni, Epopea. 25.{lf.l Bott6ro" Lor.squt les dieu.r ./itisuienr l'honnt<', mlthologit, nt(.\opotamienna (paris: l9g9). 7061.; 7171.; Deller Nlever. OrNS 5l (l9tt4). l2ll-.: W.G. Larnberl. Iraq 24 0962). I l9ff. 20 B. R. Fo.ster t4l ina a.iir li unt'nta a ni u,iar ka u un iu nti i -uk ku rtr i :tr tttt ;1i all 7t pel t i o inu btti u .iar tup ptr iri iit ,iak nu Er ru li gug nrtr dSi ti,i ci iu hi it rtit pu tur .iip ti ul i te !i .itt ttttt 'ii lim tu .ictk nu us 'ttl :o tnu ru il u iil u ru nttt'li nn li,i 'ii kin rrur li kun sa dtt ul la (60) mu ta u ti nup lor ,ii na li'i mu ntu li na du qur tli iu niit""' da lt[me li nru ra ntu li iur ba u itt nti How (it came to pass that) Erra grew angry and sct out to lay waste the lands and destroy their peoples' (40) (But) Ishum his counsellor calmed him and hc lefi a remnant: The composerof its text was Kabti ilani Marduk. of the family Dabibi. He (the god) revealed it in the nighttrme. and, just as he (the godt had discoursedit while he (K.) rvas conling avn'ake.he (K.) omitted nothing at all. Nor one line did he add to it. When Erra heard it he approvcd. What (belonged)to Ishum l.risIanguard pleasedhim' Al1 the gods werc praising his sign. Then the warrior Erra spoke thus: " ln the sanctuar) of the god u ho honors this pocm. may abundanceheap uP. " But let the one u'ho neglectsit ncver smell incensc. " Let the king rvho ertols mv name rule the worid. " Let the prince uho discoursesth(is) praise of my valor have no ril'al. "The singer who chants (it) shall not die in pestilence. " But his perfbrmanceshall be pleasingto king and princc. " The scribe who masters it shall be spared in an enemy land and honored in his own. " In such sanctum where thc learned make frequent menttotl of rny name. I shall grant them understanding. " The house in which this tablet is placcd' though Erra bc angry and the Seven be slaughtering, " The sword of pestilenceshall not approach it. safety abides upon it. " Let this song abide forever, let it endure till eternity. " Let all lands hear it and praise rny valor. (60; " " Let all inhabitants witness and extol my name t51 t't On Author.ship in Akkadian Literuture 2l This passagecontains [] a summary of the story (lines 40 4l). and then [2] incrcasingly elaborate ref-erencesto the text of the poem itself: first as a text with a human author (line 42), then as a revelation of Ishum, the divine protagonist of the poem. a revelation acceptableand pleasingto Erra, the subject (lines 45 46). Thereupon, with that divine "sign" elcceptance.the text becomes[3] a (1fur1)of Erra (line 47), that all the gods will heed and respectto their advantage(lines 49 50), and then "naming" "praising" [a] a of Erra (lines51" 56. 6l), [5] a of him (lines " " 52. 60). and, a1 last, [6] a so.g to be performed as well as studie They (the filiy names of N4arduk)must be grasped: " " let the first one r s erplain (them). il4s) 1:r Scc Reincr. JNES l9 ( 1960). l.+8ll'. ta Clttneiformtext in W.G. Lamberl lnd S. Parkcr. l:tttrtrruIili.i. T'ht'BuhtlortrrrnEpir ol Crcution (Oxlbrd: 1966). .16f. For other rendcrinr:s. see Bottiro. ,lltthtthryie. (r-5j, 675; Speiser,ANET3. 72. 1s " " " " cAI) Mi l. l09b rakes this u.ord t. nlear scni.r .r elder (c.mparc Labat. "lc Polnti:. 172 notc 145: plus digne'). u,hercasAHw. 5ti6a lists this occurrenceamong "flrst terms rcf'erringto chronologicalprioritv. as interpretedhere. Notc that the onc" is thc first pcrson to commit the text to writing aficr the discoursc bclbre Marcluk (linc 158). hencc. rn the terms usctl here. the author. 22 B. R. Foster t6l Let the wise and knowledgable discuss(them) together. Let the master repeat (them) to make the pupil understand. " ", " ". Let him open the ears of the shepherd the herdsman He must not neglect the Enlil of the gods. Marcluk. So his land may prosper and he himself be saf'e. (150) *t<* " The explanation (of the names) which the t'irst one discoursedbefore him (Marduk). (157) He wrote down and preservedfor those in the future to hear. [The prais]esof Marduk. he u'ho creatcd the lgigi gods. Let them...,let them invoke his nanre. (160) Let thern noise abroad the song of \{arduk 1". He who subduedTianrat ancl took kinsshin. This passage.in morc indirect stl le than the preceding,conveys many of the same ideas. as the tollori ing elements in common rvill illustrate:[1] summarl of t]re storr iiine 162).[2] referenceto the text as having a human author (line,i lJi). an erplanation or revelation(lines 145. 157) pleasingto its sublect (hne l-s7): [3] is not present.unless a form of iltr is to be restoredat thc beginningol'line 160);[4] the poem "song" is a naming of Mardr.rk(lincs 115. 160):the text is a (line l6l) that future scholarsshould trarr,smitanci understatrdcorrectly (lines 147. Is8). One important diftbrencebetneen the two passagesis that the author " is not named in the Creation Epic but is apparentlyreferred to as the first one". A secondinrptrrtrrrt drffc-rence is that the Creation Epic is an "explanation" "revelation. (or: disclosure")whereas the Erra Epic is a '' ". composition In both instancesthe role of the human author is ambiguous.In the case of the Erra Epic. the text \\'as revealedto the author as a final act of mercy of benevolent Ihum. The text stood as a guarantee that future generationsneed not sulfer so much as those in the poem. becausethey could learn about Erra's wavs through the poem. rather than through personal experienceof his harshness.In the case of the Creation Epic, the text is also presented as if its composition were the climax its own narrative. As the gods proclaimed Marduk's names. each name and its 16 Reading on the basis ol parallelism, rrrTr - tndr muntni or the like'l A morc "father" "son straighttbrward translation with and is also possible.but less likcly. F See CAD M/I. 367b (collation). tll On Authorshin in ,4kkqdian Litcrature ./.-'') " " explanation stood as the text for future generations to concern themselveswith 18. The names are presented as explanations of various roles and accomplishments of Marduk, without which his res gestae would be incomplete and liable to be lorgotten or misconstrued. The naming of Marduk is thereby the text itself. This may be why the author only " " " " " " discusses or discourses the text, but does not compose it. He is not in his view narrating a story but revealing or explaining the significancc of Marduk's names. this with the express approval of " ". Marduk himself. The author, or flrst one mediates the text to succeeding generations, who must make thc eflort to preserve and understand it. The third example is fragmentary, and more problematic (Atrahasis Tablet III col. VIll 9 l6)1e. ki ma ni ii ku lnu tt hu bla a wi lunr ib lu tlu i nu ku ra iif (10) at- ta ma li ik i Ui ra hu til te re ti-ii'[ka) ti ia ab ii GA u[hlp 6)] iu ni-it ti ii fka] an ni a-unt :a nta lraf (1411s) dl li ii-rntt rrut gi S[u] li is si ru nu ar bi ku a'bu ba a na ku ul- lu ot ni ii ti :u om np cr .ii mt u " How we brought about the [flood] " (But) a man survived the [catastrophe], (10) " You, counsellor of the [great] gods, "At [your] command have I brought a... [ ] to be. "This song (is) for your praise. (r4lrs) " May the Igigr-gods hear. let them extol your greatness to each other. " I have sung of the flood to all peoples: " Listen!" "plot Lines 9 l0 are another example of a summary" (compare Creation and Erra Epics [] above): lines l1 12. a refercnce to Enki's intervention in the production of the text (compare Creation and Erra td See Bottero in M. deJ. Ellis. ed.. Es-rutsrtn the Antient Near Eost in Menorr. o/' Jatob .loel Finkelstein (Hamden. CT: 1977). 5ff. re W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard. Atra lasfs, Tht' Babtlonion Stor.t o/ thc F-lood (Oxford: 1969). 10.1.See also von Soden, OrNS 38 [1969],432; Bort6ro. Mvtholo.qit,.554. )A B. R. Foster t8l Epics [2] above); and lines 14 16 a referenceto the other gods' heeding the messageof the tert (compare Erra Epic [3] above). Finally. the text is " " pronounced by the ever conciliatory Enki to be a work of praise for the might of Enlil, executedat his own command (compare Creation and Erra Epics [5] above). The restoration of line 12 is uncertain, but one expectshere a referenceto the composition of the text: the following line would expand this idea by parallelism20. It is probable that Enki is speakingat leastlines 9-12, and perhapsl4 l6 as well" although.here. as in the next example, the poet's speaking voice and that of his divine inspirer are impossible to distinguish grammatically, perhaps deliberately so. A passage in Agushaya alludes to the circunstancesof the text's composition in the context of a blessing on the rei-uningking (col. vii 23 29), and mentions composition of the text againin col. viii ll lJ 21. i lttr runt itt an ni a um :(l ttto ru uttl (23) i clu ut qu ur tli ki tu ni it tu ki i,i ntu nr fltt unt nnt ra bi un ni u onl :u nn frtt antl (26) itrct ltct li.iu ta ni it ki in ne eplu lu .itr trt lu unt ,iu ad da ar hu lu til (2e) As lor the king who heard (frorn me?) (23) This song, your praise. signs of ,vour valor. Hammurabi.in wliosereign (26) (By means of) this song. my praise of you (lshtar; was made, Mav he be sranted life forever! r )q\ " " This refers obliquely to the text as a sign of your (lshtar's) might (line 25, compare Erra Epic [3]). As it appears. the verb used lbr the composition of the text is passive. though the author refers to himself twice in the stanza quoted below: lu no id Littir .iar ra tu i lu tint (t1lt2) A gu ia ia clu un nu ia ki mu te li i I la i i3 ta dSu al ta,ia u,i' iu mi-ia (r5) ihnui.ii', , ". "Lunin; iS.iiiku :0 Follouing Lambert Millard, dictionaries and all translatlons I have seen rcslore "battle" "catastrophc"). qohltanl (C'AD Q. l5f. If this is correct, the referenceto the text begins in the next line. 2r Sec (lroneberg, RA 75 (1981). l27l-.;Bottero. ltl.,.rholttgit,211. tel On Author,shipin Akkudian Literuture 25 i da at du un ni-ia (ltJ) ko h ni- ii it ie ei-nte ub ta.-an ni ta ar bi a ta Sa (20) Let me praise Ishtar, queen of the gods, (l lll2) Agushaya, (whose?)might, like the Capa[ble Lady's... ] Clamorous (?) Saltu, whom Ea the leader, (15) Created on account of her (Ishtar). The signs of her might I/he (18) Made all the people hear, l/he have/has made fair her glorification. (20) In this stanza, a brief sulnmary of the story is givcn (lines 14 l7), compare Creation and Erra Epics t1] and. through grammatical ambiguity (compare above. Atrahasis), the poet seems to attribute both to himself and to Ea the gerresisernd dissemination of his text. as well as its extraordinary art{ulness. A fifth example is found in the Old Babylonian hymn to Ishtar stanzaxiv 22. hi be el li ih hi i la :u tnt ur lu le e .iu ttu ti unt nt(t u n(t pi i .ttt .ti iq ri E tr i ptt i.s .si ei me e me tu ni it tu u .iu i re us ,su li ib ltt ut rni lur ru iu li ru um iu od du ri i.i What she desires,this song for her pleasure, Is indeed rvell suited to his (the king's) mouth, he performed for her Ea's (own) word(s). When he (Ea) heard her praises, he was well pleased with him (the king)lit (the song), " Saying. Let him live long. may his (own) king always love him'". Like the Agushaya poem, this refers obliquely to the excellenceand efficacy of the text in the context of a blessingon the reigning king. Thc " " third line implies that the word of Ea is, in fact. the text itself. It is 22 Thureau-Dangin. RA 22 (1925). 174; for the pclent in general. see von Soden. SAHG, 235fi. no. l: Stephcns. ANE]-3. 3tl3 (incomplete)l Seux. Itttnnas. 39fT.: Hecker. AOAT 8. 771f. A parallel passagcin the OB Hymn to Nanay stanza xi is liagmentary. s They are addressingyou in pravers. Let the text of Ea appeaseyour heart. Let his/its right wording hold 1'ou back on high. Here too the referenceis presumerblvto the great hymn itself rather than to an incantation; hence the u'ording of this prayer is associatedwith the god of wisdom himself. Perhapsthe strangestaccount of authorshipin Akkadian literatureis " ", found at the conclusion of the Vision of the Assyrian Crown Prince wherein a certain scribe claims that he overheard the prince shouting the text in the street and rememberedit without making a mistake (compare above, E,rra Epic, lines 43 44)tt. ka bit tu ti ii as ri i! nlo u\ u lib bi i qah hi ina su u qi iil ta fii.i ti si tttct ep ri .suli re,btti a na pr ii u ,su-ap ri ig ntu gal tu i.i ta nak,kun u, u a lal (31t mi-nu u an na a ti tu ii man ni ia a.ii i.iit as si dltlergol dEre.i qur cli ki-gal ia a nct re-su ti ruhi ma i :i :u 23 Ccrmpare KAR 104. hne 8 (uiarrafi raklri). see Foster. s'1r/(re.rf-inkel.stein.84 note 38. 24 W.G. Lambert. AIO l9 (1959/60),58. For the poem in general,see also von Soden, SAHG,270if. no. 18; Seux. Hvntnes, 172ff.; Sommerf'eld,AOAT 2l-l (t982). l29fT. 25 Livingstone. SAA 3. 76; compare von Soden. ZA 43 (1936\. 18f., see also Speiser. ANET3. 109f.:Labat, Religions.94fl. For temiqu, seethe remarks of Seux, Htnme.s.72 note 19. llll On Author,ship in Akkadiun Literature 27 inu pu-tm ba-fiu lu ti mat A.i iurki mctr si i.i id da lol (32) tt iu it tupiurru (LU . A. BA) ia ina malt re e t(t a' tu int lu ru inu tttun :ul ti uhr iu c :i --rri trttu:- tti tri kil ti ;,r dE ,t u iat li ntu iti (33) eglerrle (INIM. [GAR]) di li li i na lih bi ,iti i.i tlu ud- nta ki a am ina pur ri-iil iq bi nta'u ii iu a dc e o t'tu le mut ti u t it l[u] ni u u i.s ttiq u ni (34) t ] ic1 btr u ep .ii ti ia lu pu tr,i il lik ntu u na ekalli u ia an ni nu o en nu u lu nant hitr hi iu (35) " " He cried out a lament. saying woe is me! He darted out into the street like an arrow and scooped up dirt from alley and square in his mouth. all thc while setting up a frightful clamor. " " Woel Alas! Why have you ordained this lor me? He was shouting in front of the subjects of the land of Assur. Praising in his misery the valor of Nergal and Ereskigal. Who had stood forth to aid the prince. As for him. the scribe who formerly had accepted a present, assuming his father's post. with the astutenessthat Ea bestowed upon him. he took th(ose) words of praise to " heart. saying to himself. Lest disloyalty bring me to ". harm. I must do what [the king?] commanded " So heiI went and reported it to the palace. saying This shall ". be mv orotection from evil It rs tempting to compare this passagewith that of the Erra Epic. Earlier in the vision Ishum interecedesfbr the prince; the text protects the author from harm becausehe did not really write it himsclf. He writes it down out of a sense of duty born of a loyalty oath to the king. The danger to the scribe was the contents of the text. which seemsto portray the prince and perhaps his royal father in uncomplimentary terms. Another indirect rel'erenceto authorship may be found in the Poem of the Righteous SuffererTablet III lines 41ff26. There the dying man. whose name is given for the first time in the poem, has a vision of an 26 See W.G. Lambert. BWL.2llT. For the poem in general,sec also Biggs. ANET3. 596ff'.: Labal. Religiltns, 328ff.; Bottcro, Rechercht'.set Dotuntents du Centre Thontus Morc 7717. l1t1'.:von Soden. MDOG 96 (1965). 4lfi. 28 B. R. Fostet tr2l exorcist carrying a tablet, and one may wonder if the tablet. rather than " " being an ir.rcantation,is in fbct the text of the poem. His peoplc are "sign" skepticalat first27, but a is provided lcrr them. and they believe. fina] ntu na at- ti ii pu ru ,ii pfir ta] it tui clunt cltr tu ni,ii"'"'ict uk ftul lint]. Just as (l) was corning awake. he scnt thc mes[sage]. He reve[aled]his favorable signs to my people. Could the signs,otherwise undefined. be return ol'his eloquence(:this text'l) as part o1' his general recovery? This would thcn be another instanceof a text figuring in its oun narration. Both the motil of retuln of eloqucnce after a period of sutfering and publication in thc day of a messagc received at night arc as old as Enheduana28. while thc phraseology clf this passage parallels both Errii (ntunutti. itrr) and the Creation Epic (uktal litrtl. Assurbanipal'sH.vmn to Assur concludesas follows2e: pule(tsALA.MES) ur ku.iuttitr,(MtJ.AN.NA.MES)lu ni hi (lo') u tt itrr nirt .ii tu nir ti .1.i.itrr(.AN SAR) ti .ial.1.si.s E iur ru lii iu kin inu pi ilu rttt Ttor ku u li put ti Lt--tltl (l2') ln future reigns and rears riithout number. (10') May (this) praise of Anshar not be forgotten, May it keep one mindful of Esharra! May it alwa1,'sbe in (ever1) mouth. (12') May it never ceaseio enlargeunderstanding! The call lor perpetuity and universalunderstanding of the text and stress on the importance ol- its messageare reminiscent of the similar passagesin the Creation Epic [6]. One may suggestthat this passagewas in fact inspired by the Creation Epic. perhaps through its Assyrianized 2'Tablet " III. lines l9fT. (see BWL. 3zlLl):fi qlt lu tnu they were quiel ... [rrr./ /_l.i'] ". i.i ntu nin nl lhey listenedto me in silence... 28 "What tri 1qi"li nu nta ru un tlu,, gu i gulu un N/j /.c,('l) ,nr hu nu ru uh gi, gi, I sardto you at night (- the poem). / May the singer repeat it to vou at nricldav" (Hallo van Dijk. YNER 3 [1968].321.. 62. and note p. 7i). 2e Livingstonc.SAA 1.6; scc iLlsovon Sodcn. SAHG.254if. no. U: Seux. H.trrur<'s901'l' t13l On Author.ship in Akkutliun LiterutLrre 29 version in which Anshar (Assur) is substituted lor Marduk. t-ike the passagefrom the Creation Epic discussedabovc. this hymn speaks of " " " " discfosing and revealing its subject (line I I : lu nu kull lu nte url na u ti\. A more elaborate development of these idea-sis found in another hymn ascribed to Assurbanipal30. dr. t ] .f Sunn.it an nu u i :u unr tuit ru i :uk ku ru :i-kir tdA.i.{urbani upli (21) 'Lt lkul] tLt) nte ,iu ina tu! di u me .iti ri li ir [L' Lt 'u ba lut oEn lii t ] .f id kum nru et1 na u i! I,tu :u ri .iur ru ltu dSrlrrrri ,ltt.t.t,ltr(Dl.KU I iluni'' [,r./ DIN]GIP.' .iu li iiqir .iti e pi.i pi i iir eli tti.ff'"" li tib Stt :u mu rd dn na u Li .iuh tu ltt lu il iur ru ltu dSunai nnr QALAG) iltini""'ruhtiti""' (25) dSurrrui i.ituntt Ai.iur bt\ni upti .ii inu hi ri iq hu u e pi.i iurrilti .iti u.i pi lu ntu iu tttt'.ittrri.iu n(.!ntntLt ittrtnt lrttir lu trp pu ut pit rti .iti L'li triic'"' '(r'ar'. .i'ti) lint ra as "hulri e li lu .iti lu .si li il [The prince u'ho] performs this [song] of Shamash, who pronouncesthe name ol Assurbanipal. (21) May he shepherd in prosperity ancl justice the subiects of Enlil [all] his da1s. [The singer]u'ho mastcrsthis text" who extols Shamash, judge of the gods. May... his god ('l) hold him in good esteem.may his perfbrmance be pleasingto people. He rvho abandonsthis song to obscurity.who does not extol Shamash"light of thc grcat gods. (25) Or who makes substitution1or the name of Assurbanipal. whose assumptionof kingship Shamashcommandcd by oracle. And who names some other king" May his string plal"ing be paintul to people. May his joyful songs be the gouge of a thorn! rr)[bt-lirrg. KAR 105 rer 6 l3 and J6] rer I ll: sec Qutllen I. l51l restorations\url Soclcn.SAHG. l.17ff.no.5; seealso Stephcns.ANET3.3ll6ff.: Seux.l/rrrinc.r.6.lfl'. 30 B. R. Fostet ll 4l This example. like the proceding, seemsto echo the Creation or Erra Epics. While this passage does not state that Assurbanipal wrotc the hymn. it is in the first person and apostrophizesfuture rulers of Assyria (like the Hymn to .,\ssur, above). Its call for preservation of the text. known l'rom both the Erra and Creation Epics, is expanded by makrng the hymn a monumelrt to Assurbanipal as well as a discourse on the nature of Assur. The examples chosen here have enough points in common, despite their thousand year tirne span, to allow one to propose the existenceof a Mesopotamian poetic tradition whereby the author rnight refer to the genesis,divine approval of, composition. authority, and traditing of his text. (a) Genesis.Sr:me examplesimply or state inspiration fbr the text in more or less ambiguous ternts. In the case of Erra, the text was " "; revealed in the Creation Epic. the text was proclaimed during a " " " " ceremony, and was explained or revealed by the author. In Agushaya,Atrahasis. and the hymn to Ishtar. the author's participation was indistinguishablefrom that of the god of wisdom himself. or at least " ". the god caused it to be One suspectsthat in both the Atrahasis and Agusha.va passagesthe ambiguity between the third and first person speaker(god or poet'l) is intentional. (b) Approval. In the casesof Erra and the Creation E,pic.as well as the Ishtar hvmn. the texts were heard and approved by a god. In E,rra and the Vision of the Crown Prince the author insiststhat he did not alter the text liom its original l'orm: in the Creation Epic thc poct rs concerned that future generations will understand the texl correctlv. In Atrahasis the text is made into a command ol Enlil by the artful Ea. " ", " ", (c) Con-rposition is referred to as composing discoursing " ". " ". writing down being made With the exception of Erra, the precise manner of composition and the rcspective role of inspirer and inspired " " are left ambiguous. The text is called a song (:anuTru), that is, "poem", "composition" or a (kumntu). (rl Authority for the text is granted in the form of divine approval, that it find a unique place in the universe. Such authority is referrcd to in Erra, Creation Epic. and implied in Atrahasis,as well as in the Ishtar hymn. T'he text can have lif-e giving (lshtar and Marduk hyrnns). protective (Netherworld Vision), or apotrapaic por.vers(Erra). Its peculiar " " status as a sign of the god its sub-jectis found in both Agushava and Erra. and it may be a sign of the sufferer's recovery in the Poem of the Righteous Sufferer. In the Creation Epic thc tert is glorified as a key for humankind to understand the reorganized universe. Erra and the tl ll 5l On Attthorship in Akkudiun Literature JI Creation Epic constitute acts of mercy by a god. in the case of Erra by a' protagonist (Ishum), in the case of the Creation Epic by Marduk himself. (c) Traditing and dissemination of the text are referred to in Erra. the Creation Epic. Agushaya, Atrahasis, and the Assurbanipal hymns " " both synchronically and diachronically: ali people are supposed to hear it, as well as succeedinggenerations in tinte. Mesopotamian poetic tradition seemstherefore to have had a clearly defir-re 3t Call fbr preservatiott o1' thc text is to be distinguishcd from scribal curses and blessingsin connection with the conservationof' manuscripts. for which see Offner. RA 44 (1950).l35if. JL B. R. Foster tt6l without its initiating inspiration and its mediating author. so too it is impossible without its traditer and appreciative auditor. Authors in Mesopotamian civilization well knew and were wont to recall in their texts that composition was an ongoing, contributive enterprise,in which " ". the author. or first one was present only at the beginning.