481 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXV N° 5-6, September-December 2018 482
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
481 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXV N° 5-6, september-december 2018 482 oral performance before an audience.3) This evidence, which concerns the oral aspect of the Ugaritic epic, stands along- side studies that rely on the use of formulaic verses in order to argue that this or that ancient work were composed or performed orally.4) But an oral tradition may be the source of a written text, and conversely — a written text may be the source of oral poetry; moreover, the two traditions may influence each other.5) Therefore the formulaic style of the AqhatEpic, and of the Ugaritic epics generally cannot by themselves serve as proof that a specific work was composed orally, or that it was intended to be performed orally. One can hypothesize that the consolidation of the work’s written form was influenced by an existing oral tradition, and that the scribe initially intended the work to be recited orally.6) The claim that Aqhat was performed orally, and was initially meant to be thus performed, is strongly affirmed by a literary examination of the epic’s third tablet. Interpreting and understanding the text of the third tablet presents formidable challenges, and this is perhaps the reason that the Epicof Aqhat has been translated so many times. In most cases, the translations and annotations reflect a variety of difficulties related to the tablet’s state of preservation, the limits of our linguistic knowledge, and the text’s particular character and poetic form. In order to understand the surviv- ing fragments of the third tablet, we must take into account not only what is written on it, but also what we know about the literary genre, its purpose, and its social, political, sapi- ential-didactic functions, interalia.7) As I shall show below, 3) E.L. Greenstein, “The Role of the Reader in Ugaritic Narrative”, in: “AWiseandDiscerningMind”:EssaysinHonorofBurkeLong (eds. R.C. Culley and S.M. Olyan; Providence, RI: Brown University, 2000), 142, and n. 17. This line may have referred to a certain section of the epic (the sacrifice made by Danel at the end of the mourning period, CAT 1.19, col. iv 22-25), and its intention was to guide the person reciting or singing to expand on the text that is written in shorthand. See D.P. Wright, Ritual inNarrative:TheDynamicsofFeasting,Mourning,andRetaliationRites SUSPENSE IN THE EPIC OF AQHAT: intheUgariticTaleofAqhat(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 203. A REEXAMINATION OF TWO PASSAGES 4) The repetitive formulae in Aqhat led Aitken to the conclusion that the work was originally composed orally and only later put into writing. OF CAT 1.19 K.T. Aitken, “Oral Formulaic Composition and Theme in the Aqhat Nar- rative”, UF 21 (1989): 1-16; Cf. R.C. Culley, OralFormulaicLanguage Dr. Shirly NATAN-YULZARY intheBiblicalPsalms (Near and Middle East Series, 4; Toronto: Univer- Gordon Academic College sity of Toronto Press, 1967); B. Alster, Dumuzi’sDream. AspectsofOral PoetryinaSumerianMyth, (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyri- ology, 1; Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag, 1972). The edge of the third tablet of the EpicofAqhat (CAT 5) R. Finnegan, OralPoetry.ItsNature,SignificanceandSocialCon- 1.19) shows the following inscription: “And here one returns text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 165; S.B. Noegel, to the story” (whndt.yṯb.lmspr).1) This note was probably “Mesopotamian Epic”, in: ACompaniontoAncientEpic (Blackwell Com- 2 panions to the Ancient World. Literature and Culture; ed. J.M. Foley; Mal- meant to guide the person performing or reciting the epic, ) den: Blackwell, 2005), 244. and furnishes proof that the written text was the basis of an 6) Finnegan (OralPoetry, 166) and Niditch (S. Niditch, OralWorldand WrittenWord:AncientIsraeliteLiterature [Library of Ancient Israel; Lou- isville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996], 40-41) mention a similar phenomenon in ancient Greece and Rome and also in medieval Europe. 1) The Ugaritic tablets are referenced according to their numbering in Jensen argues that there was a collaboration between a singer and a scribe. Parker’s edition: UgariticNarrativePoetry(SBLWAW, 9; ed. S.B. Parker, M.S. Jensen, “Performance”, in: ACompaniontoAncientEpic (Blackwell trans. M.S. Smith, S.B. Parker, E.L. Greenstein, T.J. Lewis and D. Marcus, Companions to the Ancient World. Literature and Culture; ed. J.M. Foley; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Malden: Blackwell, 2005), 50-51. Cf. B. Alster, “Interaction of Oral and 2) I employ the terms “performer” or “poet-narrator” or even “poet- Written Poetry in Early Mesopotamian Literature”, in: MesopotamianEpic performer-narrator” to signify a person who both narrates the story and Literature:OralorAural? (eds. M.E. Vogelzang, and H.L.J. Vanstiphout; performs it orally. In light of research on formulaic oral poetry, one may Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press, 1992), 45-50. also regard this person as the author (see e.g., A.B. Lord, TheSingerof 7) For a discussion of the purpose and role of ancient epic poetry, see Tales [Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature, 24; Cambridge: Harvard e.g. M. Sasson, “Literary Criticism, Folklore Scholarship, and Ugaritic University Press, 1964], and additional works mentioned below, note 4.) Literature”, in: UgaritinRetrospect:FiftyYearsofUgaritandUgaritic According to Lord’s model, the performer-poet-narrator re-creates the work (ed. G.D. Young; Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 96-98; L. Honko, every time he sings or recites it. Although the AqhatEpic is a written work, “Epic and Identity: National, Regional, Communal, Individual”, OralTra- this does not prove that it had only one fixed version performed from dition 11 (1996): 18-36; Jensen, “Performance”, 48, 50 and other studies a frozen written text. See, S. Natan-Yulzary, “The Use of Resumptive Rep- published in J.M. Foley, ACompaniontoAncientEpic(Blackwell Com- etition for the Construction of Time and Space in the Ugaritic Epic of panions to the Ancient World. Literature and Culture; Malden: Blackwell, Aqhat”, UF 48 (2017): 375-376. 2005). Kirta and Aqhat have a sapiential-didactic and moral-religious 483 SUSPENSE IN THE EPIC OF AQHAT 484 ושדי several elements combined are crucial for interpreting the Ginsberg suggested amending the Massoretic text (following the Ugaritic parallel.15 ושרע תה(ו)מ(ו)ת to תרומות -text and the plot of Aqhat: examination of the story contin uum and language of the epic, the literary features of the The parallel has exerted an influence on the interpretation epic, as well as taking to account the epic work as a “mode of the tricolon and its meaning in the Ugaritic context. Sig- of total communication” presenting an “ideal expression” of nificant disagreement emerged concerning the interpretation a culture, which performs a communicative function con- of the preceding verse, which includes the word yṣly, whose necting the audience with the poet-narrator (or: performer of meaning is much disputed (CAT 1.19, col. i 38-40).16) poetry or recitation).8) The communicative function of two passages of the epic 38-40 apnk.dnil.mt/rpi. Now Danel, man of Rapiu, yṣly.῾rpt.b/ḥm.un. Adjures the clouds in the awful poem of Aqhat is illuminated once the above elements are 17 considered.9) In these passages, the poet-narrator-performer heat, ) addresses his audience, making them partners to his creative According to one view, Danel, the hero, cursed the clouds work. This address serves to produce irony, curiosity, and and the water sources because of the murder of his son suspense in the story. Interpreting the epic in this manner Aqhat, and thus brought upon the land a long and devastating removes some of the difficulties encountered by earlier trans- drought.18) According to a different view, Danel prayed or lations and exegesis. The discussion also contributes to the cried out to the clouds and water sources, in an attempt to resolution of the longstanding debate as to the interpretation undo the effects of the drought.19) These differing interpreta- of the verse that parallels David’s curse of Mount Gilboa. tions led to varying determinations of where the hero’s speech begins and ends20). A. Are Danel’s words in CAT 1.19, col. i 44-46 a curse or a blessing? The third tablet of Aqhat contains the famous parallel to TextsfromUgarit (The Biblical Seminar 53; London/New York, 20022), 296, n. 203-205. Cf. Baal, CAT1.4 col. vii 25-31. David’s curse of Mount Gilboa: “O hills of Gilboa, / Let 15 there be no dew or rain on you, / Or bountiful fields” (2 Sam ) H.L. Ginsberg, “A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1 21”, JBL 57 (1938): 10 209-213. For further discussion of the Biblical parallel, suggested emenda- 1:21). ) The Hebrew text is somewhat obscure, but the tions of MT and bibliographical references, see, Wyatt, ReligiousTexts Ugaritic text is clear (CAT 1.19, col. i 42-46): fromUgarit, 296, n. 203; A. Avishur, “The Curse of the Earth and the Malediction of the Dew: The Curse of Danil (1 Aqhat I 38-42) and Its 42-44 šb῾.šnt/yṣrk.b῾l. Seven years Baal is absent,11) Parallel in the Bible, Talmudic, and Akkadian Literature”, in: Comparative ṯmn.rkb/῾rpt. Eight, the Rider of the Clouds:12) StudiesinBiblicalandUgariticLanguagesandLiteratures (Tel-Aviv Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publication, 2007), pp. 162-163, 169, 173-176. 44-46 bl.ṭl.blrbb/ No dew, no downpour, 16 13 ) The root ṣ-l-y attested in several Semitic languages, denotes both “to bl.šr῾.thmtm. No swelling of the two deeps, ) curse” and “to pray” (J.C. de Moor, “A Note on CTA 19 [1 Aqht]: I.39- bl/ṭbn.ql.b῾l. No welcome voice of Baal.14) 42”, UF 6 [1974]: 495; Y. Blau – S.E. Loewenstamm, “Ugaritit ṣly ‘qilel’”, Leshonenu 35 [1971]: 8-9 [Hebrew]).