Symmetry and Repetition in Akkadian Narrative

Symmetry and Repetition in Akkadian NarrativeAuthor(s): Jerrold S. CooperSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1977), pp. 508-512Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/598632 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 21:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:20:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/598632?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SYMMETRY AND REPETITION IN AKKADIAN NARRATIVE1

JERROLD S. COOPER

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Several important Akkadian literary texts exist in variant recensions from different historical periods. A diachronic analysis of narrative development based on a comparison of extant parallel sections of these compositions reveals that narrative may be diluted or even distorted by the elaboration of a passage using techniques of parallelism, repetition and symmetry.

A POTENTIALLY VERY PROMISING avenue of in-

sight into the process of creation and transmission of Akkadian literature lies in the close comparison of corresponding passages of Old Babylonian and later versions of the same composition. Despite the fragmentary nature of the various recensions of a given text, it is often possible to compare corresponding passages of considerable length. This has rarely been done, except in very general terms.2 Usually, the later versions are expanded,3 and the tendency toward symmetry and repetition, techniques already prominent in the earlier texts, is more pronounced. In a contribution to the Finkelstein Memorial Volume, an attempt has been made to show that in the Gilgamesh Epic such tendencies can dilute the narrative development of a composition, and even rob it

1 Revised version of a paper delivered at the March, 1976, meeting of the American Oriental Society, at Phila-

delphia. 2 An exception is Lambert-Millard Atra-hasis 38,

containing, by way of example, detailed comparisons of a few sections of the Old Babylonian and Assyrian recensions of Atrahasis. The particularly complex re- censional history of Atrahasis underscores the tentative nature of the comparisons and conclusions drawn in this paper. Eventually, each composition will have to be examined in terms of its own unique literary qualities and history of transmission. But, if the early-late dichotomies set up here seem perhaps too simplistic, the results seem to point to some general patterns of transmission that are both valid and useful in furthering our understanding of the redaction and transmission processes.

3 For exceptions, see e.g., Anzd OB RA 46 92:63-67 condensed to two lines in SB LKA 1 i 10 f.; Gilgamesh I iv 36 f., contracted from Gilgamesh P ii 14-18; and cf. the discussion of Pseudo-Naram-Sin below.

of essential semantic content. The following in- vestigation will pursue this phenomenon with ref- erence to three other Akkadian compositions.4

In the Myth of Anzu, the assembled gods attempt to recruit one of their number to retrieve the Tablet of Destinies stolen by Anzu. Anu, the divine assembly's leader, delivers a standard pitch to three gods in turn, who, in their turn, decline to volunteer.5 Then, much as in Enuma Elig, Ea selects the god who will be their successful champion. In this myth, it is Ningirsu/Ninur- ta, and Ea first calls that god's mother and asks her to approach her son. This she does, and the brave son rides forth to confront the evil bird. However, he is initially unable to overcome Anzu's illegitimate potency, and Ea, using Adad as his intermediary, sends him advice and encouragement, which lead to the battle's successful con- clusion.

Example A6 is Anu's recruiting pitch, in its full SB form. In the OB version of the composition, it consisted of lines 1-4 and 8 only: A line of address and flattery, a line inviting the god to attack Anzu, and three lines-3, 4, and 8-promising fame and pre-eminence as his reward. The original integrity of the three line unit 3, 4, and

4 Note also Lambert-Millard Atra-hasis loc. cit., on the Assyrian recension compared to the OB text: "his [the Assyrian redactor's] account seems to conflate at each occurrence the events of the second, third and fourth attempts of the gods to quiet the human race, which both obscures the plot and pads out the narrative."

5 The Old Babylonian text does not repeat the recruiting pitch the second and third times, but gives only the two introductory lines as an abbreviation of the whole, whose recitation is implied. The SB text gives the entire pitch each time.

6 All examples are at article's end.

508



COOPER: Symmetry and Repetition in Akkadian

8, is underscored by gumka at its beginning and end, and by the following structure: 3) ab; 4) b, a,; 8) a2 b2 a3 [a in each line refers to the god's fame or pre-eminence gumka lirbi, mdhira e targi, Sitrah, gagru lu gumka, and b to the assembled gods ina puhur ilani rabfiti, ina birit ilani ahhika, ina mahri ildni].7 Into this 3-line promise the SB version has inserted three additional lines, (5-7), separating the first two lines of the unit (3 and 4) from their concluding line (8). Two of these new lines (5-6) occur elsewhere in the OB text, when Ea exhorts Ninurta/Ningirsu, and the third (7) has been added by the SB text wherever the other two are used.8

Example B gives the SB text of the last lines of the mother's and Ea's exhortations to Ninurta/ Ningirsu. The mother's exhortation is quite long, and these concluding lines form only a small part of it. But Ea's exhortation is much shorter; there are only four preceding lines which tell the god how to overcome the bird. The asterisks clearly show that the SB version is a conflation of two entirely different OB passages, with a final line (11) thrown in from a third OB passage, the recruiting pitch, just discussed. The mother's exhortation in the OB recension ends with the initial three lines of the SB passage, whereas the later exhortation by Ea ends in the OB recension with lines '4-9. Line 10 is an SB addition,9 and 11, as just mentioned, is from Anu's recruiting pitch. As marked by daggers, B 8-11 is identical to A 5-8; A-8 = B-11, originally the third member of the couplet A 3-4, attached itself to B 8-10 by virtue of those lines' insertion in the SB version into A after A 4.

In both passages A and B, the SB recension is the result of the combination of semantically similar but differently expressed ideas from the OB version. The promise of universal worship of A 5-7 fits nicely after the promise of fame and pre-eminence in A 3-4, and the parallelism of B 1-3 and 5-7 is so obvious that it is difficult to believe they were not originally part of the same passage.

But they were not. The OB version chose to phrase similar ideas differently in different con- texts, whereas the SB text conflates and homoge- nizes, albeit artfully, producing a text in which subtly different expressions become monotonously

7 Note also mdhiru in 4 and mahri in 8. 8 See below, and n. 10. 9 See the following note.

identical. The narrative not only becomes less interesting, but may be impoverished as well. The promise of universal worship (A 5-6 = B 8-9) in the OB narrative is the supreme reward, offered by Ea in his final message of encouragement to Ningirsu. But in the SB text, it becomes an easily offered inducement of Anu, the recruiter, to any god who will volunteer to retrieve the Tablet of Destinies from Anzu. It is then repeated again by Ninurta's mother, so that, when finally uttered by Ea, it has lost any special significance.10

Similar dilution or impoverishment of narration can be observed in the Etana story. Early in the tale, the eagle and the serpent swear friend- ship and mutual assistance. There follows the hunting episode labelled example C. Certain dif- ferences among the three preserved recensions are immediately apparent; the number of sorties increases from 2 to 3 to 4, and the list of animals hunted expands accordingly.ll The MA and SB versions insert the verb ne'u into the eating formula; the MA adds an introductory line, and the MA text also plays with the homonymy of seru "serpent" and seru "plain".'2 But the most important discrepancy lies in the reciprocity that can be found only in the SB version. In the other two, only the serpent hunts, and only the eagle and his children eat. In the SB, however, the two friends alternate, each taking their turns at hunting and eating. The symmetry is appealing as choreography, perhaps, but the dramatic effect of the eagle's subsequent treachery-he eats the

10 A7 = B10, added in the SB version, seems to refer to, and be referred to in Angimdima (see the author's edition. forthcoming in Analecta Orientalia). Thus, the line was probably present in a lost portion of the OB text, and was attracted to this position in the SB recension because of mahdzui in the preceding line, and lirubu and Ekur in B 6.

1 The SB list of animals (rimu, sirrimu; armi, sabdti; sappdru, didanu; nimru, mindinu) can be easily derived from the two OB pairs rimu, Sapparu; nimru, midinu. sirrimu and armu were attracted by rimu; sabitu is the fem. of armu; and diddnu was added to complete a pair with sappdru. The MA list is more problematic, having nothing in common with the OB list (however, see n. 16), but showing instead the NA list's secondary armu, $abitu and didtnu.

12 The lack of the introductory line and the play on $eru in the SB, as well as the animal lists discussed in the preceding note, indicate that there was no simple OB > MA > SB development.

509



Journal of the American Oriental Society 97.4 (1977)

serpent's children-is drastically reduced. It is much more poignant to have your children eaten by a friend whose own children you have unselfish- ly supplied with sustenance, than by a friend who has also done favors for you.13

Our final example is taken from Pseudo-Naram- Sin, that is, the fictional first person inscription attributed to that king. It is known from OB and SB recensions, as well as from Akkadian and Hittite versions from Boghazkoi. Only the SB version is decently preserved, so that corresponding passages between the versions are difficult to identify,14 with one exception. Example D presents Naram-Sin's description of his troops' successive defeats by the enemy in the SB and OB recensions. It has not survived in the Akk. Bogh. fragments, but does survive in the Hittite version. The OB version describes each defeat differently, and breaks the repetition of imtahas dabdd in lines 2 and 4 with the heightening effect of line 6, then returns to imtahas dabdd in the summarizing climax of lines 7f. The climax itself is omitted by the SB, a good example of SB nar-

rative contraction as opposed to the more fre- quently encountered expansion.l5 The SB text also mechanically repeats a single formula after each defeat, substituting identical statements for the varied and increasingly serious descriptions of the OB narrative. The Hittite text uses the OB rather than the SB figures for Naram-Sin's troop strength, but like the SB recension uses a single formula to describe each defeat.

Formulaic repetition and symmetrical composition of parallel episodes are phenomena that could be attributed to oral compositions. But in the case of SB versions of texts already attested in OB, we are dealing with something quite different, and potentially very unsettling. Formulas are repeated gratuitously, without regard to their function in the narrative, and the imposition of symmetry is distorting rather than enhancing. The older texts have been reworked to their dis- advantage, and our opinion of the SB corpus and its academic redactors is disappointingly dimin- ished.

Examplesl6

ANZU17

A. Anu recruits Adad (CT 15 39 ii 35ff. and *1. atta ga?ru DN dapinu aj ini' qabalka

*2. gubriq anzd ina kakkika *3. Sumka lirbi ina puhur ildni rabiti

*4. t **5. t **6. t 7.

ina birit ildni ahhika mdhira e targi libs'ima libbanu parakki ina kibrdt erbetti sitakkana mahiizfka mahdzuka lirubu ana Ekur

t *8. gitrah ina mahri ilanima gaSru lu gumka

*[= OB text]

ipls.; OB: RA 46 88:12ff.) You, mighty, heroic DN, may your onslaught never

falter I Blitz Anzu with your weapon I May your name become great in the assembly of

the great gods I May you have no equal among your brother gods I May (your) shrines appear and be constructed I Establish your sanctuaries throughout the world 1 May your sanctuaries enter the Ekur I Be glorified before the gods, and may your name

be mighty I **[= From OB text of Example B 8f]. t[ = Example B 8-11]

B. Exhortations of Mother and Ea (LKA 1 i 17ff. and iii 39ff. and dupls.; OB: RA 46 92:68ff. and 94:67ff.) *1. gurih napassu anza kuumruma Cut his throat I Defeat Anzu, and *2. 9Srii kappisu ana puzurdti libluni Let the winds carry his wings far off,

13 Cf. Freydank, MIO 17 6. 14 There is a possibility that the OB and SB Akkadian

texts represent different Naram-Sin compositions, which have only the lines discussed here in common (cf. Finkel- stein, JCS 11 87f.). Arguments for a closer relationship between the two will be presented elsewhere.

15 Cf. note 3 above. 16 For bibliography beyond the basic text locations

given here, see Borger HKL, and Hecker, AOATS 8 25 ff. 17 The SB text is given throughout. The corresponding

OB lines are sometimes broken, and have a few inconse- quential variants.

510



COOPER: Symmetry and Repetition in Akkadian

bitug ekur ana ser abika enlil Sade qerbissunu rihis dullihma lemna anzd ikis napsassu garriutu lirubu ana ekur ana abi alidika lituru parsi

To Ekur, to your father Enlil I Overwhelm and disrupt the mountains' interior, and Slit the throat of evil Anzu I May sovereignty (re)enter the EkurI May the powers return to the father that engendered

you I t **8. libsuma libbanui parakki May (your) shrines appear and be constructed t **9. ina kibrdt erbetti Sitakkana mahdziika Establish your sanctuaries throughout the world I t 10. mahdazuka lirubu ana ekur May your sanctuaries enter the Ekur I t***11. sitrah ina mahri ildnima gasru lu Be glorified before the gods, and may your name be

sumka mighty I

[= OB only in Mother's exhortation] ** = [OB only in Ea's exhortation] ***[= From OB text of Example A 8]

t[= Example A 5-81

C. ETANA hunting episode (OB: Bab. 12 pl. XIII 8ff.; MA: LKA 14 i 15ff.; SB: Bab. 12 pl. I 21 ff.) OB 1. rima Sappdra seru ibdramma The serpent hunted wild bull and wild ram, and

erd ikul ikulu marusu The eagle ate, its children ate, nimram mindinam seru ibaramma The serpent hunted leopard and tiger, and

2. eru ikul ikulu mdrugu The eagle ate, its children ate. MA

seru ittasi ibdr The serpent went out to hunt: 1. ...18 didani sa seri / seru ibarramma The serpent hunts .. . and bison of the plain, and

eru ekkal ine'e / ekkalu marusu The eagle eats, turns aside, its children eat. 2. armi sabdti sa seri KI.MIN Male and female gazelles of the plain ditto

ler]u ekkal ine'e KI.MIN The eagle eats, turns aside, ditto 3. [bil19] seri nammasi KI.MIN [Beastsl of the plain, creatures of the earth ditto

[eru] ekkal ine'e KI.MIN The eagle eats, turns aside ditto SB 1. rimu sirrimu eru ibarram[ma] The eagle hunts wild bull and wild ass, and

seru ikkal ine'u ikkalu maru[iu] The serpent eats, turns aside, its children eat. 2. armi sabdti seru ibarramma The serpent hunts male and female gazelles, and

eru ikkal ine'u ikkalu mdru[su] The eagle eats, turns aside, its children eat. 3. sappdri didani eru ibarramma The eagle hunts wild ram and bison, and

seru ikkal ine'u ikkalu mdrusu The serpent eats, turns aside, its children eat. 4. nimra [mi]ndin qaqqari seru ibarramma The serpent hunts leopard and tiger of the ground,

and [era ikkal ine']u ikkalu m&drisu The eagle eats, turns aside, its children eat.

D. PSEUDO-NARAM-SIN (OB: JCS 11 85 iii; SE OB

[. .. 3 siusi limi ummdna usesiamma] 1' imtahas dabda ul izi[b . . .] 2' ina Sant 2 siusi limi ummdna ujssiamma 3' imtahas dabdd umalli sera 4' ina galgi 1 suii limi ummdna ue.siamma 5' eli sa pCna uwatter gudti 6' iStu 6 guli limi ummini iniru

18 CAD s.v. darubu sees the da-ru-be here as a possible corruption of OB and SB Sapparu. Sauren, CRRA 19

3: An St 5 102) SB 84. sattu mahritu ina kagadi 85. 2 susi lim ummani usesima

ina libbisunu isten balfu ul itura 86. ganitum sattu in kaaddi 90 lim KI.MIN

87. galustum gattu ina kasddi 60 lim 7 me KI.MIN

468 n. 15 emends to taruhhi. 19 Or umam.

*3. **4. **5. **6. **7.

511



Journal of the American Oriental Society 97.4 (1977)

7' imtahas dabdd rabia 8' andku essihi ennigi 88 9' akdd dnah daug amtima [In the first year, I sent out 180,000 troops, 84

but] 1' He inflicted a defeat-none escap[ed alive]. 85

2' In the second (year) I sent out 120,000 86 troops, but

3' He inflicted a defeat-he filled the plain 87 (with corpses).

4' In the third (year), I sent out 60,000 troops, but

5' He made it (the defeat) even worse than before. 6' When he had killed 600,000 troops- 7' He inflicted quite a large defeat- 8' I grew perplexed, confused, 88 9' Distressed, dejected, tired and weak.

essehu ennigu akad ad?u utdanih

When the first year arrived

I sent out 120,000 troops, but none among them returned alive. When the second year arrived, 90,000 ditto

When the third year arrived, 60,700 ditto

I grew perplexed, confused, distressed, worried and dejected.

512

.

i.



Documents

Symmetry and Repetition in Akkadian Narrative