BENJAMIN R.

FOSTER

On Authorship in Akkadian Literature

That the names of the authors of major works of Akkadian

literature are unknown seems strange 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 acrostics that spell the namc of the author.
(the
work
of
a
certair.t
Theodicy 3
Examples include the
( E ) s a g g i lk i n a m u b b i b ) a . t h e p r a y e r s o f N a b u u 5 e b 5 i s .a n d t h e a c r o s t i c
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 F r : l r g e n e r a i d i s c u s s i o n so f M e s o p o t a m i a n a u t h o r s h i p . s c e H a l l o . I E J l 2 ( 1 9 6 2 ) . l 3 f i . :
H e c k e r . A r O r 1 5 ( l 9 1 l l . 2 . { 9 f f . .w i t h a c l d i t i o n a lb i b l i o g r a p h l - .
' 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
^ S a r / i .(rP h i l a d e l p h i a : i 9 8 - 5 ) . 1 , 1 . 1 .
5 W . G . L a m b o r l . J A O S l l t i ( l 9 6 l J ) . l 3 0 f f ; S w e e t .O r N S 3 u ( 1 9 6 9 ) . . 1 5 9 1 .
o W . v o n S o d e n . H c r r s r l r c r i n t u l l e n O r i e n , t( B e r l i n : 1 9 5 4 ) . 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 because colophons 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 transmission techniquesmight
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. There is
authors
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.
B e g i n n i n ga t t h e p r i m a r - vl e v e l o f i n q u i r y . o n e c a n p o s e t h e q u e s t i o n .
"
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 B l a c k . A I O 2 2 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . 1 5 4 : c o m p a r e L e i c h t y . S t u d i e s S a c h s( n o t e 4 ) , 2 6 1 ; L i v i n g s t o n e .

:t#:
5d:

..,ii

ir::
Li;

!5r,:
{+:':
!::!
1..:

SAA 3. xii.
B H u n g e r . A O A T 2 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : L c i c h t y , S t u d i c s O p p e n h a i t n( 1 9 6 4 ) . l 4 7 f i .
q
W . G . L a m b e r t ,J C S 1 l ( 1 9 5 7 ) l f f . ; l l 2 : J C S l 6 ( 1 9 6 ] ) , 5 9 f f .
10 Krecher. RLA 5. 478 -185.

t3l

On Authorship in Akkadian Literature

l9

present, one has to answer " yes, always an author ", but then ask. ..one
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.
.iu dEr 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
dl.ium ma
lik ,ii Li ni t1u .iu ttta i,zi tbut ri ba ni i.i
ka sir kunt mi .iu tKab ti-,iloni,,."\dMar 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
i.i nte .iu rtru dEr ra irtr <lu tlrtr pit iri ,ru
.iit dl .ium u lik ntufi ri .iti i tib etr iti
i l a n i ' " "r u t pl u r . i t i n u i n u u d d u i t t i i u
u (vur; i) ki a unt iq tu bi qu ru du d4r ra
ilu,iit:u-ma-ru,ii u iu intt-du inu u.iir ti iil lik ront-tner,ra
h! gdl lunt
i ,ii ti ,iam .sa ktt u u is si rtrt qut rin na
.iarru Sa,iu nti Li,iar bu-il li,he el kib ru u ti
rubi ilt ta nit-ti qur -ru du ti itt i dab hu,bu rnu hi ru a o ir it
\i'n[iru
i i i s a r r a l . 1 uu l i m u t i n a . i i p t i
eli .iorri u rubi da nti iq ut mu .iu
"'1up.(arnt
,id ifi fia zu i .iet ina mc\t t,,nekri i kuh bit
ina ntatL ,iti

(40)

(45)

(50)

(55)

1i rhis judgment is occasionally

h i n t e d a t b y o t h e r s . l b r e x a m p l e . L a n d s b e r g e r ,J N E S
2 0 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . 1 5 4 n o t e l . r v h o r e f ' e r st o t h e " o d d a n d c o n f u s e d d i c t i o n o f t h e p o e t ' . o f t h c
C r e a t i o n E p i c ; a n d R e i n e r . J N E S l 7 ( 1 9 5 8 ) . 4 1 . w h o r e l ' e r st o t h e . ' a w k w a r c l n e s so l . t h e
"
scribc poet of Erra.
12 Ftrr the text. sce I-.
C a g n i , L E p o p e a t l i E r r u . S t u t l i S u r t i t i t ' i- 1 4 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . l 2 6 l T . F o r
c l i s c u s s i o no f i n d i v i d u a l l i n e s a n d o t h e r r e n d e r i n g s , s e e c a g n i , E p o p e a . 2 5 . { l f . l B o t t 6 r o "
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

ti

o
inu btti u .iar tup ptr iri iit ,iak nu Er ru li gug nrtr
dSi hi it rtit
ti,i ci iu
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
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'
(But) Ishum his counsellor calmed him and hc lefi a remnant:
T h e c o m p o s e ro f i t s t e x t w a s K a b t i i l a n i M a r d u k . o f t h e
family Dabibi.
He (the god) revealed it in the nighttrme.
a n d , j u s t a s h e ( t h e g o d t h a d d i s c o u r s e di t
w h i l e h e ( K . ) r v a s c o n l i n g a v n ' a k eh. e ( K . )
omitted nothing at all.
Nor one line did he add to it.
When Erra heard it he approvcd.
W h a t ( b e l o n g e d )t o I s h u m l . r i sI a n g u a r d p l e a s e dh i m '
Al1 the gods werc praising his sign.
Then the warrior Erra spoke thus:
"
ln the sanctuar) of the god u ho honors this pocm.

(60)

(40)

m a y a b u n d a n c eh e a p u P .
" But let the one u'ho neglects it ncver smell incensc.
"
Let the king rvho ertols mv name rule the worid.
"
L e t t h e p r i n c e u h o d i s c o u r s e st h ( i s ) p r a i s e o f m y v a l o r
have no ril'al.
"The
singerwho chants (it) shall not die in pestilence.
"
B u t h i s p e r f b r m a n c es h a l l b e p l e a s i n gt o k i n g a n d p r i n c c .
"
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.
"
"
Let all inhabitants witness and extol my name

(60;

t51
t ' t

On Author.ship in Akkadian Literuture

2l

T h i s p a s s a g ec o n t a i n s [ ] a s u m m a r y o f t h e s t o r y ( l i n e s 4 0 4 l ) . a n d
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 acceptable and
p l e a s i n gt o E r r a , t h e s u b j e c t ( l i n e s 4 5 4 6 ) . T h e r e u p o n , w i t h t h a t d i v i n e
e l c c e p t a n c et h. e t e x t b e c o m e s[ 3 ] a " s i g n " ( 1 f u r 1o)f E r r a ( l i n e 4 7 ) , t h a t a l l
t h e g o d s w i l l h e e d a n d r e s p e c tt o t h e i r a d v a n t a g e( l i n e s 4 9 5 0 ) , a n d t h e n
"naming"
o f E r r a ( l i n e s5 1 " 5 6 . 6 l ) , [ 5 ] a " p r a i s i n g " o f h i m ( l i n e s
[a] a
52. 60). and, a1 last, [6] a " so.g " to be performed as well as studie<Jand
t r a n s r r i t t e di n c e n t e r so i ' l e a r n i n g ( l i n e s 5 3 5 7 ) . A c t u a l m a n u s c r i p t . o
sf the
p o e m c o u l d b e t a l i s m a n sa g a i n s t h a r m ( l i n e s 5 7 5 8 ) r . 3 . I n o t h e r w o r d s .
thc tert of the poem is a manifestation ol' the god its subject.
A seconclpassagc.this one fiom thc end ol- ihe creation Epic. offers
instructive parallels. and could even be the model lbr the Erra passase
(TabletVII lincs 145 162)'1.
li is sub til nu nufi ru u li kul linr
en qLr ntu du u ntit l.1uri.i lim tul ku
li .ili urt ni nn u bu ntu ri li .id li i:
,itti"r<;'u u na qi di li pot tu u u: na iti urt
lu ig gi tnLtu nu dEn lil ikini dfulttrduk
tltet .\u lid di.i .ilt u .iu il lu il .iul nur
tttk lin ti nul,t ru i id hu bu pa nu u.i.iu
i.i rtrr mtt i.i ir kun ttLtu .ii nti e ur ku ti
dMurduk.i/t
ib nu u ildni dlgigt
ftu nit tull at
,\ ,y .r li .i?ut ut tu ti .iu uttr liil) li :uk ru
d,Ylurtluk
[1]i .ia.r s[u nt]u :a tltu nr .iti
[.ii] Ti uttot ik niu mu il qtt u "iur ru ti
T h e y ( t h e f i l i y n a m e s o f N 4 a r d u k )m u s t b e g r a s p e d :
"
"
let the first one r s erplain (them).

(145)

(r50)
(r57)
(160)

il4s)

1:r Scc Reincr. JNES l9 ( 1960). l.+8ll'.

t a C l t t n e i f o r mt e x t i n W . G . L a m b e r l
l n d S . P a r k c r . l : t t t r t r r uI i l i . i . T ' h t ' B u h t l o r t r r r nE p i r o l
Crcution (Oxlbrd: 1966). .16f. For other rendcrinr:s.see Bottiro. ,lltthtthryie. (r-5j, 675;
S p e i s e r ,A N E T 3 . 7 2 .
"
1s cAI) Mi l. l09b rakes this
"
u.ord t. nlear " scni.r .r " elder (c.mparc Labat.
"
l
c
Polnti:. 172 notc 145:
p l u s d i g n e ' ) . u , h e r c a sA H w . 5 t i 6 a l i s t s t h i s o c c u r r e n c e a m o n g
t e r m s r c f ' e r r i n gt o c h r o n o l o g i c a l p r i o r i t v . a s i n t e r p r e t e dh e r e . N o t c t h a t t h e " f l r s t o n c " i s t h c
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

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.

t6l

(150)

* t < *

"
The explanation (of the names) which the t'irst one
d i s c o u r s e db e f o r e h i m ( M a r d u k ) .
He wrote down and preserved for those in
the future to hear.
[The prais]es of Marduk. he u'ho creatcd the lgigi gods.
Let them...,let them invoke his nanre.
Let thern noise abroad the song of \{arduk 1".
He who subduedTianrat ancl took kinsshin.

(157)

(160)

T h i s p a s s a g e .i n m o r c i n d i r e c t s t l l e t h a n t h e p r e c e d i n g , c o n v e y s
many of the same ideas. as the tollori ing elements in common rvill
i l l u s t r a t e :[ 1 ] s u m m a r l o f t ] r e s t o r r i i i n e 1 6 2 ) . [ 2 ] r e f e r e n c et o t h e t e x t a s
having a human author (line,i lJi). an erplanation or revelation(lines
1 4 5 . 1 5 7 ) p l e a s i n g t o i t s s u b l e c t ( h n e l - s 7 ) : [ 3 ] i s n o t p r e s e n t .u n l e s s a
f o r m o f i l t r i s t o b e r e s t o r e da t t h c b e g i n n i n go l ' l i n e 1 6 0 ) ; [ 4 ] t h e p o e m
"song" (line l6l)
i s a n a m i n g o f M a r d r . r k( l i n c s 1 1 5 . 1 6 0 ) :t h e t e x t i s a
t h a t f u t u r e s c h o l a r ss h o u l d t r a r r , s m i a
t n c i u n d e r s t a t r dc o r r e c t l y ( l i n e s 1 4 7 .

Is 8 ) .
O n e i m p o r t a n t d i f t b r e n c eb e t n e e n t h e t w o p a s s a g e si s t h a t t h e a u t h o r
"
i s n o t n a m e d i n t h e C r e a t i o n E p i c b u t i s a p p a r e n t l y r e f e r r e dt o a s t h e
f i r s t o n e " . A s e c o n di n r p t r r t r r r td r f f c - r e n cies t h a t t h e C r e a t i o n E p i c i s a n
"explanation" (or: "revelation.
d i s c l o s u r e " ) w h e r e a st h e E r r a E p i c i s a
".
''
composition
I n b o t h i n s t a n c e st h e r o l e o f t h e h u m a n a u t h o r i s a m b i g u o u s .I n t h e
case of the Erra Epic. the text \\'as revealed to 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 experience of 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

1 6 R e a d i n g o n t h e b a s i s o l p a r a l l e l i s m , r r r T r - tndr muntni or the like'l A morc

"father"
"son
and
i s a l s o p o s s i b l e .b u t l e s s l i k c l y .
straighttbrwardtranslation with
F See CAD M/I. 367b (collation).

tll

On Authorshin in ,4kkqdian Litcrature

./.-'')

"
explanation stood as the " text
for future generations to concern
18.
themselveswith
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
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
li ii-rntt rrut dl 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],
"
You, counsellor of the [great] gods,
"At
[your] command have I brought a... [
] to be.
"This
song (is) for your praise.
"
May the Igigr-gods hear. let them extol your greatness
to each other.
"
I have sung of the flood to all peoples:
"
Listen!"

(10)

(1411s)

(1 0 )

(r4lrs)

Lines 9 l0 are another example of a "plot 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-ruts

rtn 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
( O x f o r d : 1 9 6 9 ) . 1 0 . 1 .S e e a l s o v o n S o d e n , O r N S 3 8 [ 1 9 6 9 ] , 4 3 2 ; B o r t 6 r o . M v t h o l o . q i t , . 5 5 4 .

)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
s p e a k i n ga t l e a s t l i n e s 9 - 1 2 , a n d p e r h a p s l 4 l 6 a s w e l l " a l t h o u g h . h e r e . a s
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
21
23 29), and mentions composition of the text a g a i ni n c o l . v i i i l l l J .
i lttr runt itt an ni a um :(l ttto ru uttl
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
itrct ltct li.iu ta ni it ki in ne eplu
lu .itr trt lu unt ,iu ad da ar hu lu til

(23)

As lor the king who heard (frorn me?)

This song, your praise. signs of ,vour valor.
H a m m u r a b i .i n w l i o s e r e i g n
(By means of) this song. my praiseof you (lshtar; was made,
Mav he be sranted life forever!

(23)

(26)

(2e)

(26)
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
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
',
, ". n;
i h n u i . i i " L u n i i S . i ii k u

( t 1l t 2 )
( r5 )

:0 Follouing Lambert Millard, dictionaries and all translatlons I have seen rcslore
"catastrophc"). If
"battle" (C'AD
t h i s i s c o r r e c t , t h e r e f e r e n c et o t h e t e x t
Q. l5f.
begins in the next line.
2r Sec (lroneberg, RA 75 (1981). l27l-.;Bottero. ltl.,.rholttgit,211.
qohltanl

tel

25

On Author,shipin Akkudian Literuture

(ltJ)

i da at du un ni-ia
ko h ni- ii it ie ei-nte
ub ta.-an ni ta ar bi a ta Sa
Let me praise Ishtar, queen of the gods,
Agushaya, (whose?)might, like the Capa[ble Lady's... ]
Clamorous (?) Saltu, whom Ea the leader,
Created on account of her (Ishtar).
The signs of her might I/he
Made all the people hear,
l/he have/has made fair her glorification.

(20)
(llll2)
(15)
(18)
(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 disseminationof 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
ttu ti unt nt(t u n(t pi i
ei me e me tu ni it tu
li ib ltt ut rni lur ru iu

tnt ur lu le e .iu
.ttt .ti iq ri E tr i ptt i.s .si
u .iu i re us ,su
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 blessing on 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.
A O A T 8 . 7 7 1 f . A p a r a l l e l p a s s a g ci n t h e O B H y m n t o N a n a y s t a n z a x i i s l i a g m e n t a r y . s < r
c o u l c l n o t b e d i s c u s s e dh e r e ( Z i m m e r n , V A S 1 0 . 2 1 5 , e d i t e d b y v o n S o d c n . Z A ' + 4 [ l 9 3 l J ] '
. his
J 2 f T . ; s c c v o n S o d e n . S A H G . 2 3 7 f 1 ' .n o . 2 ; S e u x , I I v n n e s , 4 2 f f . ; H e c k e r , E 7 r k . 8 6 1 T . ) T
may have containcd the same motif.

B. R. Foster

ll0l

not clear whether Ea is pleasedwith the king or the text; grammar favors
the king, but the parallel passagesthe text (:anruru). It is noteworthy that
it is not Anu. Ishtar's spouse. referred to earlier in the poem, who is
pleased here. but the god of wisdom. This indicates that the poet has in
mind the excellenceof his text, whatever the exact meaning of the line 23.
In any case the hymn, fit for a king to recite, uses Ea's own words,
that is, was inspired by him. Here. as in Erra and the Creation Epic. the
poet stops short of saying outright that a god " composed" the text. but
a god was manifestly associatedwith its preparatiolt.
One may compare to this in passing some lines from a " Great
"
Prayer to Marduk 24.
i ta nttt ka irut un nin-tti
,ii-it ru ia dE a ti iap-iil1 lib bu uk kct
te nti qu ,iu e li.i li kil ka

(145)

They are addressingyou in pravers.

Let the text of Ea appease your 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.
P e r h a p st h e s t r a n g e s ta c c o u n t o f a u t h o r s h i pi n A k k a d i a n l i t e r a t u r ei s
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 remembered it 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
mi-nu u an na a ti tu ii man ni ia a.ii i.iit as si
qur cli dltlergol dEre.i ki-gal ia a nct re-su ti ruhi ma i :i :u

23 Ccrmpare KAR

(31t

104. hne 8 (uiarrafi raklri). see Foster. s'1r/(re.rf-inkel.stein.84 note

38.
2 4 W . G . L a m b e r t . A I O l 9 ( 1 9 5 9 / 6 0 ) , 5 8 . F o r t h e p o e m i n g e n e r a l ,s e e a l s o v o n S o d e n ,
S A H G , 2 7 0 i f . n o . 1 8 ; S e u x . H v n t n e s , 1 7 2 f f . ; S o m m e r f ' e l d ,A O A T 2 l - l ( t 9 8 2 ) . l 2 9 f T .
25 Livingstone.SAA 3. 76; compare von Soden. ZA 43 (1936\. 18f., see also Speiser.
A N E T 3 . 1 0 9 f . : L a b a t , R e l i g i o n s . 9 4 f l . F o r t e m i q u , s e et h e r e m a r k s o f S e u x , H t n m e . s . 7 2 n o t e
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

tt iu it tupiurru (LU . A. BA) ia ina malt re e t(t a' tu int lu ru
i n u t t t u n : u l t i u h r i u c : i - - r ri t r t t u : - t t i t r i k i l t i ; , r dE , t

(32)

u iat li ntu iti

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

(33)

u t it l[u] ni u u i.s ttiq u ni

] ic1 btr u ep .ii ti ia lu pu tr,i il lik ntu u na ekalli
t

(34)

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 interecedes fbr 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
o f t h e R i g h t e o u s S u f f e r e rT a b l e t I I I l i n e s 4 1 f f 2 6 . T h e r e t h e d y i n g m a n .
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
7 71 7 . l 1 t 1 ' . :v o n S o d e n . M D O G 9 6 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . 4 l f i .

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"
s k e p t i c a la t f i r s t 2 7 , b u t 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.
C o u l d t h e s i g n s , o t h e r w i s e u n d e f i n e d .b e r e t u r n o l ' h i s e l o q u e n c e( : t h i s
text'l) as part o1' his general recovery? This would thcn be another
i n s t a n c eo f a t e x t f i g u r i n g i n i t s o u n n a r r a t i o n . B o t h t h e m o t i l o f r e t u l n
of eloqucnce after a period of sutfering and publication in thc day of a
m e s s a g c r e c e i v e d a t n i g h t a r c a s o l d a s E n h e d u a n a2 8 . w h i l e t h c
phraseology clf this passage parallels both Errii (ntunutti. itrr) and the
Creation Epic (uktal litrtl.
A s s u r b a n i p a l ' sH . v m n t o A s s u r c o n c l u d e sa s f o l l o w s 2 e :

p u l e( t s A L A . M E S )u r k u . i u t t i t r , ( M t J . A N . N A . M E S
l u) n i h i
.si.sE iur ru
u tt itrr nirt .ii tu nir ti .1.i.itrr(.AN SAR) ti .ial.1
lii iu kin inu pi ilu

rttt Ttor ku u li put ti Lt--tltl

ln future reigns and rears riithout number.

May (this) praise of Anshar not be forgotten,
May it keep one mindful of Esharra!
May it alwa1,'b
s e i n ( e v e r 1) m o u t h .

(lo')
(l 2 ' )

(10')

(12')

M a y i t n e v e r c e a s ei o e n l a r g e u n d e r s t a n d i n g !

T h e c a l l l o r p e r p e t u i t y a n d u n i v e r s a lu n d e r s t a n d i n go f t h e t e x t a n d
stress on the importance ol- its message are 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

"
I I I . l i n e s l 9 f T . ( s e e B W L . 3 z l L l ) :f i q l t l u t n u they were quiel ... [rrr./ /_l.i']
".
i.i ntu nin nl lhey listenedto me in silence...
"What
28 tri
I
1qi"li nu nta ru un tlu,, gu i gulu un N/j /.c,('l) ,nr h u n u r u u h g i , g i ,
(
H
allo van
(
y
o
u
p
o
e
m
)
.
n
r
i
c
l
d
a
v
"
sard to
at night
the
/ May the singerrepeat it to vou at
2'Tablet

D i j k . Y N E R 3 [ 1 9 6 8 ] .3 2 1 . .6 2 . a n d n o t e p . 7 i ) .
2 e L i v i n g s t o n c . S A A 1 . 6 ; s c c i L l s ov o n S o d c n . S A H G . 2 5 4 i f . n o . U : S e u x . H . t r r u r < '9s0 1 ' l '

t13l

On Author.ship in Akkutliun LiterutLrre

29

version in which Anshar (Assur) is substituted lor Marduk. t-ike the

passage from the Creation Epic discussed abovc. this hymn speaks of
"
"
"
"
revealing its subject (line I I : lu nu kull lu nte
discfosing
and
url na u ti\.
A more elaborate development of these idea-sis found in another
hymn ascribed to Assurbanipal30.
dr.Sunn.it an nu u i :u unr tuit ru i :uk ku ru
] .f
: i - k i r t d A . i . { ubr a n i u p l i
'Lt
Lt
lkul] tLt) nte ,iu ina tu! di u me .iti ri li ir [L'
'u
oEn
lii
ba
lut
t
] .f id kum nru et1 na u i! I,tu :u ri .iur ru ltu
, l t t . t . t , l (t rD l . K U I i l u n i ' ' d S r l r r r r i
[,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""'
dSurrruiinu hi ri iq hu u
i.ituntt Ai.iur bt\ni upti .ii
e pi.i iurrilti .iti u.i pi lu ntu
i u t t t t ' . i t t r r i. i u n ( . ! n tn t L ti t t r t n t l r t t i r
lu trp pu ut pit rti .iti L'li triic'"' '(r'ar'. .i'ti) lint ra as
e li lu .iti lu .si li il "hulri
t

(21)

(25)

[The prince u'ho] performs this [song] of Shamash, who

(21)
p r o n o u n c e st h e n a m e o l A s s u r b a n i p a l .
May he shepherd in prosperity ancl justice the subiects
of Enlil [all] his da1s.
[ T h e s i n g e r ]u ' h o m a s t c r s t h i s t e x t " w h o e x t o l s S h a m a s h ,
judge of the gods.
M a y . . . h i s g o d ( ' l ) h o l d h i m i n g o o d e s t e e m .m a y h i s p e r f b r m a n c e
b e p l e a s i n gt o p e o p l e .
H e r v h o a b a n d o n s t h i s s o n g t o o b s c u r i t y .w h o d o e s n o t e x t o l
(25)
S h a m a s h "l i g h t o f t h c g r c a t g o d s .
O r w h o m a k e s s u b s t i t u t i o n1 o r t h e n a m e o f A s s u r b a n i p a l .
w h o s e a s s u m p t i o no f k i n g s h i p S h a m a s hc o m m a n d c d b y o r a c l e .
And who names some other king"
May his string plal"ingbe paintul to people.
May his joyful songsbe the gouge of a thorn!

rr)[bt-lirrg. KAR

1 0 5 r e r 6 l 3 a n d J 6 ] r e r I l l : s e c Q u t l l e n I . l 5 1 l r e s t o r a t i o n s\ u r l
S o c l c n .S A H G . l . 1 7 f f . n o . 5 ; s e e a l s o S t e p h c n s A
. NET3.3ll6ff.: 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 examples imply 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
A g u s h a y a ,A t r a h a s i s .a n d t h e h y m n t o I s h t a r . t h e a u t h o r ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n
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
s p e a k e r( g o d o r p o e t ' l ) i s i n t e n t i o n a l .
(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
Atrahasisthe 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"
(kumntu).
or a
(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
i n E r r a , C r e a t i o n E p i c . a n d i m p l i e d i n A t r a h a s i s ,a s w e l l a s i n t h e I s h t a r
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

ll 5l

On Attthorship in Akkudiun Literature

t l
J I

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
notion of individual inspiration and authorship, as wcll as of a
defir-re<j
pristine text that had not been added to or taken away from- Whereas
moclern literary tradilion stressesthe individual's importance as a matrix
of creative impulse. Mesopotarnian artistic traditlon tended rather to
stress the outside source of the inspiration. Such individual inspiration
made the works in qucstion unique. Indeed. their work's inspired
uniquenesswas stresseclby' poets themselves.in that they dwelt on the
time or occasion ot' the composition of their texts. showing. in some
instances (Creation Epic. Erra). their crowning significance for certain
events of cosmic importance: the texts were the climax of their own
narratives. Their authoritl, was thereby peculiarly enhanced. for the texts
partook of' the events ther described. and became as well a source ol
blessing. prosperity'. securitl'. u'ell being. and knowledge' The effort ol
composition is passed over lightlv: the only hint is the artist's pride at
t h e q u a l i t y o f h i s p r o d u c t3 r .
Seen in this light. the author's name can be given as a detail of the
circumstancesof composition (Erra). or ornitted (Creatign Epic). lndeed.
i t s p r e s e n c e l.s i n t l t c A : s u r b l n i p a l h y m n s . c r e a t e sa c e r t a i n t e n s i o n . i n
"
"
that the texts are supposedto be a naming of their divine subjects(fbr
example Gula. Assur. Erra. Marduk, Ea). Seen as an act of naming or
praise, the text requires the name of the subject praised: the absenceof a
praiser's name gives the text universality that it lacks when it becomesan
individual petition.
The real significanceof the absenceol'an author's name may lie yet
deeper in recognition that performer. traditer, or auditor of the text play
roles no less important than that of the author himself. As was stressed.
the author's inspiration and composition of the text were events
circumscribed in time. Nearly all examples urge the importance of
dissemination and understanding the product. Without this the text is
lost. and the author's achievementnullified. Just as the text is impossible

3t Call fbr preservatiott o1' thc text is to be distinguishcd from scribal curses and
b l e s s i n g si n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c o n s e r v a t i o nof' manuscripts. for which see Offner. RA 44
( 1 9 5 0 ) .l 3 5 i f .

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.