Persuading the Divine: On the Composition of Hittite Prayers 3447119497, 9783447119498

Citation preview

Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, von Elisabeth Rieken und Daniel Schwemer Band 69

Lidewij E. van de Peut

Persuading the Divine On the Composition of Hittite Prayers

2022

Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

Lidewij E. van de Peut PERSUADING THE DIVINE

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, von Elisabeth Rieken und Daniel Schwemer Band 69

Lidewij E. van de Peut

Persuading the Divine On the Composition of Hittite Prayers

2022

Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Gefördert durch die Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, im Rahmen des vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bonn/Berlin, dem Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Weiterbildung und Kultur Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz, dem Hessischen Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, Wiesbaden, und dem Bayerischen Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, München, finanzierten Akademienprogramms.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de/ abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at https://dnb.de/.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/ © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2022 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCentrum AG Printed in Germany ISSN 0585-5853 eISSN 2702-0002 ISBN 978-3-447-11949-8 eISBN 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

CONTENTS Illustrations ..............................................................................................................................

IX

Tables .........................................................................................................................................

XI

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... XIII Bibliographical Abbreviations ........................................................................................ XIII General Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... XVI Symbols ................................................................................................................................ XVII Preface ....................................................................................................................................... XIX 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................

1

1.1 Some Remarks on the Corpus, Methodology and Terminology ...................... 1.2 Previous Studies .......................................................................................................... 1.2.1 On the Composition of Hittite Prayers .......................................................... 1.2.2 On Hittite Rhetoric ............................................................................................. 1.3 Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating ................................................................... 1.3.1 A Very Concise History of Hittite Palaeography ........................................ 1.3.2 Chronological Developments in Tablet Shapes and Formats ................... 1.3.3 Hittite Palaeography .......................................................................................... 1.3.4 On Palaeographic Criteria and Selected Diagnostic Sign-forms .............

2 4 9 13 15 16 18 19 22

2. Towards a Definition and Typology of Hittite Prayer ...............................................

31

2.1 Approach ....................................................................................................................... 2.2 Defining Hittite Prayer .............................................................................................. 2.3 A Basic Typology of Hittite Prayer ......................................................................... 2.4 Independent Personal Prayers versus Prayers within a Ritual .........................

31 34 36 41

3. The Corpus of Hittite Prayers ..........................................................................................

45

3.1 Prayers within a Ritual .............................................................................................. 3.2 Independent or Personal Prayers ............................................................................ 3.3 Original Tablets and Copies ..................................................................................... 3.3.1 On Original Tablets and Contemporary Copies .......................................... 3.3.2 On Later Copies ................................................................................................... 3.3.3 Reading from the Tablet: the Case of KBo 7.28+ (CTH 371) ..................... 3.4 Text Structure .............................................................................................................. 3.5 Text Designations and Colophons .......................................................................... 3.6 Arguments ....................................................................................................................

45 49 57 58 59 61 74 80 88

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

VI

Contents

4. A Unique Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu .......................................................................

93

4.1 A Scribe Praying for the Royal Family .................................................................. 4.2 A General Prayer for Well-being ............................................................................ 4.3 An Instruction to Pray for the Royal Family and Its Implications ..................

93 94 97

5. The Use and Function of Proverbs ................................................................................. 101 5.1 Argument ...................................................................................................................... 5.1.1 ‘The Bird retreats …’ .......................................................................................... 5.1.2 ‘To a Woman of the Birth-stool …’ ................................................................ 5.1.3 Identification of the Constituents or the Application of the Proverb .... 5.1.4 An Additional Argument? ................................................................................ 5.2 Strengthening the Argument ................................................................................... 5.2.1 The Proverbial section ....................................................................................... 5.2.2 Framing the Proverbial section ....................................................................... 5.2.3 The Introductory Statement ............................................................................. 5.2.4 Concluding Remarks .......................................................................................... 5.3 Confession .................................................................................................................... 5.3.1 The Proverb with its Introduction and Application ................................... 5.3.2 Structuring a Powerful Confession ................................................................ 5.4 Findings .........................................................................................................................

103 103 105 106 112 115 127 128 130 132 134 137 139 143

6. The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and Related Prayers ..... 145 6.1 A Group of Closely Related Prayers ....................................................................... 6.2 Relative Chronology .................................................................................................. 6.3 Structure ........................................................................................................................ 6.4 Parallels .........................................................................................................................

145 147 150 151

7. The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins .................................................... 155 7.1 Introduction Proper .................................................................................................... 7.1.1 Direct Address ..................................................................................................... 7.1.2 Instruction to Perform the Prayer .................................................................. 7.1.3 Reconstruction of the Precursor ..................................................................... 7.2 Invocation ..................................................................................................................... 7.2.1 Structure ............................................................................................................... 7.2.2 Variants ................................................................................................................. 7.2.3 Relationship to the Evocation Rituals and Disappearing God Myths .... 7.2.4 A Request to Summon the Gods in CTH 381 ............................................... 7.3 ‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage .............................................................................................. 7.3.1 Structure ............................................................................................................... 7.3.2 Descriptions of Good Behaviour towards the Addressee ......................... 7.3.3 Relationships between the ‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passages .................................. 7.3.4 A Possible Precursor: the ‘Only in Ḫatti’ Motif in CTH 375 .................... 7.3.5 The ‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage in Later Prayers? .............................................

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

156 158 158 159 161 165 166 171 179 179 187 190 191 192 204

Contents

7.4 Hymn ............................................................................................................................. 7.4.1 Parallel Hymns .................................................................................................... 7.4.2 Textual History ................................................................................................... 7.5 Findings .........................................................................................................................

VII 206 207 218 222

8. A Plea in Three Parts ......................................................................................................... 227 8.1 Plea I: Introductory Requests ................................................................................... 8.1.1 Parallels and Textual History ........................................................................... 8.1.2 Findings ................................................................................................................. 8.2 Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies ...................................................... 8.2.1 Relationship to CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III .................................................. 8.2.2 Structure and Rhetoric ....................................................................................... 8.2.3 Relationship to the Plague Prayers of Muršili II .......................................... 8.2.4 The Textual History of the Wishes to Reveal a Past Offence ................... 8.2.5 Further Parallels .................................................................................................. 8.2.6 Findings ................................................................................................................. 8.3 Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity ................................. 8.3.1 Structure, Rhetoric, and Relationship to CTH 377 ...................................... 8.3.2 Parallels within the Corpus of Hittite Prayers ............................................. 8.3.3 Parallels in Rituals for a Disappearing Deity and Their Implications .... 8.3.4 Findings ................................................................................................................. 8.4 An Instruction to the Congregation ....................................................................... 8.5 Findings .........................................................................................................................

228 229 232 232 233 235 240 243 251 254 255 256 261 263 275 275 278

9. The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context ... 281 9.1 Structure and Rhetoric of CTH 376.II ..................................................................... 9.2 Structuring Mechanisms and Rhetorical Strategies in Hittite Prayers ........... 9.3 Reusing Older Prayers: the Textual History of CTH 376.II ............................... 9.3.1 Similar Methods: the Composition of CTH 374 and CTH 372 ................. 9.3.2 The End of Reusing Entire Prayers and the Rise of the Confession ....... 9.4 The ‘Afterlife’ of CTH 376.II ..................................................................................... 9.4.1 Reuse of Textual Material from CTH 376.II in Later Prayers ................... 9.4.2 Reusing Textual Material from Other Prayers ............................................. 9.4.3 Findings .................................................................................................................

281 285 289 293 297 298 298 299 303

10. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 305 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 309 I. Catalogue of Hittite Prayers ............................................................................................. 311 I.1 Prayers within a Ritual (Nos. 1–4) ........................................................................... I.2 Independent or Personal Prayers (Nos. 5–24) ....................................................... I.3 Hittite Prayers Arranged by Catalogue Number .................................................. I.4 Hittite Prayers Arranged by CTH Number ............................................................

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

311 312 319 320

VIII

Contents

II. A Middle Hittite Prayer concerning Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I) ................. 321 II.1 Text Edition ................................................................................................................. 324 II.2 Tablet Format of KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 (A) ........................................................ 335 III. A Fragmentary Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.III) ...................... 337 III.1 Text Edition ................................................................................................................ 338 III.2 Tablet Format of KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121 .............................. 344 IV. The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) ................. 347 IV.1 Text Edition ................................................................................................................ 348 IV.2 Tablet Format of KUB 24.3+ (A) ............................................................................ 369 V. The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) ............................................................ 373 V.1 Text Edition ................................................................................................................. 374 V.2 Tablet Format of KUB 24.1+ (A) ............................................................................. 386 V.3 Tablet Format of KUB 24.2 (B) ................................................................................ 388 VI. KBo 22.78 ............................................................................................................................ 391 VII. Privat 35 ............................................................................................................................ 393 VIII. The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers .................. 397 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 423 Index of Cited Hittite Texts .................................................................................................. 443

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Textual history of the introduction proper with instruction ....................... Figure 2. Textual history of the hymns in CTH 376.II and CTH 377 ............................ Figure 3. Relationships between Plea II of CTH 376.II and related pleas ................... Figure 4. Relationships between passages with wishes to reveal a past offence ...... Figure 5. Textual history of KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′ and CTH 377 50′–51′ ................... Figure 6. Textual history of CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377 ....... Figure 7. Relationships between CTH 372, CTH 373, and CTH 374 ............................ Figure 8. Lower part of the obverse KUB 24.4+ with ruling and Randleiste .............. Figure 9. Beginning of the paragraph lines after KUB 24.4+ rev. 13, 15, 17 ............... Figure 10. Wedge head within the ruling after VBoT obv. 3‴ ........................................ Figure 11. Part of the ruling after VBoT 121 obv. 11‴ ..................................................... Figure 12. End of KUB 24.3+ i 28′ ......................................................................................... Figure 13. Part of the intercolumnium of KUB 24.3+ obverse ....................................... Figure 14. Beginning horizontal ruling after KUB 24.3+ ii 55 ....................................... Figure 15. Beginning horizontal ruling after KUB 24.3+ ii 60 ....................................... Figure 16. End of the horizontal ruling after KUB 24.3+ ii 44 ....................................... Figure 17. Double ruling after KUB 24.1+ iv 18, preceding the colophon .................. Figure 18. Part of the ruling after KUB 24.1+ iii 15′ ......................................................... Figure 19. Part ruling after KUB 24.1+ i 17 ........................................................................ Figure 20. KUB 24.2 reverse, lower end .............................................................................. Figure 21. Selected attestations of AḪ ................................................................................ Figure 22. Selected attestations of ḪAR ............................................................................. Figure 23. Selected attestations of AG ................................................................................ Figure 24. Selected attestations of AL ................................................................................. Figure 25. Selected attestations of AR ................................................................................. Figure 26. Selected attestations of AZ ................................................................................. Figure 27. Selected attestations of UG ................................................................................ Figure 28. Selected attestations of BI ................................................................................... Figure 29. Selected attestations of DA ................................................................................ Figure 30. Selected attestations of ID .................................................................................. Figure 31. All attestations of DI ............................................................................................ Figure 32. Selected attestations of KI .................................................................................. Figure 33. Selected attestations of DU ................................................................................ Figure 34. Selected attestations of E .................................................................................... Figure 35. All attestations of GAD ....................................................................................... Figure 36. Selected attestations of URU .............................................................................. Figure 37. Selected attestations of UN ................................................................................ Figure 38. All attestations of SAG ........................................................................................

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

160 221 234 248 267 291 297 336 336 345 345 370 370 371 371 371 388 388 388 389 398 399 400 400 401 401 402 402 404 405 406 406 407 408 408 409 410 410

X

Illustrations

Figure 39. Selected attestations of KÙ ................................................................................. 411 Figure 40. All attestations of ZU ........................................................................................... 411 Figure 41. All attestations of EL ............................................................................................ 412 Figure 42. All attestations of RU ........................................................................................... 413 Figure 43. Selected attestations of EN ................................................................................. 414 Figure 44. All attestations of GI ............................................................................................ 414 Figure 45. Selected attestations of ḪA ................................................................................. 415 Figure 46. Selected attestations of IG ................................................................................... 416 Figure 47. Selected attestations of LI ................................................................................... 417 Figure 48. All attestations of SÌLA ........................................................................................ 417 Figure 49. All attestations of SAR ......................................................................................... 418 Figure 50. Selected attestations of ŠA .................................................................................. 419 Figure 51. Selected attestations of GA ................................................................................. 419 Figure 52. Selected attestations of TA ................................................................................. 420 Figure 53. Selected attestations of TAR ............................................................................... 421 Figure 54. All attestations of Ù .............................................................................................. 422

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

TABLES Table 1. Participants in the prayers: addressee, beneficiary, and speaker ................. Table 2. Reasons to compose and perform the prayers and their goals ...................... Table 3. Prayers preserved in multiple and single text witnesses ................................ Table 4. Text witnesses of MH independent or personal prayers ................................ Table 5. Text witnesses of NH independent or personal prayers ................................. Table 6. Overall Structure KBo 7.28+ (CTH 371) .............................................................. Table 7. Detailed structure KBo 7.28+ § 5′, § 8′, and § 9′ ................................................ Table 8. Distribution of abbreviated and not abbreviated paragraphs in litany ....... Table 9. Attested textual elements in the prayer proper ................................................ Table 10. Attested textual elements that were not recited ............................................. Table 11. Use of explicit and implicit arguments in Hittite prayers ............................ Table 12. Structure CTH 377 ................................................................................................. Table 13. Parallel formulation of proverb and application + request in CTH 381 .... Table 14. Identification of the constituents of the proverb with the bird .................. Table 15. Identification of the constituents of the proverb in CTH 384 ..................... Table 16. Parallel formulation of the additional arguments in CTH 384 .................... Table 17. Parallel structures of passages with a proverb as explicit argument ......... Table 18. Identification of the constituents of the proverb with the sin (waštul) ..... Table 19. Parallel formulation of the proverb and application in CTH 378.2 ............ Table 20. Structure KUB 14.8 rev. 10′–19′ (CTH 378.2) ................................................... Table 21. Identification of the constituents of the proverb-like statement ................ Table 22. CTH 376.II and closely related prayers ............................................................. Table 23. Dates of CTH 376.II and closely related prayers ............................................ Table 24. Overall Structure of CTH 376.II .......................................................................... Table 25. Parallels to the textual elements of CTH 376.II in related prayers ............. Table 26. Parallels between CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377 ....... Table 27. Attestations of the elaborate prayer introduction .......................................... Table 28. Structure of the invocation .................................................................................. Table 29. Linguistic and orthographic variants in the invocations .............................. Table 30. Parallel requests for attention in the invocation and Plea I ......................... Table 31. Possible whereabouts of the summoned deity ................................................ Table 32. Overview of textual parallels to the invocation .............................................. Table 33. Structure of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage ............................................................ Table 34. Detailed structure of ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage Section I .................................. Table 35. Distinguishing features of the sections in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage ...... Table 36. Structure of the passage with ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375 ................. Table 37. Distinguishing features of CTH 375 Sections A, B, and C ........................... Table 38. Structure of the hymn in CTH 376.II and CTH 377 .......................................

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

50 51 57 59 60 71 72 73 76 81 90 95 107 109 111 113 133 138 139 140 142 146 149 151 152 153 155 165 167 170 176 178 188 189 190 201 202 206

XII

Tables

Table 39. Parallels in CTH 374 and CTH 372 to the solar hymn of CTH 376.II ......... 219 Table 40. Textual markers indicating the beginning of a (sub)section ........................ 224 Table 41. Structure Plea I of CTH 376.II .............................................................................. 228 Table 42. Structure Plea II of CTH 376.II and the plea of CTH 376.I ............................ 236 Table 43. The use of contrast and historical contrast in Plea II Section 3a ................. 237 Table 44. Structure Plea II Section 1 with distribution of direct addresses ................ 239 Table 45. Structure of Plea III of CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ iii 1′–43′) .............................. 256 Table 46. Structure of the plea of CTH 377 (ll. 50′–88′) ................................................... 258 Table 47. Overall structure of the plea of CTH 376.II ...................................................... 261 Table 48. Textual parallels to Plea III (CTH 376.II and CTH 377) in rituals ............... 274 Table 49. The function of the sections of CTH 376.II ...................................................... 282 Table 50. Markers indicating the beginning of a (sub)section in CTH 376.II ............. 284 Table 51. Structure of CTH 373 with distribution of references to the beneficiary... 294 Table 52. Structure of CTH 372 with distribution of references to the beneficiary... 295 Table 53. Comparison of the structures of CTH 372, CTH 373, and CTH 374 ........... 296 Table 54. Variants between the plea of CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II Plea I ................... 333

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

ABBREVIATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS /a, /b, etc. AA AAA AAWLM ABoT 1 ABoT 2 ABS AfO AMD ANEM ANET AnSt AOAT AOAT 318

AOATS AoF ArOr AuOr BAR-IS BBVO BCBO BiOr Bo BoSt BM BSL

Inventory numbers of the Boğazköy tablets Archäologischer Anzeiger Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology Akademie der Wissenschaen und der Literatur, Mainz. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschalichen Klasse Kemal Balkan. Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy tabletleri, Istanbul, 1948. Rukiye Akdoğan. Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy tabletleri II / Boğazköy Tablets in the Archaeological Museum of Ankara II. CHDS 1, 2011. Archaeology and Biblical Studies Archiv für Orientforschung Ancient Magic and Divination Ancient Near East Monographs James B. Pritchard (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton, 1950. Anatolian Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament Manfred Hutter and Sylvia Hutter-Braunsar (eds.). Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. Akten des religionsgeschichtlichen Symposiums “Kleinasien und angrenzenden Gebiete vom Beginn des 2. bis zur Mie des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr.” (Bonn 20.-22. Februar 2003). AOAT 318. Münster, 2004. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Sonderreihe Altorientalische Forschungen Archív Orientální Aula Orientalis. Revista de estudios del Próximo Oriente Antiguo British Archaeologicial Reports - International Series Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient Biblioteca de ciencias bíblicas y orientales Bibliotheca Orientalis Inventory numbers of the Boğazköy tablets Boghazköi-Studien Inventory numbers of tablets in the collection of the British Museum Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

XIV

Abbreviations

Ignace J. Gelb† et al. (eds.). e Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2010. CHD Hans G. Güterbock†, Harry A. Hoffner† et al. (eds.). e Hiite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980–. CHDS Chicago Hittite Dictionary, Supplements CoS William W. Hallo† and K. Lawson Younger Jr. (eds.). e Context of Scripture. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997–2016. CTH Emmanuel Laroche, Catalogue des textes hiites. Paris: Klincksieck, 1971 (with supplements in RHA 30 [1972]: 94–133 and RHA 33 [1973]: 68–71); now expanded and revised in the online Catalog der Texte der Hethiter of the Hethitologie-Portal Mainz: S. Košak, G.G.W. Müller, S. Görke, and Ch. Steitler, hethiter.net/: Catalog (2020-01-27), . CUSAS Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology DAAM Documenta Antiqua Asiae Minoris DBH Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie DBH 43.2 İlknur Taş, Hethitische Texte in Transkription Bo 8264-Bo 8485, Autographien, DBH 43.2, Wiesbaden, 2017. FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FHG Emmanuel Laroche, ‘Fragments hittites de Genève’, in: RA 45 (1951) 131–38, 184–94; RA 46 (1952) 42–50. FHL Jean-Marie Durand and Emmanuel Laroche, ‘Fragments hittites du Louvre’, in: Mémorial Atatürk: Études d’archéologie et de philologie anatoliennes, Synthèse 10, Paris, 1982, 73–107. H Inventory numbers of tablets excavated at Tell-Hadad HBS Herders Biblische Studien HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik HED Jaan Puhvel. Hiite Etymological Dictionary. Trends in Linguistics. Documentation. Berlin; New York; Amsterdam: Mouton; de Gruyter, 1984– 2021. HEG Johann Tischler. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar, IBS 20, Innsbruck, 1977–2016. hethiter.net/: CTH … : online text editions of the Hethitologie-Portal Mainz available at www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HPM/txthetlink.php. HHW Johann Tischler, Hethitisches Handwörterbuch. Mit dem Wortschatz der Nachbarsprachen, 2nd corrected edition [1st edition 2001], Innsbruck, 2008. HKM see Alp 1991a HW Johannes Friedrich, Kurzgefaßtes hethitisches Wörterbuch. Kurzgefaßte kritische Sammlung der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter. Indogermanische Bibliothek, zweite Reihe: Wörterbücher, Heidelberg, 1952–1966. HW2 Johannes Friedrich†, Annelies Kammenhuber† et al. (eds.). Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Zweite völlig neubearbeitete Auflage auf der Grundlage der CAD

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliographical Abbreviations

XV

edierten hethitischen Texte. Indogermanische Bibliothek, zweite Reihe: Wörterbücher, Heidelberg, 1975–. IBoT İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri(nden seçme metinler), Istanbul, 1944, 1947, 1954; Ankara, 1988 IBS Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft IF Indogermanische Forschungen IJDL International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction IM Istanbuler Mieilungen IOS Israel Oriental Studies JAC Journal of Ancient Civilizations JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, Leipzig, 1916–1923; Berlin, 1954–. Konkordanz Silvin Košak. Konkordanz der hethitischen Keilschritafeln, OnlineDatenbank Version 1.94, . KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi, Berlin, 1921–1990. LAPO Litératures anciennes du proche-orient MDOG Mieilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellscha zu Berlin MVAeG Mieilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellscha OA Oriens Antiquus OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Or Orientalia OrNS Orientalia Nova Series PIHANS Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul = Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul PIHANS 119 Elena Devecchi (ed.). Palaeography and Scribal Practices in Syro-Palestine and Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age: Papers read at a Symposium in Leiden, 17–18 December 2009, PIHANS 119, Leiden, 2012. PP La parola del passato, rivista di studi antichi Privat Hittite tablets in private collections, numbering follows the Konkordanz RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale RGTC Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften. RHA Revue hiite et asianique RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie (und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie) RSO Rivista degli Studi Orientali SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization SMEA Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici StAs Studia Asiana StBoT Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten StBoTB Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, Beihefte

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

XVI StMed THeth TTKY TUAT TUAT NF UAVA VBoT VO VSNF WAW WO WVDOG ZA ZDMGS

Abbreviations

Studia Mediterranea Texte der Hethiter Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Neue Folge Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Albrecht Götze (ed.). Verstreute Boghazköi-Texte. Marburg, 1930. Vicino Oriente Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Neue Folge Writings from the Ancient World Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Zeitschri für Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS 1, 2, 3 abl. acc. act. adj. adv. all. c. cf. Ch. col. conj. dat.-loc. DN EPI gen. GN imp. impf. instr. iter. l. , ll. l.e.

first, second, third person (in morphological analysis) ablative accusative active (voice) adjective adverb allative common (gender) confere Chapter column conjunction dative-locative divine name elaborate prayer introducetion genitive geographical name imperative imperfective instrumental iterative line, lines left edge

LNS lo.e. MH mp. MS ms., mss. fn., fns. n. NH nom. NS obv. OH OS part. pl. PN postpos. prs. prt. ptc. refl. rev. sg.

Late New Hittite Script lower edge Middle Hittite medio-passive (voice) Middle Hittite Script manuscript, manuscripts footnote, footnotes neuter (gender) New Hittite nominative New Hittite Script obverse Old Hittite Old Hittite Script participle plural personal name postposition present (tense) preterite (tense) particle reflexive particle reverse singular

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Symbols

XVII

SYMBOLS ? !

na erasure

[ ] [( )] ⸢ ⸣ 〈〉 〈〈 〉〉 x [x x] ( )

reading of the sign is doubtful emendation or unusual signform signs written over an erasure erasure (in transliteration) encloses lost text encloses restorations according to duplicate text encloses damaged but legible signs scribal omission erroneous scribal insertion illegible sign (in transliteration) indicates the amount of signs (x) that could fit in a gap encloses words not expressed in the source language, but added for a sound English translation or to clarify the meaning

+

between fragments: fragments join directly; after a single fragment: adjoining other fragment(s) listed elsewhere (+) fragments join indirectly / end of line (in transliteration) // duplicate manuscript → text continues in the same line (in transliteration) 𒑱 Glossenkeil § horizontal ruling; paragraph in a cuneiform text * reconstructed form = separates enclitics (in bound transcriptions and grammatical glosses) Cursive text in translations indicates untranslated words or uncertain meanings or restorations.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

PREFACE This book is a revised edition of my doctoral dissertation submitted in September 2017 to the Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaen of the Freie Universität Berlin and defended in February 2018. The dissertation was written under the supervision of Jörg Klinger and Markham J. Geller. The research was conducted within Research Group C-1 of the Excellence Cluster 264 Topoi. The PhD programme was part of the Berlin Graduate School for Ancient Studies (BerGSAS). The idea for this research originated in Leiden. At Leiden University I wrote my MA thesis on Akkadian and Hittite prayers under the supervision of Willemijn Waal and Wilfred van Soldt. That was when I first became intrigued by the fascinatingly complex and seemingly irregular structure of Hittite prayers. This study on the composition of Hittite prayers is in some ways a continuation of that MA thesis. First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisors Jörg Klinger and Mark Geller for their supervision, advice and support throughout the entire process. It was a great pleasure to learn from their experience and knowledge. Among other things, Jörg Klinger showed me how to conduct a palaeographical analysis of Hittite tablets. Mark Geller always made me keep an open mind and a wider scope. I thank the Excellence Cluster 264 Topoi for their financial support, without which this dissertation could not have been written, and for all the opportunities that they offered. The multidisciplinary environment of Topoi was a rich and stimulating place to conduct research. Unfortunately, it is not possible to mention everyone here. I would especially like to thank Cale Johnson, Lucia Raggetti, and Stefanie Rudolph for their feedback on my ideas and the many discussions we shared. They were a great source of inspiration. To Mervyn Richardson I owe many thanks for his corrections and comments on the English of an earlier version of this book. All remaining mistakes are, of course, my own. I would like to thank Christopher Metcalf and Isabella Czyzewska for making their doctoral dissertations available to me prior to publication. I also thank Susanne Görke for sharing her unpublished MA thesis with me. Daniel Schwemer I thank for sharing his edition of the Akkadian version of Utu the Hero from Ortaköy with me before its publication. I am excited to publish my work as part of the StBoT series and I am grateful to the editors, Elisabeth Rieken and Daniel Schwemer, for this opportunity. I also thank them and Charles Steitler for their support during the publication process. I want to thank Gerfrid Müller for his advice and the permission to use the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv in this publication. Furthermore, I owe thanks to Willemijn Waal and Alwin Kloekhorst for all their support during my studies and thereafter. They were the ones who introduced me to

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

XX

Preface

the amazing world of the Hittites, their language and culture, and who believed in me. Without their encouragement I may never have continued in Hittitology. I would also like to thank the late Han de Roos for all his support. His endless enthusiasm for Hittitology was infectious and will never be forgotten. Above all, I want to thank Kaira Boddy for her support and friendship throughout the entire process, including all the ups and downs. Our numerous conversations, usually over a good cup of coffee, helped me to write and finish this book. I am happy to have shared this amazing experience with her from the very first day. I am more than grateful to Cǎtǎlin for all his support and patience, especially during the preparation of the final manuscript. Last but certainly not least, I want to thank my parents Aart and Annemarie for their endless support and encouragement, every step of the way. Leiden, October 2021

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

1. INTRODUCTION The Hittite prayers have all been found in the Hittite capital city Ḫattuša, modern Boğazkale/Boğazköy. Since these tablet collections belonged to the Hittite state institution, also the prayers concern the Hittite state and royal family. In most cases the beneficiary or supplicant is the Hittite king. Through his so-called “personal” prayers the king could address the gods directly and request their assistance in times of trouble. These relatively long texts were not liturgical prayers belonging to the daily cult. Instead, they were created for one specific occasion and may describe historical events that are not always known from other sources. For instance, we learn from the “First” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.1) that Šuppiluliuma I was a usurper.1 The prayers do not seem to follow a fixed structure or to be a collection of traditional formulas. Instead, many prayers appear to have their own individualistic style and structure. These and other characteristics make the corpus of Hittite prayer unique in comparison to other prayer corpora and a fascinating object of study. The present study aims to answer the following question: How was a Hittite personal prayer composed? Through textual, structural, and comparative analysis three related aspects are examined: (1) the rhetorical function of prayers, (2) the internal structure of the texts, and (3) the extent to which older prayers have been reused to create new ones. The corpus of twenty-four texts listed in Appendix I forms the basis for the study. The composition of the Hittite personal prayers is examined by reviewing the text corpus as a whole (Chs. 3 and 9) and two detailed case studies (Chs. 5–9). In addition, a definition and typology of the genre is established (Ch. 2) and the unique status of the Prayer to Telipinu (CTH 377) within the corpus of Hittite prayers is discussed (Ch. 4). The first case study concerns the use and function of proverbs in prayer. The structures of passages in which this special rhetorical device is employed, are carefully analysed and compared in Ch. 5. The second case study presented in Chs. 6–9 deals with the composition of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, referred to as CTH 376.II in the present study, and a group of closely related prayers. CTH 376.II was selected because it is a clear example of a prayer that has been created by reusing the text of older prayers in their entirety. Large portions of Muršili II’s prayer are shared with the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II (CTH 377), the Middle Hittite Prayer against plague and enemies, referred to as CTH 376.I in the present study, and a Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies, referred to as CTH 376.III. These prayers thus provide a unique opportunity

1

Klengel 1999: 148.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

2

Introduction

to examine how older prayers could be reused while ensuring that the text retained its rhetorical function and a logically sound structure. The overall structure of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sungoddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and the text’s relationships to CTH 377, CTH 376.I, and CTH 376.III are treated in Ch. 6. The relative dates of the separate compositions and their text witnesses are treated here as well. A comparative overview of selected diagnostic signforms employed in the four primary text witnesses is presented in Appendix VIII. More detailed textual, structural, and comparative analyses are conducted in Chs. 7 and 8. The function, structure, and origins of the elaborate prayer introduction of CTH 376.II and other prayers of Muršili II are examined in Ch. 7. Subsequently, in Ch. 8, the plea of CTH 376.II is analysed with a focus on its function, its structure, and its relationships to parallel sections in other Hittite prayers and rituals. In Ch. 9 the findings on the structure, rhetoric, and textual history of CTH 376.II are brought together and compared to what we find in the other prayers in the corpus. All discussed prayers and prayer passages are edited in Appendices II–VII or within the chapters.2 The conclusions of the case studies and the review of the entire corpus of Hittite prayer are presented in Ch. 10. Before embarking on this endeavour, it is necessary to define the corpus and clarify some of the terminology and methodology employed in this study (Ch. 1.1). Previous studies on the subject are discussed in Ch. 1.2 and the dating of Hittite tablets through palaeography is addressed in Ch. 1.3.

1.1 SOME REMARKS ON THE CORPUS, METHODOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY The Hittite texts and fragments generally classified as prayers are listed in the online Konkordanz as CTH 371–389. Two more prayers are listed among the historical texts as CTH 70 and CTH 72. Beside these prayers written in the Hittite language for Hittite purposes, prayers written in other languages such as Akkadian and Hurrian,3 as well as Hittite translations of such prayers have also been unearthed in Ḫattuša.4 The present study focuses on the first group of prayers written in the Hittite language (CTH 371–389, 70, and 72). A catalogue of these texts is presented in Appendix I.5 The 2 3

4

5

Unless indicated otherwise, all presented transliterations and translations are made by the author. Akkadian: KUB 37.36 + KUB 37.37 (CTH 312.1, see Reiner and Güterbock 1967), CTH 795, DAAM 2.6 (CTH 792, see Schwemer and Süel 2021, 17 31); bilingual Sumerian and Akkadian: KUB 4.11 (CTH 793, see Klinger 2010: 328–30), KBo 7.1+ (CTH 794, see Cooper 1972); Sumerian: KUB 4.7 (CTH 801.3, see Klinger 2010: 337f., Viano 2012); Hattic: CTH 735; Hurrian: CTH 777.8 (see Wilhelm 1991). On Mesopotamian texts in Ḫattuša and their reception, see e.g., Schwemer 2013, Klinger 2012b, Klinger 2010, Sassmannshausen 2008, Archi 2007, Klinger 2005a, and Beckman 1983. See pp. 37f., Metcalf 2015a: 81–94, Singer 2002a: 3, Wilhelm 1994: 70, de Roos 1995: 2002, and Güterbock 1978a: 128. On Hittite translations in relation to original Hittite texts in general, see Singer 1995. Only relatively well-preserved prayers have been incorporated in the catalogue. Throughout this book the prayers are referred to by their CTH numbers and occasionally also by their catalogue number in

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Some Remarks on the Corpus, Methodology and Terminology

3

definition of prayer formulated in Ch. 2.2 is based on the shared characteristics of these twenty-four texts. A general overview of the genre is presented in Ch. 3. Throughout this study ‘text’ is used to refer to a (written) composition. A text may have been written down more than once. The terms ‘text witness’, ‘witness’, and ‘manuscript’ are used interchangeably to refer to such a written version of a text. Since the Hittite prayers are written on clay tablets, the terms ‘tablet’ and ‘clay tablet’ are used with the same meaning. The term ‘precursor’ refers to a composition from which a later text or text passage has derived. The precursor’s text may have been altered freely or followed more closely. Either way, the precursor and the later text are two separate compositions. The connection between the precursor and the later text (passage) that derives from it does not need to be direct, i.e., there may be multiple intermediary stages of transmission. The precursor is not to be confused with the Vorlage, which is the tablet from which a text was copied. The Vorlage and the copy are two witnesses of the same composition. It is important to distinguish between the ‘act of praying’ and the ‘prayer-text’ that is uttered either aloud or in silence during the act of praying. While the term ‘prayer’ can refer to both aspects, in the present study ‘prayer’ refers to the text that gives the words of the prayer-text to be recited (see also Ch. 2). Various actors play a role in the prayers and their performance. The ‘addressee’ is the deity or deities to whom a prayer is directed. The ‘beneficiary’ of a prayer is the person or persons who will benefit from its performance. In the prayer the addressee is requested to help the beneficiary. The ‘supplicant’ is the person who is praying and is thus referred to in the first person. When he prays for his own well-being, the supplicant and the beneficiary are the same individual. Sometimes it is indicated at the beginnig of the text that someone other than the supplicant, who we may refer to as the ‘speaker’ or ‘reciter’, pronounces the prayer on behalf of the supplicant. In most cases this is not indicated and it remains unclear whether or not the supplicant recites the prayer himself. Throughout the present study ‘composer’ is used for the person who created or composed the text. The term is preferred over ‘author’ since questions of (individual) authorship do not seem to have played any role for the prayers or within the Hittite scribal circles.6 Some scholars have ascribed the authorship of personal prayers, in my view erroneously, to the king who is praying.7 The king probably commissioned the composition of a new prayer and he may have given specific instructions to the composer to include certain information or topics. However, one of the conclusions

6 7

Appendix I. Concordances between the CTH numbers and the numbering in the catalogue can be found in Appendices I.3 and I.4. Cf. Gordin 2015: 120–21 incl. fn. 486. E.g., Güterbock 1964: 111 (concerning prayers of Muršili II), Singer 2002a: 14, de Roos 1995: 2000 (concerning CTH 378.2), Hoffner 2013: 148, Rieken 2016: 276 (concerning CTH 384), cf. Singer 2002a: 7. On the king as an author, see the remarks of Hoffner 2013: 152f. On Kantuzili as the author of his prayer, see p. 52, fn. 201.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

4

Introduction

of this study is that learned scholars, referred to as DUB.SAR, ‘scribe’, in the texts, were probably the ones who composed the personal prayers in our corpus and wrote them down.8 This study focuses on the rhetorical function of the prayers, their text or discourse structure, and how these relate to each other. Rhetoric is understood as persuasion through verbal communication whether spoken or written.9 The structural approach to prayer employed and the relating terminology – ‘text unit’, ‘section’, ‘subsection’, and ‘textual element’ – deserve clarification. In a text, each sentence can convey a different type of message. For instance, we may distinguish questions from promises and from the description of a past event. Grammatical features and the choice of words determine the type of message conveyed by a sentence. The structural analysis of the prayers has been conducted on this micro-level of the sentence, but also on larger levels. The term ‘text unit’ refers to a sentence and occasionally to the even smaller unit of the (subordinate) clause. One could also refer to these as ‘discourse units’. Different types of text units have been identified in prayers on the basis of grammatical features and the vocabulary used. Descriptions of the most common text units attested in prayers are given in Ch. 3.4. Formal criteria and content are also used to divide a text into ‘sections’ and ‘subsections’, which we may refer to as the meso-level of structural analysis. A (sub)section can consist of one or more text units. On the macro-level of structural analysis, a prayer can be divided into different ‘textual elements’, which can consist of one or more sections. The term ‘textual element’ refers to a part of the prayer that has a specific function within the text as a whole. Next to colophons and text designations (see Ch. 3.5), which were not recited, these five textual elements are attested in Hittite prayers: introduction (proper), invocation, ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, hymn, and plea (see Ch. 3.4).

1.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES Early studies on Hittite prayer focussed primarily on the publication of the texts. The first editions of Hittite prayers appeared not long after the decipherment of the Hittite language by Hrozný in 1915. As early as 1916 Böhl published an edition of the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381).10 In 1921 Sommer edited KBo 2.9 (CTH 716), a ritual with a prayer to Ištar of Nineveh. A few years later a translation of this same

8 9

Daues and Rieken (2018: 305) have independently come to the same conclusion. Cf. Hoskisson and Boswell (2004: 65) who define Assyrian rhetoric ‘as the artful use of writing to persuade or influence people’. Falkowitz (1980: 27–29), referring to the Sumerian proverb collections, seems to have an even broader understanding of rhetoric, describing rhetoric as concerning ‘the management of discourse (or, ways of saying things) together with its imaginative and emotional content’ (id. 29). 10 Böhl 1916: 302–26. He edited A KUB 6.45 and B KUB 6.46.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Previous Studies

5

text by Friedrich appeared.11 Friedrich also published a translation of KBo 4.6, the Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 380).12 In 1928 Ehelolf discussed hymns to Telipinu and the Sun-goddess of Arinna presenting parts of it in translation.13 A few years later Walther published these tablets as KUB 24.1–4. Ehelolf apparently considered these tablets to present separate versions of the same text, even though the addressees differ: KUB 24.1 and KUB 24.2 (CTH 377) are directed to Telipinu, but KUB 24.3 (CTH 376.II) and KUB 24.4 (CTH 376.I) to the Sungoddess of Arinna and the gods.14 He did already suggest that this group of prayers was largely dependent on Babylonian precursors.15 Götze and Gurney were the first to conduct philological studies of groups of related prayers. Götze (1929) published full editions of four prayers of Muršili II concerning a plague in Ḫatti (CTH 378.1–4). He coined the term ‘Pestgebet’ to refer to these compositions and tried to establish the order in which the prayers may have been composed, numbering them accordingly. Today these texts are still known as the “first”, “second”, “third”, and “fourth” plague prayer. Götze’s numbering of the texts is, however, only maintained as a convention, for it is no longer considered to reflect their chronological order.16 Gurney (1940) made a combined edition of KUB 24.1, KUB 24.2, KUB 24.3, and KUB 24.4, the same texts as discussed by Ehelolf in his article from 1928. Gurney realised that the four tablets belonged to at least three separate compositions, but considered it unnecessary to make separate editions for each text. He argued that KUB 24.3 (CTH 376.II) was created by combining two separate compositions: the text of KUB 24.4 (CTH 376.I) had been inserted into a prayer addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna that was similar to the prayer to Telipinu (CTH 377).17 A new detailed study of this group of prayers is presented in Chs. 6–9. 11 Friedrich 1925: 20–22. This prayer within a ritual is not included in the corpus of Hittite prayers listed in Appendix I. It is an evocation ritual in which Ištar of Nineveh is asked to come from wherever she may be. A small passage from this ritual is edited on p. 270. More recent editions of the text are Archi 1977 and Fuscagni 2012. For an English translation, see Collins 1997: 164f. 12 Friedrich 1925: 19f. 13 Ehelolf 1928. Other early partial translations of the hymn to the Sun-goddess of Arinna in KUB 24.3, are Forrer 1929: 149f. and Götze 1933: 128 (second improved edition Goetze 1957: 136). 14 Cf. the comments of Walther on the relationships between these four tablets in his ‘Vorwort’ to KUB 24. These four tablets are now considered to have belonged to three separate prayers. 15 Ehelolf 1928: 34b. 16 Singer 2002a: 48f., Klinger 2012a: 479. 17 Gurney 1940: 9. It is remarkable that CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II are still edited together in the later editions of Lebrun (1980: 155–79), García Trabazo (2002: 289–303), and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1), often without clear indications that they are two separate compositions. The Konkordanz recently (2017) changed the CTH numbers of these compositions in accordance with the online edition of Rieken et al. (2016), listing both texts under CTH 376.1. This likewise gives the appearance that they are not to be distinguished. However, though CTH 376.I is almost identical to a part of CTH 376.II, it is a shorter prayer of an earlier date (MH), see Ch. 6 and Ch. 8.2.1. To distinguish clearly between the two compositions, the CTH numbering of these texts in the present study deviates from the Konkordanz (see p. 314, fn. 989). Separate editions of CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377 are presented in Appendices II, IV, and V.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

6

Introduction

Over the years many more editions and studies of individual prayers have been published.18 Translations of Hittite prayers have also been included in various compendia of Ancient Near Eastern and Hittite literature.19 In 1980 editions of practically all Hittite prayers appeared by the hand of Lebrun. Editions of selected prayers are included in the compendia of Hittite religious texts of García Trabazo (2002) and Mouton (2016). In 2002 Singer published an anthology of Hittite prayers, presenting the texts in English translation. In his introduction Singer presents an overview of the genre. Recently, editions of CTH 371–389 have been made available online by Rieken et al. (2016). Earlier overviews of Hittite prayers are Furlani and Otten 1957, Houwink ten Cate 1969, Güterbock 1978a, and de Roos 1995. The treatises on Hittite religion of Popko (1995) and Taracha (2009) have separate sections on prayer. The work on the history of Hittite religion by Haas (1994) only sporadically treats some prayers in passing. A preliminary comparison with Biblical prayers has been conducted by Greenberg (1994). Sanders (2007, 2011) compared several arguments presented in Hittite prayers to arguments in Biblical and, to a lesser extent, Babylonian prayers. A comparison of Hittite and Greek prayers has been conducted by Bachvarova (2002: 129–72). Metcalf (2015a) compared Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, and Greek hymns and prayers. Singer (2005) surveys the notions of responsibility for committed transgressions, or ‘sins’,20 as reflected in Hittite prayers. In another article (ibid. 2004) he discusses fair and unfair punishment. He argues that it was considered particularly unfair when a son was held responsible for his father’s transgressions, even when the gods were the ones imposing the punishment. It was in contradiction with the decree of king Telipinu that only the guilty individual should be punished for his crimes and not his household. Nonetheless, the gods clearly considered that ‘the sin of the father comes upon his son’.21 The first study on Hittite prayer terminology was that of Laroche (1964–65), and today this work is still of great importance. He analysed the meaning and usage of the different terms that were generally considered to constitute words for ‘prayer’ at the time: i.e., the verbs wek-, mald-, arkuwai-, mugai-, talliya-, and walliya- and the nouns wekuwar, malduwar, malteššar, arkuwar, mugawar, and mukeššar. He argued that each of these terms has its own distinct meaning and that arkuwar, malduwar, and mugawar refer to specific types of prayer. Laroche considered arkuwar to be a general word for ‘prayer’, whereas he understood mugawar as a more specific term meaning ‘entreaty’. A similar distinction between the two terms is maintained by

18 E.g., Friedrich 1957, Güterbock 1958, von Schuler 1965: 152–67, Houwink ten Cate and Josephson 1967, Cornelius 1975, Marazzi and Nowicki 1978, Sürenhagen 1981, Tischler 1981, Hoffner 1983, Singer 1996, De Martino 1998, Kassian and Yakubovich 2007, Torri 2010, Miller 2014, Schwemer 2015. 19 E.g., Goetze 1950a, Kühne 1975: 187–96, Christmann-Franck 1989, de Roos 1983, Bernabé 1987: 237– 303, Ünal 1991, Beckman 1997a, and Klinger 2013. 20 The Hittite term waštul is often translated as ‘sin’. In the present study a more neutral translation without any religious connotations, i.e., ‘offence, misdeed’, or ‘transgression’, is preferred. 21 KUB 14.8 rev. 13′ (CTH 378.2), for which see Ch. 5.3.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Previous Studies

7

Singer (2002b: 307; 2002a: 5f.), who translates mugawar as ‘invocation’. He uses the term to refer to a group of three prayers within a ritual.22 Lebrun (1980: 414–49) thought that all the terms discussed by Laroche, including talliyawar and walliyatar, referred to different prayer types. De Roos (1995: 1999–2002) considers arkuwar, mugawar, and walliyatar as separate prayer types that can be combined in a single text. He calls the arkuwar a ‘prayer of defence’, which is not attested before Muršili II (ibid. 1999). The prayer terms have also been interpreted by scholars such as Sürenhagen (1981) and Singer (2002a: 5f.), as referring to different parts of the overall prayer. Singer understands arkuwar as a word for prayer and as referring to the plea of a prayer, whereas mugawar and mukeššar ‘invocation, entreaty’ would also refer to the accompanying invocation ritual which can be written on a separate tablet.23 He believes that there was no designation for the hymn of praise, though the verb walliya- ‘to praise’ does refer to the praising of a deity. According to Singer not all elements need to be present in each prayer.24 According to Justus (2004: 273–76) the different terms designate separate elements of the prayers as well as specific types of prayer. In a recent reassessment of the Hittite prayer terminology by Czyzewska (2012), the terms wek- and wekuwar have been excluded since they do not refer to a religious utterance of any kind. Czyzewska rightfully stresses that neither talliya-, nor wek-, nor their derivatives are attested to introduce invocations or requests in prayers.25 Furthermore, she argues that arkuwar is a term for the New Hittite personal prayer, first used by Muršili II.26 Laroche (1964–65: 14) took ‘to present oneself’, ‘to defend oneself’ as the original meaning of arkuwai-. However, Melchert (1998: 45–47) has convincingly demonstrated that the principal meaning of arkuwai- is ‘to make a plea, to present one’s case’, because the terms arkuwar and arkuwai- refer to the pleading of all parties in a court case. Laroche had already noted that arkuwai- ‘to argue, to plead’ and arkuwar ‘plea, petition’ were originally juridical terms. This led him to interpret the performance of a prayer as presenting a case in a divine court. The term arkuwar would denote the pleading of the king who has committed a crime or offence and is being prosecuted for that transgression by a deity.27 Hoffner describes the court case scenario of a prayer as follows: ‘a judicial procedure, a trial in which the king (perhaps representting the people) appears as the defendant, one or more offended gods as the prosecution, and the assembly of the gods as the judges or jury. A charge has been brought before the court and a case is made against the defendant. The king’s words represent

22 CTH 371, for which see Ch. 3.3.3, CTH 385.10 and CTH 389.2. 23 A mugawar written on a separate tablet is mentioned in the colophons of KUB 24.3+ and KUB 36.80 (CTH 376.II), for which see Ch. 3.5 and Appendix IV. 24 So also Hoffner 2013: 146f., cf. Furlani and Otten 1957–71: 170. 25 Czyzewska 2012: I 20, 21. 26 Czyzewska 2012: I 19, 89. See also de Roos 1995: 1999. 27 Laroche 1964–65: 17.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

8

Introduction

his defense, his pleading before the court of the gods.’28 In this court scenario Singer (2002a: 5) sees the addressed deity as the advocate who is asked to help the supplicant plead his case before the offended deity. However, this is not the case in most prayers since there are only a few prayers for intercession (e.g., CTH 372–74, and CTH 382).29 Moreover, the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) is addressed to the deity who is offended by the confessed transgressions.30 The same may very well be true for other prayers. Other studies have focused on specific phraseological expressions employed in prayers. Phrases in prayers and rituals involving šakuwa- ‘eye’ and ištaman- ‘ear’ have been discussed by Dardano (2014). These expressions occur in what is referred to in the present study as ‘requests for attention’ (cf. Ch. 3.4). Sidel’tsev (2008) has conducted a linguistic analysis of the use of imperfective -ške-forms in Middle Hittite curses and benedictions addressed to gods. His corpus includes requests and wishes from MS prayers as well as from recitations to gods in other types of text. Sidel’tsev argues that the distribution of imperfective -ške-forms in such text units is dependent on whether the clause contains positive or negative semantic components. Probably on the assumption that one never lies to a deity, the prayers are often considered to provide a factual narration of past events and to reflect the most honest and personal glimpses into the lives of the Hittite kings and queens.31 However, Klinger (2012a) has pointed out that the historical information in the prayers is not necessarily accurate and Hoffner (2013: 148f.) rightfully stressed that these texts did not function as (auto)biographies. He argued that the king prays to the gods in his role as priest and not as an individual, and that therefore, the prayers do not reveal his personal thoughts and feelings per se. To this can be added that the king does not only pray in his role as priest, but also in his role as monarch.

28 Hoffner 2013: 146. 29 Czyzewska (2012: I 101) made a similar observation, cf. Daues and Rieken 2018: 29–31. 30 KUB 14.8 obv. 31′–39′: nu-za ma-a[(ḫ)]-ḫa-an e-ni ṬUP-PA / ŠA KUR URUmi-iz-ri pé-ra-⸢an⸣ ú-e-mi-ia-nuun na-at IŠ-TU DINGIRLIM a-ri-ia-nu-un / a-ši-wa ku-⸢iš⸣ me-mi-ia-aš IŠ-TU dIŠKUR URUḪA-AT-TI i-ia-an-za LÚMEŠ URUmi-iz-ri ku-it / LÚMEŠ URUḪA-AT-TI-ia IŠ-TU dIŠKUR URUḪA-AT-TI li-in-ga-nu-an-te-eš 〈〈§〉〉 ddam-naaš-ša-ru-uš-kán ku-it I-NA ŠÀBI É dIŠKUR URUḪA-AT-TI BE-LÍ-IA / me-mi-ia-an-ma-kán LÚMEŠ URUḪA-AT-TI-pát ḫu-u-da-a-ak šar-ri-i-e-er / ⸢nu-wa⸣-ra-aš ma-a-an A-NA dIŠKUR URUḪA-AT-TI BE-LÍ-IA [(k)]ar-tim-mi-ia-az ki-ša-at / na-at ḫa-an-da-a-it-ta-at SISKUR-ia ŠA Í[Dma]-⸢a⸣-[l(a)] ḫi-in-ga-ni še-e-er / a-ri-ia-nu-un numu-kán a-pí-ia-ia dIŠ[KUR U(RUḪA-AT-TI)] EN-IA pé-ra-an ti-ia-u-an-zi ‘When I found the aforementioned tablet about Egypt, I made an (oracular) inquiry about it via the god: “Is that particular word, which was made by the Storm-god of Ḫatti, (is it) because the people of Egypt and the people of Ḫatti had been put under oath by the Storm-god of Ḫatti 〈〈§〉〉 (and) because the Damnaššara-deities were inside the temple of the Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord, but the people of Ḫatti themselves suddenly transgressed the word, is that how the anger came in the Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord?” And it was determined (by oracle). I also made an oracular inquiry about the ritual of the Māla-river because of the plague. Also then it was determined (by oracle) for me to go in front of the St[orm-god] of Ḫatti, my lord.’ Cf. Daues and Rieken 2018: 30. 31 E.g., Collins 2007: 154, cf. de Roos 1995: 2000.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Previous Studies

9

1.2.1 On the Composition of Hiite Prayers Güterbock (1958; 1974; 1980) made invaluable contributions to our understanding of the composition of a group of Hittite prayers addressed to the Sun-god and the Sungoddess of Arinna. He provided insights into the relationships between the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), the Prayer of a king (CTH 374), the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372), the prayers studied by Gurney in 1940 (CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377), and prayers from Mesopotamia. Other important contributions on this subject have been made by Carruba (1983), Metcalf (2011, 2015a, 2015b) who studied the relationships between Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, and ancient Greek prayers and hymns, and, more recently, by Daues and Rieken (2018) who conducted a text linguistic analysis of the Hittite personal prayers. Güterbock (1958) recognised the similarities between the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), the Prayer of a king (CTH 374), and the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372), which he assumed must all have derived from the same hymn to the Sun-god. He was unable to identify which of the three texts was composed first, but he believed the first version to have been composed by a learned scribe for a member of the royal family. In the solar hymn that introduces the prayer Güterbock identified many Babylonian motifs alongside typical Hittite ones. He therefore described it as ‘a free composition for which the Hittite poet has taken a great deal of inspiration from Babylonia’ (ibid. 242). Güterbock (1958, 1980) rightfully argued that a part of this hymn had been adopted almost verbatim into the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), in which the female Sun-goddess is still referred to as a male ‘lord’.32 Güterbock (1958) argued the text as a whole had a Babylonian structure: address, hymn of praise, transitional passage, prayer proper. What he referred to as the prayer proper, is directed to a deity addressed as ‘my god’, who is generally considered to be the supplicant’s personal god (but see p. 293). Güterbock (1974) also identified parallels between this prayer to ‘my god’ and the Babylonian dingiršadibba prayers to appease one’s personal god.33 Metcalf (2011) identified the Old Babylonian Sumerian prayer ‘Utu the hero’ (H 150 with duplicates) as a text that closely resembles CTH 372–74 in both content and structure.34 He thus found a possible Mesopotamian forerunner of the prayer on which the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) may have been modelled. ‘Utu the hero’ contains a passage in which the supplicant asks the addressed deity to tell him his misdeeds through ominous signs, mentioning several divinatory techniques. Metcalf (2015b) traced this passage from the Sumerian prayer via the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) and its parallels to the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2). In each text the listed divination techniques have been adjusted to the new context.

32 See p. 219 incl. fn. 696. 33 For the dingiršadibba prayers, see Lambert 1974, Jaques 2015. 34 Cf. pp. 52, 220f. incl. fn. 698, 249f. H 150 and duplicates are edited by Cavigneaux 2009: 7–13, 17–18.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

10

Introduction

Carruba (1983) studied the group of prayers edited by Gurney (1940) – i.e., CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377 – with a focus on how they relate to each other and to other prayers. Though I cannot agree with Carruba that Hittite prayers have a fixed structure that needed to be preserved because of religious considerations, he is right in saying that it was necessary at times to change and adjust the prayers to specific situations. He saw the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) as a turning point in the composition of Hittite prayers. According to Carruba the text shows the final developmental stage of the fixed structure, which he describes as ‘objective’ (‘oggetiva’). It combines these ‘objective’ or fixed general themes with what Carruba calls ‘subjective’ (‘soggettivo’) themes referring to a specific situation or event. As such Carruba understands the text as a meeting point of an old tradition with an innovation, and a starting point for the other prayers of Muršili II that are more specific to single occasions. Though he raises a good point, it should be noted that the older MH prayer of Arnuwanda and Asmunikkal (CTH 375) already contains references to a specific situation. Carruba argued that multiple sources were used to compose the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess (CTH 376.II). The introductory hymn was adopted from the prayers of Kantuzili, a king, and a mortal (CTH 372–74).35 Muršili II took the older Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I), updated its language and orthography, and adjusted it to the current situation by omitting Kizzuwatna from the enemy lands (it was now part of the Hittite empire) and adding ‘evil fever’ to the list of problems. The final part of the prayer is largely similar to the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377), but Carruba believes that the source on which it was based is not extant. He argues that CTH 377 was written later than CTH 376.II because a queen and princes are mentioned next to Muršili II. For Carruba this suggests that Muršili already had a family when CTH 377 was written, which must have been later in his reign.36 Klinger (2012a) also commented on this group of largely parallel prayers, to which he referred as ‘Textkollagen’ or ‘Komposittexte’ (ibid. 483).37 He argued that it is important to look at the separate elements of the prayers when investigating such relationships. For CTH 372–74 he distinguishes four elements: address, hymn of praise, transitional passage, and the prayer proper.38 These textual elements were already identified by Güterbock (1958: 242), who argued that the structure resembled that of Babylonian šu-illa prayers at least in broad outlines.39 Since Güterbock’s study

35 Though this is true, the stemma that Carruba created to show the relationships between these texts needs to be reconsidered because many of the included fragments have in the meantime been joined to other fragments and some have even been assigned to different compositions. 36 For another interpretation, see p. 148, Ch. 4.3, and Ch. 8.3.3. 37 Cf. Czyzewska (2012: I 114) who describes the New Hittite personal or royal prayers as ‘composite texts’ and ‘structurally complex compositions’. 38 Cf. Ch. 9.3.1. . .so-called šu-illa prayers are a type . .of incantation-prayer . . named after the subscript KA.INIM.MA 39 The ŠU ÍL LÁ dDN.KAM ‘the words of the ŠU ÍL LÁ of DN’. ŠU ÍL LÁ is Sumerian for ‘lifted hands’ and stands

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Previous Studies

11

the early Hittite personal prayers are generally considered to have derived from Babylonian examples combined with local Anatolian motifs. Sürenhagen (1981) examined the structures of two later prayers from the reign of Ḫattušili III (CTH 383 and CTH 384). He identified three primary textual elements: opening hymn, petitionary prayer, and promise, each of which can be divided into multiple sections.40 Sürenhagen emphasised that even though this agrees with the general structure of a šu-illa prayer, the overall structure of CTH 383 and CTH 384 does not follow such a tripartite pattern, since certain elements recur several times throughout the text. Houwink ten Cate (1969: 82) distinguished the same structural elements for Hittite prayers in general as Güterbock and Klinger identified for CTH 372–74.41 Justus (2004: 270) divided the Hittite prayers into three structural sections: invocation (to get attention), basis (to motivate the deity), and petition (to communicate the supplicant’s goal). Czyzewska (2012: I 95), following Justus (op. cit.), distinguishes the following three elements: the invocation or address, the motivation, and the request. The order in which these structural elements appear is according to Czyzewska not fixed. Her claim that the invocation or address may be absent occasionally suggests that she uses these terms to refer to the hymn possibly together with the invocation and the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage.42 Presenting a request was, according to Czyzewska (ibid. 133), the essence and the ultimate objective of any prayer. Daues and Rieken (2015) analysed the structure of the Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 380). The prayer describes a substitute ritual that was probably performed together with the recitation of the prayer. Daues and Rieken are correct in arguing that the composition was carefully planned and structured, with a central position for the requests. for Akkadian šuillakku when the prayer type is meant, but for nīš qati ‘lifting of the hand’ when it refers to the actual gesture of hand-lifting (CAD N II 105b, 295 mng. 2c, CAD Š III 212f., cf. Frechette 2011: 25, 30, ibid. 2012: 11f., Mayer 1976: 7f.). On the Babylonian šu-illa prayers see e.g., Mayer 1976, Frechette 2011, ibid. 2012. 40 According to Sürenhagen (1981) the opening hymn consists of an address and a main section, the petitionary prayer consists of a self-introduction, a historical presentation, a lament, an arkuwar, and a wekuwar, and the promise consists of a dalīlīka ludlul theme and a malduwar. The sections in which arguments are presented are identified by Sürenhagen as arkuwar, requests as wekuwar, and vows as malduwar. His reference to the promise to praise the addressed deity as a dalīlīka ludlul theme needs to be seen in light of the general tendency to try to find Babylonian parallels. Akkadian prayers often end with the figura etymologica dalīlīka ludlul ‘may I proclaim your glory’ (literally ‘may I praise your praise’). 41 An address, hymn of praise, transitional passage, and the prayer proper consisting of several sections. This structural division appears to be based on CTH 372–74, for only these prayers contain a passage that may be interpreted as a ‘transitional section’. 42 On the other hand, Czyzewska (2012: I 115f.) divides the elaborate prayer introduction of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) in a ‘preface that contains excerpts from the invocation ritual’ (referred to as the ‘introduction proper’ and the ‘invocation’ in the present study), and a ‘hymn of praise in two parts’. Czyzewska’s first part of the hymn is referred to in the present study as the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage and the second part as the ‘hymn’. Note that Czyzewska considers Plea I (for which see Ch. 8.1) to belong to the hymn. On the elaborate prayer introduction, see Ch. 7.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

12

Introduction

In a more recent study Daues and Rieken (2018) presented a thorough text linguistic analysis of the Hittite personal prayers. Daues (ibid. 177–302) studied the stylistics and dramaturgy of the prayers while in the remainder of the book Rieken focuses on the (linguistic) structure of the various spoken utterances that form the prayer. Rieken identified eleven structural elements (‘Strukturelemente’). Of these she examined their order within the texts and their internal linguistic structure. She (ibid. 123) established the following common structure for the Hittite personal prayer. It is not valid for the three prayers to the Sun-god (CTH 372–74). ‘Einleitende Kontextualisierung’ ‘Anrede und Hymnus’ ‘Falldarlegung’ ‘Deklaration / Negative Konsequenzen / Normen’ ‘Ausführungssichernde Bitte’ ‘Zusage von Korrekturmaßnahmen’ ‘Bittpassage’ ‘Gelübde / Positive Konsequenzen / Normen’

An interesting notion of Rieken (ibid. 35, 123) is that this structure could be interrupted at any moment in the text, to continue with an earlier element and then follow the structure once again. Not all of these elements needed to be included in a prayer. The obligatory elements are ‘Anrede’ (= direct address, though she does not label every direct address as such), ‘Deklaration des Gebetssprechakts’ (= statement), ‘Falldarlegung’, and ‘Bittpassage’ which consists of central requests and supporting requests (‘Stützbitten’).43 These ‘Stützbitten’ can also occur before or after various other elements, but this was left out in the structural overview for the sake of clarity. The ‘Normen’ (= proverb, social rule) can occur at two different positions. Rieken (ibid. 16f., 34, 99) rightfully argues that the (central) requests transmitting the primary intention of the text form the most important element of a prayer and that all other elements support the central requests. The main difficulty with this basic structure is that it combines multiple levels of analysis, without clearly distinguishing between them. For instance, according to Rieken (ibid. 167) the ‘Einleitende Kontextualisierung’ contains, among other things, a direct address (‘Anrede’) and a statement (‘Deklaration’), which she also lists as separate structural elements. To avoid any confusion, the present study distinguishes three levels of structural analysis (see Ch. 1.1 and Ch. 3.4). Elsewhere, Rieken (2016) discussed the repetition of specific clauses in prayers. She argues that repetitions were employed quite regularly in the earlier prayers within rituals, but starting with the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) exact repetition was avoided. When a clause was repeated in the same text, it was almost always altered to some extent. Only in the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384) two identical clauses occur, which Rieken takes to reflect Puduḫepa’s personal

43

Note that Rieken’s ‘Stützbitten’ are not always the same as the supportive requests in the present study, which consist of requests for support and requests for attention, see p. 78.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Previous Studies

13

style of speech. Recently, Daues and Rieken (2019) examined the role of metre in Hittite prayers. 1.2.2 On Hiite Rhetoric Not many studies have dealt with Hittite rhetoric. De Roos (2001) and Hoffner (2013) have both written on the subject, but only a section of Hoffner’s discussion concerns prayer. Stylistics and rhetorical devices used in prayer have been examined by Dardano (2019) and Daues (and Rieken 2018: 177–302). Earlier, Götze (1929) already described arguments and other rhetorical aspects of the plague prayers (CTH 378.1– 4). Other scholars have thus far limited their remarks on the rhetoric of Hittite prayers primarily to the arguments they employ. Singer (2002a) makes a distinction between ‘beneficial’ and ‘moral’ arguments and Sanders (2007) has analysed them as argumenta ad deum, i.e., arguments that take the nature of the addressed deity into account. The present study focuses on the rhetorical function of the different textual elements and their organisation within a prayer.44 De Roos (2001) carefully examined the rhetorical structure of the Political Testament of Ḫattušili I (CTH 6) and compared it with the principles of Classical rhetoric. The text is intended to persuade its audience to accept Ḫattušili I’s grandson, Muršili I, as his successor. It employs several rhetorical devices including similes, metaphors, figurae etymologicae, aversio, rhetorical questions, irony, partitive apposition, repetition of words, and direct speech. A remarkable feature of the text is that the described events are not presented in their chronological order. De Roos explains this as a deliberate rhetorical strategy employed by the author. The text is carefully structured so that it alternates between positive and negative elements. Hoffner (2013) presents a broader overview of royal Hittite rhetoric and how it relates to the ideology of kingship. According to Hoffner, persuasive and eloquent speech is together with wisdom ‘an essential part of the ideology of Hittite kingship’ (ibid. 138). He argues that ‘although excellence in speech and persuasiveness was by no means limited to royalty, at least in the textual corpus, the king or queen must excel above all others. This is part and parcel of the Hittite royal ideology: that the king is the wisest of men and his speech the most eloquent and persuasive.’ (ibid. 138). To illustrate his hypothesis Hoffner discusses rhetorical features of royal edicts, annals, letters, and prayers. These texts employ multiple rhetorical devices including rhetorical questions, pathos, kenning,45 similes, metaphors, hyperbole, irony and sarcasm. Another rhetorical or literary device used in the Proclamation of Telipinu (CTH 19) mentioned by Hoffner is parā ḫandandātar which may be translated as ‘divine providence’. Hoffner describes it as ‘a term … which implies both the gods’ control over events and the justice of that control’ (ibid. 144). As the Political Testa44 Arguments employed in Hittite prayers are treated Ch. 3.6. 45 A ‘kenning’ is a stylistic device used in Old Norse and Old English poetry. It is a special kind of circumlocution in which a concept is described by a figurative expression consisting usually of two and occasionally of more than two words, that is used instead of a more common single noun (O’Donoghue 2008: 225, Simek and Pálsson 1987: 206, 207 with further literature).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

14

Introduction

ment of Ḫattušili I (CTH 6) analysed by de Roos, also the Proclamation of Telipinu (CTH 19) has a rhetorically significant structure that alternates between positive and negative sections. In the Apology of Ḫattušili III (CTH 81) the good and proper behaviour of Ḫattušili III is continuously contrasted with that of Urḫi-Teššub in a similar way. Hoffner (2013) also treats the rhetoric of specific text genres. Concerning the rhetoric of Hittite prayer he states the following: ‘The king’s defense could contain elements of confession or exculpation from guilt, presentation of mitigating circumstances or excuses, protestation against unfair punishment, boasting of his piety and faithfulness, and flattering or brining the judges with gifts or vows. Excuses sometimes took the form of identifying the cause with a sin of an ancestor king, sometimes by claiming themselves to have been too young to know about the offense at the time it was committed’ (ibid. 147).

As rhetorical devices employed in prayers Hoffner mentions pathos, irony, paradox, hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and kenning. He argues that the prayers ‘serve to display the kind of wisdom and speech that kings used to persuade the gods to desist from actions that adversely affected both king and people.’ (ibid. 149). Hoffner rightfully argues that the supplicant offers arguments in his prayers and tries to persuade the gods and that, therefore, ‘all parts of such a prayer-text can be expected to show rhetorical features and a structure appropriate to the art of persuasion’ (ibid. 147). This idea is also reflected by Melchert (1998: 46) in his discussion of arkuwar as a plea: ‘The master (human or divine) is not a kindly “sugar-daddy” to be flattered into dispensing favors. He is seen in his role as dispenser of justice. The slave must present arguments, as if he were making a case in a court of law, that he deserves assistance or redress.’ Singer (2002a: 10f.) distinguishes two types of argument in prayers: ‘moral arguments’ and ‘beneficial arguments’. Moral arguments ‘seek to arouse the gods’ empathy’ for the supplicant (ibid. 11). Examples include non mea culpa arguments, that it is unreasonable to punish someone for the misdeeds of his ancestors, or that it is human to make mistakes. The proverbs that function as arguments treated in Ch. 5 are also moral arguments. Beneficial arguments intend to show the gods ‘that it is in their best interest to put an end to the misery of the king and his people’ (ibid. 11). They focus on the negative consequences for the gods in case they do not help the supplicant. For example, people will be unable to prepare the offerings for the gods when they have died from an epidemic, and they cannot worship the gods when enemies destroy the temples. According to Singer a larger part of the prayer is dedicated to beneficial than to moral arguments, which would suggest that they were considered more effective and that the Hittite gods would be more willing to act out of self-interest than out of mercy. Some prayers contain promises or vows promising the addressed deity praise, the proper performance of rites, or material objects on the condition that the supplicant’s requests are granted. Singer describes such conditional promises as ‘the ultimate modus of the do ut des principle’ (ibid. 11).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating

15

Sanders (2007) discussed the so-called argumenta ad deum employed in prayers of Muršili II and compared them to such arguments employed in the Book of Psalms and in other Near Eastern literatures.46 He defines argumenta ad deum as: ‘arguments that they believed would be able to convince the gods, because they were in agreement with the way the gods were thought to be or thought to think. … an argumentum ad deum takes the supposed character and interests of the deity into account.’ (ibid. 181).

Sanders identified five categories of argumenta ad deum in the prayers of Muršili II: (1) the consequences of the plague, (2) the consequences of the wickedness of the enemies, (3) the righteousness or capriciousness of the gods, (4) the innocence of the supplicant, (5) the relationship of the supplicant with the gods. The use of this type of argument in prayers implies, as Sanders concludes, that the addressed gods are ‘at least partially knowable, human-like and open to human arguments’ (ibid. 216). He argues that this distinguishes Hittite prayers, as well as Biblical Psalms, from other ancient Near Eastern literatures where such arguments are not presented to the gods.47 Götze (1929: 163) described the functions of different parts of a prayer in his study of the plague prayers of Muršili II (CTH 378.1–4). Through praise one tried to ensure the gods were in a good mood; through complaints one tried to win the gods’ sympathy; through promises and offerings of expiation and reconciliation one gives the words more emphasis, simultaneously, they emphasise the gods’ dependency on men for the regular offerings; through confession one tried to gain clemency. If the transgression had been committed a long time ago, the supplicant could, according to Götze, stress his innocence and his involvement in the cult, or refer to the fact that the guilty ones have already been punished and that compensation had already been paid by the performance of purification rituals.

1.3 PALAEOGRAPHY AND HITTITE TEXT DATING The dating of Hittite texts and their individual text witnesses is complicated by the fact that the Hittites did not date any of their texts. In most cases the archeological record is also inadequate to date a tablet.48 Find spots of individual tablets were not properly recorded during the first excavations at Boğazköy, and it was in these early excavations that the majority of the clay tablets was found. Some of these tablets have in the meantime been assigned to specific buildings thanks to joins with fragments unearthed in later excavations.49 Even so, tablets may already have been

46 For another comparison of arguments employed in prayers of Muršili II with arguments in Biblical and Babylonian prayers, see Sanders 2011. 47 Sanders 2007: 216f. 48 Neu 1980: XV, fn. 8, Klinger 2005a: 105f., Klinger 2006: 9. 49 Klinger 2006: 9f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

16

Introduction

broken and scattered in antiquity.50 Most tablets, including those written as early as the 17th and 16th century BCE (in Old Script), appear to have been found in collections that were in use until the Hittites abandoned Ḫattuša shortly after 1200 BCE.51 This shows that some old tablets were kept in the archives for hundreds of years and that a tablet’s archaeological context can only sporadically help to date it. It is important to distinguish between dating the composition of the text and dating the individual witnesses of a text, i.e., the different tablets that preserve a copy of the text. In this way one can differentiate original contemporary manuscripts from later copies. A tablet or text witness can be dated on the basis of its palaeography and orthography. In addition, the tablet shape and format may also be relevant (see Ch. 1.3.2). The text itself is dated primarily on the basis of its content and linguistic features. Palaeo-graphy and orthography are considered more likely to have been updated by the scribe who made a new copy.52 A brief overview of the development of Hittite palaeography is presented below (Ch. 1.3.1), followed by an overview of the chrono-logical developments in tablet format and shape (Ch. 1.3.2). Subsequently, several features of Hittite palaeography are discussed (Ch. 1.3.3) and a detailed description of the chronological development of selected diagnostic signs relevant for text dating is given (Ch. 1.3.4). Before turning to Hittite palaeography in more detail, it is important to note the difference between the concepts ‘ductus’ and ‘sign-form’. The term ‘sign-form’ refers to the appearance and construction of an individual sign, including the number, position, and types of wedges used to form the cuneiform sign. The term ‘ductus’ refers ‘to such matters as the manner of impressing the signs on the clay, whether deep or light impressions, the sharpness of the stylus used, as inferrable from the impressions left by it, the size of the signs, especially the length of the leading uprights, the closeness of the script and other issues peripheral to the shape and structure of the sign itself’.53 1.3.1 A Very Concise History of Hiite Palaeography Until the 1950’s scholars believed that all Hittite tablets found in Ḫattuša dated to the 13th century BCE. This was mainly due to the lack of dated documents and the apparent uniformity of the Hittite script and scribal conventions. Scholars did realise

50 For example, the fragment 29/k (= KBo 7.14) of the Zukraši Text (CTH 14), which was found in building G of Büyükkale, had been joined to the fragment 530/f (= KUB 36.100), found in Büyükkale building C (Klinger 2006: 10). 51 Klinger 2006: 9, 12–15, van den Hout 2009a: 11. 52 Nonetheless, the occurrence of (many) older sign-forms is often interpreted as an indication that the copyist used an older Vorlage or model, and a scribe could theoretically update the language of the text he was copying. 53 Weeden 2012: 229. By contrast, van den Hout (2012: 152f.) advocates the use of terminology in accordance with general works of palaeography and manuscript terminology, where ‘aspect’ is used to denote what Hittitologists generally call ‘ductus’ and ‘ductus’ refers to how the strokes were made, in what order and direction, to form the basic shape of a letter in a certain script, cf. Gordin 2015: 15.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating

17

that some of the texts predated this period. These were thought to be later copies of older originals.54 In 1952 this view began to change with the discovery of fragment 29/k of the so-called Zukraši Text (CTH 14).55 It was realised that the Hittite script was not as uniform as previously supposed and that there were differences in ductus and sign-forms between tablets from older and later periods. Since the 1960’s Hittite palaeography has developed into a tool for dating Hittite tablets. Important contributions have been made by Otten, Neu, Starke, and Klinger. Fragment 29/k of the so-called Zukraši Text was found in 1952 in what was considered to be an Old Hittite layer on Büyükkale. For the first time a seemingly original Old Hittite text had come to light.56 Initially, the sign-forms were still considered to be the same as those in later texts. But certain peculiarities of an older ductus were noticed, such as the crowding of signs, broad wedges with the heads of verticals slanting to the right, and no space after the conjunction nu.57 Today, the OS date of 29/k is questionable; an early MS date seems to agree more with the sign-forms.58 Otten recognised the same older ductus in ABoT 1.4, which was later published together with more joined fragments as KBo 17.1.59 An edition of this tablet and its duplicates, a text known as the Old Hittite ritual for the royal couple (CTH 416), was published by Otten and Souček in 1969. Because the ductus was comparable to that of 29/k, they interpreted KBo 17.1 as an original old manuscript.60 This tablet had an unusually narrow intercolumnium that Otten and Souček identified as a characteristic feature of older tablets.61 They also identified signs that had different forms in KBo 17.1 than in later texts. These forms they considered as typically old sign-forms. They compiled a list of twelve signs for which they listed an older form alongside the

54 Van den Hout 2009a: 12f. with further references. 55 The fragmentary text concerns a battle between the Hittite army sent by the king Ḫattušili I and the city of Ḫaššu(wa). The composition is named after Zukraši, the leader of the troops from Ḫalab (modern Aleppo), who came to assist the Hittite army. For a recent edition of the text in Italian, see De Martino 2003: 91–125; for a recent German translation, see Haas 2006: 46f. 56 Otten 1953: 59–63, Bittel and Naumann 1953: 21, cf. Otten and Souček 1969: 1, Otten 1972: VII, Klinger 2006: 10f., van den Hout 2008: 215, fn. 17, 2009a: 16f., 2012: 147. Otten (1953: 59–63) published a photograph and translation of 29/k together with a discussion of its date. He also joined the fragment to KUB 36.100. In 1954 Otten published 29/k as KBo 7.14. 57 Otten 1953: 60, cf. Otten and Souček 1969: 1, Klinger 2006: 10, fn. 3, and van den Hout 2009a: 16. 58 Haas (2006: 46) dates the fragment as MS, the Konkordanz dates it as either OS or MS, and Weeden (2011: 47) argues that the palaeography of the tablet points to a late MS date (IIb). He presents this as an argument that the palaeographic method has its problems. For a recent discussion of the find context of 29/k and the difficulties in dating it, see Popko 2007: 578f. incl. fn. 13. 59 Otten and Souček 1969: 1, 5, 12f. 60 Otten and Souček 1969: 14. 61 Otten and Souček 1969: 14. See also Waal 2012b: 225, 226.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

18

Introduction

forms in the sign list of Forrer (1922).62 Thus, for the first time older and later signforms were identified. Today an OH/OS date of KBo 17.1+ is still maintained.63 In the 1970’s and 1980’s the sign-forms employed in Hittite cuneiform were studied carefully to provide a secure tool for dating tablets. Building on studies of Otten and Neu, a systematic chronological categorisation of Hittite sign-forms that could be used to date Hittite tablets was developed by Starke.64 To the three linguistic periods – Old Hititte (OH), Middle Hittite (MH), and New Hittite (NH) – Starke ascribed three palaeographic periods, now known as Old Script (OS), Middle Script (MS) and New Script (NS). He used Roman numerals for the three periods (I–III) and letters for their subdivisions (Ia–b, IIa–c, IIIa–b). Klinger identified a third subcategory for New Script (IIIa–c), thus slightly modifying Starke’s system.65 The palaeography of Starke with the modifications of Klinger is now largely accepted among Hittitologists. It is the primary method used to date Hittite cuneiform tablets.66 The method is, however, still subject to debate. Some of the remaining problems and critiques against the method are addressed in Ch. 1.3.3. 1.3.2 Chronological Developments in Tablet Shapes and Formats The Hittites used a relatively small number of tablet shapes and formats, giving the tablets an impression of uniformity. The large majority of the tablets are two-column tablets with an intercolumnium in portrait format.67 Recently, Waal has recognised chronological developments in the use of certain tablet shapes and formats.68 Over time the shape and format of a tablet seems to have become more standardised. Though these chronological tendencies should not be used as absolute dating criteria, they may help to date a tablet in combination with ductus, ortho-graphy, and palaeography. Waal identified three tablet shapes that were used in the Old and Middle Hittite period, but were abandoned in later times. These are the sealed ‘cushion-shaped’ tablets, that were used only for the land deeds, other ‘cushion-shaped’ tablets without a seal, and tablets with a pointed edge, i.e., a ‘dachfirstartiges Randprofil’.69 For some

62 The listed signs are GA, TA, ŠA, E, UN, UD, NA, KI, ḪAR, URU, LI, and ME-EŠ (Otten and Souček 1969: 43), cf. van den Hout 2009a: 21. 63 The Konkordanz dates KBo 17.1+, as well as the other fragments edited by Otten and Souček 1969 (KBo 17.7+ and KBo 17.6+), as OS. 64 Starke 1985: 21–27. 65 Klinger 1996: 32–39. 66 See e.g., Miller 2004: 9. CHD uses palaeographic criteria to date tablets. They state that they ‘concur in the main with the judgements of Carruba, Otten and Neu, in contrast to the views of Kammenhuber’ (CHD L–N XI). However, they do not subdivide the three main periods and simply use OS, MS and NS. Only occasionally they also differentiate between Early and Late New Script (ENS and LNS). 67 Waal (2012a: 149) has counted 56.3% (964 tablets) have two columns against 28.5% (488 tablets) with one column, 15% (257 tablets) with three columns and 0.2% (4 tablets) with four columns. 68 Waal 2012a, Waal 2012b, Waal 2015: 17–124. 69 Waal lists these tablet shapes as type A III (‘with a “[d]achfirstartiges Randprofil”’), type A IV (‘cushion-shaped’), and type A V (the ‘cushion-shaped’ sealed land deeds), see Waal 2012b: 219–24,

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating

19

text genres, including prayers and treaties, single-column tablets were more common in the Middle Hittite period.70 It is unclear why in the New Hittite period the singlecolumn format was also used for some prayers and texts from other genres, such as treaties, festival texts, instructions and rituals. It has been suggested that singlecolumn tablets were used for drafts,71 or that they may have used the same format as the Vorlage from which the copy was made.72 Waal pointed out that in the Old and Middle Hittite period the entire surface of the tablet was used. The writing started in the utmost upper left corner of the tablet, close to the left and upper edge, and occasionally the text even began on the left edge. On single-column tablets it could even begin on the upper edge and continue on the lower edge.73 In later times this practice is abandoned and, as already noted by Otten and Souček, the intercolumnium on two-column tablets becomes wider. Waal rightfully concludes the following: ‘These layout characteristics concur with the ductus of the early period; OS and MS tablets are very closely written, in contrast to the much looser ductus of the NS.’ (Waal 2012b: 226).

1.3.3 Hiite Palaeography The Hittite cuneiform script shows a wide variation in sign-forms, as is clear from a quick glance through the Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon (HZL). There always seems to have been a certain variation in sign-forms at any given moment in Hittite history. 74 This may be a side effect of handwriting in general. To what extent the handwriting of individual scribes affected the variant sign-forms is still unclear.75 In any case, it is evident that not each variation is significant for dating purposes, since not all sign variants have a clear chronological distribution. Rather, the palaeographic dating of tablets is based on the recognition of older and later variants of diagnostic signs. New variants of these signs were introduced in specific periods. Therefore, the occurrence of late sign-forms is chronologically significant and can be used to determine when a text was written down on a specific clay tablet.

70 71 72 73 74 75

226, Waal 2015: 22–24, 27. Prayers were generally not written on tablets with these shapes. The only possible exception may be found in the MS fragment KBo 31.82 (CTH 389.?), which is of type A III (‘with a “[d]achfirstartiges Randprofil”’), if it indeed is part of a prayer-text, cf. Waal 2015: 22. Waal 2012a: 150f., 152, Waal 2012b: 224, 226, Waal 2015: 121. Van den Hout 1995, 9 with, fn. 19, cf. Waal 2012a: 152, fn. 10. Waal 2012a: 152, fn. 10. Waal 2012b: 225–26, Waal 2015: 122. So already Otten and Souček 1969: 12 incl. fn. 2. Signs consisting of many wedges show a greater variety of forms than those that only consist of a few wedges. Kammenhuber has opposed the use of variation in sign-forms for dating Hittite tablets since the first palaeographical studies appeared, see e.g., Kammenhuber 1988. She explained all variations in signforms as simply reflecting different handwriting (graphology), and thus useless for dating purposes. Kammenhuber’s point of view has generally been rejected by Hittitologists, see e.g., p. 18, fn. 66 above. On handwriting and palaeography, see Gordin 2015: 83–94.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

20

Introduction

As a rule, a tablet is dated on the basis of the latest sign-forms that it contains.76 This is important, because many older sign-forms continue to be used in later times, also after the introduction of new forms. Occasionally, Hittite scribes seem to have consciously used older and later forms of a certain sign next to each other in the same text. They thus identified them as two variant forms of the same sign.77 This applies particularly to those signs of which the older and later variant are completely distinct, such as LI, AG, SAR, and IG. Because older sign-forms were still written in later periods, the dating of small fragments is usually insecure. A tablet of which only a small fragment with just older sign-forms is preserved, could well have contained numerous later forms in the part that is lost. The extensive use of older sign-forms on tablets of a later date is often ascribed to the practice of copying from an older Vorlage.78 A palaeographic date of a given tablet based on its latest sign-forms provides the earliest possible date of that tablet, its terminus post quem.79 The tablet could theoretically be of a later date. For example, the later form of LI first occurs in IIIb, during the reign of Muwatalli II. This means that when a tablet contains the later form of LI, it must date to IIIb or IIIc, even if – as is often the case – the older form of LI occurs as well.80 Would the late form of KI also occur on this tablet, it should be dated to IIIc. Starke has stressed explicitly that one single late sign-form may determine the date of

76 ‘In Form eines negatives Ausschlußverfahrens sind dabei jeweils die jüngsten Zeichenformen festzustellen’ (Starke 1985: 21). 77 Klinger 1996: 36. 78 For instance, the use of older sign-forms in KUB 24.3+, a NH prayer from the time of Muršili II, is acribed to the text’s dependency on older sources, see p. 149. 79 Miller 2004: 10. 80 A late form of LI occurs according to Weeden (2011: 51) also in KBo 1.28 (CTH 57), a short edict of a Hittite king recognising the status of Piyaššili of Carchemish (for the text, see e.g., Klengel 1965: 53– 55, Mora 1993, Beckman 1996: 154 [No. 29]). The tablet was written by the scribe Tattiya. The text is attributed to Muršili II because Piyaššili is considered to be his brother, also known as Šarri-kušuḫ, and because the Storm-god is mentioned. The text is considered to date to the beginning of Muršili II’s reign. Weeden refers to the occurrence of late LI in this text to point out certain difficulties and apparent inconsistencies of the palaeographic method. However, not just the occurrence of late LI but the palaeography of the tablet as a whole points to a much later date, long after the reign of Muršili II. Besides late LI (KBo 1.28 obv. 14), it also contains other typical late forms from IIIb: SAR rev. 13′, URU rev. 10′, and DA without broken horizontal obv. 14, lower e. 1, rev. 11′. However, on the basis of its palaeography the tablet should be dated even later, to IIIc, which starts during the reign of Tutḫaliya IV. It contains the very late forms of ḪA with only one Winkelhaken (obv. 4), DI (rev. 12′) and KI (obv. 9, rev. 4′) with two verticals, and BI is consistently written with the upper horizontal indented (obv. 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, rev. 7′). One can approach the matter in two ways: (1) If the attribution to Muršili II is indeed correct and it is indeed, as expected for edicts, a contemporary original text, how can the script appear to be so much later? Could the scribe have come from outside of Ḫattuša, from a different scribal school or chancellery, and could that explain the discrepancy? (2) If the palaeographic date of the tablet is correct and it is indeed, as expected, a contemporary original tablet, to which king should the text be ascribed? Who is Piyaššili? Perhaps we should identify Šuppiluliuma in obv. 4 (if Šuppiluliuma really is mentioned there [šu]-up-pí-lu-[…]) as Šuppiluliumma II.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating

21

a tablet.81 One should nonetheless weigh all the data before assigning a date to a given tablet. One of the main points of critisism against Starke’s palaeography is that he mixes ductus and sign-forms. Especially the distinction between the older periods (Ia–IIa) are primarily based on ductus, without any significant changes in the sign-forms. Weeden argued that the differences in ductus between Ia and Ib do not necessarily need to be chronological.82 Though one cannot solely look at sign-forms to establish the date of a certain tablet, the criticism is not entirely unwarranted. One of the difficulties of Hittite palaeography is that the borders between separate periods and their subdivisions are not clear-cut but rather fluent, especially in the older periods. In the later periods (NS or III) there is much more differentiation in sign-forms. Klinger’s modification to the palaeographical system of Starke captures the chronological distribution of the different sign variants in this period.83 Further study on Hittite palaeography, as well as on orthography and other scribal habits, is necessary to improve and refine the methods for dating Hittite tablets. The main benefit of an established, well functioning palaeographic dating method is that one is able to distinguish original contemporary manuscripts from later copies, providing the date of the text is known. This was probably the reason why Starke divided the palaeographic record into three periods in correspondence to the three linguistic phases of the Hittite language that had already been identified. Linguistic changes, however, do not necessarily occur simultaneously with palaeographic changes. It should be stressed that palaeographical analysis provides only a date for a specific text witness, i.e., a specific tablet or manuscript. In addition to the different sign-forms, one should also take other aspects of the tablet and the cuneiform writing into account, such as ductus, orthography, and tablet format and shape. The composition may be older than the tablet on which it is written and is to be dated on the basis of its content and linguistic criteria.84

81 Starke 1985: 21, 1977: 9. By contrast, van den Hout (2012) has argued that some late sign-forms already occur sporadically in the oldest Hittite texts and that an otherwise apparently OS tablet does not need to be dated NS on the basis of a single late form. He assumes that the later sign-forms may already have been known to a Hittite scribe, even if they were not regularly used. 82 Weeden 2011: 45f. 83 Klinger 1996: 34–39. 84 ‘Während sich die absolute Datierung [i.e., dating of the tablet] ausschließlich auf die Feststellung junger Merkmale stützt, zählt bei der relativen Datierung [i.e., dating of the text] nur das, was auf “älter” deutet. Dabei hat sie im Gegensatz zur absoluten Datierung, die die älteren Merkmale unberücksichtigt läßt, eben diese in Form eines kumulativen Verfahrens einzubringen, denn die Entstehungszeit eines Textes kann ja nur durch die Summe der in ihm enthaltenen älteren Merkmale wahrscheinlich gemacht werden’ (Starke 1985: 22). ‘The copy is dated by noting the latest palaeographic features of its script. The original composition is dated by noting the oldest orthographic, grammatical, and lexical features to be found in its copies’ (CHD L–N (1989) xi).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

22

Introduction

1.3.4 On Palaeographic Criteria and Selected Diagnostic Sign-forms In the present study the palaeographic criteria as established by Starke 85 and Klinger86 are employed with the addition of the late form of BI with indented upper horizontal as a characteristic of IIIc.87 After discussing some of the general tendencies of palaeographic features in the Hittite cuneiform script, the chronological development of selected diagnostic signs is described.88 Signs that have undergone a similar development are treated together. For some cuneiform signs the older and later variant are clearly distinct from each other. These include the signs AG, IG, LI, KÙ, SAR, and to a lesser extent TAR. Other signs seem to have undergone a more gradual development. Such developments are often of a more general nature and occur almost simultaneously in different signs that contain the same element. For example, signs that end in two vertical wedges show such a shared development. In the older periods the first of these two verticals is significantly smaller than the second one. In later times the first vertical has grown, as it were, to the same size as the second vertical. This development can be seen in E, URU, UN, SAG, KÙ and ZU, but also in GAD in which the single vertical wedge grows over time. Another example can be found in the development of AḪ and ḪAR, where the horizontal(s) are placed inside the triangle of Winkelhaken in the old forms, but outside, more to the right, in the later forms. The development of AZ and UG is connected: their older forms are identical, but at some point towards the end of MS they are distinguished by a subscript. The signs ŠA and TA on the other hand have developed in entirely opposite directions. In TA the inscribed verticals were large and became smaller over time, whereas in ŠA (and GA) the inscribed vertical was small in the older forms and larger in the later forms. For each cuneiform sign the Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon (HZL) gives one or more distinct forms as Leitzeichen. These are presented in chronological order. In general, the different forms listed in HZL as Leitzeichen are good indicators for dating a manuscript. However, HZL does not give multiple Leitzeichen for all signs that are useful for palaeographic analysis and, vice versa, some signs for which HZL lists more than one Leitzeichen are not useful for dating purposes. Furthermore, apart from the Leitzeichen other variants of signs are attested, some of which are also chronologically significant. HZL presents many of these forms, but is not exhaustive. Many sign-forms appear to be in between forms presented by HZL.

85 Starke 1985: 21–27. 86 Klinger 1996: 32–39. 87 Klinger (1996: 37f., fn. 22) excluded the variant of BI from the dating criteria. However, now he does consider it as a possible dating criterion (personal communication). 88 The selection consists of diagnostic signs relevant for dating the text witnesses in the corpus under study. For the palaeographic analysis of KUB 24.1+, KUB 24.2 (CTH 377), KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II), and KUB 24.4+ (CTH 376.I), see Ch. 6.2 and Appendix VIII.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating

23

Browsing through several palaeographic studies of Hittite cuneiform texts, one finds different selections of diagnostic signs.89 Below the development of these 35 signs is described: AḪ, ḪAR, AG, AL, AR, AZ, UG, BI, DA, ID, DI, KI, KU, DU, E, GAD, URU, UN, SAG, KÙ, ZU, EL, RU, EN, GI, ḪA, IG, LI, SÌLA, SAR, ŠA, GA, TA, TAR, and Ù. In addition, some remarks on ligatures are given. Signs that have undergone a similar development are treated together. The numbering of the sign-forms given in brackets are those in HZL. Throughout the discussion of specific sign-forms references will be made to the Leitzeichen (HZL-number followed by A, B or C) and other variants (HZL-number / 1, 2, 3, etc.) listed in HZL. AḪ (332) and ḪAR (333) The signs AḪ and ḪAR show the same development. Both signs consist of a cluster of three Winkelhaken forming a triangle and one (AḪ) or three (ḪAR) horizontal wedges. In the older sign-forms of AḪ (332A) and ḪAR (333A) the horizontal(s) are positioned within the triangle of Winkelhaken. In the later sign-forms the horizontal(s) are placed after the cluster of Winkelhaken (332B, 333B). According to Starke (1985: 24) the movement of the horizontals towards the right, outside the cluster of Winkelhaken is first visible towards the end of MS (IIc).90 AG (81) There are two clearly distinct forms of AG. The older form (81A) has many horizontal wedges: one horizontal followed by two sets of three stacked horizontals, which are placed on top of one long horizontal wedge. This is followed by one vertical wedge and two additional horizontal wedges that are positioned above each other. The exact number of horizontals as well as their position may vary in this older form of AG, but those variations are not chronologically relevant.91 The later form (81B) is less complex consisting of fewer wedges: one small horizontal is followed by two verticals that are placed on a longer horizontal and a broken horizontal begins in between the two verticals.

89 For example, Otten and Souček’s 1969 list of older and later sign-forms consisted of twelve signs (see p. 18, fn. 62), whereas Otten’s diagnostic sign list from 1973 consisted of the ligature A+NA and the following 23 signs: TAR, AG, IG, NI, BA, UG, AZ, KA, LUGAL, ŠA, GA, AL, E, URU, Ù, RU, KI, ḪAR, LI, KAR, ME, MEŠ, A-NA and ḪA, as they occur in the Zukraši Text (= KBo 7.14+), KBo 22.2, and KBo 3.38 (Otten 1973: 3). 90 Weeden (2011: 44) dates the forms 332/4 and 333/4, in which the head(s) of the horizontal(s) are placed inside the triangle of Winkelhaken but to the outer right, to IIc. It is unclear to me when he dates the total extraction of the horizontals from the triangle of Winkelhaken. Miller (2004: 41) argued that ‘the degree to which the horizontal is pulled out of the wedges must be seen as more subjective’ for dating when it is in between the two ‘extremes’ (332A-B) than certain other variants in signforms. 91 HZL lists twelve variants of the older sign-form (81/1–12). For the later sign-form HZL lists ten variants (81/13–22).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

24

Introduction

According to Starke (1985: 25) the later form first occurs in the second phase of NS (IIIb). However, according to Klinger (1996: 35) it already occurs earlier in NS (IIIa). AL (183) The later sign-form of AL (183B) has a Winkelhaken in between the two vertical wedges. The older sign-form (183A) does not have this Winkelhaken. According to Klinger the later sign-form occurs regularly during the reign of Ḫattušili III (IIIb). Weeden notes another variation of AL that he dates to the end of MS (IIc), namely ‘AL with flat bottom (183/5 etc.)’.92 In older sign variants the bottom horizontal wedge connecting the two verticals of AL may be slightly tilted. AR (289) Only one Leitzeichen is given for the sign AR in HZL. Miller states that the form of AR with unbroken horizontal (289/6) is ‘generally taken to indicate with some certainty a MH script’.93 However, he continues to argue that AR with unbroken horizontal, ‘against common opinion, was also occasionally copied by later scribes who were using MH tablets as their reference, and/or that the form was extant for a longer period of time than is often assumed, i.e., from IIb up to the end of IIc, even into the transitional phase between IIc and IIIa’.94 The transitions between palaeographic periods are fluid, so also the transition from late MS (IIc) to early NS (IIIa). Only a minor variation – a broken or an unbroken horizontal – is concerned here. One should be cautious in giving it such a strong chronological significance, since the omission of a broken horizontal may also simply be a slip of the stylus. AZ (92) and UG (93) The older sign-forms of AZ (92A) and UG (93A) look nearly identical to each other.95 Possibly in order to distinguish more easily between the two signs, a subscript was added resulting in two separate later sign-forms: AZ received a small ZA sign as subscript (92B), whereas UG obtained a small UD (93B). According to Starke (1985: 24) these forms with subscript first occur during MS (IIb). BI (153) The sign BI has only one Leitzeichen in HZL, but one may still distinguish a very late sign-form with indented upper horizontal (153/2) from the standard form with aligned horizontals (153/1). This late form is typical of the last phase of NS (IIIc).96

92 93 94 95

Weeden 2011: 44. Miller 2004: 40. See also Weeden 2011: 44. Miller 2004: 41. This is not only characteristic for the older phase of Hittite cuneiform; Old Babylonian cuneiform has the same form, see Wilhelm 2010a: 258 (Fig. 1). 96 See p. 22, fn. 87.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating

25

DA (214) and ID (215) The signs DA and ID underwent a similar development consisting of three stages. The oldest sign-form has all three horizontal wedges aligned and the middle horizontal is broken (214A, 215A). In the second stage, the three horizontal wedges are individually indented to form a small ‘staircase’, with the lower horizontal being the longest, the middle one slightly indented, and the upper one indented a little more. The middle horizontal is broken. This form is often referred to as the MS ‘stepped’ form (214B, 215B). In the final stage of development, the three horizontals are aligned as in the first stage, but, unlike in the older sign-forms, the middle horizontal is not broken (214C, 215C). Besides these three Leitzeichen many more variations with indented and/or extended horizontal wedges are attested. According to Starke (1985: 24) DA and ID with extended lower horizontal is characteristic for the middle phase of MS (IIb) and still occurs towards the end of MS (IIc), though by that time the extension of the lower horizontal is not as clear anymore. According to Klinger (1996: 37, 38) the form with the unbroken horizontal is characteristic for (late) IIIb. DI (312), KI (313) and KU (206) Judging by the two Leitzeichen of DI and KI in HZL, the primary chronological variation of is the size and position of the first Winkelhaken: first it is large and in front of the horizontals (312A, 313A), whereas later it is smaller and positioned higher, level with the upper horizontal and in front of the second Winkelhaken (312B, 313B). However, I am not convinced that this variation is truly chronological.97 A more significant variation in the forms of DI and KI is the addition of a second vertical wedge in between the first Winkelhaken and the horizontal wedges (312/8– 10, 313/19–25). A similar development can be observed in KU (206). The later form of KU also has an additional vertical wedge at the beginning of the sign (206/4–8). This fits in with the general tendency that certain developments in an element of a signform also occur in other sign-forms containing the same element. According to Starke (1985: 25) these late forms of KI and DI first occur in his final phase of NS which, with Klinger (1996: 38), is IIIc. DU (128) The older form of DU (128A) has a small Winkelhaken above the upper horizontal. In the later variant the Winkelhaken has turned into a wedge. The wedge may be either horizontal (128B) or slanted (128/3, 7, 9–10, 12). According to Starke (1985: 24f.) the later form of DU with a diagonal wedge instead of a Winkelhaken first occurs at the beginning of NS (IIIa)

97 Whether or not this variant is chronologically significant should be examined in more detail. The same should be done for the positioning of the Winkelhaken in the signs UD and NA that have occasionally been interpreted as chronological variants.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

26

Introduction

E (187), GAD (173), URU (229), UN (197) and SAG (192) The first vertical wedge of the sign E is in the older sign-forms significantly smaller than the following broken vertical – the head of the first vertical being positioned in between the two horizontals (187A). In the later sign-forms the first vertical reaches the same size as the following broken vertical (187B). The same development may be seen in the signs UN (197A, 197B), SAG (192A, 192B), and URU. For URU there are three different sign-forms that are indicative for dating purposes. In the oldest form of URU the first vertical is very small with its head not reaching the top horizontal (cf. 229/2). In the middle form it is bigger and its head is positioned at the same height as the other vertical wedge (229A). In both of these forms the horizontals are aligned. The latest form of URU has, like the middle form, two verticals of the same size and, in addition, it is characterised by a protruding middle horizontal (229B). The development of GAD is comparable to those of E, URU, UN and SAG. The older form of GAD consists of two parallel horizontal wedges above each other and a small vertical wedge with its head touching the upper horizontal (173A). The later sign-form consists of one horizontal with a slightly diagonal wedge underneath it, slanting down to the lower right, followed by a large vertical wedge (173B). The increasing size of the vertical is the significant feature between the older and the later form. According to Starke (1985: 24) the first vertical in E reaches the level of the upper horizontal towards the end of MS (IIc), and it reaches above this upper horizontal at the beginning of NS (IIIa). However, he believes URU already reaches above the upper horizontal in MS (IIc). According to Klinger (1996: 38) URU with aligned verticals occurs from the beginning of NS (IIIa) on. Starke (1985: 25) dates URU with the middle extended horizontal to the last phase of NS (Starke’s IIIb). Klinger (1996: 38) dates this form of URU to IIIb. Starke (1985: 25) dates the first occurrence of SAG with the large first vertical to the final phase of NS (Starke’s IIIb). KÙ (69) The older form of KÙ (69A) consists of three horizontal wedges on top of one longer horizontal, followed by two verticals, the second of which is broken. According to Starke (1985: 24) the first vertical reaches above the upper horizontal (making the verticals level) at the beginning of NS (IIIa), thus showing the same development as E, URU, UN and SAG. An even later form of KÙ (69B) consists of two broken verticals that stand on top of a small horizontal that may be slightly diagonal. ZU (209(1)) The older form of ZU begins with two horizontal wedges parallel to each other with a smaller horizontal in between (209(1)A). According to Starke (1985: 24) the first vertical reaches above the upper horizontal, thus aligning the verticals, at the beginning of NS (IIIa). The sign thus shows the same development as E, URU, UN and SAG. Another development is that the smaller middle horizontal moves upwards resulting

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating

27

in a broken upper horizontal (209(1)B). This form already occurs in MS, see e.g., KUB 24.4+ obv. 17′ and 22′. EL (307) and RU (43) The signs EL and RU have undergone a similar development. HZL lists only one Leitzeichen for EL, whereas for RU two Leitzeichen are listed. In the older forms of EL and RU the middle vertical is smaller than the outer two (307/1 etc., 43A), whereas in the later forms the three verticals are all of the same size and aligned (307/10, 43B). Starke (1985: 24) dates later forms of EL and RU with aligned verticals to the beginning of NS (IIIa). EN (40) HZL gives three Leitzeichen for the sign EN. The two oldest sign-forms (40A and 40B) both have the two Winkelhaken positioned at the end of the sign, behind or just touching the final vertical wedge, and the first Winkelhaken is positioned slightly higher than the second one. The late form (40C) has these two Winkelhaken positioned below each of the two vertical wedges at more or less the same height. Moreover, it lacks the small vertical wedge below the horizontal that can be found in the two older sign-forms. The two older forms are distinguished by the position of this small vertical. In the oldest form it stands in front of the two verticals touching the horizontal (40A). The middle form has the small vertical placed below the two verticals (40B). The position of the two Winkelhaken does not seem to be significant for dating. Only the occurrence and, if it occurs, the position of the small vertical seems to be significant. GI (30) The older form of GI ends with a wedge slanting upwards with a row of three small Winkelhaken above it (30A). In the later form the slanting wedge is replaced by a Winkelhaken, so that the sign ends with a cluster of Winkelhaken resembling ḪI. According to Starke (1985: 25) the later form with the Winkelhaken instead of a diagonal wedge first occurs in the final phase of NS. Klinger (1996: 35) dates its first occurrence to the beginning of NS (IIIa). ḪA (367) The older form of ḪA has two Winkelhaken (367A), whereas the later form only has one Winkelhaken (367B). Following Klinger (1996: 37f.) the late form of ḪA with one Winkelhaken indicates a date towards the end of NS (IIIc). However, since the difference between the two sign-forms is relatively small, one should be cautious to date a tablet to IIIc only on the basis of late ḪA with a single Winkelhaken if the tablet otherwise appears to be older. In such cases one should consider the possibility that the scribe may have forgotten to write the second Winkelhaken. IG (67) The two main forms of IG are easy to distinguish from each other. The older form (67A) has three horizontals on top of a longer horizontal followed by one vertical

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

28

Introduction

wedge. One Winkelhaken is placed in front of the vertical and two Winkelhaken are placed behind it. The later sign-form (67B) has only one horizontal with two verticals standing on it. The Winkelhaken are basically still in the same position: one is placed in between the two verticals and two are placed behind the final vertical. According to Starke (1985: 25) the later form first occurs in the final phase of NS. However, according to Klinger (1996: 35) it already occurs in MS texts. LI (343) The two forms of LI differ greatly from each other. The older form consists of four Winkelhaken, followed by four horizontals and one vertical wedge (343A). The later form consists of five Winkelhaken followed by two vertical wedges and takes up less space (343B). This late form of LI first occurs during the reign of Muwatalli II.98 SÌLA (21) In the older period SÌLA consists merely of one horizontal and one vertical wedge (21A). In NS (IIIb–c) a diagonal wedge or a Winkelhaken is added above the horizontal wedge (21B).99 SAR (353) The main difference between the older and later forms of SAR is the number of vertical wedges at the end of the sign. The older sign-form ends with a single vertical wedge (353A), whereas the later form has two verticals at the end of the sign (353B). In an even later form the first of these verticals is placed before the horizontal wedges, making the end of the sign look like LAGAB, i.e., a rectangle (353/11–17). Starke (1985: 24–25) dates the introduction of the form with two verticals towards the end of MS (IIc), and the first occurrence of the latest form to the final phase of NS (his IIIb). But note that he distinguished only two phases in this period. Klinger (1996: 38) dates the latest form of SAR, with the LAGAB ending, to the middle of NS (IIIb). ŠA (158) and GA (159) The signs ŠA and GA each have only one Leitzeichen in HZL. Nevertheless, these signs have undergone a clear and similar development that may be used for dating purposes. Older forms of ŠA have one small vertical wedge with its head in between the two horizontals (158 Leitzeichen). In time the small vertical became larger with its head reaching the upper horizontal and eventually it even became the same size as the final vertical wedge (HZL 158/8–10). According to Starke (1985: 24), the growing of the vertical in ŠA begins towards the end of MS (IIc), though at that time it does not yet reach above the upper horizontal, which he dates to the beginning of NS (IIIa).

98 Starke 1981: 468f., Klinger 1996: 35. Starke (1985: 25) categorised the later form of LI in the second – and for him the final – phase of NS (IIIb). 99 Weeden 2011: 49, with a reference to van den Hout’s 1989 unpublished dissertation (non vidi).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Palaeography and Hittite Text Dating

29

GA shows a similar development. The two verticals in the older sign-forms are small and have their heads in between the two horizontals (159/2), whereas in the later forms the verticals are bigger and begin above the two horizontals (159/6–8). TA (160) The development of TA is exactly opposite to that of ŠA. The older forms of TA have two verticals running through the two horizontal wedges and which are the same size as the final vertical wedge (160A). In later forms these two verticals are much smaller and their heads are positioned in between the two horizontal wedges (160B). In addition, there are intermediary forms in which the two verticals are aligned with the upper horizontal (160/6–8). According to Starke (1985: 23) the shrinking of the two verticals starts in the first phase of MS (IIa). However, according to Weeden (2011: 44, fn. 192) these forms occur already on OS tablets. TAR (7) TAR has three distinctive sign-forms that chronologically roughly correspond to the three periods OS, MS and NS. The old form consists of a broken horizontal above a small vertical wedge (7A). In the typical MS form the broken wedge is diagonal (7B), whereas in the later form it is once again horizontal, but the small wedge has become diagonal instead of vertical (7C). Ù (265) The older form of Ù begins with a Winkelhaken and a small horizontal wedge (265A). The later sign-form adds a vertical in between the Winkelhaken and the horizontal, making the beginning of the sign look like IGI. In addition, a vertical is added at the end of the sign, making the sign end with two verticals instead of one (265B). There is a large variation in sign-forms of Ù. HZL lists 32 variants next to the two Leitzeichen. According to Starke (1985: 25) a new form of Ù, the end of which resembles the sign IG, is introduced at the beginning of NS (IIIa). Ligatures The occurrence of ligatures (A+NA, kat+ta, ra+a) is generally considered a characteristic of OS tablets, though they also occur on MS tablets.100 In particular the ligature A+NA, in which A is often written with two complete verticals and no broken vertical, appears often in MS tablets and may be seen as characteristic of MS.101

100 101

Miller 2004: 46 incl. fn. 73, cf. Weeden 2011: 44. Klinger and Neu 1990: 139.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

2. TOWARDS A DEFINITION AND TYPOLOGY OF HITTITE PRAYER It is not easy to formulate a clear, short, and exact definition for this group of twentyfour Hittite prayers. The few scholars who made an attempt merely described what constitutes prayer for the texts under discussion in not too precise terms or neglected it at all, simply describing the prayer(s) at issue.102 Daues and Rieken take one of these general discriptions of Singer (2002b: 307) as the starting point for their definetion of the so-called Hittite ‘personal’ prayer. As a consequence, they consider the presentation of a case, comparable to a court case including the presentation of arguments etc., and the initiation of the prayer by the Hittite king or queen as essential elements of a personal prayer.103 However, this definition does not work for all the Hittite texts that are generally considered as personal prayers,104 let alone for all Hittite prayers. Therefore, a new definition encompassing the entire corpus of Hittite prayer as it has been established by modern scholars will be formulated below (Ch. 2.2), as well as a typology (Ch. 2.3).

2.1 APPROACH Text genres can be defined from a historical perspective, using definitions and classifications of the indigenous people living in the time and place when the texts were created.105 Alternatively one can apply a theoretical approach in which one evaluates meaningful features and characteristics, such as the structure, form, style, purpose, and content of the pertinent text group.106 The former is also called an emic or ethnic approach to genre, whereas the latter is an etic or critical generic approach.107 An

102 103 104

105

106

107

E.g., Singer 2002a: 2f., 5–9, Singer 2002b: 307, Güterbock 1978b: 224–32, Haas 2006: 245, 253f. Daues and Rieken 2018: 3–6. Nonetheless, Daues and Rieken (2018) did study some personal prayers which do not contain the presentation of a case, i.e., CTH 377, CTH 380.1, CTH 381, and CTH 382 (cf. ibid. pp. 5f.). They consider these texts as belonging to the genre in different gradations. An ethnic or historical genre is ‘a historical group or family of literary texts, governed by and perhaps (partly) generated by sets of rules, of which rules [sic] some formal constellation is clearly dominant, thus defining the genre’ (Vanstiphout 1986: 1), cf. Tinney 1996: 13–15. A critical genre ‘is an investigator’s construct – hence located in the investigator’s modelling process and, in turn, in the intellectual and cultural traditions of the time – deductively identified by comparing texts to determine meaningful similarities between them’ (Tinney 1996: 12f.). On the distinction between ethnic and critical genre see Roest and Vanstiphout 1999: 135f., and Tinney 1996: 11–25, cf. Czyzewska 2012: I 25.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

32

Towards a Definition and Typology of Hittite Prayer

emic approach to genre is difficult when contemporary discussions on text classification are lacking, as is the case for Hittite prayer.108 Therefore, an etic or critical approach to genre is endeavoured in the present chapter. There is no certainty that the Hittites themselves classified their texts into genres and subgenres in the same way as we do nowadays.109 Nonetheless, some scholars assume that the Hittites did consider the texts that we classify as prayers to constitute a separate text genre. They base this primarily on the use of the noun arkuwar, a derivative of the verb arkuwai-. This is generally considered to be the Hittite word for ‘prayer’ or a specific type of prayer. It is thought to have denoted originally only the plea, the most important element of a prayer. As such it became, pars pro toto, a term for the entire prayer.110 It is true that in prayers and in their colophons the term arkuwar refers to the prayer-text itself or at least to a part of it. Within the prayertext it occurs primarily in the phrases =za arkuwar iya- and =za arkuwar ešša-.111 The subject is usually the supplicant who states that he/she is presenting or has presented – both present and preterite tense are attested – an arkuwar to the addressed deities. These statements thus refer either to the entire prayer or to the part immediately preceding and/or following it. The verb arkuwai- is used in the same way and in some older prayers we find the verb mugai- instead.112 In colophons such expressions usually also contain a reference to the purpose of the prayer.113 In these instances it seems warranted to translate arkuwar as ‘prayer’. However, whether arkuwar was truly a designation for a specific text type remains, in my view, unclear. The term occurs, for example, also in other contexts where an inferior pleads his case to his superior, as does the verb arkuwai-.114 In such contexts arkuwar is generally understood as meaning ‘plea’ and arkuwai- as ‘to make a plea’.115 When a person such as 108 109

110 111 112 113 114

115

‘The only truly ethnic genre that can be produced is that which comes from the testimony of members of the society in which the literature under study is current.’ (Tinney 1996: 14f.). As Singer (2002a: 2) formulates it: ‘Many a Hittite eyebrow would probably have been raised in view of our endeavor to systematically classify and divide the various religious texts into welldefined categories.’ Haas 2006: 253, Houwink ten Cate 1969: 82. Czyzewska 2012: I 31f. See also p. 77. The term arkuwar occurs in the colophons of CTH 377, CTH 378.1, CTH 378.2, and CTH 382, see pp. 84f. For example in a dictate of Muršili II concerning Syrian disputes (CTH 63), KBo 3.3+ iv 6′–11′: GIMan-ma LUGAL KUR URUkar-kà-miš mdu-ut-ḫa-li-ia-aš / mḫal-pa-ḫi-iš-ša mtup-⸢pí⸣-d10-ša MA-ḪAR dUTUŠI / ú-wa-an-zi na-at PA-NI dUTUŠI ták-ša-an / ti-ia-an-zi na-aš dUTUŠI A-NA DI!ḪI.A / pu-nu-uš-mi nu-za ku-iš ku-it ar-ku-wa-ar / DÙ-zi na-at dUTUŠI iš-ta-ma-aš-mi ‘When, however, the king of Karkamiš, Tudḫaliya and Ḫalpaḫi, as well as Tuppi-Teššub, come before My Majesty, they will appear before My Majesty together, and I, My Majesty, will question them concerning the judicial matter. And whoever makes a plea (arkuwar), I, My Majesty, will listen to it.’ (cf. Miller 2007a: 128, 130, Czyzewksa 2012: II 2). Laroche 1964–65: 13–19, Houwink ten Cate 1969: 82f., Melchert 1998: 45–46, and Singer 2002a: 5. On the meanings of arkuwar and arkuwai-, see Melchert 1998. For a diachronic overview of all the different translations proposed for the two terms, see Czyzewska 2012: I 27–31.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Approach

33

the Hittite king directs a prayer to the gods, he too is an inferior who pleads his case to a superior, in this case a deity.116 Therefore, arkuwar refers to the phenomenon in which a person tries to explain to his superior what has taken place, what he needs or desires, and why it took place or is necessary. The term arkuwar would then always refer to the ‘plea’, whether or not in a juridical sense, that the inferior makes to his superior. This ‘plea’ becomes a ‘prayer’ when the superior is a deity. The Hittites apparently did not make a distinction, but used the same term in religious and secular contexts.117 The term arkuwar may thus refer to a wider range of texts than just (a type of) prayer. It is important to bear in mind that the text corpus of Hittite prayer as it is known today is a modern construct or classification, i.e., a critical or etic genre. We will probably never know how they were classified by the ancient Hittite scribes and others who dealt with written texts. It may very well have differed from our modern classifications. This is not to say that the Hittites did not realise that the prayers were somehow related. On the contrary, the case studies presented in Chs. 5–9 show that they were well aware of the similarities and the similar purposes of most of the socalled ‘personal’ prayers. Not only is the categorisation of Hittite texts into genres a modern one, but also subdivisions or typologies of these text genres are mostly modern. No comprehensive typology of Hittite prayer has yet been established. The attempts made by Laroche, followed by other scholars such as Houwink ten Cate and Lebrun, were based on the study of Hittite terms used for and in prayers, including arkuwar and mugawar. They assumed that such terms denote specific types of prayer. For example, they used Hittite arkuwar to designate the majority of the Hittite royal or personal prayers.118 However, Singer argued that the terms discussed by Laroche refer to specific sections of the prayers rather than to separate prayer types.119 In a recent study Czyzewska interprets arkuwar as referring both to a type of prayer, i.e., the New Hittite personal

116

117

118

119

The same analogy between a servant and his master and the king and a deity occurs in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2), KUB 14.8 rev. 23′–28′, see pp. 116f. and the discussion in Ch. 5.1.3. The concept is also reflected in addresses to deities with the epithet ‘my lord(s)’ or ‘my lady’. The distinction between religious or sacred and profane is a modern concept, first developed by Durkheim (1912) and later by Eliade (1957) without reference to Durkheim’s earlier work, which almost certainly cannot be applied to the ancient Hittite worldview. The Hittite language did not develop terminology to distinguish between the two concepts. Instead, the Hittites distinguished between pure and impure (Wilhelm 1999: 204f.). Laroche 1964–65: 13f., 16–19, Lebrun 1980: 414–18, 426ff., Houwink ten Cate 1969: 84–86. Their typologies are followed by scholars such as Taracha 2009: 141ff., and de Roos 1995: 1999ff., cf. Justus 2004: 273f. Singer 2002a: 5. Nonetheless, he does identify some of Muršili’s prayers concerning the plague as pleas (arkuwar), based on their colophons or content, and other prayers as invocations (mugawar), see Singer 2002a: 48. Laroche already noted that not all terms denote a specific type of prayer, but that some refer to elements of prayers (Laroche 1964–65, cf. Haas 2006: 253, Justus 2004: 273f.).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

34

Towards a Definition and Typology of Hittite Prayer

prayer, and to a part of the prayer, i.e., the plea.120 Though these studies on prayer terminology are invaluable for our understanding of these terms and their use in prayers, it remains problematic to connect a specific term to a specific type or section of a prayer. Below a critical approach is applied to define Hittite prayer and to establish a basic typology of prayer. First, a general definition of the Hittite text genre prayer is formulated based on the main characteristics of the texts in the corpus (Ch. 2.2). Subsequently, other text types that also comply with the definition are discussed and taken up in a basic typology of Hittite prayer (Ch. 2.3). In this way the corpus is contextualised within a larger group of related text types.

2.2 DEFINING HITTITE PRAYER A prayer represents speech, i.e., words intended to be spoken.121 Speech naturally communicates a message from a speaker to a recipient. Therefore, the most salient characteristics of prayer significant for establishing a definition are (1) the participants or actors in the communication (speaker/supplicant, recipient/addressee, and beneficiary), (2) the nature of the communicated message, (3) the reason for the prayer’s composition and performance, and (4) its ultimate goal. Below, a critical definition of Hittite prayer is formulated on the bases of these four aspects of the extant Hittite prayers.122 In the prayers the speaker, i.e., the person praying or the supplicant, is referred to in the first person. In most cases, though not always, the speaker is the Hittite king and/or queen. Another person, presumably a scribe or a priest, may recite the prayer on the king’s behalf, even though the text is written as if the king recites it himself.123 The recipient or addressee of the prayer is referred to in the second person. Each prayer is addressed to one or more deities. In some prayers one finds natural entities such as rivers and mountains124 or the place of the assembly125 among the addressees. These are also divine entities. The supplicant may pray for his own well-being, but also for the well-being of another person. Such a beneficiary is referred to in the third person in the prayers.126

120 121 122 123

124 125 126

Czyzewska 2012: I 19–20. The direct speech particle =wa(r) is, however, usually not written. The first lines of the plea in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) do have the particle. The following deliberations are based on the prayers listed in Appendix I. For example, in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) it is stated in the introduction that another person performs the prayer for Muršili (see p. 157). The prayer is, however, written as if Muršili himself is speaking. In the prayers of Muwatalli II, CTH 381 and CTH 382. In CTH 381 and CTH 72. On the actors (supplicant, addressee, beneficiary) of the prayers, see p. 49 and Table 1 (p. 50).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Defining Hittite Prayer

35

The primary message of the communicated speech can be found in the plea, which is the most important and longest element of a Hittite prayer (see Ch. 3.4). In the plea the addressed deities are requested to help the supplicant or beneficiary in some way. Usually there is a problematic situation that needs to be resolved. This problem, the nature of which may vary, affected the Hittite king, his family, and/or the entire land of Ḫatti and was the reason to compose and perform the prayer (cf. Table 2 on p. 51). The requests to resolve it are the primary message conveyed to the addressed deities. The main goal of any prayer is a successful communication, i.e., to ensure that the addressed deities hear the prayer and respond favourably by granting the and resolving the problem that was the reason to compose and perform the prayer. This is clear from the use of explicit arguments why the addressees should grant the supplicant’s requests (see Ch. 3.6). The use of persuasive or rhetorical strategies to ascertain a successful communication indicates that the wording of the prayer itself was of the utmost importance. In some prayers the supplicant even argues that the addressee is obliged to help him or her by referring to a general social rule or proverb (see Ch. 5.1). The supplicant thus directed his prayer to deities whom he expected to be benevolent toward him and the beneficiary.127 Based on the features discussed above one can define Hittite prayer as follows:128 texts (wrien in Hiite) that represent carefully formulated (human) speech that communicates one’s petitions to one or more benevolent deities and/or supernatural entities. To include the term ‘religious’ would be superfluous, for it is obvious that speech directed to supernatural entities or deities is religious rather than secular. Moreover, there probably was no distinctive religious language in the ancient Hittite society.129 Therefore, the term ‘religious’ is omitted in the definition of Hittite prayer.

127

128

129

Lenzi (2011: 9–10) argues that the deities addressed in Mesopotamian prayers were expected to respond favourably to a prayer and were, therefore, always considered benevolent towards the supplicant. This means that it is implicitly or explicitly assumed in the text that the recipients of a prayer are expected to help the supplicant and both literally and figuratively ‘hear his prayers’. They are requested and expected to be on his side and grant his requests. This is also the case when the addressed deity is angry with the supplicant, because the performance of the prayer should appease the angry deity. Cf. van de Peut 2013: 445. The formulated definition builds on the definition of Mesopotamian prayer formulated by Lenzi (2011: 9): ‘A prayer … is a kind of religious, ritual form of speech that communicates one’s concerns/petitions to a benevolent supra-human being (or more than one being) via words’, cf. van de Peut 2013: 444–47. Compare also the definitions of Mesopotamian prayer by Oshima (2011: 5) and Frechette 2012: 1, fn. 4. See p. 33, fn. 117. The large majority of Hittite texts can in one way or another be defined as ‘religious’ or pertaining to religion, making it difficult if not impossible to define what constitutes Hittite religious language use. Studies that try to identify what constitutes religious Hittite language, such as Rieken 2014, are, in my view, methodologically problematic.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

36

Towards a Definition and Typology of Hittite Prayer

2.3 A BASIC TYPOLOGY OF HITTITE PRAYER On formal criteria the corpus of Hittite prayers as listed in Appendix I can be divided into two types: prayers within a ritual and what will be referred to as independent or personal prayers.130 The latter are texts of which the entire content – except for the colophon and perhaps a text designation (see Ch. 3.5) – consists solely of the prayertext that was to be recited. The prayers within a ritual are distinguished from them because they are accompanied by ritual instructions. The presence of ritual instructions means that these prayers are incorporated into a ritual. As a consequence, the texts as a whole belong to the genre of ritual compositions rather than to that of prayer. This group consists of four prayers: the three texts that Singer refers to as ‘invocations’ (CTH 371, CTH 385.10, and CTH 389.2)131 and the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381). The latter is usually listed among the personal prayers and the text indeed shows similarities to this prayer type (see Ch. 2.4). Besides these two prayer types, there are three other text groups that, according to the definition of prayer formulated above, can also be classified as prayers. The first group is what may be referred to as short prayer-recitations in rituals.132 These include the so-called benedictions attested in the OH ritual for the royal couple CTH 416.133 These short prayer-recitations consisting of requests for the well-being of the royal couple are often considered to be forerunners of the three older prayers within rituals (CTH 371, CTH 385.10, and CTH 389.2),134 even though there is no evidence to support this. As the prayers within rituals, these short prayer-recitations are also incorporated in ritual texts. Note, however, that not all recitations in rituals are prayers; other types of speech occur in rituals as well.135

130 131

132 133

134

135

One also finds the term royal prayers to refer to the majority of these prayers, namely to those prayers in which the supplicant is a king and/or queen, e.g., Houwink ten Cate 1969. Singer (2002b: 307) argues that ‘the term “invocation” (mugauwar) is preferable when referring to these early texts [i.e., CTH 371, CTH 389.2 and CTH 385.10], reserving the term “prayer” (arkuwar) for the fully developed genre of Hittite personal prayer’. In the present study, to avoid confusion, the term ‘invocation’ is only used to refer to the section of the prayer in which the addressed deity is invoked to come to the location of the prayer, for which see Ch. 7.2. Taracha 2009: 141, Singer 2002a: 13, Popko 1995: 81f., 102. Otten and Souček 1969, Montuori 2015. The ritual contains a short prayer-recitation to the gods (KBo 17.5+ ii 9–12 // KBo 17.4+ ii 4′–7′), and one to the Sun-god and the Storm-god (KBo 17.1+ ii 41′–iii 2, iii 10–13). Popko 1995: 81f, 102f., Singer 2002a: 13, Singer 2002b: 306, Taracha 2009: 141f. However, there are no studies that investigate how these two types of prayer relate to each other. Moreover, it is a rather big step to go from short requests for well-being to these long prayers in a ritual. Prayerrecitations in other rituals, such as the evocation rituals, would need to be studied as well in this respect. On the relationship between prayers in the corpus with prayers in rituals concerning a disappearing deity see Ch. 7.2.3, Ch. 8.3.3, and Ch. 9.3. Polvani (2004: 369) states that a ‘fundamental characteristic of the ritual, acknowledged by everyone, is the combination of actions and words, and the words of the ritual might be prayers, songs, chants, benedictions, incantations, etc. that often contain allusions to myths or mythical motifs, the

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

A Basic Typology of Hittite Prayer

37

The votive texts published by de Roos are closely related to the genre of prayer.136 The main characteristic of the votive texts is the vow in which a deity is promised valuable objects, persons, animals, or certain performances in exchange for fulfilling the wish of the person making the vow. Many vows were made in dreams. The votive texts recording these vows had an administrative function.137 Some vows contain speech addressed to a deity that can have a prayer-like character. For example, the votive text KUB 15.23 contains the following passage: CTH 584.4, KUB 15.23 rev. 17′–21′: 17′ ⸢MUNUS⸣.LUGAL-za-kán A-NA dUTU ANE ŠA URUḫu-ḫa-na 18′ [kiš]-an IK-RU-UB ma-a-an DINGIRLUM EN-IA dUTUŠI 19′ [MU?Ḫ]I.A 138 TI-nu-ši nu-za DINGIRLUM ḫal-zi-⸢ia-mi⸣ 20′ [Š]A dUTUŠI-ia-aš-ša ⸢ALAM⸣ [KÙ.GI] 21′ [ … ] DÙ-mi KI.⸢LÁ⸣.BI NU.GÁL The queen made a vow to the Sun-god of Heaven of Ḫuḫana [as fol]lows : ‘If you, O God, my lord, keep His Majesty alive [for year]s, then I will call the god and I will make a [golden] statue of His Majesty of unspecified weight.’ In the first sentence citing the queen’s words the Sun-god of Heaven of Ḫuḫana is addressed directly, as is clear from the verb in the second person singular and the epithet EN-IA ‘my lord’. In the following clauses, however, the deity seems to be referred to in the third person; in any case there is no explicit reference to a second person. This kind of speech addressed to deities may be interpreted as prayers cited in votive texts. Their administrative character implies that they record was has been said, whether in reality or in a dream, rather than a text composed in preparation for recitation or performance.139 Finally, one should include the prayers that have been translated into Hittite. The purpose of these ‘foreign’ texts in the tablet collections of the Hittite state in Ḫattuša was probably significantly different from that of the prayers that were composed specifically for Hittite internal use. The translated prayers include those written on a separate tablet, such as the hymn to Adad KBo 3.21 (CTH 313)140 and the prayer to

136 137 138 139

140

so-called mythologems’. A survey of recitations in Hittite rituals and festival texts falls outside the scope of the present study. De Roos 1984, 2007. De Roos 2007: 3–12. Restoration follows de Roos 2007: 115. Sürenhagen (1981: 143) reads [GÍ]R?ḪI.A. Detailed analyses of the votive texts in their different forms (e.g., a prayer, a dream, or some other form) will provide useful insights into the status and function of the kinds of speech that occur in these texts. A Hittite translation of an unknown Akkadian hymn to Adad written in Middle Script. For the text, see Archi 1983.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

38

Towards a Definition and Typology of Hittite Prayer

Ištar KUB 31.141 (CTH 312.II).141 Another rather fragmentary text that needs to be mentioned here is the possible bilingual KBo 1.12 (CTH 792.1). The text in the left column is written in Akkadian and the right column shows traces of what could be a Hittite translation.142 A few fragments of trilingual prayers have come down to us, all addressed to the Storm-god Iškur/Adad (CTH 314). They have up to four columns written in Sumerian, syllabic Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hittite.143 Besides these translations of (Sumero-)Akkadian prayers, there are some short addresses to deities in rituals translated from Hattic into Hittite144 and there is a possible translation of a Hurrian prayer within a ritual (KUB 24.7 i and part of ii).145 The translated (Sumero-)Akkadian prayers need to be seen in light of the foreign prayers found in the tablet collections of Ḫattuša, most notably those written in Akkadian and Sumerian.146 Hittite translations seem to have been made only of those hymns and prayers that were directed to deities which had an equivalent in the Hittite pantheon, primarily the Sun-god, the Storm-god and Ištar. The same is true for the Akkadian and Sumerian prayers kept in the Hittite tablet collections. The large majority is directed to the Sun-god Utu/Šamaš. This suggests that the Hittites carefully selected the material.147 The general assumption is that the translated prayers served educational and/or scholarly purposes.148 Each of the text types discussed above agrees with the definition of Hittite prayer formulated as texts (wrien in Hiite) that represent carefully formulated (human) speech that communicates one’s petitions to one or more benevolent deities and/or supernatural entities. Consequently, each can be understood as a type of prayer. Together they form the following basic typology of Hittite prayer. Basic typology of Hittite prayer (critical genre):   Independent or personal prayers   Translated prayers

141 142 143 144 145

146 147 148

A Hittite translation of the Akkadian prayer to Ištar KUB 37.36 + KUB 37.37 (CTH 312.I). For the text, see Reiner and Güterbock 1967. Wilhelm 1994: 68f., Metcalf 2015a: 86. For the text, see Klinger 2010: 312–24 and Schwemer 2001: 191–96. Wilhelm 1994: 60f. KUB 24.7 (CTH 717) is a Sammeltafel that contains two apparently unrelated texts, though Haas (2006: 199–206) sees the whole as one composition. The first column and part of the second column of the obverse contain a prayer or hymn to Ištar which is generally considered to be of Hurrian origin (Güterbock 1983 and Archi 1977: 305–10). The remainder of the tablet contains the tale of ‘the Sun-god the cow and the fisherman’, for which see Friedrich 1950: 224–33 and Hoffner 1981. However, Singer (1995: 127–28) argues the prayer may be originally Anatolian rather than Hurrian. The Akkadian and Sumerian prayers found in Ḫattuša are listed on p. 2, fn. 3. Wilhelm 1994: 68, Metcalf 2015a: 83. Güterbock 1978b: 224, Singer 2002a: 3, Wilhelm 1994: 68, 70, 72, 74.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

A Basic Typology of Hittite Prayer

39

Incorporated in texts of another genre:   Prayers within rituals   (Short) prayer-recitations in rituals   Speech addressed to a deity in votive texts Some prayer types can be subdivided into subtypes. For instance, translated prayers can be subdivided into independent translations written on a separate tablet, and bior trilingual prayers that also give the original version of the text in the original language. One could also subdivide the independent prayers in various ways, e.g., based on the identity of the supplicant (king, queen, or other), the reason for the prayer (plague, illness, slander, or enemies), the goal it aims to achieve (well-being, healing, appeasing an angry deity etc.), or whether or not it contains certain textual elements (confession, hymn, etc.). Such subdivisions are not made here, since they do not seem useful for the present study. The delineation of the borders between types of prayer is not clear-cut but fuzzy as is clear from prayers that seem to combine two basic prayer types, such as the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) or the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384), see Ch. 2.4. The established definition and typology of Hittite prayer can be used as a starting point for further study on the text genre. For example, further study of prayer-recitations in rituals is necessary to ascertain whether or not it is useful to distinguish between short prayer-recitations in rituals and longer prayers within rituals as in the typology presented here. The definition of Hittite prayer may be refined or adjusted in order to include or exclude certain text types. One may argue that it would be better to employ a narrower definition of prayer in order to exclude some of the prayer types listed below. However, one thing all these text types have in common is that they constitute speech directed to one or more deities containing petitions or requests that are expected to be granted by the addressed deities. This is the most essential feature of a prayer, whether one uses arguments (as in many independent prayers), vows (votive texts), or other methods to achieve one’s goals. A prayer type that is remarkably absent in this basic typology is the hymn. Hymns can be defined as prayers that primarily if not exclusively render praise to the addressed deity.149 There are a few translated hymns, but no independent originally Hittite hymns have come down to us. Given that there are no Hittite hymns, it is somewhat misleading that in the Catalogue des textes hiites (CTH), started by Laroche and later continued in the online Konkordanz, the Hittite texts conventionally identified as prayers, CTH 371–389, are listed under the heading ‘hymnes et prières’.150 Similarly, scholars often refer to Hittite hymns and prayers as if they were different types of text.151 The introductions of a number of Hittite prayers do contain 149 150 151

Lenzi 2011: 9. On Hittite hymns, which are always part of a larger composition, see Wilhelm 1994. Laroche 1971: 65–68. E.g., Singer (2002a: 2) mentions that it is difficult to define ‘the parameters of this text genre with regard to neighboring ones, such as hymns, …’ and Haas (2006: 245) speaks of texts that can be classified as hymns, cf. Wilhelm 1994: 61.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

40

Towards a Definition and Typology of Hittite Prayer

hymnic passages. The most important element of these prayers is, however, not the hymn but the plea which contains the petitions. Most of the hymns in the introductions of prayers are adaptations of one another (see Ch. 7.4.1) and they were ultimately inspired from foreign sources.152 Hymns were thus initially foreign to the Hittites and never developed into a separate type of prayer.153 In addition, the hymns in prayer introductions were not very successful. Only eight of the twenty-four prayers in the corpus contain hymnic passages and over time they became shorter.154 Eventually the hymn may have disappeared from the genre. Two text types that are closely related to prayers still deserve our attention: curses and oracular inquiries. In curses the gods who are expected to enact the curse, when necessary, are generally referred to in the third person. The actual curse is often addressed to the person whom it concerns.155 Since prayer has been defined as words addressed to divine beings or entities, curses are not prayers. The same is true for benedictions that are not addressed to deities. Nonetheless, the purpose of such benedictions and curses is closely related to that of prayers, since the gods are expected to respond, albeit only if a specific situation would arise. Oracular inquiries also need to be distinguished from prayers. These texts record the inquiries that were made to a deity and the oracular responses. As the votive texts they have an administrative function.156 These texts contain speech in the form of questions directed to a deity, even though the addressee is not always mentioned explicitly. But the intention of the speech differs from that of prayers. In oracular inquiries the person asking the question to the deity does not try to persuade the deity to grant the request, and the deity is not expected to grant that request. Instead, the deity is expected to answer truthfully through oracle. Often a particular answer was desired, namely an answer that would be beneficial for the Hittite king and state. There may have been ways to influence the outcome of an inquiry, but there is no evidence that this was done through pleading. The many references to oracular inquiries in Hittite independent or personal prayers show that the practice was closely related to the act of praying. The two operations complemented one another.157 Through oracular inquiry the Hittite rulers could uncover the cause of a specific problem – usually an offence that angered a deity – as well as what needed to be done to resolve it. In a prayer the king could confess the offences that were determined as the cause of his troubles to the gods, he could state that he has already done what was necessary to appease the angry deity,

152 153 154

155 156 157

Laroche 1964–65: 27f., Wilhelm 1994, Archi 1995: 2367, Haas 2006: 245, see also Güterbock 1958: 241f., de Roos 1995: 2001f. and Popko 1995: 132f. Wilhelm 1994: 68, 74, cf. Metcalf 2015a: 81. CTH 372–74 and CTH 376.II (relatively long hymnic passages, see Ch. 7.4.1), CTH 377 (shorter hymnic passage, see Ch. 7.4.1), CTH 381 (a short hymnic passage, see p. 222), CTH 383 (a very short passage), and CTH 384 (only a few lines for each deity). Christiansen 2012: 494. On Hittite oracular inquiry, see e.g., Beal 2002a, 2002b, van den Hout 2003–2005, and Haas 2008. On the relationship between votive texts and oracular inquiry, see de Roos 2007: 4.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Independent Personal Prayers versus Prayers within a Ritual

41

or promise that he will do so shortly. Furthermore, through prayer it was possible to ask the gods to respond to oracular inquiries still to be performed and to complain that no useful answers were given to previous inquiries.

2.4 INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRAYERS VERSUS PRAYERS WITHIN A RITUAL The independent prayers and the prayers within rituals are distinguished from each other because the latter are accompanied by ritual instructions whereas the independent prayers are not. There are two additional characteristics that distinguish the two types. Firstly, in most independent prayers the reason for the composition and performance of a prayer is stated explicitly. Historical references can also be found in the description of misdeeds of former kings and occasionally in other descriptive parts of the text. The historical information thus preserved, is what makes the independent prayers unique in comparison to other prayer corpora. It is, moreover, a valuable source to reconstruct parts of the history of the Hittite kingdom. The Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) and its parallel prayers (CTH 372 and CTH 374), as well as the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) are exceptions, since they do not contain any references to specific (historical) events.158 In addition, the supplicant and beneficiary of the prayer are almost always mentioned by name in the prayer itself. The only certain exceptions are the Prayer of a king (CTH 374) and the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372). In the Prayer to Telipinu (CTH 377) the name of the scribe who prays is not given, but the beneficiary whose well-being he requests, Muršili II, is mentioned by name.159 In some other prayers the personal names of the supplicant and/or beneficiary are not preserved, but this is due to the state of preservation of the texts. The descriptions of the actual circumstances that prompted the composition and performance of the prayer, and the explicit mentioning of the name of the supplicant and the beneficiary, mean that the independent prayers could only be used by one particular person for one particular occasion. With few possible exceptions they are not model prayers that can be reused on another occasion. On the other hand, the prayers within rituals do not refer to any specific event,160 and the reasons for performing the rituals (slander, well-being) are of a rather general nature or it was still to be inserted into the text, as is the case in CTH 381.161 Therefore, these rituals with their incorporated prayers could be reused over and over again whenever it was considered appropriate.

158 159 160 161

The Prayer of a king (CTH 374) may contain a reference to a specific event (Schwemer 2015: 362, Singer 2002a: 33). Possibly CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II also form exceptions. On this text, see Ch. 4. In CTH 389.2 there seem to be some references to specific events, though it is not possible to connect these to a specific moment in time, see Steitler 2015a: 201. Singer 2002b: 306 (concerning CTH 371, CTH 385.10, and CTH 389.2). The reasons for the performance of each prayer in the corpus are listed in Table 2 (p. 51).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

42

Towards a Definition and Typology of Hittite Prayer

Secondly, in the prayers within rituals the person who recites the prayer is referred to in the first person singular, the addressee(s) in the second person, and the beneficiaries (the king and queen for whom the ritual with the prayer is to be performed) in the third person. A priest or official recites and performs these prayers for the Hittite king and queen.162 Exceptions to this format are CTH 389.3, in which the king seems to recite most of the prayer himself (see Ch. 3.1), and the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381), for which see below. In contrast, the majority of the independent or personal prayers seem to be recited by the beneficiaries themselves or at least the texts are written as if that is the case.163 Thus in most of these prayers the beneficiary is identical to the person praying.164 Exceptions can be found in the first part of the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) and in the first part of the Prayer of a Mortal (CTH 374), see Ch. 9.3.1. Furthermore, there are three prayers in which the supplicant prays for the well-being of another person (CTH 377, CTH 380, and CTH 384). Interestingly, in these prayers the speaker or supplicant is not the Hittite king but a scribe (CTH 377) or a queen (CTH 384 and CTH 380). The Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 380) is dificult to categorise. Since the prayer describes a substitute ritual, it may very well have contained ritual instructions, though none are preserved. Although the text seems more closely related to ritual compositions than to prayers, it is listed among the independent or personal prayers because the preserved text is addressed to a deity and asks for help of some kind (cf. Ch. 2.2). Two prayers in the corpus are composite prayers that combine elements of two separate prayer types in one text. The so-called Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381), which has here been classified as a prayer within a ritual, also shows traits of an independent or personal prayer. The name of the beneficiary, Muwatalli II, is given and the prayer is written as if Muwatalli recites and performs the prayer himself. No references to specific events are given, but these were probably included in the king’s plea that was to be inserted.165 The one performing the ritual appears to be Muwatalli

162 163

164 165

Singer 2002b: 306. The same is true for many prayer-recitations that occur in rituals. In two prayers of Muršili II (CTH 376.II and CTH 378.2) it is indicated in the introduction that the prayer is recited on behalf of the Hittite king by a third person, probably a priest or official of some kind. Singer (2002b: 306) interprets this as a clear indication of ‘the ultimate authorship of the king’. Whether or not the king was personally involved in the composition of a prayer can, however, only be guessed. The prayer to Telipinu (CTH 377) contains the same introduction with an assignment of the king Muršili II, but the text is not formulated as if Muršili II recites it himself. In fact, it is the prayer of a scribe, not of the king, see Ch. 4.1. For the introductions with an assignment for the reciter see Ch. 7.1. Many prayers also contain requests for the prosperity of the land of Ḫatti. One may argue that Ḫatti is an additional beneficiary in such cases. KUB 6.46 iv 45–47 (// KUB 6.45+ ii 1, iv 46–47): GIM-an-ma NINDA.GUR4.RAḪI.A pár-ši-ia-u-wa-an-zi ziin-na-i / nu-kán ku-e A-WA-TEMEŠ A-NA dUTUŠI ŠÀ-ta / na-at-za A-NA DINGIRMEŠ ar-ku-wa-ar DÙ-zi → ‘When he finishes breaking the thick breads, the matters which are in His Majesty’s heart, he will make them into a plea (arkuwar).’

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Independent Personal Prayers versus Prayers within a Ritual

43

himself.166 In addition, the prayer has parallels to passages from prayers of Muršili II (see Ch. 9.4). These features have led others to classify this text among the personal prayers. However, since the prayer is accompanied by ritual instructions it is classified as a prayer within a ritual in the present study. Due to these similarities with the independent or personal prayers, the prayer of Muwatalli II may be used as a source for the ritual context and performance of the independent prayers. The other composite case is the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 383). The text combines features of an independent prayer and a votive text. This is the only independent prayer that consists of five prayers, each directed to a different deity. The five prayers are written together on the same tablet, and they clearly belong together. This is most obvious in the three final prayers for intercession since they refer explicitly to the first prayer directed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Like the votive texts, each of the prayers ends with a vow promising valuable objects if the presented requests are granted. In this way elements of two prayer types are combined. The presence of the vows and the fact that the text consists of several prayers may be due to the influence of the votive texts. Possibly this also explains the lack of a colophon.167 The style of the pleas, the fact that Puduḫepa and Ḫattušili are mentioned by name, and the prayers for intercession are more reminiscent of independent or personal prayers than of votive texts, which are often anonymous.

166

167

The person performing the ritual is referred to in the third person. In the ritual instructions this third person is also used to refer to the person reciting the prayer who, according to the prayertext, is Muwatalli II. Waal 2015: 290f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

3. THE CORPUS OF HITTITE PRAYERS The extant Hittite prayers were no standard liturgical texts to be recited regularly.168 Rather they were petitionary prayers composed and performed for a specific occasion in an attempt to resolve a specific problem. Illness, plague, and problems with enemies were the main reasons to compose and perform a prayer. The addressed deities are requested to help the supplicant or beneficiary of the prayer – usually the Hittite king – and, either directly or as a consequence, to aid the land of Ḫatti. The main goal of performing a prayer was to ensure that the requests presented in the prayer were granted by the deities addressed; in other words, to make the prayer ‘work’. The different textual elements that form the prayer and their organisation aim to achieve this goal. The tablets on which the prayers were written belonged to the tablet collections of the state administration in Ḫattuša. Prayers have been found in all three major find spots – the storage rooms of Temple I (also known as the Great Temple), several buildings on Büyükkale (the palace), and the so-called Haus am Hang (the ‘House on the Slope’). A few fragments were unearthed elsewhere in the upper and the lower city. The majority of the Hittite prayers of which the find spots are known come from Temple I. Thus far no Hittite prayers have been found outside of Ḫattuša. An overview of the corpus of Hittite prayers is presented in Ch. 3.1 and Ch. 3.2 below. The reasons for composing and performing a prayer, the goals of the texts, and how the text aims to achieve its goal, as well as the human and divine participants in the recitation of the prayer are treated there. Subsequently, Ch. 3.3 concerns copies and contemporary original tablets. This includes a small case study on the Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle against slander (CTH 371), which seems to have been read from the tablet during the performance of that ritual. How the prayers are structured and what kind of structural elements can be distinguished in the prayers is treated in Ch. 3.4. A discussion of the extant colophons and text designations of the prayers and what they teach us can be found in Ch. 3.5. Finally, in Ch. 3.6, some of the explicit arguments that are employed in prayers to persuade the addressed deities are treated.

3.1 PRAYERS WITHIN A RITUAL A group of three texts, referred to as ‘invocations’ by Singer, are ritual texts that contain relatively long prayers (CTH 371, CTH 385.10, and CTH 389.2). Only one of the

168

The single exception is the daily prayer to Telipinu (CTH 377), see Ch. 4.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

46

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

extant tablets was written in Middle Script, KBo 7.28 + KBo 8.92 (CTH 371), but for all three texts an even older date of composition has been suggested.169 Therefore, these texts are generally considered to constitute the first stage in the development of the Hittite prayer genre.170 However, the lack of intertextual parallels between these three prayers within a ritual and the other texts in the corpus implies that there is no direct connection between them. A fourth prayer within a ritual is the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381). These four prayers are described below. They are also included in the overviews of the participants (addressee, beneficiary, and speaker) of all prayers in the corpus in Table 1 (p. 50) and of the reasons to perform the prayers and their goals in Table 2 (p. 51). Two of the prayers within a ritual are against slander (CTH 371 and CTH 389.2). These were performed either when there were clear indications of slander or cursing against the king (and queen) or when such a threat was suspected. CTH 385.10 is a ritual with prayer for the well-being of the royal couple. The direct reason for its performance is unclear. All three rituals had as their goal to ensure the well-being of the king (and queen). The prayers within these rituals were recited by a priest or official on behalf of the king (and queen) who are never mentioned by name. In CTH 385.10 the titles Labarna and Tawannanna are used to refer to the royal couple. Only the prayer against slander in CTH 389.2 is for the largest part recited by the king himself. The last preserved paragraphs are spoken by another person as is clear from the references to the king and queen in the third person.171 Part of the prayer is addressed to the gods and a part to the Sun-god172 and the Storm-god in particular. The prayer against slander in CTH 371 is addressed to multiple deities. The main addressee is the Sun-goddess of the Earth to whom the first part of the prayer is directed. Subsequently, seven deities and one group of deities are addressed. All these deities belong to the circle or entourage of the Sun-goddess of the Earth. They are subordinate to her and probably in her service. One paragraph is directed to each. They are (in order) the Protective deity of the Sun-goddess of the Earth, the Vizier of the Sun-goddess of the Earth, the Servants of the Sun-goddess of the Earth who are described as ‘the servants who put her to bed and strengthen her’, which probably means to wake her up,173 Darawa, Paraya, the Chief of the Eunuchs, the Chief of the Barbers, and Ḫilašši, the deified courtyard. The final rather fragmentary preserved paragraphs are directed to all these minor deities as a group. These minor deities are requested to intercede with the Sun-goddess of the Earth. CTH 385.10 is generally described as a ritual and prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. However, the text contains only one possible direct address to this goddess in 169 170 171 172 173

Singer 2002a: 21–25, Singer 2002b: 306, cf. Steitler 2015a: 202 (concerning CTH 389.2). Singer 2002b. KUB 36.91+ rev. 12ff. with duplicates. The Sun-god, written as dUTU without any further designation, is considered to be the male Sun-god Ištanu (Steitler 2015a: 200–1). KBo 7.28 + KBo 8.92 obv. 24′–25′, for which see Ch. 3.3.3.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Prayers within a Ritual

47

a fragmentary context.174 Other preserved direct addresses are directed to the Sungod of Heaven,175 and to the Sun-god(dess) without any further designation.176 The prayer is recited by the priest of the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the ritual, or at least part of it, is performed on the roof of the temple of the Sun-god(dess), here again without any further designation.177 This suggests that the Sun-god of Heaven and the Sun-goddess of Arinna were considered to be one and the same deity at the time that these copies were made. The fourth prayer within a ritual in the corpus is the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381). As discussed in Ch. 2.4, this NH prayer within a ritual shares characteristics with the independent or personal prayers. This remarkably well-preserved prayer with ritual instructions is a model prayer that could be used in any difficult situation.178 Hence, the text seems to be a unique source to inform us about the ritual acts that may have accompanied the performance of any Hittite prayer.179 The reason for the prayer is described at the beginning of the text as ‘If some problem troubles a man, he performs a prayer to the gods’.180 The description of the actual problem and the requests to resolve it still need to be inserted in the form of a plea.181 The versions that have come down to us were composed specifically for Muwatalli II. Singer also ascribes the authorship of the text to Muwatalli II.182 There is no evidence that the prayer was performed during Muwatalli’s reign or in later times. The prayer is addressed to a multitude of gods and has a unique structure. It contains the longest enumeration of gods known in Hittite texts.183 The deities may be divided into two groups: the ‘gods of Ḫatti’, who are addressed immediately at the beginning of the prayer, and the ‘gods of all the lands’. The prayer begins with a short introduction stating the purpose of the text and some ritual instructions.184 After the address to the ‘gods of Ḫatti’,185 the structure of the prayer is summarised or announced,186 followed by requests to listen to the prayer and to ignore anything

174 175 176 177

178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186

KUB 57.63 iii 15′f.: ⸢URUa-ri-in-na⸣ / dUTU-[w]a-aš. KUB 57.63 ii 16f. // KUB 57.60 ii 11′: nu tu-wa-a[d-d]u ne-⸢pí⸣-ša-aš / dUTU-u-i ‘Mercy! O Sun-god of Heaven!’. KUB 57.63 ii 32 // KUB 57.60 ii 22′: dUTU-uš-pát ‘O Sun-god(dess)!’. KUB 57.63 iii 21′–25′: ke-e-ma ud-d[a]-⸢a⸣-ar LÚSANGA / ŠA dUTU ⸢URUa⸣-[r]i-in-na / šu-uḫ-ḫi-iš-⸢ša-an⸣ še-er / ŠA É dUTU k[i]-⸢iš-ša-an⸣ / me-mi-iš-ke-⸢ez⸣-z[i] ‘These words the priest of the Sun-goddess of Arinna speaks continuously thus on the roof of the temple of the Sun-god(dess)’. Cf. the colophon of this text in Ch. 3.5. Singer 1996: 148. On this ritual, see Singer 1996: 155–57. KUB 6.45+ i 2–4 // KUB 6.46 i 2f., for which see p. 110. KUB 6.46 iv 45–47 // KUB 6.45+ ii 1, iv 46–47, see p. 42, fn. 165. Singer 1996: 161. Singer 1996: 2, 171–77. KUB 6.45+ i 1–9 // KUB 6.46 i 1–10. KUB 6.45+ i 10–19 // KUB 6.46 i 11–20. KUB 6.45+ i 20–25 // KUB 6.46 i 21–26.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

48

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

that they may not want to hear.187 The prayer contains three intercessory prayers. The first is addressed to Šeri, the bull of the Storm-god,188 and precedes the address to the ‘gods of all the lands’. In ms. B (KUB 6.46) a list of offerings for the ‘gods of Ḫatti’ is placed in between the intercessory prayer to Šeri and the following list of deities.189 In ms. A (KUB 6.45+), this list of offerings has been repositioned after the final prayer for intercession.190 The address to the ‘gods of all the lands’ is followed by an intercessory prayer to the Sun-god of Heaven and one to the Storm-god of Lightning.191 What follows are ritual instructions including an instruction to insert a personal plea and offerings.192 The two main manuscripts, KUB 6.45+ (A) and KUB 6.46 (B), were probably found in close proximity to each other in Temple I during the excavations of Winckler, suggesting that they were kept together in one of the archives of Temple I. Both tablets are considered contemporary with the reign of Muwatalli II. Houwink ten Cate conducted a text critical analysis of the two manuscripts. He argued that B represents an original draft of the text that was written in haste from dictation, probably at the moment of composition. A, on the other hand, did not seem to be written from dictation. Houwink ten Cate argued that A represented a “revised edition” since it contained some of the same errors as B and others were corrected. The scribe of A also made new mistakes in his manuscript. In addition, he changed the structure of the text, moving an offering list towards the end of the text.193 Years later, in a new study of the text, Singer confirmed the findings of Houwink ten Cate. He added that both tablets show signs that they were proofread and corrected shortly after they were written. This could have been done either by the scribe himself or by another scribe. He noted that A contains two additions that were added by someone with a different handwriting from the rest of the text. Singer furthermore argued that tablet A was copied from B when the latter was not yet dry.194

187 188

189 190 191 192

193 194

KUB 6.45+ i 25–32 // KUB 6.46 i 27–33. KUB 6.45+ i 33–36 // KUB 6.46 i 34–38. In Akkadian medical texts from Mesopotamia a deity Šeriš, written še-ri-iš or dGU4, occurs in the phrase kabūt dŠeriš ‘excrement of Šeriš, which probably refers to a kind of stone, see CAD K 29a. KUB 6.46 i 39–ii 1. KUB 6.45+ iv 1–45. To the Sun-god of Heaven: KUB 6.45+ iii 13–24 // KUB 6.46 iii 52–64; to the Storm-god of Lightning: KUB 6.45+ iii 25–76 // KUB 6.46 iii 65–iv 44. KUB 6.45+ iv 1–61 // KUB 6.46 i 39–ii 1, iv 45–55. For the passage with the instruction to insert a plea (arkuwar), see p. 42, fn. 165 above. On the structure of this text, see also Güterbock 1958: 245 and Singer 1996: 145f. Houwink ten Cate 1968, cf. Singer 1996: 135. Singer 1996: 141f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Independent or Personal Prayers

49

3.2 INDEPENDENT OR PERSONAL PRAYERS The twenty independent or personal prayers listed in Appendix I all concern, like the prayers within a ritual, the Hittite royal family and state. With a few possible exceptions the independent prayers were composed for one specific person on one specific occasion.195 They were not model prayers that could be reused at any given moment in time. This is clear from references to concrete events and the fact that the kings and queens for whom the prayers were written are mentioned by name. The beneficiary is with a few exceptions always the Hittite king, sometimes together with the queen.196 In most cases the beneficiary and the speaker or reciter of the prayer are one and the same. One prayer, the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2), is written as if the king recites the text himself, even though it is stated in the introduction that Muršili II ordered someone else to recite the text on his behalf.197 In other cases the supplicant prays for the well-being of another person. Most prayers are addressed to one of the main deities of the pantheon, the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the Storm-god, often together with the gods. Table 1 gives an overview of all the participants of the prayers including the prayers within rituals. Often, when the addressees are addressed directly, their names are followed by the title or epithet ‘my lord(s)’ or ‘my lady’. This emphasises the relationship of the supplicant with the addressee, in which the supplicant is inferior to the addressed deity.198 The primary reasons to compose a personal prayer were illness, plague, or problems with enemies, see Table 2 in which the prayers within a ritual are also included. These affected the Hittite king, his family, and/or the land of Ḫatti. By directing his prayer to the gods, the king could act as an intermediary for the entire Hittite population.199 Other reasons include an angry deity in CTH 382 and CTH 385.9, or a (presumed) threat of slander towards Ḫattušili III in Puduḫepa’s prayer (CTH 384).200 In most cases the cause of the problems that instigated the prayer was an offended deity. The cause of the divine anger was usually found in offences committed by the father of the king who is praying. The goal of each prayer was to resolve the problems that initiated the composition of the prayer. In addition, general requests for the well-being of the king and the land of Ḫatti are often included. Only the prayer to Telipinu (CTH 377) was not composed because of a problem. It is a prayer for the well-being of Muršili II to be performed daily by a scribe, probably because he was obliged to do this for the king, see Ch. 4.

195 196 197 198 199 200

Possible exceptions are CTH 372, CTH 374, and CTH 377, and, to a lesser extent also CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, and CTH 376.III. Exceptions are the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), the Prayer to Lelwani (CTH 380), and possibly the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372). See p. 157. The first lines of the plea are written in direct speech. Cf. p. 109, fn. 376. Beckman 1999: 521f. Van de Peut 2019: 785–88.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

50 No.

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

CTH

Addressee Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle Sun-god of Heaven and/or the Sungoddess of Arinna

Beneficiary

Speaker

king

other (NN)

Labarna and Tawannanna

other (NN)

1

371

2

385.10

3

389.2

the gods; Sun-god and Storm-god

king (and queen)

beneficiary; other (NN)

4

381

Sun-goddess of Arinna and all the gods of Ḫatti; Šeri; the gods of all the lands; Sun-god of Heaven; Storm-god of Lightning

Muwatalli II

beneficiary

5

373

Sun-god; ‘my god’

Kantuzili

6

374

Sun-god; ‘my god’

king

7

372

Sun-god; ‘my god’

mortal

8

375

Sun-goddess of Arinna and the gods

Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal

beneficiary

9 10

376.I 376.III

the gods the gods

[–] [–]

beneficiary beneficiary

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

376.II 377 378.1 378.2 378.3 378.4 376.4 70

Sun-goddess of Arinna; the gods Telipinu (all) the gods Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods Sun-goddess of Arinna and the gods (all) the gods (arranged by localities) Sun-goddess of Arinna the gods

Muršili II Muršili II and family Muršili II Muršili II Muršili II Muršili II ? [Muršili II?]

other (NN) a scribe beneficiary other (NN) beneficiary beneficiary [Muršili II?] [Muršili II]

19

72

[Muršili II]

beneficiary?

20

382

(all) the gods (arranged typologically) Storm-god; Ḫepat; the gods of the lands, mountains, rivers, [sources and springs]; Ḫuzzi and Ḫutanni; [Sun-god of Heaven?]; Heaven and Earth

Muwatalli II

beneficiary

21

380

god, my lord; Lelwani

DUMU.MUNUS.GAL and Gaššuliyawiya

Tawann[anna]?

22

383

Sun-goddess of Arinna

Ḫattušili III?

Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa

23

384

Ḫattušili III

Puduḫepa

24

385.9

Tudḫaliya IV

beneficiary

Sun-goddess of Arinna; Lelwani; Zintuḫi; Mezzulla; Storm-god of Zippalanda Sun-goddess of Arinna

other (NN); beneficiary beneficiary other (NN); beneficiary

Table 1. Participants in the prayers: addressee, beneficiary, and speaker.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Independent or Personal Prayers

No.

CTH

Reason

Goal

1 2 3 4

371 385.10 389.2 381

(possible) slander – slander (to be inserted)

5

373

illness (caused by angry deity)

well-being of the king well-being of the royal couple well-being of the royal couple (support, intercession, persuasion) to appease an angry deity; to cure the beneficiary

6

374

illness (caused by angry deity)

7

372

illness (caused by angry deity)

8

375

9

376.I

10

376.III

11

376.II

problems with enemies (Kaška) (?) (fear of) plague; (fear that) offering preparers will die; problems with enemies (fear of) plague; (fear that) offering preparers will die; problems with enemies (fear of) plague; problems with enemies

12

377

(obligation)

13

378.1

14

378.2

15 16 17

378.3 378.4 376.4

18

70

plague in Ḫatti plague in Ḫatti; death of offering preparers plague in Ḫatti plague in Ḫatti ? misdeeds and ousting of Tawannanna(?)

19

72

20

382

21

380

22

383

presumed transgressions(?)

23

384

(presumed) threat of slander

24

385.9

anger of the Sun-goddess of Arinna

problems with Egypt in Syria(?) a drought(?) caused by the Stormgod’s anger illness of DUMU.MUNUS.GAL and Gaššuliyawiya

51

to appease an angry deity; to cure the beneficiary to appease an angry deity; to cure the beneficiary [to end problems with enemies (?)] to prevent or end plague and problems with enemies (?) to prevent or end plague and problems with enemies (?) to prevent or end plague and problems with enemies (?) well-being of Muršili II; prosperity of Ḫatti to end plague in Ḫatti to end plague in Ḫatti to end plague in Ḫatti to end plague in Ḫatti ? ? [to end problems with enemies (?)] to appease the Storm-god; to reestablish the cult of Kummanni to cure DUMU.MUNUS.GAL and Gaššuliyawiya well-being of the royal family; prosperity of Ḫatti well-being of Ḫattušili III to appease the Sun-goddess of Arinna; to gain military success

Table 2. Reasons to compose and perform the prayers and their goals.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

52

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

The MH Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) is generally considered to be the oldest personal prayer.201 We are either dealing with Kantuzili ‘the Priest’, a Hittite prince born to Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal and a brother of Tudḫaliya II,202 or with Kantuzili, the father of Tudḫaliya I, who is mentioned in a seal impression on a clay bulla.203 The text probably consists of two similar prayers: one written on the obverse and the other on the reverse of the tablet.204 The two similar prayers of a king (CTH 374) and of a mortal (CTH 372) have both derived from the Prayer of Kantuzili. None of these prayers has any reference to any specific event other than the illness of Kantuzili, a king, or a mortal, respectively. Since CTH 374 and CTH 372 do not contain any personal names, they may be reusable model prayers for any sick person or king. These three largely parallel prayers (CTH 372–74) are addressed to the Sun-god who is asked to pass the supplicant’s prayer on to the angry deity who caused his misery, whoever this deity is and wherever he/she may be. The prayer to be transmitted to the angry deity is written out in full. In it the angry deity is addressed as ‘my god’ and, therefore, he is generally considered to be the personal god of the sick person. However, the identity of the angry deity may also have been unknown to the beneficiary, the personal pronoun ‘my’ would then be a remnant of an older (probably Mesopotamian) prayer on which the texts were ultimately based. The prayers are written as if the beneficiary utters them himself, except for the first part of the Prayer of Kantuzili and the Prayer of a Mortal, which seems to be recited by someone other than the beneficiary (see Ch. 9.3.1). They show many Mesopotamian influences. The introductory hymn to the Sun-god combines Mesopotamian and Anatolian motifs (see Ch. 7.4) and the prayer to ‘my god’ resembles later Akkadian dingiršadibba prayers to appease a personal god.205 The closest parallel to the compo-sitions as a whole has been identified in the Old Babylonian Sumerian prayer ‘Utu the Hero’ (H 150 with duplicates).206 A fragmentary Akkadian version of this text has been found in Ortaköy (DAAM 2.6).207 With the Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška (CTH 375) we find the first prayer where a king and queen are mentioned by name. The prayer concerns problems with the Kaška. Requests to end these problems were presumably written in the parts that are now lost. The prayer directed to the Sungoddess of Arinna and the gods seems to be closely related to the treaties made

201 202

203 204 205 206 207

Singer not only ascribes its authorship to Kantuzili, but goes even so far as to suppose that he was the one who instigated the text genre of the Hittite personal prayer (Singer 2002b: 307–13). Schwemer 2015: 351, Dinçol 2001: 94–96. However, Singer (2002b: 309) considers Kantuzili ‘the Priest’ to be a son of Tudḫaliya I and Nikalmati. These two possibilities are caused by two possible emendations (ŠEŠ or DUMU) in the annals of Šuppiluliuma (BoTU 31 i 20), see Dinçol 2001: 95. Schwemer 2015: 351. See also Klinger 2012a: 481 incl. fns. 36–38. For the seal impression see Otten 2000, cf. Singer 2002b: 308f. Wilhelm 2010, see also Ch. 9.3.1. Güterbock 1974, Lambert 1974, Jaques 2015. Metcalf 2011. Cf. pp. 9, 220f., 249f. Schwemer and Süel 2021: 17–31.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Independent or Personal Prayers

53

between the Hittites and the Kaška.208 A unique and remarkable feature of this prayer is the long list of northern towns and their governors. Singer suggests that these governors may have been present during the performance of the prayer.209 Gerçek differs, suggesting that the list was part of the complaint describing the problems that the Hittites had with these towns.210 Muršili II has left us several prayers concerning a plague or epidemic in Ḫatti. These include the famous plague prayers (CTH 378.1–4) and the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II). The latter also concerns problems with enemies. The prayer is mainly addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, though a significant part of the plea is directed to the gods. The text is closely related to two prayers in which the name of the supplicant is not preserved (CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III) and to the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377). The latter is a prayer of a scribe for the general well-being of Muršili II and his family and does not concern plague at all.211 The Middle Hittite CTH 376.I and the later, fragmentary CTH 376.III appear to be largely parallel to each other. They are addressed to the gods and, as CTH 376.II, they concern plague and enemies. The composition of this group of four prayers is the subject of Chs. 6–9. The four so-called plague prayers of Muršili II (CTH 378.1–4) were among the first Hittite texts to be edited in 1929 by Götze, who coined the term “Pestgebet” for these texts. The prayers concern a plague or epidemic that had been causing people to die. According to the “Second” and “Third” plague prayer the plague had lasted for twenty years, starting in the reign of Muršili’s father, Šuppiluliuma I, and continuing during the reign of his brother, Arnuwanda II, into Muršili’s own reign.212 The death of so many people, including those who prepared the offerings for the gods,213 motivated the composition and performance of these prayers to ask the gods to end this plague. Götze tried to establish a chronology for the four prayers and numbered them accordingly. His numbering does not necessarily reflect the actual chronological sequence of the texts,214 but it is conventionally maintained in the literature. The “First” and “Fourth” plague prayer are both directed to all the gods. In the “Fourth” plague prayer the gods are arranged by localities. The “Second” plague prayer is addressed to the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods, whereas the Sun-goddess

208 209 210 211 212

213 214

Gerçek 2012: 289. Singer 2002a: 12, 40. Gerçek 2012: 290. See also Klinger 2005b: 353–55 and Neu 1983: 395. Contra Singer 2002a: 49. See Ch. 4. KUB 14.10+ i 9–12 (CTH 378.2), KUB 14.12 obv. 3–5 (CTH 378.3), cf. KUB 14.14+ obv. 9 (CTH 378.1). According to CTH 378.2 the plague was brought into Ḫatti by Egyptian deportees, see p. 8, fn. 30. Klinger (2012a: 486–94) argued that the separate plague prayers contain contradictory statements on when the plague was troubling the Hittite Empire. He therefore questions the historical reality of the accounts in the plague prayers, attributing some of the descriptions to literary motifs or topoi. KUB 14.8 obv. 6′–8′ (CTH 378.2). Singer 2002a: 48f., Klinger 2012a: 479.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

54

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

of Arinna and the gods are addressed in the “Third” plague prayer. The confessions in each plague prayer concerns different misdeeds committed by previous kings. These misdeeds are considered to be the cause of the gods’ anger and, as a consequence, of the plague that is tormenting Ḫatti.215 Three more prayers are ascribed to Muršili II (CTH 376.4,216 CTH 70, CTH 72217) even though his name is not preserved in any of the manuscripts. CTH 72 describes trouble with Egypt in Syria, which was probably the reason for its composition and performance. The prayer is addressed to a multitude of deities arranged typologically. CTH 70 is written on two tablets that were previously considered to constitute two separate prayers.218 The text is directed to the gods. It concerns the misdeeds and banishment of Tawannanna, Muršili II’s Babylonian stepmother. Among other things she is accused of killing Muršili’s wife with her curses. The victim is not mentioned by name in the text, but is generally considered to be Gaššuliyawiya I.219 In the prayer Muršili seems to justify his actions towards his evil stepmother. What he tried to achieve with the performance of the prayer is lost in the breaks. The Fragmentary prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.4) mentions both Gaššuliyawiya and a queen (MUNUS.LUGAL). It is generally considered to deal with the same affairs as mentioned in CTH 70, which would make it a prayer of Muršili II concerning his wife Gaššuliyawiya I.220 However, the palaeography of KUB 31.81 (CTH 376.4) suggests an older MH date. This would mean that it predates Muršili II.221 The introduction of the prayer, as far as it is preserved, is parallel to the elaborate prayer introduction of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377), see Ch. 7. Another prayer mentioning a certain Gaššuliyawiya is CTH 380. The first preserved paragraphs of the prayer concern the ‘great princess’ (DUMU.MUNUS.GAL) and are directed to a deity who is not mentioned by name (‘god, my lord’). The following paragraph concerns a certain Gaššuliyawiya and is directed to Lelwani.222 The reason

215

216 217 218 219

220 221 222

The Hittite word for ‘plague’ is ḫinkan, literally meaning ‘death’. According to HW2 Ḫ 561–68, the distinction between aggatar ‘death’ and ḫinkan ‘death, plague’ may be that ḫinkan refers to death as a punishment, whether by divine or human command, whereas aggatar seems a more neutral term (HW2 Ḫ 567b). This fits the idea that the plague (ḫinkan) was sent as a punishment by an angry deity. Lebrun 1980: 166, Singer 2002a: 73, Miller 2014: 549, fn. 120. Miller 2008: 539. See Miller 2014 and p. 317, fn. 997. E.g., Singer 2002a: 71, 73, 77. Alparslan (2007) argues that it is more likely that Gaššuliyawiya is the second wife of Muršili II and that the name of his first wife whose death is a subject in this prayer (CTH 70) is not known. E.g., Singer 2002a: 70, cf. Lebrun 1980: 166, Singer 2002a: 73, Miller 2014: 549, fn. 120. See p. 316, fn. 996. Due to the parallel passages mentioning the ‘great princess’ and Gaššuliyawiya, it has been assumed that the ‘great princes’ and Gaššuliyawiya are one and the same person (Singer 1991: 329, Singer 2002a: 71, Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 380.1). Otten (1984: 299 incl. fn. 4) is more cautious and suggests that since also the addressees differ in these two passages, a new text might begin in KBo

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Independent or Personal Prayers

55

for the prayer is the illness of the ‘great princes’ and Gaššuliyawiya. The one praying for their health is, judging by a fragmentary passage in the duplicate fragment KBo 31.80, a certain Tawannanna.223 Several different identifications have been proposed for these people. The Gaššuliyawiya referred to in the prayer is often considered to be the wife of Muršili II (Gaššuliyawiya I) whose death is a subject in CTH 70.224 Hence, it has been assumed that the person praying for her in CTH 380 is Muršili II.225 However, Muršili is not mentioned anywhere in the text and there is no reason to assume that this is a prayer of his. The occurrence of Tawannanna in KBo 31.80 is more likely to give us the name or title of the speaker. Recently, Miller has argued that the Gaššuliyawiya for whom the prayer is performed is Gaššuliyawiya II, the daughter of Ḫattušili III who married Bentešina of Amurru.226 The person praying for her is, according to Miller, Tawannanna II (Tanuḫepa), the second wife of Muršili II.227 De Roos argues that it is Puduḫepa, the wife of Ḫattušili III, who prays for two of her daughters.228 The Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382) is an extraordinary text. It should be seen in the context of the religious reforms that Muwatalli implemented, including the relocation of the capital from Ḫattuša to Tarḫuntašša. The style and structure of this prayer is unique in comparison to the other independent prayers. It employs the first person plural,229 implying that several people were involved in the recitation and performance of the prayer. The colophon seems to state, if the suggested restorations are accurate, that Muwatalli himself dictated the prayer (see p. 85). The introduction of the prayer differs greatly from that of other prayers. The formula ‘We have called DN, and we release the Storm-god’s anger’230 is used

223

224

225 226 227 228 229 230

4.6 obv. 21′ even though ‘god, my lord’ reoccurs in KBo 4.6 rev. 16′, cf. Dinçol et al. 1993: 98, de Roos 1985: 129f., idem 1985–1986: 77, idem 2005: 213. Though the change of addressee and beneficiary is significant, it does not imply the beginning of a new text. It merely indicates that a new section of the prayer begins. KBo 31.80 3′: [MU]NUSta-wa-an-n[a-an-na], cf. Otten 1984: 300, Dinçol et al. 1993: 98, Alparslan 2007: 34, Miller 2014: 548, Klinger 1996: 215 incl. fn. 349. Whether DUMU.MUNUS.GAL is the same person as Tawannanna in this text, as is implied in the parallel KBo 36.80 3′ (Klinger 1996: 215 incl. fn. 349) or not (Dinçol et al. 1993: 98), depends on the restoration in KBo 4.6 obv. 10′ and on whether or not KBo 36.80 3′ is indeed a duplicate. E.g., Singer 2002a: 70f., Klinger 1996: 215, fn. 350, Daues and Rieken 2015: 31. See also the discussion of Tischler (1981: 65–68), who considers Gaššuliyawiya in this text to be a daughter of Muršili II, though this has been rejected now, cf. Dinçol et al. 1993: 98. Singer 2002a: 71, Lebrun 1980: 248. Miller 2014: 548f., so also Haas 2008: 87, Singer 1991: 329, de Roos 1985: 129f., idem 1985–1986: 79, idem 2005: 213f. Miller 2014: 548f. De Roos 1985: 129f., idem 1985–1986: 79, idem 2005: 213f. De Roos (1985–1986) suggested that DUMU.MUNUS.GAL could refer to Kilušḫepa. This use of the first person plural is typical for Hurrian influenced rituals (Singer 2002a: 81). E.g., KBo 11.1 obv. 2: dḫé-pát-ma MUNUS.LUGAL ŠA-ME-E ḫal-zi-ia-u-⸢en⸣ nu ŠA d10 ⸢TUKU.TUKU-an pé⸣-ra-an [l]a-a-[u-e-ni …] ‘We have called Ḫepat, the queen of heaven, and we re[lease] the Stormgod’s anger’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

56

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

eight times to invoke the Storm-god, Ḫepat, […], the gods of the land, mountains, rivers, [sources and springs], Ḫuzzi and Ḫutanni, [the Sun-god of Heaven?], and Heaven and Earth. Only after requests to look with favourable eyes to the people of the land is the supplicant, Muwatalli II, introduced.231 Many different offences are listed as possible reasons for the Storm-god’s anger. Each offence is formulated as a conditional clause using mān ‘if’ followed by a wish232 and occasionally also requests, more wishes, and/or promises. The promises in particular are very interesting since they seem to present fitting ways to atone for the mentioned transgression. Singer suggested that the direct reason for the composition and performance of the prayer was ‘a general decline in the state of the land of Kizzuwatna/Kummanni, perhaps caused by a period of drought’ which was brought about by the angry Storm-god.233 The Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 383) concerns the exemption of many different offences against the gods committed by Ḫattušili’s father, Muršili II, and his brother, Muwatalli II. Emphasis is placed on the innocence of Ḫattušili in all these matters. The prayer is directed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. No requests are preserved, but it seems probable that the prayer was written for the well-being of Ḫattušili III and/or the city of Nerik. The Prayer of Puduhepa for the well-being of her husband Ḫattušili III (CTH 384) is closely related to the votive texts (see p. 43). It consists of five prayers that clearly belong together. Each is directed to a different deity and ends with a vow. The first and longest prayer is directed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. It is followed by a prayer to Lelwani – written Liliwani throughout the text – against witchcraft or slander. The (presumed) threat of slander or witchcraft is only mentioned in this part of the text, but it will have been the reason for the composition and performance of the prayer.234 The final three prayers directed to Zintuḫi, Mezzulla, and the Storm-god of Zippalanda are intercessory prayers. The addressed deities are asked to speak well of Ḫattušili to the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the Sun-goddess of Arinna and to transmit the words of the prayer. The prayer referred to is most likely the prayer to the Sungoddess of Arinna placed at the beginning of the composition.235 Interestingly, the three deities asked to intercede with the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the Sun-goddess of Arinna are related to them: Zintuḫi is their beloved granddaughter236; Mezzulla and the Storm-god of Zippalanda are their beloved children.237 Because of their familial ties they can easily appeal to these deities on someone’s behalf.

231 232 233 234 235

236 237

On the introductions of prayers see Ch. 3.4 and Ch. 7.1. An imperative in the third person is used. On what distinguishes a wish and request, see Ch. 3.4. Singer 2002a: 82, Singer 1996: 163. A different point of view is held by Houwink ten Cate and Josephson (1967: 101f.), who think it was a foreign invasion that damaged the land severely. Van de Peut 2019: 785–88. It remains a question why the Storm-god of Ḫatti is mentioned next to the Sun-goddess of Arinna in the intercessory prayers when not a single part of a prayer is directed to him and the prayer addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna does not contain any reference to him. KUB 21.27+ iii 43′–44′. KUB 21.27+ iv 13′–14′ (Mezzulla), iv 28′–29′ (Storm-god of Zippalanda).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

57

Original Tablets and Copies

The latest prayer of a Hittite king has come down to us in a rather fragmentary state of preservation. This prayer of Tudhaliya IV (CTH 385.9) is addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Tudhaliya tries to appease the Sun-goddess of Arinna and he asks for military success.

3.3 ORIGINAL TABLETS AND COPIES The majority of the extant Hittite prayers (62,5%) was written down more than once, see Table 3. Some tablets may be contemporary originals but others are clearly later copies. It is remarkable that all the personal prayers of which we have only one text witness are of a NH date. Only one MH prayer is preserved in a single manuscript: the Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-goddess of the Earth (CTH 371). Prayer type Prayers within Rituals

Independent or Personal Prayers

Multiple Text Witnesses CTH 385.10

Single Text Witness CTH 371

CTH 389.2 CTH 381 CTH 373 CTH 374 CTH 372 CTH 375 CTH 376.I CTH 376.II CTH 377 CTH 378.1 CTH 378.2 CTH 378.4 CTH 70 CTH 383

CTH 376.III CTH 378.3 CTH 376.4 CTH 72 CTH 382 CTH 380 CTH 383 CTH 385.9

Table 3. Prayers preserved in multiple and single text witnesses.

Many of the duplicates are small fragments for which it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain whether it truly belongs to a duplicate tablet or to a different but similar prayer containing (large) parallels. For example, the prayers of Kantuzili, a king, and a mortal (CTH 372–74) are largely parallel to each other, and duplicate fragments that do not mention the supplicant are therefore difficult to assign to one of the three prayers with certainty. Similar complications arise when assigning small fragments

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

58

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

to any of the prayers concerning plague and enemies (CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, and CTH 376.III) which share large textual parallels. Copying a prayer and storing it in an archive or library, suggests that someone wanted to preserve that text at least for a certain period. Since most of the independent or personal prayers appear to have been written for one specific occasion and cannot be reused at any given moment, we have to ask why a text for which the original purpose has become obsolete was ever copied. By contrast, prayers within a ritual are not personalised. Therefore, they could be used whenever the problem recurred. Questions about why prayers were copied and kept in the tablet collections of Ḫattuša are therefore especially relevant for the personal prayers. A related issue that will also be addressed below, is why the prayers were written down at all. 3.3.1 On Original Tablets and Contemporary Copies Prayers may have been written down on tablets so they could be consulted or read during the performance.238 If several people were involved in a performance more than one copy of a text may have been required. This would explain the existence of one or multiple contemporary manuscripts. For CTH 371, one of the longer prayers within a ritual, there are indications that the prayer was read from the tablet during the performance of the ritual (see Ch. 3.3.3). For the other texts there is no clear evidence. The independent prayers are quite long and can differ greatly in style and content. Therefore, it seems more difficult, though not impossible, to learn them by heart. Moreover, the colophon of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) indicates that the text is to be recited seven times in Ḫattuša and seven times in Arinna. Reading from a tablet may be more convenient when one needs to recite the same prayer 14 times, in particular if it was not always the same person who performed it. Another possible explanation for the existence of multiple contemporary text witnesses is that some manuscripts may have served as drafts of a new prayer. These represent a part of the process of composing a new text. This has been suggested for the so-called Model prayer of Muwatalli (CTH 381). Of the two well-preserved manuscripts one (KUB 6.46) is considered to be a draft of the other (KUB 6.45+). Both tablets seem to have been corrected after they were written, at least one of them by someone other than the scribe who wrote the text.239

238

239

Compare KUB 20.59 rev. v 1–6 (CTH 616.2.A), for which see Gordin (2015: 37), where a scribe is instructed to read from a tablet during the performance of a festival. An example of reading out from a tablet during the performance can be found in a ritual for the Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle, KUB 17.18+ ii 8′–18′ (CTH 448.2.1.A), for which see Görke 2016, cf. Gordin 2015: 37. Houwink ten Cate 1968, Singer 1996: 141f., see also p. 48.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

59

Original Tablets and Copies

3.3.2 On Later Copies Later copies are generally identified on the basis of the palaeography in relation to the date of the text’s composition.240 For example, the so-called “Fourth” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) is preserved in two text witnesses. One of these (KUB 14.13+) is, based on the sign-forms that were used, dated to a later period after Muršili II (LNS). We are thus dealing with a later copy. For this specific tablet there is additional evidence that it is indeed a copy. Two paragraphs on the tablet are left blank except for the cuneiform sign PAB, which is written several times. This indicates that the scribe’s Vorlage from which he was copying was damaged at this point. To avoid confusion, the scribe even wrote ḫar-ra-an ‘damaged’,241 the Hittite equivalent of PAB in the blank paragraph on the obverse. Text CTH 373 CTH 374 CTH 375 CTH 376.I CTH 376.4

Number of text witnesses MS

NS

?

other

Total

1 3 2 2 1?

– 1 4 2 –

– 1 – – –

1 MS or OS?

2? 5 6+ 4? 1

more fragments more fragments?

Table 4. Text witnesses of MH independent or personal prayers.

Three of the five Middle Hittite personal prayers were copied in a later period, see Table 4. This is not what one might expect since these texts only seem to have had a functional value for a short period of time. Only CTH 374, a rather general prayer of an unnamed king, may have been reused in later times.242 For the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I) we know that it was used as a model for a part of the later Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), and for the fragmentary CTH 376.III, both written in New Script (see Ch. 8.2). When one turns to the New Hittite personal prayers a different picture emerges. Whereas most MH personal prayers were copied in a later period, the majority of the NH ones is preserved in New Script manuscripts and were, therefore, possibly contemporary with the original date of composition, see Table 5. Six of the fifteen NH personal prayers have come down to us in a single text witness, and nine have copies. Only four of these are certainly later copies (CTH 377, CTH 378.2, CTH 378.4, and 240

241 242

On Hittite palaeography and text dating see Ch. 1.3. More accurate and exact dating of the tablets than is currently possible would provide a clearer picture of when particular texts were copied. This would enable a more fruitful diachronic assessment of copying practices in Hittite scribal circles. HW2 Ḫ 264. According to Schwemer (2015: 361) CTH 374 may contain historical references, which would make the text less suitable for reuse at a later moment.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

60

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

CTH 70). Interestingly, the single text witness of CTH 383, the Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa, was written down later than the text was originally composed. Thus, in total 5 of 15 prayers have later copies. When the tablets can be dated more precisely this picture may change considerably. The copying practice may be better reflected in the diachronic distribution of the text witnesses of the Middle Hittite personal prayers than in that of the New Hittite ones. Though not all prayers need to have been copied, it does seem to have been a common praxis to copy personal prayers even after the texts had lost their functional purpose, i.e., with few possible exceptions they could not be performed again. The texts must thus still have had some value.

Text CTH 372 CTH 376.III CTH 376.II CTH 377 CTH 378.1 CTH 378.2 CTH 378.3 CTH 378.4 CTH 70 CTH 72 CTH 382 CTH 380 CTH 383 CTH 384 CTH 385.9

Number of text witnessess NS

LNS

?

Total

5 1 4 1 2 3 1 1 10 1 1 5 – 1 1

– – – 1 – 1 – 1 1 – – – 1 – –

– – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – –

5 1 4 3 2 4 1 2 11 1 1 5 1 2 1

Table 5. Text witnesses of NH independent or personal prayers.

Schwemer has suggested that KUB 31.127+, the main text witness of the Prayer of a Mortal (CTH 372), might have been a school text written by an advanced student. In addition, he states: ‘Whether the work of an expert or an advanced student, the numerous secondary insertions seem to indicate that the scribe worked from more than one original and was actually composing a new text rather than just copying an established text.’ (Schwemer 2015: 375)

Here Schwemer presents two possible reasons why this specific tablet was made: (1) for educational purposes, as a school or scribal exercise, or (2) as an aid to compose a new prayer. Either scenario would offer a reason for copying prayers. However, since

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Original Tablets and Copies

61

we hardly know anything about Hittite scribal training (thus far no school text has been identified with certainty) we should be cautious in assuming that copies are school texts without clear evidence for it. Moreover, we would need to explain why the state archives would house school texts. Large intertextual parallels suggest that older prayers were occasionally used as models for the composition of new ones. The case studies presented in Chs. 5–9 investigate this phenomenon in more detail. However, one cannot always explain a parallel by assuming that the two compositions were based on the same older text. Instead, some similarities, e.g., parallels in the prayers of Muršili II, may be better explained by the fact that the texts were all composed around the same time, for the same king, to resolve the same problem, and possibly by the same people. Another possibility is that the personal prayers were kept as historical sources. The Hittites seem to have been interested in their own history,243 if only to be aware of the offences committed by previous rulers in case the king needed to appease the gods by confessing those offenses in prayer. Certainly, the historical data in these prayers has been one of the main reasons for modern scholars to show interest in them.244 The personal prayers may also have been kept simply to keep a record of which prayers had been directed to which deities and for what reasons. Some prayers refer to older ones, but whether these were written down or not and stored in the tablet collections cannot be ascertained. 3.3.3 Reading from the Tablet: the Case of KBo 7.28+ (CTH 371) Prayers may have been written down so they could be consulted or read from the clay tablet during their performance. It will be demonstrated that this was the case for at least one such tablet, KBo 7.28 + KBo 8.92, containing a prayer within a ritual. The distribution of the text over the tablet implies that the prayer-recitation was intended to be read out directly from this specific tablet during the performance of the ritual. KBo 7.28+ is the only known witness of the Prayer within a ritual to the Sungoddess of the Earth and her circle against slander (CTH 371).245 The tablet is written in MS,246 but the composition is certainly older and may be dated Old Hittite.247 The 243 244 245

246

Van den Hout 2014. The historical information may not be entirely accurate, see Klinger 2012a. The Konkordanz also lists KBo 34.19 (MS) under CTH 371 as CTH 371.2. According to Singer (2002a: 17, fn. 1, 2002b: 301, fn. 3) it could belong to the same tablet as KBo 7.28+ or a duplicate. Though KBo 34.19 4′–5′: [… tá]k-na-a-aš dUTU-i pé-ra-an a-[aš-šu?] / […]x tar-aš-ki-it-te-en, resembles clauses from KBo 7.28+ (obv. 19′, lo.e. 29′f., and rev. 34′), the fragment does not duplicate the preserved text and it is too fragmentary to ascertain whether or not it belongs to the same text or tablet. Therefore, KBo 34.19 is not considered part of CTH 371 in the present study. For an edition of KBo 34.19, see Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.2. It uses the typical MS orthography of māḫḫan with plene spelling in rev. 42′: ⸢ma-a⸣-aḫ-ḫa-an (cf. Neu 1985: 143) and MS sign-forms: TAR with the slanted broken wedge above the small vertical, the old forms of LI and AG (though AG in obv. 11′ seems to differ), SÌLA in the older form, and the stepped forms of DA and ID (DA lo.e. 27′; ID obv. 6′ and rev. 42′). Note also the older forms of E

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

62

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

text is partly preserved: the top of the obverse and the end of the reverse are broken off. In the first preserved lines (obv. 1′–2′) we find the end of the ritual instructions that probably covered the entire beginning of the text. The remainder of the text conCTH 371, KBo 7.28 + KBo 8.92 Transliteration Obverse (beginning lost) RITUAL INSTRUCTIONS § 1′ 1′ [n]a-aš-t[a? … ták-na]-⸢a⸣-aš dUTU-i ⸢DINGIRMEŠ⸣-aš-⸢ša? ši-pa-an⸣-t[i? …] 2′ nu ki-i[š?-ša?-an? …] § 2′ PRAYER Directed to the Sun-goddess of the Earth INTRODUCTION 3′ ⸢du?⸣-wa?-a[d?-du? … ták-na-a-aš] ⸢dUTU-i? ka-a-ša SAG?⸣.DU?-za LUGAL-uš mu-⸢ki⸣-iš-ki-iz-z[i …] 4′ nu-za x[…]x-i še-er-ši-it da-ra-a-i DINGIRLAM GUB-za i-e-et x[…] 5′ ⸢ni?⸣-e-x[…]x IṢ-BAT ták-na-a-aš ḫa-li-iḫ-li-iš-ta-ri § 3′ PLEA Requests – Ignore evil 6′ ták-⸢ku⸣-[an at-ta-aš]-ši-iš ku-uš-du-wa-⸢a⸣-it zi-ga-⸢an le⸣-[e] iš-ta-ma-aš-ši t[ák-ku-an] 7′ an-n[a-aš-ši-iš ku-uš-d]u-wa-a-it zi-ga-an le-e iš-ta-ma-a[š-š]i ták-ku-wa-an [ŠEŠ-ŠU] 8′ ku-⸢uš⸣-du-wa-⸢a-it zi⸣-ga-an ⸢le⸣-e ⸢iš⸣-ta-ma-aš-ši ták-ku-an NIN-ZU ku-ušd[u-wa-a-it] 9′ zi-ga-an le-e iš-ta-ma-aš-ši ták-ku-an LÚga-i-na-aš-ši-iš LÚa-ra-aš-ši-i[š]

247

with the small first vertical, AZ and UG without subscript, and AḪ in obv. 5′ and rev. 42′ with the horizontal beginning inside the triangle of Winkelhaken. Typical OH features are the use of takku ‘if’ to introduce conditional clauses, the use of mān ‘when’ to introduce a temporal clause in rev. 40′, the use of peran with a genitive in rev. 46′, and the genitive construction in rev. 47′ where the genitive LUGAL-wa-aš is doubled by the enclitic possessive pronoun =ŠU after the head noun. The latter is also attested in MH, but that may be an archaism (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 251 [§16.38]). Furthermore, all the conditional clauses are connected to their main clauses asyndetically. This too is considered typical for OH though it occurs in some later texts as well (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 420 [§30.48]). Note also the spelling e-eš-tu with TU instead of DU (Kloekhorst 2008: 884, HW2 E 94a, contra Heinhold-Krahmer et al. 1979: 183, 236f.). Czyzewska (2012: II 75) dates the tablet as OH/NS. Hoffner and Melchert (2002: 387) interpreted it as OS, though Hoffner and Melchert (2008) do date it as OH/MS. For an overview of how this text has been dated by others, see Steitler 2017: 238f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Original Tablets and Copies

63

sists of a prayer, the end of which is not preserved. More ritual instructions may have followed after the prayer-text. A new edition of the text is offered below. The lines are numbered continuously in accordance with previous text editions.248

Translation Obverse (beginning lost) RITUAL INSTRUCTIONS § 1′ 1′ […] libates to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and the gods. 2′ And [… speaks] the fol[lowing:] § 2′ PRAYER Directed to the Sun-goddess of the Earth INTRODUCTION 3′ Mer[cy! …] O Sun-goddess [of the Earth], herewith the king invoke[s you] personally. 4′ … […] he … for it. He made the deity standing?. 5′ He takes …[…] He kneels to the earth. § 3′ PLEA Requests – Ignore evil 6′ If his [father] defames [him], you must not listen to him. I[f] 7′ [his] moth[er defa]med [him], you must not listen to her. If [his brother] 8′ defamed him, you must not listen to him. If his sister defa[med] him, 9′ you must not listen to her. If his in-law (or) his friend

248

For previous editions, see p. 311. Translations: Bernabé 1987: 251–53, Christmann-Franck 1989: 41f., Ünal 1991: 793–95, Singer 2002: 21–24.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

64

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

10′ ⸢ku-uš⸣-du-wa-a-it zi-ga-an le-e iš-ta-ma-aš-ši § 4′ Requests and Wishes – Attention + Give good 11′ a-aš-šu-u IGIḪI.A-KA la-a-ak LI-IM ⸢la⸣-ap-li-ip-pu-uš kar-ap ⸢na⸣-[aš-ta] 12′ [L]UGAL-un an-da a-aš-šu ša-ku-wa-ia ⸢GEŠTUḪI.A-KA⸣ la-a-ak nu a-aš-šu ut-ta[r] 13′ [i]š-⸢ta⸣-ma-aš nu-uš-ša-an A-NA MU.⸢KAM?ḪI.A?-ŠU?⸣ pa-ra-a ⸢na-an!?⸣-ni naan-kán i-[da-a-la-u-wa-az?] 14′ [da]-⸢a⸣ [n]a-an a-aš-ša-u-i pé-e-di ti-⸢it-ta⸣-nu-ut nu ut-ni-ia-an-ti mi-i[a-tar e-eš-du] 15′ nu ma-a-⸢ú⸣ ši-iš-du → Promise – Offerings 15′ nu A-NA DINGIRMEŠ NINDA.GUR4.RAḪI.A GEŠTIN iš-pa-an-du-uz-z[i-ia?] 16′ ⸢ar⸣-ši-ia-at-ta-ru § 5′ Directed to the Protective deity of the Sun-goddess of the Earth 17′ du-wa-ad-du ták-⸢na⸣-a-aš dUTU-aš dLAMMA-ŠU ⸢ki-ma tu⸣-el e-eš-tu nu zi-i[k?] 18′ az-zi-ik-ki-i ak-ku-uš-ki-i nu ták-na-a-aš dUTU-i pé-ra-an LUGAL-un a-aš-[šu] 19′ me-mi-iš-ki na-aš-ta ŠUM-MI LUGAL ták-na-a-aš dUTU-i pé-ra-an a-aš-šu taraš-ki [ták-ku-an] 20′ A-BU-ŠU AMA-ŠU ŠEŠ-ŠU NIN-ZU LÚga-i-na-aš-ši-iš LÚa-ra-aš-ši-iš 21′ ku-⸢uš⸣-du-wa-a-iz-zi z[i]-ga-an le-e tar-na-at-ti § 6′ Directed to the Vizier of the Sun-goddess of the Earth 22′ du-wa-ad-du ták-na-a-aš dUTU-⸢wa⸣-aš LÚSUKKAL-ŠU ki-ma tu-el e-eš-tu nu [zi-ik?] 23′ az-zi-ik-ki-i ak-ku-uš-⸢ki-i⸣ pa-ra-a-ma QA-TAM-MA me-ma-i § 7′ Directed to the Servants of the Sun-goddess of the Earth 24′ ⸢du-wa⸣-ad-du ták-na-a-aš dUTU-wa-aš ⸢ARAD⸣MEŠ-ŠU ša-aš-nu-uš-ga-at-te-niia-a[n] 25′ [t]a?-aš?-nu-uš-ki-⸢it-ta⸣-ni-ia-an ku-i-e-eš ki-ma šu-me-en-za-an e-⸢eš⸣-[tu] 26′ [nu?] ⸢e⸣-ez-za-aš-te-[e]n e-ku-ut-te-en pa-ra-a-ma QA-TAM-MA me-ma-⸢i⸣ § 8′ Lower edge Directed to Darawa 27′ [du-wa]-ad-du dda-a-ra-wa ki-ma ⸢tu⸣-el e-eš-tu nu z[i-ik?] 28′ [az-zi-i]k-⸢ki⸣-i ak-⸢ku⸣-uš-ki-i nu ták-na-a-aš dUTU-i pé-ra-[an LUGAL-un] 29′ [a-aš-šu m]e-mi-iš-⸢ki na⸣-aš-ta ŠUM-MI LUGAL ták-na-a-aš dUTU-i [pé-ra-an a-aš-šu] 30′ [tar?-aš?-k]i ⸢ták-ku⸣-an A-BU-⸢ŠU⸣ [A]MA-⸢ŠU ŠEŠ⸣-ŠU NIN-⸢ZU⸣ LÚ[ga-i-na-aš-ši-iš] 31′ [LÚa-ra-aš-ši-i]š ku-uš-du-wa-a-⸢it? zi⸣-ga-an le-e tar-n[a-at-ti]

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Original Tablets and Copies

65

10′ defamed him, you must not listen to him! § 4′ Requests and Wishes – Attention + Give good 11′ Turn your benevolent eyes! Lift (your) thousand eyelashes! 12′ Regard the king favourably! Turn your ears! Listen to the good word! 13′ Get an extension on his years! Take him [from evil]! 14′ Install him in a good place! [May] gro[wth be] in the land! 15′ May it thrive and prosper! Promise 15′ May for the gods the bread and wine offerings 16′ flow! § 5′ Directed to the Protective deity of the Sun-goddess of the Earth 17′ Mercy! O Protective deity of the Sun-goddess of the Earth, may this be you[rs]! Y[ou], 18′ keep eating (and) drinking! (Continually) speak wel[l] of the king before the Sun-goddess of the Earth! 19′ Mention the king’s name favourably before the Sun-goddess of the Earth! [If] 20′ his father, his mother, his brother, his sister, his in-law (or) his friend 21′ defame [him], you must not allow it! § 6′ Directed to the Vizier of the Sun-goddess of the Earth 22′ Mercy! O Vizier of the Sun-goddess of the Earth, may this be yours! [You,] 23′ keep eating (and) drinking! ADDITIONALLY HE WILL RECITE LIKEWISE. § 7′ Directed to the Servants of the Sun-goddess of the Earth 24′ Mercy! O Servants of the Sun-goddess of the Earth, you always put her to bed 25′ (and) [str]engthen her. M[ay] this be yours! 26′ Eat and drink! ADDITIONALLY HE WILL RECITE LIKEWISE. § 8′ Lower edge Directed to Darawa 27′ [Me]rcy! O Darawa, may this be yours! Y[ou,] 28′ [keep eat]ing (and) drinking! (Continually) [sp]eak [well of the king] befo[re] the Sun-goddess of the Earth! 29′ [Mention] the king’s name [favourably before] the Sun-goddess of the Earth! 30′ If his father, his mother, his brother, his sister, [his in-law] 31′ [(or) his friend] defamed him, you must not allow it!

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

66

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

Reverse § 9′ Directed to Paraya 32′ [du-wa-ad-d]u dpa-ra-a-ia ki-ma tu-el e-eš-tu nu z[i-ik? az-zi-ik-ki-i] 33′ [ak-ku-u]š-⸢ki⸣-i nu ták-na-a-aš dUTU-i pé-ra-an LUGAL-un a-aš-š[u me-mi-iš-ki] 34′ n[a-aš-t]a ŠUM-MI LUGAL ták-na-a-aš dUTU-i pé-ra-an a-aš-šu tar-aš-ki [tákku-an] 35′ A-BU-⸢ŠU⸣ AMA-ŠU ŠEŠ-ŠU NIN-ZU LÚga-i-na-aš-ši-iš LÚa-ra-aš-š[i-iš] 36′ ku-uš-du-wa-a-it zi-ga-an ⸢le-e⸣ tar-na-at-ti § 10′ Directed to the ‘Chief of the eunuchs’ 37′ du-wa-du dGAL LÚ.MEŠ⸢SAG?⸣ [ki-ma t]u-⸢el⸣ e-eš-tu KI.MIN § 11′ Directed to the ‘Chief of the barbers’ 38′ du-wa-du d⸢GAL⸣ LÚ.MEŠŠU.⸢I ki⸣-ma [tu-el] e-eš-tu KI.MIN § 12′ Directed to Ḫilašši 39′ du-wa-a[d-d]u dḫi-la-aš-ši-iš ki-ma ⸢tu-el⸣ e-eš-tu KI.MIN § 13′ Directed to the circle of the Sun-goddess of the Earth 40′ nu ma-a-an ú-wa-at-te-ni na-aš-⸢ta⸣ a-aš-⸢šu⸣ ša-⸢ra⸣-a ú-da-at-te-en [nu? …] 41′ ⸢ma⸣-a-ú ši-iš-du nu EGIR.UDMI [DING]IRMEŠ-na-an ud-⸢da⸣-a-ar ir-ḫa-a-an e-eš-tu 42′ ⸢ma-a⸣-aḫ-ḫa-an ták-na-a-aš dUTU-un ir-ḫa-a-it kat-ta-⸢ma šu⸣-ma-a-aš irḫa-a-it 43′ L[UGAL?]-un ap-pa-ši-wa-at-ta ⸢ir⸣-ḫa-at-te-en nu-uš-š[a]-⸢an A⸣-[N]A ⸢UD.KAMḪI.A⸣ […] § 14′ 44′ na-an-kán i-da-a-la-u-wa-az ⸢da⸣-a-at-⸢te⸣-en n[a-an? a-aš-ša-u-i pé-e-di? tiit-ta-nu-ut?] 45′ ma-a-an ú-wa-at-te-ni-ma nu-uš-ma-aš pé-⸢ra⸣-a[n …] 46′ ⸢a⸣-ša-an-du nu ták-na-a-aš dUTU-wa-⸢aš pé-ra⸣-[an LUGAL-un? a-aš-šu? memi-iš-ki-it-te-en?] 47′ nu LUGAL-wa-aš ŠUM-ŠU a-aš-šu x[… tar-aš-ki-it-te-en?] § 15′ fragmentary 48′ ku-uš-du-wa-ta x[ … ] … ] 49′ na-aš le-e ⸢e⸣-[ 50′ ku-e-el i-d[a-a-lu? … ] § 16′ 51′ ud-da-a-[ar … ] 52′ iš-[ … ] § 17′ 53′ x[ … ] (text breaks off)

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Original Tablets and Copies

67

Reverse § 9′ Directed to Paraya 32′ [Merc]y! O Paraya, may this be yours! Y[ou, keep eat]ing 33′ [(and) drink]ing! [(Continually) speak] well of the king before the Sungoddess of the Earth! 34′ Mention the king’s name favourably before the Sun-goddess of the Earth! [If] 35′ his father, his mother, his brother, his sister, his in-law (or) [his] friend 36′ defamed [him], you must not allow it! § 10′ Directed to the ‘Chief of the eunuchs’ 37′ Mercy! O Chief of the Courtiers, may [this] be [y]ours! DITTO § 11′ Directed to the ‘Chief of the barbers’ 38′ Mercy! O Chief of the Barbers, may this be [yours]! DITTO § 12′ Directed to Ḫilašši 39′ Mer[c]y! O Ḫilašši, may this be yours! DITTO § 13′ Directed to the circle of the Sun-goddess of the Earth 40′ When you come, bring up good things! […?] 41′ May it thrive and prosper! In the future, may the words of the gods be fulfilled! 42′ As he celebrated fully the Sun-goddess of the Earth and thereby celebrated fully you as well, 43′ may you celebrate fully for the k[in]g in the future! And for the days […] § 14′ 44′ Take him from evil! A[nd install him in a good place!] 45′ when you come, may you be […]. 46′ [(Continually) speak well of the king] before the Sun-goddess of the Earth! 47′ [Mention] the king’s name favourably [before the Sun-goddess of the Earth]! § 15′ fragmentary 48′ Slander […] 49′ [Do] not […] 50′ whose e[vil …] § 16′ 51′ Words […] 52′ …[…] § 17′ 53′ …[…] (text breaks off)

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

68

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

Comments obv. 1′: Lebrun (1980: 83), followed by Czyzewska (2012: II 75), understands the first preserved line on KBo 8.92 as the end of obv. 2′. However, the photographs available through the Konkordanz show that this is the end of obv. 1′ and that obv. 2′ ends with a blank space. obv. 2′: The beginnings of two horizontal wedges are visible after KI. It is uncertain whether this is the beginning of IŠ, as suggested here, or E (Friedrich 1957: 217, Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.1). Alternatively, it could belong to the sign I, though only if the lower horizontal is broken off. obv. 3′: The reading du?-wa?-a[d?-du?] follows Lebrun 1980: 83, Czyzewska 2012: II 75, Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.1, and Singer 2002a: 22 (who translates ‘Mercy’). Though collation is necessary, this reading would agree with the beginnings of the paragraphs directed to the other deities (obv. 17′, 22′, 24′, lo.e. 27′, rev. 32′, 37′, 39′). The suggestion of Friedrich (1957: 218, fn. 1) to read dUTU? is incorrect since the traces cannot belong to DINGIR, and it is unlikely that dUTU would be written twice shortly after each other. obv. 3′: Following Hoffner and Melchert (2002: 388), I understand kāša as indicating temporal proximity. obv. 4′: Czyzewska (2012: II 75) restores: [ták-na-a-aš dUT]U-i(?) at the beginning of the line. However, the traces before -i do not seem to belong to UTU, so also Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.1. obv. 4′: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1) and Tischler (HEG 3: 149) read da-⸢a⸣-ra-a-i, but judging by the photographs there is no sign in between DA and RA. The meaning of darāi is unclear. Tischler (HEG 3: 149) sees it as a form of the verb darai-/tarai-, the meaning of which is unknown. Lebrun (1980: 86) and Czyzewska (2012: II 75) understand darāi as a form of dariya- which is often translated as ‘to appeal, to call’ (e.g., Tischler HEG 3: 171f.), but see Kloekhorst (2008: 840–41) who opposes such a translation and leaves the meaning of the verb open. We may also consider the verb tarai-/tari- ‘to exert oneself, to become tired’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 833–35; listed as dariya- in HW 214 and HEG 3: 172–74). The verb tarai/tari- is attested in other prayers. For instance in the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) it describes the miserable state of the beneficiary: KUB 30.10 rev. 4: [… ú?-ga? i-n]a-ni pé-ra-an ta-re-eḫ-ḫu-un ma-li-ik-⸢ku⸣-un ‘From [the il]lness I have become tired and weary’ (Schwemer 2015: 354, 356; Kloekhorst 2008: 833f.). The following attestation in the Prayer of Puduḫepa (CTH 384) is of particular interest since there the verb is combined with šer, just like darāi in our text: KUB 21.27+ iv 39′–40′: mḫa-at-tu-ši-li-i[š-š]a ARAD-KA A-NA ZI DINGIRLIM / še-er ⸢da-ri⸣-ia-at ‘Also Ḫattušili, your servant, has exerted himself for the will of the god’ (cf. pp. 124f., 128). Therefore, we may consider translating šer=šit darāi in the present text as ‘he exerted himself for it/him’; the antecedent of =šit would have been written in the break. Cf. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1) who, after a suggestion of Melchert, translate šer=šit darāi as ‘strenge dich für ihn an’, thus interpreting darāi as a 2sg.imp.act. However, since all other verb forms in this paragraph (obv. 3′–5′) are in the third person singular with the king as the subject, darāi is probably 3sg.prs.act. obv. 4′: The precise meaning of DINGIRLAM GUB-za i-e-et is unclear. It probably refers to taking care of the deity and/or her statue, or setting up the divine statue for the performance of the ritual. Perhaps it could even refer to making a divine statue. The reading DINGIRLAM GUB-za i-e-et follows Czyzewska (2012: II 75) who translates ‘He treated you as a goddess’. Instead, Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1) read DINGIRLAM-du-za i-e-et and translates ‘Er hat dich zu (deinem persönlichen) Gott gemacht’. The apparent lack of a blank space between LAM and DU would be an argument in favour of this reading. obv. 5′: The reading ⸢ni?⸣-e-x[…] at the beginning of the line follows Lebrun 1980: 83, Czyzewska 2012: II 75, and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.1. Friedrich (1957: 218) reads LÚ?e-[…]. obv. 11′: The restoration at the end of the line follows Lebrun 1980: 84 and Czyzewska 2012: II 75. CHD Š 56b restores [nu=kan] instead, but the visible traces seem to belong to NA. obv. 11′–12′: The figurative expressions IGIḪI.A-KA lāk ‘turn your eyes’ and GEŠTUḪI.A-KA lāk ‘turn your ears’ refer to ‘attentively listening to and looking at someone’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 515). The verb lāk- has several meanings, but they all seem to have something to do with falling down – ‘(act.) to knock out (a tooth), to turn (one’s ears or eyes), to train (a vine); (midd.) to fall, to be felled, to be toppled’ (ibid. 514).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Original Tablets and Copies

69

According to Puhvel ‘the metaphor (with ear) resembles “keep your ear to the ground”’ (Puhvel HED 5: 34). On these and similar expressions see also Dardano 2014. obv. 12′: Lebrun (1980: 84) reads IGIḪI.A-KA instead of ⸢GEŠTUḪI.A-KA⸣. obv. 13′: The interpretation of A-NA MU.⸢KAM?ḪI.A?-ŠU?⸣ pa-ra-a ⸢na-an⁉⸣-ni offered here follows Puhvel 2007: 630, HED 7: 39, and Friedrich 1957: 221, 223. Similarly, Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1) read A-NA MU⸢KAM⸣-x-x pa-ra-a na-⸢an?⸣-ni. Lebrun (1980: 84) erroneously reads ARAD-KA and Czyzweska (2012: vol. II 75) ARADḪI.A-KA, instead of A-NA MU.⸢KAM?ḪI.A?-ŠU?⸣, even though MU is clearly visible. The restoration of i-[da-a-la-u-wa-az] at the end of the line is based on rev. 44′ (cf. Sidel’tsev 2008: 698, Friedrich 1957: 218, Czyzewska 2012: II 75, CHD P 334). Similarly, Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1) read i-[da-a-la-wa-az?. CHD Š 137a restores i[dalawannaz]. obv. 14′: The translation of utniyant- as ‘land’ in the present context follows Friedrich 1957: 221 and Czyzewska 2012: II 76, cf. HW 238. Instead, Rieken (et al. 2016: CTH 371.1) translate it as ‘Bevölkerung’, cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 933. The restoration at the end of the line follows Lebrun 1980: 84 and Czyzewska 2012: II 75. CHD L–N 238a restores mi-ia-[ta?/tar? kīšaru]. obv. 15′: It is possible that GEŠTIN should be read as a determinative for išpantuzzi-. For an example of GIŠ.GEŠTIN as determinative for this word, see HW2 Ḫ 364. obv. 15′f.: With HW2 A 343b I interpret aršiyaaru as a form of arš- ‘to flow’. For this verb, see Kloekhorst 2008: 208, HW2 A 341–43, Puhvel HED 1: 170–72, and Tischler HEG 1: 66f. To make the offerings ‘flow’ probably means to make the offerings never ending, i.e., ‘flow’ eternally as a river does. Compare the translation of Singer (2002a: 23) ‘for the gods may the offering bread and the wine libations multiply!’. Less probable is the interpretation of Puhvel (HED 1: 173) and Rieken (et al. 2016: CTH 371.1) that aršiyaaru comes from aršai-, aršiia- ‘to plant’, which they translate in this context as to ‘succeed’ and to ‘thrive’ (German ‘gedeihen’), respectively. obv. 17′–rev. 39′: The litany is discussed below with a special focus on the use of abbreviations. obv. 17′: Steitler 2017: 240 reads dKAL ‘Stag-god’ instead of dLAMMA ‘Protective deity’. obv. 17′, 22′, 25′, lo.e. 27′, rev. 32′, 37′, 38′, 39′: The reading ki-ma in kī=ma tuēl eštu ‘may this be yours’ follows Singer (2002a: 27, fn. 2) and Hoffner and Melchert (2008: 412f.). This reading is ascertained by obv. 25′, rev. 32′ and 39′ where KI is clearly legible. The readings DI-ma ‘justice’ (Friedrich 1957: 218, Lebrun 1980: 84, 89, and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.1) and SILIM-ma ‘well-being, prosperity’ (Friedrich 1957: 223) can therefore be rejected, cf. Steitler 2017: 240 incl. fn. 766. The demonstrative kī refers to the offerings presented to the addressed deity. obv. 18′: According to Sidel’tsev (2008: 688) the imperfective -ške-forms of ed-/ad- and eku-/aku- have an intensive meaning, ‘to eat one’s fill’, ‘to drink one’s fill’, in contexts such as this one. The translation given here as a durative ‘keep on eating/drinking’ follows Hoffner and Melchert (2002: 380). obv. 21′, lo.e. 31′, rev. 36′: The clause zig=an lē tarnai ‘you must not allow it’ may be compared to zig=an lē ištamašši ‘you must not listen to it’ in obv. 6′–10′. Both clauses follow similar conditonal clauses concerning slander and ask the addressed deity to avert the slander. The verb tarna- ‘to let (go), to allow, to leave (something)’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 846) is therefore translated as ‘to allow’, cf. the translations of Singer 2002a: 23, Sidel’tsev 2010: 711, and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.1. The clause demonstrates that the gods can decide to let evil things happen or to prevent them. The same notion is expressed with the same verb in the answer to a rhetorical question in KUB 24.3+ ii 10 (see Appendix IV; on the adoption of these clauses in the plague prayers, see Ch. 8.2.3). Puhvel (HED 4: 296), based on another meaning of tarna-, translates zig=an lē tarnai as ‘do not abandon him’ (cf. Singer 2002a: 27, fn. 3). This is inaccurate since it shifts the meaning of the clause away from the slander mentioned in the preceding conditional clause. obv. 22′: LÚSUKKAL-ŠU is the correct reading here, not LÚ É-ŠU as Lebrun (1980: 84) reads. obv. 25′: The form tašnuškiani is a 2pl.prs.impf.act of the verb daš(ša)nu- ‘to make strong’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 853f.). CHD Š 306a leaves the verb untranslated but gives references to previous interpretations. The reading [t]a?-aš?-nu-uš-ki-⸢it-ta⸣-ni-ia-an follows Lebrun (1980: 84), Singer (2002a: 27, fn. 4), and Rieken et

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

70

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

al. (2016: CTH 371.1). Yoshida (1996: 273), following Friedrich (1957: 223), reads the same verb form, but he restores the first sign as [d]a?- rather than [t]a-. The restoration of Kronasser (1966: 380) [š]a-aš-nu-uški-⸢it⸣-ta-ni- needs to be rejected. Singer (2002a: 27, fn. 4) argues that the combination of šašnuškaeni and tašnuškiani refers metaphorically to the sunset ‘put to sleep’ and sunrise ‘invigorate’. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1) emphasise the poetic contrast and the assonance between the two verb forms. obv. 26′: In analogy to obv. 17′–18′ and obv. 22′–23′ one would expect nu šumēš at the beginning of the line, but the break is not large enough to fit more than one sign. If one would restore nu šumēš at the end of obv. 25′ (so Lebrun 1980: 84 without nu) the question remains which sign was written at the beginning of obv. 26′. Note also that unlike in obv. 17′–18′ and 22′–23′, the imperatives are not in the imperfective. rev. 37′: Singer (2002a: 22) translates ‘chief of the dignitaries (lit. eunuchs)’. The translation of LÚ.MEŠSAG as ‘courtiers’ offered here follows Miller 2013: 294f. rev. 38′: Singer (2002a: 22) translates ‘chief of the cleaners (lit. barbers)’. rev. 39′: Ḫilašši is the deified ‘courtyard’. rev. 40′: The translation offered here follows CHD Š 221, HW2 A 501b, and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.1. Compare the translations of Singer (2002a: 23) and Sidel’tsev (2008: 694): ‘When you (pl.) come, bring up well-being!’. At the end of the line, we may need to restore nu INA KUR URUḪATTI, cf. e.g., KUB 24.4+ rev. 16 (Appendix II), KUB 30.13(+) 6‴ (Appendix III), and CTH 377 88′ (Appendix V). The suggestion of Sidel’tsev (2008: 694) to restore [nu? KUR⁇-ŠU⁇] ‘[in the land]’ seems improbable. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1) and Singer (2002a: 23) do not indicate that any text is missing here. rev. 41′: The translation follows CHD Š 483a and HW2 I 83. For irḫai-, see the comment on rev. 42′f. rev. 42′f.: The verb irḫai- often refers to the presenting of offerings, usually in sequence, and to completing these procedures, see the attestations in HW2 I 80–84. This explains many of its meanings: ‘to circulate, to go around, to treat in succession, to execute, to perform, to fulfil, to conclude, to finish’. Since irḫai- is used here with an accusative I translate ‘to celebrate fully’. Cf. the translation of Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1): ‘Weil er (scil. der König) die Sonnengöttin der Erde durchgeführt (= gefeiert) hat, (und) er weiter euch durchgeführt (= gefeiert) hat, […] führt (= behandelt) in Zukunft den [König] durch!’. rev. 43′: The restoration of L[UGAL?] at the beginning of the line follows Friedrich (1957: 220), Sidel’tsev (2008: 694), and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1). In contrast, Lebrun (1980: 85) reads: nu?-un and Singer (2002a: 23) apparently restores dUTU ‘Sun-goddess’. rev. 44′: The tentative restoration is based on obv. 14′. rev. 46′: The tentative restoration is based on obv. 18′–19′, cf. CHD P 194b. In obv. 18′–19′ peran is used with a dative-locative, but here in rev. 46′ it goes with the genitive, which is typical for OH, see Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 299 (§20.23), cf. ibid. 255 (§16.58), 298 (§20.14), CHD P 291, 294. rev. 47′: The restoration is based on obv. 19′, cf. Friedrich 1957: 220. rev. 48′: The reading follows Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 371.1). Lebrun (1980: 86) reads ku-uš-du-wa-ta-a[t? …]. Singer (2002a: 24) translates ‘[May] slander [never sit right with you (?)]!’.

The prayer in CTH 371 is addressed to multiple deities. The blocks of text addressed to the different deities correspond to the division of the text into paragraphs as made by the Hittite scribe (see Table 6). The Sun-goddess of the Earth is the main addressee of the prayer and the first three paragraphs are addressed to her. These are followed by eight paragraphs, each of which is addressed to a deity subordinate to the Sungoddess of the Earth. The last preserved paragraphs are addressed to the entourage as a whole. The litany of eight paragraphs or sections directed to minor deities in the service of the Sun-goddess of the Earth (§ 5′–12′) is what interests us here. Each paragraph is

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Original Tablets and Copies

71

structured and formulated almost identically. The addressee differs in each passage. In the paragraph addressed to a group of divine servants of the Sun-goddess of the Earth (§ 7′) all the second person verb forms are in plural instead of singular. The repetition in these eight paragraphs allowed the scribe to abbreviate some of them. Three of the eight paragraphs contain the complete wording (§ 5′, § 8′–9′). The scribe abbreviated two paragraphs (§ 6′–7′) with the phrase pa-ra-a-ma QA-TAM-MA me-ma-i ‘additionally he will recite likewise’ and three others (§ 10′–12′) with KI.MIN ‘ditto’. It is this distribution of the abbreviated and not abbreviated passages over the tablet that implies the tablet was written to be read from during the performance. Textual Element

§

– Ritual Instructions Prayer

–

Addressee

Beginning lost § 1′ – § 2′ § 3′ Sun-goddess of the Earth § 4′ § 5′ Protective deity of the Sun-goddess of the Earth § 6′ Vizier of the Sun-goddess of the Earth § 7′ Servants of the Sun-goddess of the Earth § 8′ Darawa § 9′ Paraya § 10′ Chief of the Courtiers § 11′ Chief of the Barbers § 12′ Ḫilašši § 13′ Entourage of the Sun-goddess of the Earth § 14′ § 15′ § 16′ Too fragmentary for analysis § 17′ Remainder lost

Table 6. Overall Structure KBo 7.28+ (CTH 371).

The three full not abbreviated paragraphs (§ 5′, § 8′–9′) begin with the exclama-tion duwaddu ‘mercy!’ followed by a direct address. Subsequently, offerings are presented to the deity addressed.249 Two clauses are dedicated to the offerings. The first is formulated as a wish with an imperative in the third person singular: kī=ma tuēl 249

Cf. Steitler 2017: 240.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

72

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

eštu ‘may this be yours!’250 The second clause is formulated as a request, using two imperatives in the second person singular, both in the imperfective -ške-form: nu zīk azzikki akkuški ‘you keep eating and drinking!’251 What follows are requests for intercession. The addressee is asked to speak good words to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and to mention the king and his name favourably before her. It ends with a request to ignore any possible slander or ‘evil’ spoken about the king by his family members or other acquaintances. A schematic overview of the structure of these full paragraphs is presented in Table 7. Text Unit

Details

§ 5′

§ 8′

§ 9′

Exclamation Direct address Offering Offerings Requests – Intercession

duwaddu

17′

27′

32′

DN

17′

27′

32′

Request – Ignore slander

3sg.imp

17′

27′

32′

2sg.imp.impf

17′–18′

27′–28′

32′d-33′

2sg.imp.impf

18′–19′

28′–30′

33′–34′

conditional clause (takku), lē + 2sg.prs

[19′]-21′

30′–31′

34′–36′

Table 7. Detailed structure KBo 7.28+ § 5′, § 8′, and § 9′.

The requests in the three full paragraphs are identical, except for one minor variation in the employed form of the verb kušduwai- ‘to insult, to slander’ in the final request to ignore slander. In § 8′ and § 9′ the preterite ku-uš-du-wa-a-it is used, whereas § 5′ has the present ku-⸢uš⸣-du-wa-a-iz-zi instead. I cannot think of any plausible explanation why different tenses would be used. Perhaps it is a scribal error, for one would expect these forms to be identical. The parallel requests in § 3′ employ the preterite form, just like § 8′ and § 9′. The other five paragraphs belonging to this litany (§ 6′, § 7′, § 10′–12′) were structured and formulated similarly, though they were not written down in full. The first paragraph of the litany (§ 5′) obviously has the full text. The following two (§ 6′–7′) are both abbreviated. They are followed by two full ones (§ 8′–9′), after which three more abbreviated paragraphs follow (§ 10′–12′). At a first glance this may seem an illogical order of abbreviated and unabbreviated sections. However, their distribution over the tablet does show a clear pattern. Firstly, we note that the two abbreviations used replace a different set of clauses: parā=ma QATAMMA memai replaces the requests, whereas KI.MIN replaces the requests and the second clause of the offerings (‘You keep eating and drinking!’). Secondly, we

250 251

KBo 7.28+ obv. 17′, 22′, lo.e. 27′, rev. 32′, 37′, 38′, 39′. A variation occurs in KBo 7.28+ obv. 25′: kī=ma šumenzan eštu. For the distinction between a wish and a request, see Ch. 3.4. KBo 7.28+ obv. 17′f., 22′f., lo.e. 28′, rev. 32′f. A variation occurs in KBo 7.28+ obv. 26′: [nu?] ezzašten ekuen.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

73

Original Tablets and Copies

note that parā=ma QATAMMA memai occurs in the first two abbreviated paragraphs (§ 6′–7′), and KI.MIN in the final three (§ 10′–12′). Thirdly, we link these observations to the distribution of the text over the tablet (see Table 8). Now we see that the paragraphs that have the full text are each positioned in a way to make reading from the tablet more convenient: at the beginning of the litany on the obverse (§ 5′), at the lower edge (§ 8′), and at the beginning of the reverse (§ 9′). Thus, at the beginning of the litany and every time the tablet has to be turned 90° to continue reading, a full paragraph appears. The abbreviated passages are written on the tablet’s obverse (§ 6′–7′) and reverse (§ 10′–12′), always immediately following one of the unabbreviated versions. Tablet side obverse lower edge

reverse

§

Abbreviated

Abbreviation

Replaces

§ 5′

–

§ 6′

✓

parā=ma QATAMMA memai

Requests

§ 7′

✓

parā=ma QATAMMA memai

Requests

§ 8′

–

§ 9′

–

§ 10′

✓

KI.MIN

§ 11′

✓

KI.MIN

§ 12′

✓

KI.MIN

Offerings (partly), Requests Offerings (partly), Requests Offerings (partly), Requests

Table 8. Distribution of abbreviated and not abbreviated paragraphs in litany.

This distribution of the abbreviated and unabbreviated paragraphs over the three sides of the tablet makes it easier to read from the tablet, especially during a ritualistic performance. When one reads from a clay tablet one starts on the obverse, subsequently turning the tablet 90° over the horizontal axis to read the lower edge, to turn it again 90° over the same axis to read the reverse. If the paragraphs written on the lower edge and at the top of the reverse would have been abbreviated, one would have to turn the tablet back 90° or 180°, respectively, to be able to read the lines that were to be repeated on the obverse. To avoid this hassle the paragraphs at the lower edge (§ 8′) and at the top of the reverse (§ 9′) were not abbreviated but written out in full, just like the first paragraph of the litany (§ 5′). This shows that the prayer written on KBo 7.28+ was intended to be read from this tablet during the performance of the ritual without having to turn the tablet back and forth. The text to be repeated could easily be located at the beginning of the litany on the obverse, at the lower edge, or at the top of the reverse.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

74

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

Why two different abbreviations are used to replace two different lengths of text is not as easily explained. However, parā=ma QATAMMA memai is only used on the obverse of the tablet, whereas KI.MIN is only used on the reverse (see Table 8). This can hardly be a coincidence. It suggests that the scribe carefully considered how to abbreviate which paragraph. The abbreviation KI.MIN ‘ditto’ used on the reverse does not only replace more text than the one used on the obverse, but it also takes up less space. Possibly the scribe tried to save space in this way, though he may also have been fed-up with writing the same sentences over and over again.

3.4 TEXT STRUCTURE One can analyse the discourse structure of a text in multiple levels of detail. For the Hittite prayers it is important to distinguish between the text as a whole and the actual prayer-text to be recited. All tablets on which a prayer is written, contain various textual elements. The prayer proper is in a few instances accompanied by ritual instructions. In addition, most tablets end with a colophon, and a few prayers begin with what is referred to as a text designation in the present study (see Ch. 3.5). Of these four elements, only the prayer proper was to be recited. The other elements were probably not spoken and they therefore do not belong to the prayer proper which is the focus of this study. An overview of the textual elements that were not recited can be found in Table 10 (p. 81). For the prayer proper three levels of structural analysis are employed: macro-, meso-, and micro-level. On the macro-level I distinguish a number of textual elements that each have a different function within the prayer as a whole. Each Hittite prayer consists of two main parts, an introduction and a plea. The plea is the longest and most important part of every Hittite prayer.252 It gives the reason for the composition and performance of the prayer and contains requests and wishes to end the trouble, explicit and implicit arguments why the addressee should help the supplicant, and other elements that support the effective communication of the prayer. Several rhetorical strategies are used throughout the plea. The prayer’s introduction also serves a rhetorical purpose. Most, if not all, prayers begin with a simple introduction in which the participants of the prayer – the addressee and the supplicant – are introduced. It usually begins with a direct address calling the addressee(s) by name, followed by the introduction of the supplicant in the form of a performative statement stating that he/she is the one who is praying at that moment. This will be referred to as the introduction proper. In some prayers it includes an instruction to recite the prayer on the king’s behalf, in which the reciter is never mentioned by name (see Ch. 7.1). If the prayer was occasioned for the well-being of someone other than the supplicant, i.e., the beneficiary and supplicant are different individuals, this is made explicit in the plea. The introduc-

252

Haas 2006: 253, Singer 2002a: 5, de Roos 1995: 1999.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Structure

75

tion proper thus identifies the main actors (supplicant, addressee, and if applicable speaker) immediately at the beginning of the prayer. In this way, it is made clear who is addressing whom and any possible misunderstandings are eliminated. Some prayers have a more extensive introduction with additional elements. Some of these include a hymn, whereas others consist of even more parts to form the elaborate prayer introduction. A hymn praises the addressed deity by describing his or her qualities. In this way the hymn ensures the deity is in a good mood to receive the plea. Whereas hymns are obligatory in Akkadian and Sumerian prayers, in Hittite prayers they are not. Hymns were not even that common in Hittite prayers, especially not in New Hittite prayers. The latest prayers either contain only a few lines praising the addressed deity (CTH 381, CTH 383, and CTH 384) or they do not contain a hymn at all (CTH 382 and CTH 385.9).253 The elaborate prayer introduction is only attested in prayers dating to the reign of Muršili II. It consists of four components: the introduction proper, the invocation, the ‘only in Ḫai’ passage, and a hymn. The introduction proper introduces the supplicant and the addressee, and it contains an instruction to an anonymous reciter. The socalled invocation contains references to offerings and requests to lure the addressed deity to the place where the prayer is performed. Apparently, the deity needed to be present for the prayer to be delivered successfully. The ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage emphasises the good behaviour of Ḫatti towards the addressee, contrasting it with remarks that no other land takes such good care of the gods. The hymn praises the addressee. A detailed analysis of the elaborate prayer introduction is offered in Ch. 7. Table 9 gives an overview of the preserved textual elements for each prayer. Elements that are now lost, but were probably included in the prayer are indicated with ‘[broken]’. ‘–’ indicates that the element was not part of that prayer, and ‘[–]’ indicates that it was either not part of the prayer or that it is now lost in a break. Only those elements that were to be recited and part of the prayer proper are included. On the meso-level of structural analysis, each textual element can be divided into one or more sections and subsections. These are distinguished on the basis of formal criteria and content. It is remarkable that the division into sections and subsections often concurs with the division of the text into paragraphs by horizontal rulings. This shows that the original subdivision of the text devised by the scribe were meaningful. Similarly, Waal stated that rulings ‘occur when there is a shift of subject matter and thus divide a composition into distinct logical units’.254 She moreover suggested that paragraph rulings may have been applied more consistently in later times than in the Old and Middle Hittite period.255 Indeed a chronological development is apparant for the division into paragraphs of personal prayers. In the Middle Hittite period the prayers were divided into numerous short paragraphs between two and five lines in

253 254 255

Cf. pp. 39f. incl. fn. 154. Waal 2012a: 149, cf. Waal 2015: 207f. See also Gordin 2015: 27 with references. Waal 2012b: 225, 226.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

76

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

Prayer introduction No.

CTH

Plea

Introduction proper

Invocation

‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage

Hymn

✓

offerings

–

–

✓

1

371

2

385.10

[broken]

–

–

✓

✓

3

389.2

[broken]

[–]

[–]

[–]

✓

4

381

✓

–

–

✓

✓

5

373256

[broken]

[–]

[–]

✓

✓

6

374

✓

–

–

✓

✓

7

372

✓

–

–

✓

✓

8

375

✓

–

precursor

–

✓

9

376.I

[broken]

[–]

[–]

[–]

✓

10

376.III

[broken]

[–]

[–]

[–]

✓

11

376.II

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

12

377

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

13

378.1

✓

–

–

–

✓

14

378.2

✓

–

–

–

✓

15

378.3

direct address

–

–

–

✓

16

378.4

✓

–

–

–

✓

17

376.4

[broken]

✓

✓

[broken]

✓

18

70

[broken]

[–]

[–]

[–]

✓

19

72

direct address

[–]

[–]

[–]

✓

20

382

✓

–

–

–

✓

21

380

[broken]

offerings

[–]

[–]

✓

22

383

✓

–

–

✓

✓

23

384257

–

–

✓

✓

24

385.9

✓ = text designation?

–

–

–

✓

Table 9. Attested textual elements in the prayer proper.

256 257

The repetitive structure suggests that the tablet contains two separate prayers, see Ch. 9.3.1. The text consists of five interrelated prayers.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Structure

77

length, which do not reflect the structure of the text. In later prayers the paragraphs became longer and most horizontal rulings can be explained by the structure of the text on the macro- and meso- level of the textual element and the (sub)section. The different sections and subsectons that form the prayer are built out of smaller discourse or text units that have certain meanings and functions within the text. These are distinguished on the micro-level by formal criteria as well as content or subject matter. Thus, linguistic features and the employed vocabulary are significant here, though the function within the prayer is also relevant. A text unit consists of a single sentence or (subordinate) clause. Various text units have been identified in this way, including direct addresses, requests, wishes, descriptions, (performative) statements, proverbs, confessions, negative confessions, and promises. Though argument is not a specific type of text unit, some text units and combinations thereof can function as arguments to persuade the addressed deity to grant the supplicant’s requests. The text units that are most common in prayers and their characteristics will briefly be described below. This list is not exhaustive. Moreover, some of the text units can be subdivided into different types. For example, requests can be subdivided in requests for intercession, for attention, to end ‘evil’, to send ‘evil’ to the enemy, to ignore something, to give ‘good’, etc. Direct address A direct address addresses the recipient of the prayer by name. The divine name is almost always followed by the epithet ‘my lord’ or ‘my lady’ indicating the hierarchy between supplicant and addressee. The epithets are considered part of the direct address. The direct address can be incorporated in a sentence or occur independently in the vocative case. In a sentence the addressee should be identified by either a personal pronoun or a verb in the second person; otherwise, it is simply a reference to the deity in the third person. A direct address draws the attention of the addressed deity and can be used to mark the beginning of a new section of the prayer.258 Statement The term statement is used here to denote performative statements in which the supplicant says what he is doing at that very moment by uttering that clause.259 The common expressions employed in statements use the terms arkuwai- ‘to pray, to make arkuwar’ and arkuwar ‘plea, prayer’ in the phrases =za arkuwar iya- ‘to make arkuwar’ or =za arkuwar ešša- ‘to make arkuwar’; the verb mugai- ‘to invoke, to make mugawar’ can also be used. Most statements use the adverb kāša to indicate that the described act, i.e., ‘praying’, ‘making of arkuwar’, or ‘making of mugawar’, occurs at the moment the statement is uttered, by uttering that clause. It thus denotes an

258 259

Cf. Daues and Rieken (2018: 25), who argue that the explicit mentioning of the name of the addressed deity plays a significant role in opening the channel of communication. Daues and Rieken (2018: 33, 101f.) consider these statements to constitute declarative illocutions, even though they do not alter reality.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

78

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

‘immediate present’.260 Occasionally kinuna ‘now’ is used in the same way. This makes these statements performative. Statements can be used to mark the beginning of a new section of the prayer. Description Prayers also contain several descriptions, passages written in the third person. They may concern the problems that occasioned the composition and performance of the prayer, misdeeds, usually committed by previous kings, or actions already undertaken to resolve the problems. Complaint Clauses that emphasise the supplicant’s terrible situation in a figurative way written in the first person are labelled as a complaint.261 Note that many descriptions (in the third person) may have a similar function. Request The term request is used to denote a in instance of asking for something. Requests are formulated in the second person imperative. Though Hittite does not distinguish between a direct command and a request – both are expressed by an imperative in the second person – it may be assumed that we are dealing with requests rather than impolite commands since the deities to whom the prayers are directed are superior to the supplicant. Several different kinds of requests can be identified in the prayers.262 Short descriptions of the most common ones seem in order. Requests for aention are often used at the beginning of the plea. They ask for positive attention towards the supplicant. Examples include requests to listen to the prayer, to look kindly upon the supplicant, or to listen to good words. In requests to give ‘good’ the supplicant asks for some benefit to be given to or to be established for him. These benefits, or ‘good’ things, may be specified or referred to in general terms. A related type of request are the requests for support in which the addressee is asked to be on the supplicant’s side. These, like the requests for attention, are supportive requests that help to ensure the successful communication of the prayer to the addressed gods. Requests to end ‘evil’ and requests to send ‘evil’ to the enemy are intended to put an end to whatever problem is troubling the supplicant. In the requests to send ‘evil’ to the enemy the supplicant simultaneously tries to strengthen the Hittite empire and to secure military victory. The ‘evil’ may be specified in these requests, but it can also be referred to in more general terms. 260 261 262

Following Hoffner and Melchert 2002: 388, ibid. 2008: 323–24 (§24.27–§24.30), cf. Hoffner 1968a: 532, contra Rieken 2014: 164. E.g., KUB 24.4+ obv. 8′–9′ (CTH 376.I), see Appendix II. Daues and Rieken (2018: 99–101) distinguish between central requests, which present the primary goal of the prayer, supportive requests, and what they call ‘Ausführungssichernde Bitten’. The latter are requests that need to be granted or answered in order to enable the supplicant to execute what he needs to do. They include requests to reveal offences and to keep offering priests alive.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Structure

79

Requests to ignore ‘evil’ or requests to disallow ‘evil’ ask the addressee not to hear or see something, or not to allow something bad to happen. These requests appear to be precautionary measures, unlike the requests to end ‘evil’ or to send ‘evil’ to the enemy. Requests for intercession are often directed to secondary addressees of the prayer to intercede with the main addressee on behalf of the supplicant or beneficiary. Wish Wishes are similar to requests since both text units ask for something. The difference lies in the verb form used. Wishes are formulated in the third person imperative, whereas requests are formulated in the second person imperative. Wishes often ask for general well-being of the beneficiary and the land of Ḫatti.263 Interjection Interjections or exclamations seem to function as a means to draw attention, possibly as a greeting or as an additional appeal of some kind. The interjection duwaddu ‘mercy!’ followed by a direct address is used to introduce new sections in the MH Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle against slander (CTH 371). Proverb A proverb is a short traditional saying stating a general truth that often uses metaphor (see p. 101). Proverbs are employed in prayers as an argument or to support a confession, see Ch. 5. Confession Confessions of misdeeds, usually committed by previous kings, are included in several prayers.264 The confession may be very formulaic, as is the case in CTH 378.2 (see p. 277). Negative confession A negative confession is a denial of guilt. The confessed transgressions are never committed by the king who is praying but always by one of his predecessors, usually his father.265 Therefore, the negative confessions often state that the supplicant was not involved in any misdeed. For an example of a negative confession followed by an actual confession, see Ch. 5.3.

263 264

265

Daues and Rieken (2018) do not distinguish wishes from requests, see e.g., ibid.: 18. Daues and Rieken (2018) consider confessions as assertive illocutionary acts, see for instance their structural analysis of CTH 378.2 (ibid. 66–71). However, a confession is better understood as a declarative illiocutionary act, since it does not inform the addressee of the confession, but pronouncing it is the confession and hence changes reality. By confessing the supplicant admits guilt and becomes the guilty or liable one. The Fragmentary prayer of Tudḫaliya IV (CTH 385.9) seems to be the single exception, see Singer 2005: 566f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

80

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

Offering Offerings are wishes or requests that invite the addressee to consume the presented offerings. It can be formulated as a wish using a third person imperative, or as a request with an imperative in the second person. Promise Occasionally promises are made to the addressed deities. These include promises to honour the gods or to perform certain rituals.266 Some are, similar to the vows, said to be lived up to only if the addressee grants the requests presented in the prayer. Promises were included in prayers to increase the chance of a positive response. Vow The vow is a special kind of promise in which valuable material objects are promised to the deity addressed. They are always formulated with a conditional clause which emphasises that only if the addressee grants the posed requests will he/she be given the valuable objects. In our corpus vows occur only in the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384), which is closely related to the votive texts, a type of text characterised by vows.267 The structural analysis of various prayers and prayer passages forms the basis for the case studies in Chs. 5–9. To facilitate the understanding of the prayers and their structure, the different textual elements, sections, and subsections are often indicated in the text editions throughout this book (e.g., in Appendices II-V). In this way the text or discourse structure is emphasised. Occasionally text units are indicated as well. The level of detail corresponds to what is relevant for the discussions in the chapters. A very detailed division into small text units can be counterproductive for a long text. Therefore, when the same or similar text units follow each other, they are usually grouped together under one heading. Similarly, certain text units, such as the direct address, are occasionally combined with others.

3.5 TEXT DESIGNATIONS AND COLOPHONS Colophons and text designations are extra-textual elements: i.e., they do not belong to the actual composition but give additional information about the nature of the text and the production of the tablet. Whereas the prayer was to be spoken to the gods, the text designations and colophons were not pronounced. The same is true for ritual instructions. An overview of attested textual elements that were not to be recited is presented in Table 10.

266 267

Cf. Torri 2019: 52–55. Cf. Torri 2019: 55–58.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

81

Text Designations and Colophons

No.

CTH

Text Designation not recited

Ritual Instructions not recited

Colophon not recited

1

371

[–]

✓

[–]

2

385.10

[–]

✓

✓

3

389.2

[–]

✓

✓

4

381

–

5

373

[–]

✓ –

✓ [–]

6

374

[–]

–

✓

7

372

–

–

✓

8

375

–

–

✓

9

376.I

[–]

–

10

376.III

[–]

–

✓ [–] oracular inquiry

11

376.II

– or [–]

–

✓

12

377

✓

–

✓

13

378.1

–

–

✓

14

378.2

–

–

15 16 17 18

378.3 378.4 376.4 70

– – [–] [–]

– – – –

✓ - or [–] [–] [–]

19

72

[–]

–

✓

20

382

–

–

✓

21 22

380 383

[–] –

[–] –

[–] or in KBo 22.232 –

23

384

✓

–

–

24

385.9

✓

–

– or [–]

Table 10. Attested textual elements that were not recited.

Text designations occur at the beginning of the text. They thus precede the prayer and seem to function as a heading of the composition.268 They may be separated from the following text by a horizontal ruling. Colophons were also used to identify com-

268

Headings occur, for example, also in the votive text KUB 15.1, where certain sections are preceded by the name of the deity written in the middle of the tablet.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

82

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

positions within the tablet collections.269 They occur at the end of a text, either on the reverse or the left edge of the tablet. Usually, they are visually separated from the preceding composition by a double ruling, a blank space, and layout; they are often indented.270 The fact that prayers generally had colophons and were copied, implies that they were to be stored in the state archives for a longer period. Text designations are not common in prayers: only three of the twenty-four prayers in the corpus have one. In the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) it is clearly separated from the following prayer-text by a horizontal ruling. It conveys the same information as the colophon of the text, namely, that a scribe is to recite the prayer daily.271 The occurrence of a text designation and a colophon in the same text shows that the two units are not mutually exclusive. CTH 377, KUB 24.2 obv. 1–2:272 1 [ki?-i?-ma?-k]án ⸢ṬUP-PÍ DUB⸣.SAR A-NA DINGIRLIM an-⸢da⸣ UD-⸢at UD-at⸣ memi-⸢iš⸣-k[i-iz-zi] 2 [nu? DING]IR?LAM wa-al-li-iš-ki-iz-zi [is] text a scribe will recite daily to the deity and he will praise the deity continuously. The text designation in the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384) labels the composition as directed or pertaining to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Again, a horizontal ruling separates it from the prayer-text that follows. CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ i 1–2:273 1 [A]-⸢NA⸣ dUTU URUTÚL-na GAŠAN-IA GAŠAN KUR.KURMEŠ URUḪA-AT-TI 2 MUNUS.LUGAL ŠA-ME-E Ù ER-ṢE-TIM To the Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, lady of the lands of Ḫatti, queen of heaven and earth. The interpretation of this clause as a text designation indicating the purpose, or in this case, the addressee of the prayer, is contra Sürenhagen who understands these

269

270 271 272 273

Waal 2015: 155f. A colophon may contain one or more of the following elements: ‘A sequence number of tablet; B indication whether or not the composition is complete; C title (description) of the composition; D scribal information; E additional information regarding the composition, the Vorlage, origin, and/or circumstances in which the tablet was made or copied; F other information.’ The majority of the Hittite colophons consist of A, B, and C (Waal 2015: 139–40). Waal 2015: 138. For the colophon, see p. 84. Duplicate: KUB 24.1+ i 1–2. For a full edition of CTH 377, see Appendix V. A parallel occurs further on in the same text, KUB 21.27+ ii 11–12. There it is part of a longer sentence. Except for the spelling of Ḫatti (ḪA-AT-TI instead of ḪAT-TI), we find the same orthography.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Designations and Colophons

83

two lines as an uncommon address with letter-like formulation.274 His interpretation, however, does not explain the absence of a verbal form, or the direct address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna that follows immediately after the horizontal ruling in KUB 21.27+ i 3. The interpretation as text designation or heading of the composition would explain these things. The first line of the Fragmentary prayer of Tutḫaliya IV (CTH 385.9) may be interpreted as a text designation as well, even though it is not separated from the rest of the text by a ruling. CTH 385.9, KBo 12.58 + KBo 13.162 obv. 1: 1 […]-x-az ⸢Ù⸣ mtu-ut-⸢ḫa-li⸣-ia-aš kiš-⸢ša⸣-[an ar-ku-wa-a]r i-ia-at […]… and Tutḫaliya made [a plea] as follo[ws]: Thirteen of the twenty-four prayers have a colophon at least partly preserved.275 For most of the other prayers it is impossible to ascertain whether they had a colophon due to a break in the tablet. Only three prayers do not seem to bear a colophon at all: CTH 378.4, CTH 383, and CTH 384. The “Third” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.3) and the prayer of Tutḫaliya IV (CTH 385.9) both preserve the final line of the reverse. Therefore, these texts either did not have a colophon or the colophon was written on the left edge and is now lost. In addition, KUB 6.46 (CTH 381) and KUB 24.2 (CTH 377) do not have a colophon, whereas their duplicates do have one. The fragment KBo 22.232 may give a colophon of the Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 380). Since the assignment to CTH 380 is not entirely certain, the fragment is not listed in the catalogue in Appendix I. KBo 22.232 1′–3′:276 1′ [DUB.xKAM Q]A-TI MUNUSta-wa-[an-na-an-na …] 2′ […] A-NA UGU GI[G …] 3′ [A-NA dl]e-el-wa-ni SISKUR […] [Tablet x. Co]mplete. Tawa[nnanna …] for the sake of the illne[ss … to L]elwani ritual/sacrifice […]. The discussion below focusses on those colophons that provide useful information on the nature of the text or its performance.277 The fragmentary colophon of the Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-god for the royal couple (CTH 385.10) seems to indicate that it was performed on the roof of the temple of the Sun-goddess possibly by the priest of the Sun-goddess of Arinna.

274 275 276 277

Sürenhagen 1981: 125, fn. 32. See Table 10 (p. 81), cf. Waal 2015: 283–89. Cf. Groddek 2008: 223 and Torri 1999: 42, fn. 16. The rather short and poorly preserved colophons that are not treated are KUB 48.111+ l.e. 1–2 (CTH 72), KUB 31.127+ iv 29 (CTH 372), KUB 31.134(+) rev. 1′–2′ (CTH 374), KUB 6.45+ iv 61 (CTH 381), and KUB 60.156 l.e. 2 (CTH 389.2).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

84

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

CTH 385.10, KUB 57.63 iv 11′–15′: 11′ [… k]i-i-ma 12′ […] ⸢d⸣UTU URU⸢TÚL-na⸣ 13′ […]⸢še-er⸣ [Š]A É dUTU 14′ [… -ḫ]a-an-d[a] 15′ [QA]-⸢TI⸣ [When the king …]. These [words the priest of] the Sun-goddess of Arinna [recites] on [the roof o]f the temple of the Sun-goddess. […]… [Com]plete. Two colophons of the Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška (CTH 375) are preserved. The two colophons appear parallel to each other, except for the number given to the tablet, suggesting that the prayer was written on two tablets rather than on a single one. The text is labelled as ‘when they speak […] continuously before the gods’ and as belonging or pertaining to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. The latter is also attested in the text designation of the Prayer of Puduḫepa (CTH 384). CTH 375, KUB 31.123 + FHL 3 rev. 1′–2′: 1′ [D]UB.1KAM DINGIRMEŠ-aš-kán ma-aḫ-ḫa-an [… an-da me-mi-iš-kán-zi]278 2′ ŠA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na ⸢Ú⸣-[UL QA-TI] First tablet. When [they speak … continuously] to the gods. Of the Sungoddess of Arinna. No[t complete]. CTH 375, KUB 48.107+ iv 3′–5′: 3′ DUB.2KAM PA-NI D[INGIR]⸢MEŠ⸣-kán GIM-an […] 4′ an-da me-mi-i[š]-kán-zi 5′ ŠA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na QA-T[I] Second tablet. When they speak […] continuously before [the gods]. Of the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Complete. The Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) is designated as a daily prayer of a scribe for the king to Telipinu in the colophon (KUB 24.1+ iv 19–21). This is also expressed in the text designation at the beginning of the text (see p. 82). The duplicate tablet KUB 24.2 does not have a colophon. CTH 377, KUB 24.1+ iv 19–21:279 19 DUB.1⸢PU⸣ QA-TI LÚDUB.SAR-za GIM-an 20 A-NA LUGAL še-er PA-NI dte-li-pí-nu 21 UDKAM-ti-li ar-ku-wa-ar e-eš-ša-i Tablet 1. Complete. When a scribe performs a prayer for the king in front of Telipinu daily.

278 279

The restoration is based on KUB 48.107 3′–4′, cf. Waal 2015: 284. For an edition of the entire text, see Appendix V.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Designations and Colophons

85

The colophons of the “First” and “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.1, CTH 378.2) seem identical to each other. They both mention a plague as the reason for the prayer and identify Muršili II as the supplicant. In both instances the prayer is referred to as an arkuwar ‘plea’. CTH 378.1, KUB 14.14+ l.e. 1–2: 1 [DUB.1KAM] ⸢QA⸣-TI mmur-ši-li-iš-⸢za GIM⸣-a[n] ÚŠ-ni še-er 2 [A-NA DINGIRME]Š ar-ku-wa-ar i-i[a-a]t 280 [Tablet 1. C]omplete. When Muršili per[formed] a prayer [to the gods] because of the plague. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.10+ iv 23′–25′: 23′ [D]UB.⸢1.KAM⸣ QA-TI mmu-ur-ši-l[i-iš-za GIM-an] 24′ […]x ḫi-in-g[a]-⸢ni še⸣-[er …] 25′ [ar-ku-w]a-ar [i-ia-at] (remainder lost, possibly 1 or 2 lines missing) Tablet 1. Finished. [When] Muršil[i …] beca[use of] the plague […] performed a pray]er. […]. In the colophon of the Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382) the scribe who wrote the tablet is identified as Lūrmazidi. The text is identified as being ‘of the presentation of the prayer to the Storm-god’ (ŠA d10 arkuwar tiyauwaš). If the restorations are correct, the prayer is said to be dictated ‘from the mouth of the king’ (KAxU-az parā anniyan). CTH 382, KBo 11.1 rev. 24′–27′: 24′ ⸢DUB⸣.1KAM ŠA d10 ar-ku-wa-ar ⸢ti-ia⸣-u-wa-aš A-NA dUTUŠI-at-kán K[AxU?-az?] 25′ [p]a-[r]a-a a-ni-ia-an QA-TI (Blank) 26′ ŠU mlu-u-ur-ma-LÚ281 A.ZU.TUR ⸢GÁB⸣.[ZU.ZU …] 27′ DUMU ma-ki-d10-ub Tablet 1. Of the presentation of the prayer to the Storm-god. Written down [from the] m[outh] of His Majesty. Complete. The Hand of Lūrmazidi, junior incantation priest, pu[pil of …], son of AkiTeššub. The colophon of the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I) might also mention the name of the scribe in KUB 24.4+ rev. 23.

280 281

Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 378.1) read ⸢i⸣-i[š-še-eš-t]a. The reading follows Waal 2015: 288. LÚ is placed immediately after MA and is therefore more likely to belong to the name of the scribe than to A.ZU.TUR.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

86

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

CTH 376.I, KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 rev. 18–24:282 18 ma-a-an erasure KUR-e a[n-da …] 19 [n]u-mu dUTUŠI x-wa-[…] 20 [n]u pa-a-un DINGIRMEŠ x[…] 21 [UR]Ua-ri-in-ni URUz[i-…] 22 [x (x) k]i-i ud-da-a-a[r …] (Blank) 23 […]⸢zu⸣-u-w[a?-…] 24 […]x[…] (Text breaks) When i[n] the land […] His Majesty (to) me …[…]. I went […] the gods […] in Arinna, Z[ippalanda …] these words […]. [e hand of] Zuw[a …] The colophon of KUB 24.3+, the main version of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sungoddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), is relatively long and well preserved. CTH 376.II, KUB 24.3+ iv 1′–8′:283 (Beginning lost, probably only a few lines missing) 1′ ⸢A?⸣-[NA dUTU URUa-ri-in]-⸢na mu-ga-u-wa-an-zi⸣ 2′ x[…]x tup-pí-ia-aš A-WA-TEMEŠ 3′ a-⸢pí-ia a-ni-ia⸣-nu-un nu dUTU URUa-ri-in-na 4′ URUKÙ.BABBAR-ši I-NA UD.7KAM mu-ke-eš-ki-nu-un 5′ I-NA URUa-ri-in-na-ia I-NA UD.7KAM 6′ mu-ke-eš-ki-nu-un na-aš-ta ki-i A-WA-TEMEŠ 7′ an-da me-mi-iš-ki-nu-un mu-u-ga-u-wa-aš-ma 8′ ar-ḫa-ia-an ḫa-an-ti ṬUP-PÍ […] to invoke [the Sun-goddess of Arinn]a […] the words of the tablet I recorded. The Sun-goddess of Arinna I invoked continuously in Ḫattuša for seven days and also in Arinna for seven days I invoked (her) continuously. These words I continuously spoke. The mugawar is, in addition, on a separate tablet. The fragmentary first clause gives either an order to perform the prayer or the reason why it is performed. The remainder of the colophon is written in the first person singular. The first person probably refers to the scribe who wrote the text since he states to have ‘recorded the words of the tablet’. The question arises whether this clause using the verb aniya- ‘to make (a tablet), to record (on a tablet)’ refers to com-

282 283

For an edition of the entire text, see Appendix II. Comments on these lines can also be found there. For an edition of the entire text, see Appendix IV.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Designations and Colophons

87

posing the text or to copying an existing prayer.284 The colophon continues by saying that the prayer was performed seven times in Ḫattuša and seven times in Arinna, probably by the scribe. The verbs used are mugai- ‘to invoke’ and mema- ‘to speak’. In addition, it is stated that there is a ‘separate tablet’ (ḫanti tuppi) of the mugawar. The term mugawar is generally considered to refer to a ritual, in this case probably the ritual that accompanied the recitation of the prayer. The fragment KUB 36.80 is considered to be a duplicate of the same prayer, but its colophon differs from that of KUB 24.3+. The fragmentary colophon is written in the third person plural rather than the first person singular. It mentions the Sun-goddess of Arinna, gives the dying of people as a reason for the prayer, and, like KUB 24.3+, it seems to refer to a separate tablet. CTH 376.II, KUB 36.80 rev. 2′–7′:285 2′ […] ma-a-an ŠÀ KUR URUḪAT-⸢TI⸣ […] 3′ [… ak-k]i-iš-ki-it-ta-ri […] 4′ [… ]x ⸢ap?⸣-pa-⸢i?⸣ ḫa-an-ti […] 5′ [… m]a-a-an dUTU URUa-ri-in-n[a] 6′ [… mu]-⸢u⸣-ga-a-an-zi nu-uš-ša-⸢an⸣ 7′ [ud-da-ar] an-da me-mi-iš-kán-zi […] When in the land of Ḫatti […] are [d]ying continuously, […] is finished. A separate [tablet … W]hen they [in]voke the Sun-goddess of Arinn[a …]. […] They speak [these words] continuously. The performance of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) seven times in Ḫattuša and seven times in Arinna may be compared to the following passage from a prayer-recitation in an evocation ritual to the male cedar deities. CTH 483, KUB 15.34 + Bo 8027 ii 33–38: 33 nu-za ku-wa-pí 34 im-ma ku-wa-pí ú-[wa-at]-tén nu ma-a-an 1-ŠU Ú-UL iš-ta-ma-aš-ta-ni 35 [nu 2]-ŠÚ-ma iš-ta-[ma-aš-tén n]u ma-a-an 2-ŠÚ-ma Ú-UL iš-ta-ma-aš-ta-ni 36 nu 3-ŠU 4-ŠU [5-ŠU 6-Š]U 7-ŠU iš-ta-ma-aš-tén nu ú-wa-at-tén 37 nu-za-an EG[IR-pa šu-me-en]-za-an A-NA É.DINGIRLIM-KU-NU GIŠDAG-ti tab-ri(-)x x 38 pár-ku-wa-i[a-aš SIG5-a]n-ta-aš mi-iš-ri-wa-an-ta-aš ú-wa-at-tén Come from wherever (you are)! If you (pl.) do not hear the first time, then he[ar the sec]ond time! If you do not hear the second time, then hear the third, fourth, [fifth, six]th, (or) seventh time and come! Come ba[ck] to your temple and throne, the pur[e, go]od, (and) splendid chair!286

284 285 286

The verb aniya- refers to the writing of a text on a tablet (van den Hout 2009–2011: 273), though Waal (2015: 184) argues that it can also refer to composing a text. For an edition of the entire text, see Appendix IV. Comments on these lines can also be found there. Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 192f., Dardano 2014: 177.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

88

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

The seven-fold request to hear in this evocation ritual probably refers to the seven prayer-recitations, in which the Male Cedar-deities are requested to come from a different location each time.287 The number seven probably had symbolic significance,288 as it had in ancient Babylonia and the Bible. Even today the number seven is regarded by many as a ‘lucky number’.

3.6 ARGUMENTS The Hittite gods needed to be persuaded to grant the requests presented in prayer. Therefore, the prayers contain various arguments intended to convince the addressee to help the supplicant. Besides explicit arguments, which one can discern relatively easily from the texts, implicit arguments and other rhetorical strategies are employed as well. Sanders has emphasised that many of the arguments presented in Hittite prayers take the nature of the addressed deity into account.289 The most important explicit arguments employed in prayers may be summarised as follows: Innocence Unfairness

Stressing the supplicant’s innocence, i.e., non mea culpa arguments. Emphasizing that the punishment is unfair or too harsh, e.g., to let a plague linger for twenty years, or to punish an innocent person for the misdeeds of someone else. General truth Reminding the deity of a general truth or common social rule. This includes that it is human to make mistakes and the use of proverbs as an argument, for which see Ch. 5. Confession Confessions of misdeeds and transgressions, generally committed by previous kings. Piety Emphasising the piety of the supplicant and the good care that he has provided for the gods and their temples. Consequences These arguments stress the negative consequences for the gods themselves when the problem is not resolved, e.g., when the plague keeps taking casualties or enemies destroy temples or towns. The consequences usually comprise of the Hittites’ inability to provide the gods with offerings, worship, and proper care, including care of their temples. Blame Blaming the gods to have caused the problem at hand. Promise Promises and vows emphasise the benefits that the gods will gain when they grant the supplicant’s requests. Occasionally the prom-

287 288 289

See Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 180. Oettinger 2007: 592f., Dardano 2014: 176. Sanders 2007, cf. Ch. 1.2.2.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Arguments

89

ised praise or rituals to be performed consist of the compensation the supplicant needs to pay for a certain offence. Singer has distinguished two types of argument employed in prayers: ‘moral arguments’ and ‘beneficial arguments’.290 The former depend on common sense and general rules of behaviour, whereas the latter focus on the negative consequences for the gods themselves if they do not aid the supplicant or emphasise the benefits for the addressed deities when they do help the supplicant by granting the posed requests. Applying Singer’s dichotomy to the kinds of argument listed above, innocence, unfairness, general truths, confession, piety, and blaming the gods are moral arguments, and consequences of the problem and promises are beneficial arguments. The use of these eight types of argument throughout the corpus of Hittite prayers is presented in Table 11. Explicit arguments are marked with ‘✓’. ‘~’ indicates that the argument is implied in the text, but not stated explicitly. When the argument is reconstructed the symbol is placed in square brackets: [ ]. An asterisk (*) after the catalogue number indicates that relatively large portions of the text that may have contained more arguments are missing. In the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) further arguments were probably included in the personal plea that was to be inserted. The overview in Table 11 shows that confessions first start appearing in prayers of Muršili II. The confessed transgressions were usually committed by the father of the king who is praying, and for Ḫattušili III also by his brother and nephew who were king before him. Only Tudḫaliya IV takes responsibility for his own misdeeds. He confesses his own transgressions in his prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 385.9) and he promises, among other things, not to commit such transgressions ever again. The earlier MH Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) and the parallel NH Prayer of a Mortal (CTH 372) contain requests to reveal the supplicant’s transgressions via divination so that he can acknowledge, i.e., confess, them. A similar request without this promise to confess occurs in the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), in the prayers against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III), and in the “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.2). The Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382) contains a question to reveal transgressions to Muwatalli in a dream, but Muwatalli promises to set them right rather than to confess them. This prayer also mentions several possible offences which the supplicant promises to set right if they are a reason for the Storm-god’s anger. For other offences he argues that the one responsible should be punished. CTH 376.I-III each contain a clause stating that the addressee still holds the supplicant accountable for a certain misdeed, namely not bringing offerings. In the “Third” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.3) this is presented as a possible future scenario. In these cases, the supplicant refrains from an actual confession because he

290

Singer 2002a: 10–11, cf. Ch. 1.2.2.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

90

The Corpus of Hittite Prayers

Promise

Blame

Consequences

Piety

Confession

General truth

Unfairness

Innocence

No.

CTH

considers himself not to blame for the offence, since he considers it the gods’ fault that the people who prepare the offerings have died, thus making it impossible to present offerings to the gods.

✓

1*

371

2*

385.10

✓ ✓?

3*

389.2

4

381

5

373

✓

~

6

374

✓

~

7

372

✓

~

✓

✓

✓

8

375

✓

~?

9

376.I 376.III

11

376.II

~ ~ ~

✓

10* 12

377

13

378.1

✓

✓

14

378.2

✓

✓

15*

378.3

16*

378.4

17*

376.4

18*

70

✓

19*

72

✓

20

382

~

21*

380

22

383

✓

✓

23

384

✓

~

24*

385.9

✓ ✓

~ ~ ~

✓

~

✓

~

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

[✓]

[~]

~ ~

✓

✓

~

✓

✓

✓

~

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

~

✓

✓

~ ~

✓ ~

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

~

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

Table 11. Use of explicit and implicit arguments in Hittite prayers.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

✓ ✓

Arguments

91

Emphasising one’s innocence is a recurring argument in prayers. In the Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa (CTH 383) the innocence plea becomes more prominent and seems to be the main argument that is presented. Ḫattušili even states explicitly that it is naa ara(n) ‘not right’ to hold him accountable for the transgressions of others who already compensated with their lives. The notion of innocence is clearly related to the idea of an unfair punishment inflicted by the gods, because when the unfairness or innocence argument is employed, the other is usually also used or at least implied. Other common strategies in argumentation are emphasis on the piety of the supplicant, the beneficiary, or the land of Ḫatti, and inclusion of one or more promises. The Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) contains a remarkable passage consisting of several promises, in which the positive consequences for the Storm-god of Lightning if the gods accept the king’s plea and resolve his problems are described elaborately. The promises made in the “First” and “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.1, CTH 378.2) are promises to pay compensation. A less frequently used persuasion strategy is stating a general truth. Arguments of this type cite a proverb or other common social rule. They are used in CTH 378.2, CTH 381, and CTH 384 (see Ch. 5). The “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) does not only cite two proverbs, but also refers to the sinful nature of mankind as a general truth. A similar reference occurs Muršili II’s prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and its parallels in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III. In many prayers concerning plague the addressed deities seem to be blamed for allowing the epidemic to have entered Ḫatti. In the “Fourth” plague prayer this is clear when Muršili II says that the gods have started to oppress (nakkešš-) him.291 In the other plague prayers this is expressed by a rhetorical question at the beginning of the plea, which is answered in the texts themselves and stresses that the gods brought about the plague (see p. 247). Pointing out the negative consequences for the divine addressees when they do not heed the prayer is already employed in two Middle Hittite prayers (CTH 375 and CTH 376.I). Muršili II employs this argument in many of his prayers concerning plague and/or problems with enemies (CTH 376.II, CTH 377, CTH 378.1, CTH 378.2, and CTH 378.4). In the “First” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.1) such an argument may be implied in the references to the dying of the people who prepare the offerings for the gods. This type of argument does not seem to be used any longer in prayers after the reign of Muršili II.

291

CTH 378.4, KUB 14.13+ i 46: nu-mu ki-nu-un na-ak-ke-eš-[te-ni] ‘(But) now [you] become troublesome to me’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

4. A UNIQUE PRAYER OF A SCRIBE TO TELIPINU The prayer to Telipinu, CTH 377, has come down to us in three manuscripts, two of which are relatively well preserved.292 The text exhibits several features that make it unique within the corpus of Hittite prayers: (1) it is an independent prayer of a scribe, (2) it is addressed to Telipinu, (3) it is to be performed daily, (4) it refers to the Hittite king, queen, and princes in the third person, and (5) it does not contain any references to a specific problem or situation. All this makes CTH 377 the only extant daily prayer of a scribe for the general well-being of the Hittite king and his family that has come down to us. The prayer concerns Muršili II and was probably composed during his reign.293 The uniqueness of this prayer to Telipinu is discussed below. Ch. 4.1 concerns the supplicant and beneficiary and the fact that it is a daily prayer. The general nature of this prayer for the well-being of the royal family and the possible reasons for directing it to Telipinu is discussed in Ch. 4.2. The reasons why a scribe had to perform the prayer and why it needed to be done daily are explored in Ch. 4.3.

4.1 A SCRIBE PRAYING FOR THE ROYAL FAMILY CTH 377 is identified in its text designation and colophon as a prayer to be recited daily by a scribe (DUB.SAR).294 This is remarkable since usually in the independent prayers we do not find any information about the person who is praying, unless it is the king or queen. Since a scribe is mentioned in CTH 377 as the one performing the prayer one could argue that all personal prayers were recited by a scribe except those recited by the supplicant himself.295 Though scribes may have performed personal prayers on the king’s behalf, in the case of CTH 377 the scribe seems to be the actual supplicant who prays for Muršili II and his family. Throughout the prayer Muršili and the queen (MUNUS.LUGAL) are consistently referred to in the third person, thus implying that they are the beneficiaries of the prayer and not the speakers or suppli-

292 293

294 295

For an edition of CTH 377, see Appendix V. Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 424) reject Muršili III (= Urḫi-Teššub) as the commissioner of the prayer primarily because of the text’s similarity to the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and the mention of a queen and princes in the prayer. They doubt that the young Urḫi-Teššub had a wife, let alone children. The text designation preceding the prayer proper is remarkable but not unique among Hittite prayers, see Ch. 3.5. Only manuscript A has a colophon (KUB 24.1+ iv 19–21). Scribes also recited or read out a text during the performance of some festivals, e.g., in KBo 11.32 obv. 2f. (CTH 645.1) and KUB 20.59 v 1–6 (CTH 616.2.A), see Gordin 2015: 36f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

94

A Unique Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu

cants.296 The supplicant who prays for Muršili II, his family, and the land of Ḫatti is the anonymous scribe mentioned in the text designation and colophon. His occupation is probably mentioned because he is the actual supplicant performing his own prayer and not reciting a prayer in the name of the king. Throughout the text the first person, which is only used in the introduction proper and the invocation, probably always refers to this scribe. Except in the introduction proper,297 the king and queen are always mentioned together with the princes (DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL) and occasionally with the land of Ḫatti.298 The mentioning of the princes as beneficiaries next to the king and queen is not found in any other Hittite prayer. Interestingly, throughout the text Muršili II is mentioned by name only twice: once in the introduction (CTH 377 4) and once in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage (CTH 377 37). Otherwise he is referred to as LUGAL ‘king’. The queen and the princes are not mentioned by name anywhere in the text. This is remarkable because in other personal prayers in which the king and/or queen are the beneficiaries or supplicants, they are always mentioned by name continuously throughout the text and never merely referred to by their titles.299 In prayers within rituals, on the other hand, it is common to refer to the king and queen simply by their titles (see Ch. 3.1). The anonymity of the king and queen in the plea of the prayer is probably a remnant of the rituals that were used to compose it (see Ch. 8.3.3), but it also fits with the general nature of the prayer (see Ch. 4.2) and makes the text reusable for multiple monarchs.

4.2 A GENERAL PRAYER FOR WELL-BEING The general nature of the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) is evident. The text neither refers to any specific event nor concerns any particular topic other than the well-being of the royal family and the prosperity of Ḫatti. The text that is now lost in the break consisted of the end of the hymn and the beginning of the plea and probably also did not contain any references to specific events. The structure of the entire text is presented in Table 12 below. What interests us here is the plea of the prayer. The plea consists primarily of requests and wishes to ‘give good’. These benedictions, including the request for support, ask for the well-being of the royal family and the prosperity of the land of Ḫatti. Not only these ‘positive’ requests, but also the more ‘negative’ requests to ‘remove evil’ from the land of Ḫatti and to ‘send evil’ to the enemy are general in nature, even though they ask for specific evils to be removed from Ḫatti and sent to the enemy lands. 296 297 298 299

Contra Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377), who see Muršili II and his wife as the speakers. CTH 377 4–5. CTH 377 37f., 53′ (with the princes), and CTH 377 50′f., 80′ (with the princes and the land of Ḫatti). The single exception is the Prayer of a king (CTH 374), in which the supplicant, the ‘king’ (LUGAL), is never mentioned by name. Compare also the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372), in which an unnamed ‘mortal’ is the beneficiary.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

A General Prayer for Well-being

95

Textual elements TEXT DESIGNATION ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION

Introduction Invocation ‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage Hymn

[Broken] PRAYER

Positive section PLEA

Negative section Positive section

Request – Support Direct Address + Epithet Requests – Give good Request – Remove evil Request – Send evil to enemy Requests – Give good Wishes – Give good

INSTRUCTION COLOPHON (only in A) Table 12. Structure CTH 377.

The two requests concerning evil each list the same four evils: ‘evil fever’ (idalutapašša-), ‘plague’ (ḫinkan), ‘famine’ (gašta-), and ‘locusts’ (maša-, BURU5).300 There is, however, not a single explicit or implicit indication in the text that any of these evils was troubling Ḫatti at the moment the prayer was performed. They certainly did not trouble the Hittites every day. Rather, these evils were a continuous threat to the well-being of the Hittite Empire. Plagues or epidemics were a serious threat in antiquity, especially in the larger cities where plagues could spread easily due to the large population density.301 It is easy to imagine the immense impact that the outbreak of an epidemic infecting numerous people would have had on the local population, whether of a small town or a larger area, especially when it killed indiscriminately.302 That such outbreaks have occurred in Ḫatti is clear from texts such as the famous Plague prayers (CTH 378.1–4) and rituals against plague in the army.303 Because 300 301

302 303

CTH 377 65′–66′ (request to remove evil) and 67′–79′ (request to send evil to enemy lands). On tapašša-, tentatively translated as ‘fever’, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 39f. in Appendix IV. Huber 2005: 203. Huber (2005: 211), following Burde (1974: 7), argues that plagues had limited possibilities to spread in Hittite Anatolia due to the low population density, isolated urban centres, and relatively few travellers. Cf. Huber 2005: 213, 227. CTH 394, CTH 410, CTH 424, CTH 425, and CTH 757. The majority of the rituals against plagues in the army are often written on Sammeltafeln together with similar rituals (Bawanypeck 2005: 247). On Hittite rituals against plagues, see Huber 2005: 48–66.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

96

A Unique Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu

farming depended on rainfall in Hittite Anatolia, there was a high chance of failed harvests and famine.304 In times of famine, the health of the population deteriorates, providing favourable conditions for diseases and epidemics to develop.305 Harvests could also fail due to enemy activity or locusts damaging the crops.306 From letters we know that the condition of the crops was of interest to the king and that food was redistributed throughout the empire in times of famine.307 The four evils are asked to be sent to enemy lands which are not identified in the text. They are simply described as the ‘lands of the enemy’ (KUR.KURḪI.A LÚKÚR)308 that have hostile intentions against the land of Ḫatti and its gods. These hostilities are described in a number of relative clauses. Again, there is no explicit or implicit indication that any enemy land actually perpetrated the described hostilities toward Ḫatti. We do know that the Hittites spent much time striving to enlarge their empire. As a consequence, hostile enemy forces were always a threat, just as plagues, epidemics, and famine. We may conclude that the prayer to Telipinu was not a reaction to a specific situation nor was it bound to a specific moment in time. Therefore, this general prayer was suited to be performed daily. It concerns the well-being of the royal family and the Hittite empire by asking for common evils to be eliminated and many benefits to be granted. Next to health and well-being for the royal family, also the flourishing of the agricultural produce and the expansion of the animal stock and the human population are requested. As a vegetation deity Telipinu could influence fertility which may explain why this general prayer for well-being was directed to him.309 Telipinu is primarily known from the Telipinu Myth (CTH 324),310 one several socalled disappearing god myths. It is a mythologised ritual for the return of fertility in spring, but it has also been applied to many hardships not bound to seasonal change

304

305 306

307 308 309

310

Huber 2005: 219–21. Rainfall is unpredictable in central Anatolia causing harvests to fail disastrously in a given region approximately every twenty to thirty years (Andreas Schachner, ‘Water for the Empire – the Function of Artificial Water Reservoirs in Hittite Cities’, lecture held 1 June 2017, Berlin). Huber 2005: 218, cf. Hoffner 2009: 65. The letter HKM 8 mentions crops damaged by enemies, who also stole animals belonging to the queen’s estate (Hoffner 2009: 109, Alp 1991b: 130–33). The letter HKM 19 mentions a crop failure caused by locusts who consumed the crops (Hoffner 2009: 130, CHD L–N 204a, Alp 1991b: 148–51). Hoffner 2009: 65f. E.g., in Bo 2810 a king, presumably the Hittite king, complains about the delay of a shipment of grain at a time of famine (Hoffner 2009: 362–64, Klengel 1974: 171–73). CTH 377 67′, 79′. Cf. Carruba 1983: 16. One could also consider the possibility that a scribe, being a subordinate, was not allowed to pray to the same gods as the Hittite kings and queens who addressed their prayers primarily to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the Storm-god of Ḫatti usually together with all the gods. It may also have been a personal choice of the scribe who composed this prayer to address it to Telipinu. For which see e.g., Asan 2014, Hoffner 1998: 14–20, Haas 2006: 115, Mouton 2016: 458–83, Mazoyer 2003: 31–161, Otten 1942.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

An Instruction to Pray for the Royal Family and Its Implications

97

such as drought and famine.311 As a vegetation deity Telipinu is important for agriculture, but he also has traits of a Storm-god, since his anger erupts in thunder and lightning.312 Telipinu disappears after the harvest and returns in spring. While he is gone everything comes to a halt: the crops do not grow, the land does not thrive, animals and humans do not procreate; there is only fog, drought, and famine. Only on Telipinu’s return do things return to normal and does prosperity revive. From the Telipinu Myth we learn that it was useful to direct requests to Telipinu for crops to grow and animals and human beings to reproduce. The same is true for the wishes for rain (ḫeu-) and ‘winds of prosperity’ (še/iššawaš ḫuwa(n)duš),313 since Telipinu brings back ‘good rains’ and ‘good winds’ when he returns in the Telipinu Myth.314 This explains why CTH 377 was directed to Telipinu.

4.3 AN INSTRUCTION TO PRAY FOR THE ROYAL FAMILY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS Since the prayer to Telipinu is a general prayer for well-being to be performed daily and lacks any reference to a specific event it may have been intended as a precaution to prevent any possible misfortune for the king and his family. It moreover implies that, unlike other prayers, there was no immediate cause for its composition and performance. The motivation for the prayer may be found in the fragment KUB 34.42. It is listed in the Konkordanz as a mugawar fragment (CTH 459), but it actually belongs to an instruction text.315 The fragment was found in building A on Büyükkale.316 It contains primarily older sign-forms and may be dated as Middle Script on the basis of the typical MS form of TAR (KUB 34.42 ii? 5′, 6′ [2x]) and the older form of E with the first vertical not yet reaching above the upper horizontal (KUB 34.42 ii? 7′).317 The fragment preserves part of the lower side of a tablet including part of its lower edge. There is text preserved only on one side of the tablet. This is probably the obverse

311 312 313 314

315

316 317

Haas 2006: 103, Huber 2005: 186, cf. Asan 2014: 2. Hoffner 1998: 14. CTH 377 86′–87′. KUB 33.9 iii 10′–11′: [… a-aš-š]a-mu-uš ḫe-e-a-mu-uš a-aš-ša-mu-uš IMḪI.A-uš / […]-ta ḫu-u-ma-an pa-ra-a ú-da-aš ‘[… go]od rains, good winds, […] everything he brought forth’, cf. Asan 2014: 42f., 45 and HW2 Ḫ 54a, 579a. CHD Š 91b, HW2 Ḫ 534b, 667b. Ehelolf already listed the fragment under “Verträge und Instruktionen” (KUB 34 p. II). Later Friedrich (1945–1951: 107, fn. 25) identified it as a fragment of a treaty. The categorization as a mugawar fragment is probably based on the occurrence of the verb mugaiin KUB 34.42 ii? 9′. Konkordanz, KUB 34 pp. III–IV. Note also the older forms of KAT (KUB 34.42 ii? 9′), DA (ii? 6′), ID (ii? 11′), AḪ with the horizontal beginning inside the cluster of Winkelhaken (ii? 3′), ḪA with two Winkelhaken (ii? 5′), and RU with the smaller middle vertical (ii? 11′). Furthermore, in ii? 9′ kat-ta is written very close together, i.e., ‘ligaturartig’. The forms of TA (ii? 9′ (2x), 11′) and ŠA (ii? 8′, 10′) all have the heads of the small verticals positioned in between the two horizontals, though in ii? 4′ (TA) and in ii? 5′ (ŠA) the internal verticals are positioned slightly higher, reaching the upper horizontal.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

98

A Unique Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu

since there are no traces of a colophon in the left column. The tablet had at least two columns and it has a Randleiste. KUB 34.42 Col. i? (beginning lost) 1′ […]x 2′ […]x 3′ […-i]a 4′ […] 5′ […-n]u-an Randleiste (end of column) Col. ii? (beginning lost) 1′ [ … ]x[…] 2′ [ … ]x-ši MUNUS-x[…] 3′ [ … ]-⸢la⸣-an-za wa-aḫ-nu-an ⸢ú?⸣-[…] 4′ [na-a]š-ta ma-a-an A-NA DINGIRMEŠ [ŠA LUGAL MUNUS.LUGAL] 5′ ⸢Ù⸣ ŠA DUMUME.EŠ.LUGAL TI-tar ḫa-[ad-du-la-tar] 6′ ⸢MU⸣ḪI.A GÍD.DA šal-la-a-tar tar-ḫu-⸢i⸣-[la-tar] 7′ zi-la-ti-ya Ú-UL ú-e-wa-a[k-ti?] 8′ nu-mu-uš-ša-an ma-a-an DINGIRME.EŠ [Ú-UL] 9′ mu-ki-iš-ki-ši kat-ta-ma-at-t[a DUMUMEŠ-KA] 10′ DUMU.DUMUME.EŠ-KA ŠA-PAL NI-I[Š DINGIRLIM] 11′ ki-it-ta-ru Randleiste (end of column) (Col. i is too fragmentary for a translation.) If [you] do not continually request life, h[ealth], long years, greatness, (and) mi[ght] for the future [for the king, queen] and the princes from the gods, and if you [do not] invoke the gods continually for me, (then) may [your children] (and) your grandchildren be placed (sg.!) under o[ath] for y[ou]! Comments ii? 4′: The restoration at the end of the line follows HW2 Ḫ 667b. CHD Š 91b restores [ammēl?]. ii? 5′: HW2 Ḫ 534b restores ḫa-[ad-du-la-a-tar]. ii? 7′: Already in MS and OH/NS both mi-forms and ḫi-forms are attested of wewakk-, though the ḫi-conjugation seems to be the older one (Kloekhorst 2008: 1010–11). Following HW2 Ḫ 534b, 667b a ḫi-conjugated form of the 2sg.prs.act is restored here. CHD Š 91b restores wewa[kkišši].

The final phrase, ŠAPAL NĪŠ DINGIRLIM kiaru ‘it will be placed under oath’, indicates that we are dealing with an ‘oath imposition or prescription’ as pronounced by a superior, usually the Hittite king.318 Such oath impositions or prescriptions are common 318

Miller 2013: 7.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

An Instruction to Pray for the Royal Family and Its Implications

99

in the so-called instruction texts,319 but can also occur in related text genres such as treaties.320 An instruction text ‘consists of the royal prescription of a set of obligations or instructions (Hitt. išḫiul-) addressed to a professional class or classes within the internal state administration’.321 These texts thus define and regulate the duties and responsibilities of the personnel towards the Hittite royal institution with the king at its head. They are usually formulated as being spoken by the king, though occasionally by another superior, to his subordinates, who are addressed in the second or third person.322 In KUB 34.42 it is probably the Hittite king who gives the instruction since he is referred to in the first person by the enclitic pronoun =mu in KUB 34.42 ii? 8′. To whom the instruction is addressed is not preserved. The subordinates addressed in KUB 34.42 were instructed to request (wewakk-) life (ḫuišwatar), health (ḫaddulatar), long years (MUḪI.A GÍD.DA), greatness (šallatar), and might (tarḫuilatar) for the king, queen and the princes and to invoke (mugai-) the gods on behalf of the king. These two actions, asking for well-being and invoking the gods, both refer to performing a prayer possibly within a ritual. That these prayers needed to be performed regularly is expressed by the use of verb forms with an iterative meaning: wewakk- ‘to ask, to demand’, which is a reduplicated stem of the verb wekk- ‘to wish, to desire, to ask for’,323 and the imperfective -ške-form of mugai‘to invoke’. Thus, with this instruction the king obliged a group of subordinates to pray for the well-being of the royal family on a regular basis. CTH 377 is probably one of such prayers. It concerns the general well-being of the royal family and is to be performed daily by a scribe who was in the king’s service. Both the prayer and the instruction use the verb mugai- ‘to invoke’ to refer to the performance of the prayer (CTH 377 7 and KUB 34.42 ii? 9′). As instructed in KUB 34.42, Telipinu is requested in CTH 377 to give, among other things, life, health, and long years to the king, the queen, and the princes (CTH 377 53′–55′, 80′–82′).324 These requests include the for-

319

320

321 322 323 324

Miller 2013: 1f. Compare e.g., the following clause in the instruction of Tudḫaliya IV for lords, princes and courtiers (CTH 255.1), KUB 21.42 + KUB 26.12 i 39′–40′ (with dupl.): na-aš-ši kat-ta-an / NI-EŠ DINGIRLIM ki-it-ta-ru ‘It shall be placed under oath for him’ (Miller 2013: 284–85). The clause, with minor variation, occurs often throughout the composition and it always concludes a paragraph. Other instruction texts that contain this clause include KUB 21.47+ (CTH 268) (Miller 2013: 238–41), KBo 16.50 (CTH 270) (Miller 2013: 242f.), KUB 26.1 + KUB 23.112 (CTH 255.2) (Miller 2013: 294–307), and ABoT 1.56 (CTH 256) (Miller 2013: 308–13). The text genres ‘instruction’, ‘oath’, and ‘treaty’ are modern classifications, i.e., critical or etic text genres. The Hittites used the terms išḫiul- ‘bond, obligation’ and lingai- ‘oath’ to refer to these and other texts that included instructions, stipulations, and oaths or oath impositions. They apparently did not consider these as different text types. For a discussion of the instruction texts and related genres see Miller 2013: 1–9. Miller 2013: 1. Miller 2013: 1, 6f. Kloekhorst 2008: 1010f. Possibly greatness (šallatar) and might (tarḫuilatar) were requested as well. These words may be restored in CTH 377 54′, cf. KUB 24.3+ iii 29′ (CTH 376.II) in Appendix IV.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

100

A Unique Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu

mulation ‘for the future’ (EGIR.UDMI),325 which also occurs in the instruction (KUB 34.42 ii? 7′: zilatiya). These similarities between the prayer to Telipinu and the fragmentary instruction are striking and imply that the scribe composed CTH 377 and performed it daily because he was obligated to do so. It also suggests that the instruct-tion KUB 34.42 was addressed to one or more scribes, though it is possible that other subordinates of the Hittite king had the same obligation. The obligation for scribes to pray regularly to the gods for the well-being of the royal family explains the unique status of the CTH 377 within the Hittite prayer corpus. It explains the general nature of the prayer, why the supplicant is a scribe and not the king, why it needed to be performed daily, and why the princes are mentioned next to the king and queen. The obligation of the scribe to pray for the wellbeing of Muršili II and his family seems to be stated explicitly in the introduction of the prayer.326 The mention of Muršili II in CTH 377 4 and 37 implies that the version of the prayer to Telipinu that has come down to us, was created during the reign of this king. Since the MS instruction KUB 34.42 predates Muršili II, there certainly was an obligation to pray for the well-being of the royal family already in earlier times. Hence, there were probably earlier versions of such prayers performed for earlier rulers. The prayer to Telipinu may have derived from such an earlier prayer.327 This is supported by older linguistic features in CTH 377, suggesting that the text goes back to Middle Hittite compositions.328 This could explain why the king and queen are not mentioned by name but by their title in the plea of the prayer.329 Due to its general nature the prayer can easily be adapted to the benefit of a different king. It could also be performed by different people, for the scribe is only mentioned in the text designation and the colophon which were not recited, and even there he is not mentioned by name. Similar prayers for the well-being of the royal family may have existed, possibly also to be performed by people with other professions. If so, these were either never written down or they have not come down to us. Perhaps the sole reason that this prayer to Telipinu was written down, is because it was the prayer of a scribe. Scribes were able to read and write, whereas people of other professions may not have benefitted from a written text.

325 326 327 328 329

CTH 377 54′, 82′, cf. CTH 377 85′. CTH 377 4–7. On the textual history of CTH 377, see Ch. 9.3 incl. Figure 6 (p. 291). Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 425, cf. Ch. 6.2. Another explanation is the dependency of the plea of CTH 377 on ritual compositions, see Ch. 8.3.3.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

5. THE USE AND FUNCTION OF PROVERBS Proverbs provide unique insights into a culture since they reflect social norms and values and they often make use of metaphor. Nevertheless, Hittite proverbs have only rarely been the object of study.330 It is difficult to identify proverbs in any foreign culture, whether modern or ancient, especially when one can only rely on written material.331 Due to the lack of any Hittite proverb collections, such as are known from Mesopotamia,332 Hittite proverbs need to be identified from being hidden in various text genres, including narratives, letters, and prayers.333 In order to do this, one needs to know what constitutes a ‘proverb’. Though the meaning of the term seems common knowledge, there is no universally accepted definition.334 The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘proverb’ as follows: ‘a short, traditional, and pithy saying; a concise sentence, typically metaphorical or alliterative in form, stating a general truth or piece of advice’335

This modern definition of proverb can be used as a guideline for the positive identification of certain expressions as proverbs. Beckman has identified several Hittite proverbs and proverbial allusions,336 of which the following three occur in prayers:

330 331 332 333 334 335

336

Werner 1967: 78, Beckman 1986, 1997b, Fontaine 1987, Haas 2006: 309f., and Hoffner and Melchert 2002: 383f. RlA does not have an entry on Hittite proverbs. Mieder 1993: 6, Beckman 1986: 19–21. For Sumerian and bilingual Sumero-Akkadian proverb collections from Mesopotamia, see e.g., Gordon 1959, Lambert 1960: 222–82, Alster 1975, 1997, 2007, Falkowitz 1980, and Wasserman 2011. Beckman 1986: 19. Mieder 1993: 4–8, 13f., 18–25, 32f. ‘Proverb, n.’ in the Oxford English Dictionary Online (accessed 25 June 2015, http://www.oed.com/ view/Entry/153430). Compare the definitions or descriptions of proverbs by Gordon 1959: 1f., Alster 1975: 37, 1997: xiii, 2007: 3f., Mieder 1993: x, 5, and Wasserman 2011: 20. Beckman 1986, 1997b. The two so-called analogous magical ‘spells’ that occur in the Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-god and Storm-god against slander (CTH 389.2) are not treated here, because, though they may allude to a proverb, they contra Haas (2006: 309) do not constitute proverbs and probably belong in the ritual sphere rather than that of prayer. On such spells, see Torri 2003a and Haas 1994: 892–93. The two analogous magical spells attested in CTH 389.2 are KUB 36.91+ rev. 16– 17: nu MUŠ-aš ma-aḫ-ḫa-an / ḫa-at-te-eš-šar Ú-UL x[… (i-da-a-lu-ia)] ⸢ut-tar⸣ EGIR-pa a-pé-e-el-⸢pát iš⸣-ša-aš pa-⸢id⸣-du ‘As the snake does not [miss?] its hole, may the [evil] word return to those mouths’ and KUB 60.156 rev. 12′–13′: [a]p-pé-ez-zi-ša GIŠḫu-u-ur-ki-iš ma-aḫ-⸢ḫa⸣-a[n ḫa-an-te-e(zzi-in)] / [(GIŠ)]ḫu-u-ur-ki-in Ú-UL ú-e-mi-ia-az-z[i LUGAL-un MUNUS.LUGAL-an-na] / [i]-⸢da⸣-a-lu-uš ud-da-a-na-an-za QA-TAM-M[A le-e ú-e-mi-ia-ad-du] → ‘As the rear wheel does not catch up with the front wheel, may the evil word likewise [not catch up with the king and the queen]’. The latter also occurs in the ritual of Ḫantitaššu (KBo 11.14 ii 22–24), for which see Ünal 1996: 29, 82 and Torri 2003b: 218–20.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

102

The Use and Function of Proverbs

     

‘To a woman of the birth-stool the deity is merciful’337 ‘The bird retreats into the cage and the cage keeps him alive/and it lives’338 ‘The sin of the father comes upon his son’339

These proverbs comply with the definition of proverb cited above. They are short and seem to state a general truth. Because they are statements of general validity, they are formulated in the present tense.340 Whether or not these sayings are traditional is difficult, if not impossible, to determine, since there are no further attestations. The introduction of the first proverb, ‘to a woman of the birth-stool the deity is merciful’, as something people always say (KUB 21.27+ ii 15) does suggest that the expression is well-known and traditional, i.e., a proverb. 341 Memiya(n)- ‘word’ refers to the following proverb. However, it is better to refrain from translating it as ‘proverb’,342 because that would imply the Hittites had a concept of ‘proverb’ similar to our modern one. It is better to translate it more literally as ‘saying’ or ‘expression’, without assuming that for a Hittite speaker memiya(n)- referred to anything more than a word, phrase, clause or a sentence. This makes Beckman’s argument that ‘the Hittites themselves were conscious of a genre of proverbs’ because this one is labelled as such343 invalid and in need of reconsideration. Though this is not the place to investigate whether the Hittites considered proverbs to constitute a separate speech genre, the analyses presented below show that they are always structurally incorporated into the prayers in a specific way. This suggests a special status of the proverb in comparison to other statements. This chapter studies the proverbs and the passages in which they are cited as a case study on the use and function of this particular rhetorical device. The analyses focus on the rhetorical functions of the proverbs and how they are structurally incorporated into the prayers.344 This includes an analysis of their relationship to the situation in which the supplicant and addressee find themselves. The context in which a proverb occurs is important, since that ultimately determines the proverb’s validity and its rhetorical function within the text.345 The analyses show that these proverbs

337 338 339 340 341

342 343 344

345

Beckman 1986: 20 (No. 1), 1997b: 215 (No. 1). The proverb occurs in CTH 384, see Ch. 5.1.2. Beckman 1986: 22 (No. 8), 1997b: 215 (No. 8). The proverb is attested in CTH 381 and CTH 378.2, see Ch. 5.1.1. Beckman 1997b: 215 (No. 5). The proverb occurs in CTH 378.2, see Ch. 5.3. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 307 (§22.5). The imperfective -ške-form can also be used for these ‘gnomic statements of general validity’ (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 321 §24.15]). Beckman 1986: 20, cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2002: 383f., 2008: 321 (§24.15). The allusion to this expression further on in the same prayer in the section addressed to the Storm-god of Zippalanda (KUB 21.27+ iv 36′) supports the interpretation as a proverb. Contra Beckman 1986: 20. Beckman 1986: 20. A comparison with the use and function of proverbs in other text genres falls outside the scope of this study. Such a comparison may lead to new insights into the different rhetorical functions that proverbs can have and how this can be achieved through text-structural strategies. Mieder 1993: x, xii, 11, 26.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Argument

103

serve two different rhetorical functions: the first two function as explicit arguments to persuade the addressee to grant the supplicant’s requests (see Chs. 5.1–5.2), whereas the third is part of a confession (see Ch. 5.3).346

5.1 ARGUMENT Two of the three proverbs cited in prayers function as explicit arguments to persuade the addressed deities to support the supplicant and to grant the supplicant’s requests. Below these two proverbs and a related proverbial allusion, are presented (Chs. 5.1.1– 5.1.2). Subsequently, their application to the situation of the supplicant and addressee of the prayer is analysed (Ch. 5.1.3). This is important, because it is the explicit identification of the constituents of the proverb with the supplicant and addressee that makes the proverb function as an explicit argument within the text. In CTH 384 an additional argument is combined with the one made by the proverb and the proverbial allusion (see Ch. 5.1.4). The discourse structure of the passages in which the proverbs are cited and its rhetorical function are treated in Ch. 5.2. Text editions of the relevant prayer passages can also be found there. 5.1.1 ‘e Bird retreats …’ The “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) and the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) both cite the same proverb with a slight difference in formulation. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 22′: 22′ MUŠEN-iš-za-kán GIŠtap-ta-ap-pa-an EGIR-pa e-ep-zi na-an GIŠtap-ta-a[p]-⸢pa⸣aš ḫu-u-[iš-nu-zi] The bird retreats into the cage, and the cage keeps him alive. CTH 381, KUB 6.45+ iii 40:347 40 MUŠEN-⸢iš?⸣ GIŠ⸢tap-tap⸣-pa-an EGIR-pa e-ep-zi na-aš TI-zi The bird retreats into the cage and it lives. The main difference lies in the second clause. In CTH 378.2 the proverb, ending in ‘and the cage keeps him alive’, is formulated with emphasis on the cage, that is, on the thing keeping the bird alive. In CTH 381 more emphasis seems to be given to the bird: ‘the bird retreats into the cage, and it (i.e., the bird) lives’, using the verb ḫuiš‘to live’ instead of ḫuišnu- ‘to keep alive, to let live’, which is used in CTH 378.2. Nonetheless, we are clearly dealing with two attestations of the same proverb.

346 347

The rhetorical function of Hittite proverbs has already been pointed out by scholars such as Beckman (1986: 25f.) and Haas (2006: 309), see also Fontaine 1987. Duplicate: KUB 6.46 iv 9f., for variants, see p. 118, fns. 400–401.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

104

The Use and Function of Proverbs

For GIŠtaptappa- two meanings have been suggested: ‘nest’ and ‘cage’. They were noth already proposed by Götze who described GIŠtaptappa- as ‘ein “Gerät”, das den Vogel am Leben erhält …, jedenfalls seine Wohnung, in der er geborgen ist’.348 He preferred the meaning ‘nest’ since he could not imagine a captive bird wanting to go back to its prison, i.e., a cage.349 However, the ancient Hittites need not have shared Götze’s point of view. One may just as well argue the other way around, as Singer does.350 In support of his idea that a cage is more likely to protect a bird Singer refers to the taptappa- made of gold and silver listed in inventories.351 Though it seems reasonable that a cage is more likely to be made out of gold or silver than a bird’s nest, it is possible that the Hittites used a precious metal to make a replica of a bird’s nest, as other gold and silver replicas are listed in the inventories. For example, in KUB 42.35 3′–4′ silver fruit, and probably also golden fruit, is listed next to a silver taptappa-.352 Whether taptappa- means ‘cage’ or ‘nest’ remains therefore uncertain. The word is rarely attested.353 This proverb provides the only context that may help to determine its meaning. In line with the statement of Götze quoted above, one could also consider taptappa- as a more general term referring to the place where a bird ‘lives’, whether a cage, a nest, or a cavity in a tree. The reduplicated root in taptappa- suggests the term may be onomatopoeic.354 Perhaps it signifies a bird tapping its beak against the bark of a tree to make its nest inside, like a woodpecker, or tapping its feet against the ground. Cavaignac suggested it refers to the sound of the closing of a cage,355 which seems less probable. Whatever the meaning of GIŠtaptappa-, for its function within the proverb it is irrelevant: the GIŠtaptappa- is what keeps the bird alive after it ‘retreated’ to it. In this way a causal relationship is made between ‘retreating’ (āppa epp-) to a secure place and being protected or ‘kept alive’ (ḫuiš(nu)-) by it. For convenience Singer’s translation of GIŠtaptappa- as ‘cage’ is followed here even though it’s tentative.

348 349 350

351 352 353 354 355

Götze 1929: 230. Götze 1929: 231. He was followed by Tischler HEG 3: 135. Güterbock (1958: 245, fn. 64) also seems to prefer ‘nest’, though he mentions ‘cage’ as a possible alternative translation. Singer 1996: 66. Cavaignac (1951: 72) was the first who advocated the meaning ‘cage’ when he commented on Friedrich’s (1846: 100) translation of GIŠtaptappa- as ‘nest’, albeit with a question mark. Later Friedrich did follow Cavaignac’s interpretation as ‘cage’ (HW 212). Others who translated taptappa- as ‘cage’ include Kronasser 1956: 139, 1966: 121, Laroche 1964–65: 16, Lebrun 1980: 214, Siegelová 1986: 508, 511, 622, Singer 1996: 66. KUB 42.40 rev.? iv? 8′ and KUB 42.35 2′, for which see Košak 1982: 177–80, Siegelová 1986: 505–11, cf. Singer 1996: 66, fn. 247. For which see Košak 1982: 177f., Siegelová 1986: 510f. Two attestations in a fragmentary context occur in KUB 15.27 ii 11′ and KUB 57.189 7 (Singer 1996: 66, fn. 247). Kronasser 1956: 139. Cavaignac 1951: 72.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Argument

105

5.1.2 ‘To a Woman of the Birth-stool …’ The Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of her husband Ḫattušili III (CTH 384) consists of five prayers that belong together, each addressed to a different deity. A proverb is cited in the first prayer, which is the longest and principle one addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. The proverb is written in direct speech, which can be explained by the fact that it is introduced as something people always say.356 CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ ii 16: 16 ḫar-na-a-u-wa-aš-wa MUNUS-ni-i DINGIRLUM ka-a-ri ti-i[a-zi] To a woman of the birth-stool the deity is merciful. This proverb defines a relationship between a ‘deity’ and a ‘woman of the birth-stool’ as one in which the former is merciful towards the latter. Further on in the same text, in the section addressed to the Storm-god of Zippalanda, the following allusion to the same proverb occurs, in which Puduḫepa states that she herself is a woman of the birth-stool. CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ iv 36′: 36′ ḫar-na-a-u-aš-za ku-it MUNUS-za Because I am a woman of the birth-stool, … What a ‘woman of the birth-stool’ (ḫarnawaš MUNUS) is exactly, remains unclear. The only other attestations of the woman of the birth-stool occur in the inventory texts KUB 26.66 (iii 11) and KBo 18.153 (rev. 16) in what appears to be a parallel passage. In both instances the term is written MUNUSḫarnawaš. In KUB 26.66 the woman of the birth-stool is given one mina of silver by a patili-priest.357 This led Košak to suggest that the woman of the birth-stool must be part of the ‘personnel involved with the birth-ritual’, since it does not make sense to pay a pregnant woman or a woman in labour.358 On the same grounds one may reject the interpretation as a woman who has just given birth.359 Košak prefers the meaning ‘wet-nurse’ over ‘midwife’ because

356 357

358

359

KUB 21.27+ ii 15, see pp. 102, 120f. KUB 26.66 iii 10–11: nu 1 MA.NA KÚ.BABBAR / A-NA MUNUSḫar-na-wa-aš mlu-ul-lu-uš LÚpa-ti-liš pé-e-daaš ‘Lullu, the patili priest, brought 1 mina of silver to the woman of the birth-stool’, see HW2 Ḫ 323 and Hoffner 1968b: 198, fn. 4. For an edition of the text, see Košak 1982: 66–71 and Siegelová 1986: 96–108. Košak 1982: 71. Hoffner (1968b: 198, fn. 4) interpreted the ‘woman of the birth-stool’ as a pregnant woman, translating it as ‘the expectant mother’. It was considered a woman in labour by Goetze (1950a: 393), Otten (1975: 22), and Daues and Rieken (2008: 93), but compare HW2 Ḫ 322 and Beckman 1983a: 234. Fontaine (1987), following Goetze’s translation, bases her entire argument on the meaning ‘woman in travail’, assuming the double meaning that ‘travail’ has in English as both ‘hard, painful work’ and ‘giving birth’ to be valid for the Hittite expression without any argumenttative basis. Pringle 1983: 136, cf. Singer 2002a: 101.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

106

The Use and Function of Proverbs

Hittite ḫašnupalla- already means ‘midwife’.360 On the basis of the same inventory text the editors of HW2 prefer to see the woman of the birth-stool as a kind of priestess, possibly of the Mother-goddesses, who originally would have invoked the gods for the new-born child during births; they even consider connecting her with the ritual expert MUNUSḫašawa- ‘woman of birth’ or MUNUSŠU.GI.361 However, according to Beckman, it was one of the midwife’s tasks to call upon the gods for the new-born and he argues that the woman of the birth-stool was a midwife.362 She is, however, not mentioned in birth rituals.363 What these proposed interpretations of the woman of the birth-stool have in common is the notion that she has something to do with either giving birth and/or taking care of young children. A different interpretation of the woman of the birth-stool has been brought forward by Kammenhuber. She seems to interpret being a ‘woman of the birth-stool’ as something one should be ashamed of: ‘Mir scheint die konkrete Anspielung “Frau des Gebährstuhls” für jene alte Zeit nicht minder anstößig wie “die Schande meines Leibes/Körpers”, von der die Ägyptische Königin Nibḫuriya in Anspielung auf ihre Unfruchtbarkeit spricht.’364

This interpretation can be rejected because of the rhetorical function of the proverb and the fact that Puduḫepa claims that she herself is a woman of the birth-stool (see Ch. 5.1.3), for it seems unlikely that a queen who tries to gain divine assistance would present herself negatively. 5.1.3 Identification of the Constituents or the Application of the Proverb The proverbs and the proverbial allusion presented above function as explicit arguments to persuade the addressed deities to favour the supplicant and to heed the prayer. This persuasive function is already inherent in the proverbs themselves since they seem to a state general truth or social rule. The composers of the prayers made the rhetorical function of the cited proverbs impossible to miss by explicitly identifying the constituents of each proverb with the main actors of the prayer: the addressee and the supplicant. In addition, their relationships are equated as well. In this way the proverb and the social rule it proclaims is applied, as it were, to the situation of the supplicant and the addressee. These identifications, which will be referred to as the ‘application’ of the proverb, are thus essential to make the cited proverbs function as strong arguments within the prayers. In the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) and the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) a ‘bird’ and a ‘cage’ are the constituents of the cited proverb. Their relationship is one of taking refuge and gaining protection in return. The ‘bird’

360 361 362 363 364

Košak 1982: 71, similarly HW2 Ḫ 322. For ḫašnupalla- ‘midwife’, see Beckman 1983a: 232f. and HW2 Ḫ 424. HW2 Ḫ 322, Pringle 1983: 136. For MUNUSḫašawa-, see HW2 Ḫ 413–19, Arnott 2002: 47, and Otten 1952: 231–34, who argued that MUNUSḫašawa- is the equivalent of MUNUSŠU.GI. Beckman 1983a: 233–35, Beckman 1993: 38, cf. Pringle 1983: 136, Singer 2002a: 101, Haas 2006: 266. HW2 Ḫ 322. Kammenhuber 1964: 182, fn. 70.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

107

Argument

retreats into the ‘cage’ and in return the ‘cage’ protects and saves the ‘bird’. In both prayers the application of the proverb to the situation of the supplicant and addressee follows immediately after the citation of the proverb. In CTH 381 the proverb is applied directly to the situation of the supplicant and addressee. After citing the proverb Muwatalli states that he, like the bird, has retreated to the Storm-god of Lightning to whom he directs his words (see Table 13). The identification is emphasised by the personal pronoun ammuk or ūk365 and the conjunction =ma.366 Both the proverb and its application employ the same verb phrase āppa epp- ‘to retreat’. The supplicant, Muwatalli, is thus identified with the proverbial bird and the addressee, the Storm-god of Lightning, as the proverbial cage. They also share the same relationship: Muwatalli retreated to the Storm-god of Lightning, just as the bird retreated into the cage. The explicit identification of the constituents of the proverb with the supplicant and the addressee means that the second part of the proverb applies to them as well: Muwatalli can expect the Stormgod of Lightning to protect him, just like the cage protects the bird in the proverb.367 The following request to keep Muwatalli alive makes this expectation explicit. Proverb (KUB 6.45+ iii 40) MUŠEN-⸢iš?⸣

GIŠ

EGIR-pa

NOM.SG

ACC.SG

ADV 3SG.PRS.ACT CONJ=3SG.NOM.C

⸢tap-tap⸣-pa-an

e-ep-zi

na-aš

TI-zi

3SG.PRS.ACT

The bird retreats into the cage and it lives. Application of the proverb (KUB 6.45+ iii 41) ú-u[(k-ma?-z)]a-[(ká)]n 1SG.NOM=CONJ=REFL=PTC

d10

pí-ḫa-aš-ša-aš-ši-in

EN-IA

ACC.SG

Request (KUB 6.45+ iii 42) EGIR-pa AṢ-BAT

nu-[mu

ADV 3SG.PRT.ACT CONJ=1SG.ACC

TI]-nu-ut

2SG.IMP.ACT

Also I have retreated to the Storm-god of Lightning, my lord. Keep me alive! Table 13. Parallel formulation of proverb and application + request in CTH 381.368

The proverb ‘the bird retreats into the cage and it lives’ uses metaphor to state a social rule: anyone who takes refuge should be given protection. Explicitly applying it to the situation of the supplicant and addressee enforces this rule also on the deity addressed. He needs to protect the supplicant who took refuge with him. The proverb with its application is, therefore, a strong argument to ensure the addressed deity will be on the supplicant’s side. The argument is strengthened by the parallel formulation

365 366 367 368

KUB 6.45+ iii 41 has ammuk, but the duplicate KUB 6.46 iv 10 has ūk, see p. 118. KUB 6.46 iv 10. In KUB 6.45+ iii 41 the conjunction was probably written in the break. A schematic overview of the identifications is presented in Table 14 (p. 109). For variants in the duplicate KUB 6.46 iv 9–11, see pp. 118, fns. 400–402, 120, fn. 404.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

108

The Use and Function of Proverbs

of the proverb and its application. The parallelism is made complete by the following request to keep the supplicant alive, see Table 13. It also shows that these clauses were carefully composed (see Ch. 5.2.2). The same proverb with a slightly different formulation is cited in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2), which is of an earlier date. This may be the text from which the composer of CTH 381 adopted the proverb while altering its formulation. In Muršili II’s prayer the application of the proverb is more elaborate than in CTH 381 even though the proverb is only applied indirectly. The identification of the proverb’s constituents with the supplicant, Muršili II, and the addressees, the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods, is only implied and not stated explicitly. The proverb is explained by two narrative passages concerning a ‘servant’ (ARAD), who is identified with the proverbial ‘bird’, and a ‘lord’ (EN), who is identified with the ‘cage’ in the proverb. Each of these passages is introduced by našma, which in this case introduces two possible explanations of the preceding sentence.369 The first explanatory passage compares the proverb to a situation in which something is troubling (nakkiyaḫḫ-) a servant. It is explained that if the servant makes an arkuwar ‘plea’ to his lord (arkuwar iya-), his lord will listen to him (ištamašš-) and set it right for him (SIG5-aḫḫ-).370 The making of the arkuwar to the servant’s lord is thus equated with the bird’s retreat into the cage. The protection that the cage gives the bird in return is equated with the fact that the lord will listen to his servant’s plea and resolve his troubles. The second explanation of the proverb concerns a servant who has committed an offence (waštul). He finds his retreat in confessing the offence to his lord (=za waštul tarna-). The confession lifts the lord’s spirit (ZI-anza waršiya-) and the lord decides not to punish his servant (āppa UL kappuwa-).371 Not punishing the servant because the lord’s anger has subsided is thus equated to the protection given to the bird in the proverb. Both explanations of the proverb apply to the supplicant’s situation. By performing his prayer, Muršili II makes an arkuwar to the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods, just like the servant in the first explanatory passage. Shortly before the citation of the proverb it is even stated explicitly that the supplicant is making an arkuwar ‘plea’.372 In accordance with the second explanation of the proverb, the prayer contains several confessions373 as well as descriptions of the transgressions committed by Muršili’s predecessors to which he confesses.374 One confession follows immediately after the two explanatory passages. It employs the same verb phrase as the second

369 370 371 372 373 374

One would, however, expect naššu to introduce the first explanation, see CHD L–N 405 mng. b 6′. KUB 14.8 rev. 23′–25′. KUB 14.8 rev. 25′–28′. KUB 14.8 rev. 20′ // KUB 14.11 + KBo 55.25 iii 44′–45′, see also Ch. 5.2.3. KUB 14.8 obv. 40′f., rev. 14′–15′, 29′. The offences to which Muršili II confesses in this prayer are the breach of a treaty with Egypt by his father Šuppiluliuma I and the neglect of the ritual of the Māla river (i.e., the Euphrates) by previous kings, see p. 8, fn. 30 and p. 141, fn. 465.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

109

Argument

explanatory passage, =za waštul tarna- ‘to confess an offence’.375 Thus by pleading to the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods and by confessing transgressions to them, the supplicant, Muršili, identifies himself with both the servant and the proverbial bird, while the addressees, the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods, are identified with the servant’s lord and the proverbial cage. The bird’s retreat is equated both to Muršili’s pleading with the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods as well as to him confessing misdeeds to them. Therefore, like the cage in the proverb and the lord in the two explanations of the proverb, the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods must protect and save Muršili.376 A schematic overview of all identifications in CTH 378.2 and CTH 381 is presented in Table 14 below. Constituents and their relationships

Proverb

Constituent 1

Bird

CTH 378.2

CTH 381

Explanation 1

Explanation 2

Confession

Application

Servant with troubles (nakkiyaḫḫ-)

Servant who committed an offence (waštul)

Supplicant (Muršili II)

Supplicant (Muwatalli II) Addressee (Storm-god of Lightning)

Constituent 2

Cage

Lord

Lord

Addressee (Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods)

Retreat (constituent 1 retreats to constituent 2)

āppa epp‘to retreat’

=za arkuwar iya- ‘make arkuwar, make a plea’

=za waštul tarna- ‘to confess an offence’

=za waštul tarna- ‘to confess an offence’

āppa epp‘to retreat’

Protection (constituent 2 protects constituent 1)

ḫuišnu- ‘to keep alive’ (CTH 378.2), ḫuiš- ‘to live’ (CTH 381)

ḫuišnu‘to keep alive’

ḫuišnu‘to keep alive’

ZI-anza ištamašš- ‘to waršiya- ‘to lift listen’, the (lord’s) nakkiyaḫḫan spirit’, āppa UL SIG5-aḫḫ- ‘to set kappuwa- ‘to right troubles not punish’

Table 14. Identification of the constituents of the proverb with the bird.

The social rule that the proverb ‘the bird retreats in the cage and the cage keeps him alive’ dictates, is thus also called upon in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) as an argument to persuade the addressed deities, just as in CTH 381. The elaborate and rather implicit application of the proverb to the situation of the

375 376

KUB 14.8 rev. 29′. These identifications portray the relationship between the Hittite king and the addressed gods as that of a servant and his master, which is common in prayers, as shown, for example, by references to the supplicant and beneficiary of a prayer as ARAD-KA ‘your servant’ or GÉME-KA ‘your servant’ and to the addressee as EN-IA or BE-LU-IA ‘my lord’, ENMEŠ-KA or BE-LUMEŠ-IA ‘my lords’, or GAŠAN-IA ‘my lady’. See also p. 49.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

110

The Use and Function of Proverbs

supplicant and addressee is disguised as two short narratives and a confession. It has been composed with great care to give the argument additional force. Due to the two narratives concerning a servant and his lord the proverb applies to the Muršili’s situation in two separate ways – directing his plea or prayer to the gods and a confession – thus fully exploiting the proverb as a rhetorical device. The passage is skilfully composed with great aesthetic sensitivity. The Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) has a simpler, yet more explicit application of the proverb. The parallelism between the proverb and its application does not lack any style or elegance. It shows that the composer chose his words carefully to make a clear and explicit argument. One question remains: what does Muwatalli refer to when he states that he has retreated to the Storm-god of Lightning? In light of the explanations of the proverb in CTH 378.2 it is tempting to assume that it refers to the performance of the prayer and/or to confessing transgressions. The former seems to be confirmed by the reason for performing the ritual in which Muwatalli’s prayer is embedded. The reason is given at the beginning of the text and it corresponds to the first explanation of the proverb in Muršili’s prayer. It even employs the same verbs: nakkiyaḫḫ- ‘to be troublesome’ and arkuwar iya- ‘to make an arkuwar’, i.e., ‘to make a plea/prayer’. CTH 381, KUB 6.45+ i 1–4:377 1 ⸢UM-MA⸣ ta-ba-ar-na mNIR.GÁL LUGAL.GAL LUGAL KUR URUḪA-AT-TI 2 [DUMU] mmur-ši-i-li LUGAL.GAL LUGAL KUR URUḪA-AT-TI UR.SAG ma-a-an UN-[ši]378 3 [me]-mi-aš ku-iš-ki na-ak-ki-ia-aš-zi nu-za A-NA DINGIRMEŠ ar-ku-wa-ar 4 [D]Ù-zi → Thus speaks the tabarna, Muwatalli, great king, king of the land of Ḫatti, [son] of Muršili, great king, king of the land of Ḫatti, the hero: ‘When some matter is troubling a pers[on], he [per]forms a prayer to the gods.’ The constituents of the proverb in the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384) are the ‘woman of the birth-stool’ and a ‘deity’. According to the proverb the proverbial ‘deity’ is merciful (kāri tiya-) towards the ‘woman of the birth-stool’, which may be understood as offering support to her. The proverb is, as in CTH 381, applied directly and explicitly to the situation of the supplicant and the addressee. As in the prayers discussed above, the application of the proverb follows immediately after the citation. It consists of a statement by the supplicant, Puduḫepa, that she herself is a woman of the birth-stool.379 Similar to the application in CTH 381, this is emphasised by the personal pronoun ammuk and the attached conjunction =ya, which has an additive function ‘also I’. Puduḫepa is thus identified with the proverbial woman of the birth-stool and, therefore, the proverb applies to her. Though not stated explicitly, the proverbial deity who is merciful to the woman of the birthstool, refers to the Sun-goddess of Arinna to whom Puduḫepa directs this part of her 377 378 379

Duplicate: KUB 6.46 i 1–4. KUB 6.46 i 2: an-tu-uḫ-ši. KUB 21.27+ ii 17.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

111

Argument

prayer. Consequently, the Sun-goddess of Arinna is expected to be merciful to Puduḫepa. This is made explicit by requests to be merciful which use the same verb phrase as the proverb (kāri tiya-), for which see Ch. 5.2. The proverb ‘to a woman of the birth-stool the deity is merciful’ in CTH 384 thus functions as an explicit argument to persuade the addressed deity to support the supplicant, very much in the same way as the proverbs in CTH 378.2 and CTH 381 discussed above. It describes a general truth or social rule that should be honoured by the gods. The proverbial allusion further on in CTH 384, in Puduḫepa’s address to the Storm-god of Zippalanda, is in itself the application of the proverb, though it occurs without explicitly quoting the proverb. By identifying herself once again with the proverbial woman of the birth-stool, Puduḫepa employs the same argument as in her address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Here the proverbial deity is the Storm-god of Zippalanda to whom this part of the text is directed. As a consequence, the addressee, the Storm-god of Zippalanda, must, like the Sun-goddess of Arinna, be merciful to the supplicant, Puduḫepa. The proverbial allusion is a causal subordinate clause of a request for intercession.380 In this way, the causal relationship between being a ‘woman of the birth-stool’ and divine mercy is made explicit. In the first passage this causality is made explicit by citing the proverb and the requests to be merciful. An overview of the constituents of the proverb, the relationship between them, and their identifications in the proverb and the proverbial allusion is presented in Table 15. CTH 384

Constituents and their relationships

Proverb

Constituent 1

Application (ii 16–17)

Proverbial Allusion ≈ Application (iv 36′)

Woman of the birth-stool

Supplicant (Puduḫepa)

Supplicant (Puduḫepa)

Constituent 2

Deity

Addressee (Sungoddess of Arinna)

Addressee (Storm-god of Zippalanda)

Mercy / support (constituent 2 is merciful to constituent 1)

kāri tiya‘to be merciful’

kāri tiya‘to be merciful’

kāri tiya‘to be merciful’, uwai(a)nu- ‘to intercede’

Table 15. Identification of the constituents of the proverb in CTH 384.

Puduḫepa’s claim that she herself is a woman of the birth-stool raises the question whether this equation is metaphorical or literal. Since a woman of the birth-stool probably had something to do with childbirth and/or taking care of young children (see Ch. 5.1.2), it is noteworthy that Puduḫepa claims to have experience with both.

380

KUB 21.27+ iv 38′f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

112

The Use and Function of Proverbs

She describes in a draft of a letter to the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II that she bore children and raised others that had already been born, i.e., that were not her own.381 The proverbs and the proverbial allusion discussed above all function as explicit arguments within the prayers. They are incorporated in these three texts to ensure that the addressees are on the supplicant’s side and that they are willing or perhaps even forced to grant the requests presented in the prayer. This persuasive or rhetorical function is achieved and emphasised by identifying the constituents of each proverb with the main actors of the prayer, i.e., the addressee and the supplicant. In each of the texts this identification is made directly after the citation of the proverb. In this way, a relationship is established between supplicant and addressee that is bound by the social law that the proverb dictates. The gods apparently had to follow these social rules. Reminding them of these rules by citing a proverb is therefore a powerful rhetorical strategy within a prayer. 5.1.4 An Additional Argument? The four prayer passages that contain a proverb or proverbial allusion are structured in the same way, see Ch. 5.2. Only the passages in Puduḫepa’s prayer (CTH 384) deviate slightly. In CTH 378.2 and CTH 381 the proverb and its application are immediately followed by requests. In CTH 384 an additional clause is inserted before the requests, both in the passage in which the proverb is cited and in the one containing the proverbial allusion. The structural parallels to the passages in CTH 378.1 and CTH 381 suggest that the additional clauses in CTH 384 belong to the arguments made by the proverb with its application and the proverbial allusion. Therefore, I argue that these statements function as a second argument, additional to the one made by the proverb. The meaning and function of the two clauses is analysed below. The two additional clauses in CTH 384 (KUB 21.27+ ii 18 and iv 37′) seem to mention some kind of good behaviour of the supplicant, Puduḫepa, towards a son of the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Besides their shared position within the discourse, they also have striking similarities in formulation and content, even though they employ different verbs, see Table 16. This suggests the two clauses have the same function within the text and convey the same or at least a similar message. Both clauses are connected to the previous one asyndetically. They are formulated in the first person singular using a periphrastic perfect. The participle is in each case taken from a different verb: pai-/pi- ‘to give’ and šarni(n)k- ‘to compensate, to replace’. These are combined with SAG.DU ‘head, person’ in the ablative case (Hittite ḫaršanaz, from ḫaršar/ḫarš(a)n-). The deity to whom the described action is directed is mentioned explicitly in dative-locative case with the postposition šer ‘above’. The deity is not mentioned by name. In Puduḫepa’s address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna he is referred to as ‘your son’ (A-NA DUMU-KA). This son of the Sun-goddess of Arinna is probably the Storm-god of Nerik, since the royal couple’s relationship to him is 381

KUB 21.38 obv. 58′–62′, see Edel 1994: 220f. (No. 105), Beckman 1996: 128 (No. 22E), Hoffner 2009: 287 (No. 98), Otten 1975: 29 incl. fn. 64, cf. id. 31, fn. 69, and Singer 2002a: 101.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

113

Argument

mentioned explicitly in the first part of the prayer. In the clause following the proverbial allusion the action is probably directed towards the addressee, the Storm-god of Zippalanda, who is referred to as ‘the god, my lord’ (A-NA DINGIRLIM EN-IA). The equation of the Storm-god of Zippalanda with the Storm-god of Nerik in the Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa (CTH 383)382 implies that in both instances we are dealing with the same son of the Sun-goddess of Arinna. This supports the idea that the two clauses convey the same message. Thus the two verb phrases, ḫaršanaz pai-/pi- and ḫaršanaz šarni(n)k-, may have the same meaning. To the Sun-goddess of Arinna, following the proverb (KUB 21.27+ ii 18): A-NA DUMU-KA

še-er

⸢SAG⸣.DU-az

pí-ia-an

⸢ḫar⸣-[mi]

DAT-LOC

POSTPOS

ABL

PART.NOM-ACC.N.SG

1SG.PRS.ACT

(and) [I] have personally given (compensation?) to your son. To the Storm-god of Zippalanda, following the proverbial allusion (KUB 21.27+ iv 37′): A-NA DINGIRLIM EN-IA

še-er

S[AG.D]U-za

šar-ni-in-kán

ḫar-mi

DAT-LOC

POSTPOS

ABL

PART.NOM-ACC.N.SG

1SG.PRS.ACT

(and) I have compensated p[ersona]lly to the God, my lord. Table 16. Parallel formulation of the additional arguments in CTH 384.

The clause following the proverbial allusion clearly refers to some form of compensation paid to the Storm-god of Nerik/Zippalanda. The expression used is ḫaršanaz šarni(n)k-, literally ‘to compensate with/from the head’. However, Kammenhuber interprets ḫaršanaz šarni(n)k- as a technical term for the death penalty, i.e., quite literally ‘to compensate with the head’.383 She bases her argument on the use of the expression in the Old Hittite Edict of Telipinu (CTH 19). Since it is highly unlikely that Puduḫepa would have received the death penalty and still be able to perform this prayer, Kammenhuber suggests it is used figuratively in this text and in the Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 383) where it occurs as

382

383

KUB 21.19+ i 11–13: A-NA DINGIRMEŠ-za me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da KUR.KUR⸢ḪI⸣.A URUḪA-AT-TI / šar-ra-az ŠA d10 URUne-ri-ik ⸢d⸣10 URUzi-ip-pa-la-an-da / DUMU-KA na-ak-ki-ia-an-ni ḫa-an-da-[aš] da-at-ta ‘Contrary to the other gods, you took for yourself as your share the Ḫatti lands, out of esteem for the Storm-god of Nerik, the Storm-god of Zippalanda, your son’. Consider also in the same text KUB 21.19+ iv 27′f.: URUne-ri-ik-ka4-aš URUzi-ip-pa-⸢la⸣-an-d[a-a]š / ŠA DUMU-KA URUDIDLI.ḪI.A ‘Nerik and Zippalanda, the cities of your son’. Cf. Haas 1970: 107–109 and Popko 1994: 33. Kammenhuber 1964: 183, fn. 71, cf. Tischler HEG 2: 920. Kammenhuber (1964: 182f.) translates the clause together with the proverbial allusion as ‘Weil ich als Frau des Gebärstuhles um des Gottes, meines Herrn, willen mit dem Kopfe gebüßt habe’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

114

The Use and Function of Proverbs

well.384 However, there is no reason to assume that the expression refers to the death penalty. In the Edict of Telipinu the term occurs three times in a single passage.385 The message conveyed by the passage as a whole is that only the person guilty of plotting and/or committing a crime against the king should be held account-able for his crime and not his family or household. Here the expression ḫaršanaz šarni(n)kclearly refers to the punishing of only this guilty person. Though his actual punishment was almost certainly a death sentence, this does not seem to be conveyed in the expression ḫaršanaz šarni(n)k-. This is supported by the fact that in two of the three occurrences the particle =pat is connected to ḫaršanaz (KBo 3.1 ii 55, 59; written SAG.DU-az-pát), which shows that ḫaršanaz refers to the guilty person. Moreover, =pat stresses that only the guilty person should pay retribution for his crime. The nature of the punishment or the kind of compensation that needed to be paid is in this case not stated explicitly. In the Edict of Telipinu ḫaršanaz(=pat) šarni(n)k- thus refers to the notion that a punishment should only apply to the guilty person and is best translated as ‘to compensate personally’.386 This is also how it should be understood in CTH 384 and CTH 383. Puduḫepa thus states that she has personally paid compensation to the Storm-god of Nerik/Zippalanda. It is not stated why she did this, though the neglect of Nerik seems a plausible candidate. The compensation may have involved rebuilding the city of Nerik, which is referred to elsewhere in the prayer. Since the proverbial allusion and the mentioning of the supplicant’s good behaviour are causal subordinate clauses of the following request for intercession, they probably have the same rhetorical function. They each present an argument – being a woman of the birth-stool and having personally paid compensation – which should persuade the addressee to intercede with his parents on the supplicant’s behalf. 384

385 386

Kammenhuber 1964: 183, fn. 71. In CTH 383 the phrase occurs in KUB 21.19+ i 33f.: [na-a]t IŠ-TU SAG.DU-ŠÚ / [ka-ru-ú pa-ra-a šar-ni-ik-ta] ‘[and he already compensated for] it personally’ (restored after Sürenhagen 1981) and KUB 21.19+ ii 15: na-at IŠ-TU SAG.D[U-Š]Ú ka-ru-ú pa-ra-a šar-ni-⸢ik-ta⸣ ‘and he already compensated for it personally’. In KBo 3.1 ii 50–65 (with duplicates) the phrase occurs in KBo 3.1 ii 52, 55, and 59, see Hoffman 1984: 34–37. Cf. Dardano 2002: 363f. The two interpretations, ‘to get a death sentence’ or ‘to compensate personally’ for ḫaršanaz šarni(n)k-, solely depend on the interpretation of SAG.DU (Hittite ḫaršar) as ‘head’ or ‘person, self’, respectively. Paying compensation expressed with the verb šarni(n)k- is, judging by the attestations in CHD Š 282–86 and Tischler HEG 2: 918–20, usually a punishment for a certain crime or offence. Compare similar expressions using per/parn- ‘house, estate’, e.g., in KUB 13.35 ii 40: nu-wa-ra-aš pár-na-za šar-ni-in-ku-un ‘I have replaced them from (my own) household’ (see Werner 1967: 8f., CHD Š 283b) and in the “First” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.1) KUB 14.14+ rev. 23′–25′: ki-nu-na-ia-at-kán ku-it am-mu-u[k] / a-ar-aš na-at am-mu-uk-ka4 IŠ-TU ÉTI-IA šar-ni-ik-zi-la-az maš-kán-na-[az] / šar-ni-en-ki-iš-ki-mi ‘Since it [i.e., the murder of Tudḫaliya] now also came upon me, I too will compensate for it from my household with compensation and a propitiatory gift’ (see also CHD Š 284b). Interesting in this respect is the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) in which ḫinkan ‘plague’ occurs in the ablative case in a similar clause, KUB 14.8 rev. 32′: [a-š]i-ma ku-[i]t URUḫa-at-tu-ša-aš ḫ[i-i]n-ga-na-az šar-ni-ik-ta ‘But [tha]t what Ḫattuša has paid as compensation by means of the plague, …’, cf. pp. 116f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

115

The additional clause following the application of the proverb in the passage containing the proverb, addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, employs the verb phrase ḫaršanaz pai-/pi-, which literally means ‘to give from oneself’ or ‘to give from/with the head’. Singer translates it as ‘devoting oneself’ to someone.387 However, the striking parallelism with the clause following the proverbial allusion in content, formulation, and position within the text, suggests another interpretation in this context. The similarities between the two passages are, in my view, intentional. The composer of the text probably constructed these parallel passages in this way to emphasise that they, and thus also the two clauses have the same function and meaning, even though they are formulated differently. Therefore, ḫaršanaz pai-/piprobably also refers to the paying of compensation, even though the compensation is not expressed explicitly in this clause. This is why I translate ḫaršanaz pai-/pi- here as ‘to give (compensation) personally’.388 In CTH 384 the arguments made by the citation of the proverb with its application and the proverbial allusion are thus combined with an additional argument in which the supplicant, Puduḫepa, states that she already paid compensation to the Storm-god of Nerik/Zippalanda.

5.2 STRENGTHENING THE ARGUMENT Not only the proverbs but also the discourse structure – i.e., the way in which the proverbs are incorporated into the prayers – functions as a powerful rhetorical strategy to persuade the addressed deity to heed the supplicant’s prayer. Below, the structures of the prayer passages citing a proverb or proverbial allusion are analysed on the micro-level of the text unit. It shows that they are all structured in the same way and that this structure strengthens the argument made by the proverb. The relevant passages are KUB 14.8 rev. 20′–36′ (CTH 378.2) with duplicates, KUB 6.45+ iii 32–44 (CTH 381) with the duplicate KUB 6.46 iv 1–14, KUB 21.27+ ii 11–19 (CTH 384), and the passage with the proverbial allusion KUB 21.27+ iv 35′–39′ (CTH 384). These four prayer passages are edited below with indication of the different text units. Variants in duplicate tablets are given in footnotes.

387 388

Singer 2002a: 103. To my knowledge ḫaršanaz pai- is not attested elsewhere. The only possible parallel occurs in the letter KUB 31.101 25′: IŠ-TU SAG.DUḪI.A-KU-NU pa-it-⸢ta-ni⸣. Instead of pa-it-ta-ni Tischler HEG 2: 377 reads ku-it-ta-ni and translates ‘werdet ihr mit eurem Kopf bezahlen’ (so also CHD P 20). Puhvel HED 8: 41 renders this reading erroneous, and judging by photographs of the tablet he is correct. He interprets paiani as a form of pai-/pi- ‘to give’ and translates ‘you are going to pay with your heads’ in comparison to the phrase SAG.DU-(n)az šarnik- ‘pay with one’s head’. The form paiani is, however, not a correct 2pl.prs.act of pai-/pi- ‘to give’ (but compare Puhvel HED 8: 41). The form belongs to the paradigm of the verb pai- ‘to go’ and Ünal (1973: 51), as well as Hagenbuchner (1989: 38), has interpreted it that way, translating ‘werdet ihr mit euren Köpfen gehen’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

116

The Use and Function of Proverbs

CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 20′–36′389 Transliteration Statement 20′ nu-za ka-a-ša A-NA dIŠKUR390 EN-IA ḫi-i[(n-g)]a-ni še-er ar-ku-u-wa-ar391 e-ešša-aḫ-ḫ[i] Request – Attention 21′ nu-mu d10 URUḪA-AT-TI392 EN-IA iš-ta-⸢ma⸣-aš → Request – Give good 21′ nu-mu ḫu-iš-nu-ut393 → Introduction Proverb 21′ nu-ut-ták-kán ⸢ki⸣-[ik-ki-iš-ta-a-ri QA-TAM-MA] Proverb 22′ MUŠEN-iš-za-kán GIŠtap-ta-ap-pa-an EGIR-pa e-ep-zi na-an GIŠtap-ta-a[p]-⸢pa⸣aš ḫu-u-[iš-nu-zi] Explanation Proverb 1 ≈ Application Proverb 23′–25′ na-aš-ma ma-a-an A-NA ARADDÌ ku-e-d[a-n]i-ik-ki ku-it-ki na-a[k]-ki-ia-aḫḫa-a[n] / nu-za A-NA EN-ŠU ar-ku-wa-ar i-ia-az-⸢zi⸣ na-an EN-ŠU iš-[t]a-maaš-zi nu-uš-⸢ši ge⸣-[en-zu da-a-i?] / ku-it na-ak-ki-ia-aḫ-ḫa-an na-at-ši ⸢SIG5⸣-aḫ-zi → Explanation Proverb 2 ≈ Application Proverb 25′–28′ na-aš-ma ma-a-an A-NA ARADDÌ ku-e-da-ni-⸢ik-ki⸣ / wa-aš-túl wa-aš-túl-maaz-za-kán A-NA PA-NI E[N]-⸢ŠU⸣ tar-na-a-i na-an EN-ŠU ku-it a-pí-ia / i-e-ez-zi na-an i-e-ez-zi wa-aš-túl-ma-za-k[(á)n A-N]A PA-NI EN-ŠU ku-it tar-na-a-i / nu A-NA EN-ŠU ZI-an-za wa-ar-ši-ia-az-z[i nu EN]-ŠU a-pu-u-un ARAD⸢DI⸣ EGIR-pa Ú-UL kap-pu-u-iz-zi Confession ≈ Application Proverb 29′ [a]m-mu-uk-za-kán ŠA A-BI-IA wa-aš-túl tar-n[a-aḫ-ḫu-un] a-ša-a-na-at i-ianu-na-at Description – Compensation = Introduction Request 30′–34′ [ma-a]-⸢an⸣ šar-ni-ik-ze-el ku-iš nu a-pé-[e-ez ḫi-in-ga]-na-az ka-ru-ú-ia kuit me-ek-ki / […]x x x IŠ-TU KUR URUmi-iz-ri ku-in ⸢LÚ⸣.M[EŠŠU.]DAB ú-wa-te-er NAM.RAḪI.A-ia ku-in / [ú-wa-te-er? a-š]i-ma ku-[i]t URUḫa-at-tu-ša-aš ḫ[i-i]nga-na-az šar-ni-ik-ta na-at 20-an-ki / [Ú-UL k]a-⸢ru-ú⸣ a-pé-e-ni-iš-ša-an kiša-ri n[u] ⸢A⸣-NA dIŠKUR URUḪA-AT-TI EN-IA / [Ù A-N]A DINGIRMEŠ BE-LUMEŠ-IA ZIan-za Ú-UL-pát wa-ar-ši-ia-at-ta-ri →

389 390 391 392 393

Duplicates: B KUB 14.11 + KBo 55.25 iii 44′–46′, iv 1′–3′ and D KBo 57.21. B KUB 14.11+ iii 44′: d10. B KUB 14.11+ iii 45′: [a]r-ku-wa-ar. B KUB 14.11+ iii 45′: URUḪAT-TI. B KUB 14.11+ iii 46′: ⸢TI⸣-nu-ut. B breaks.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

117

Translation Statement 20′ Herewith, I make a plea to the Storm-god, my lord, because of the plague. Request – Attention 21′ O Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord, listen to me! Request – Give good 21′ Keep me alive! Introduction Proverb 21′ And for you [the following] h[appens constantly:] Proverb 22′ The bird retreats into the cage, and the cage keeps him alive. Explanation Proverb 1 ≈ Application Proverb 23′–25′ Either when something is troubling some servant and he makes a plea to his lord, (then) his lord will listen to him, and [he will take] p[ity] on him. Whatever was troubling (him), he will set it right for him. Explanation Proverb 2 ≈ Application Proverb 25′–28′ Or when there is an offence on some servant, but he confesses the offence to his lord, (then) his lord can do with him what(ever) he (wants to) do with him. But since he confesses the offence to his lord, the spirit of his lord is lifted, and his lord will not (want to) punish this servant. Confession ≈ Application Proverb 29′ I have confe[ssed] the offence of my father. It is (so), I have done it. Description – Compensation = Introduction Request 30′–34′ [I]f there is some compensation (to be made), (then) because by means of thi[s pla]gue already much [has been paid as compensation …] … the prisoners of war who they brought from Egypt, and the civil prisoners who [they brought]. But [tha]t which Ḫattuša has compensated by means of the plague, [has] it [not] thus happened twentyfold already? And still it does not lift the spirit of the Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord, [and of] the gods, my lords.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

118

The Use and Function of Proverbs

Request – Compensation 34′–36′ na-aš-ma-kán ma-a-an / [am-m]u-uk-ma ku-it-ki šar-ni-ik-ze-el ḫa-an-ti išḫi-ia-at-te-e-ni394 / [na-a]t-mu te-eš-ḫa-az me-mi-eš-tén → Promise – Compensation 36′ nu-uš-ma-ša-at pí-iḫ-ḫi Comments This passage follows immediately after another passage in which a proverb is cited, see pp. 134–37. rev. 21′: The restoration is based on rev. 10′ and rev. 12′, for which see p. 134. Götze (1929: 216) reads nuut-ták-kán ⸢ki⸣-[iš-ša-an? …]. Singer (2002a: 60) apparently restores a form of the verb mema- ‘to say, to speak’, for he translates ‘[I say] to you [as follows]’.

CTH 381, KUB 6.45+ iii 32–44395 Transliteration Statement 32–33 [k]i-nu-na am-mu-uk mNIR.GÁL LUGAL-uš tu-e-da-az / [IŠ]-TU d10 pí-ḫa-aš-šaaš-ši šal-la-nu-wa-an-za ar-ku-ú-e-eš-ki-mi Requests – Intercession 34–37 [nu I]Š-TU EME-IA ku-i-e-eš DINGIRMEŠ ḫal-zi-iḫ-ḫu-un / n[(u A-N)]A DINGIRMEŠ ar-ku-wa-nu-un nu-mu-kán DINGIRMEŠ-aš ú-wa-ia-nu-ut da-pí-aš396 / a[(mme-e)]l-ma397 ŠA mNIR.GÁL ARAD-KA A-[(W)]A-TEMEŠ 398 ŠA EME-IA / [(d)]a-[(a n)]a-[(a)]t-kán A-NA399 PA-NI DINGIRMEŠ ⸢šu⸣-un-ni → Wish – Disallow evil 37–39 nu-za A-NA DINGIRMEŠ / [(ku-e A-WA-TEME.EŠ)] ⸢ar-ku-wa-ar i-ia-mi⸣ / n[(a-atmu EGIR)]-⸢pa le-e wa-aḫ-nu⸣-wa-an-zi Proverb 40 MUŠEN-⸢iš?⸣400 GIŠ⸢tap-tap⸣-pa-an EGIR-pa e-ep-zi na-aš TI-zi401 Application Proverb to situation Supplicant and Addressee 41 ú-u[(k-ma)?-z]a-[(ká)]n402 d10 pí-ḫa-aš-ša-aš-ši-in EN-IA EGIR-pa AṢ-BAT Request – Give good 42 nu-[(mu TI)]-nu-ut →

394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402

B iv continues here. B KUB 14.11+ iv 1′: [… iš-ḫi-ia-at-t]e-ni. Duplicate: B KUB 6.46 iv 1–14. B KUB 6.46 iv 4: d]a?-[p]í?-aš ú-wa-ia-nu-ut. B KUB 6.46 iv 4: am-me-e-el-ma. B KUB 6.46 iv 5: A-WA-TEME.EŠ. B KUB 6.46 iv 6 omits A-NA. B KUB 6.46 iv 9: erasure MUŠEN-za erasure. B KUB 6.46 iv 10: ḫu-i-iš-zi erasure. B KUB 6.46 iv 10: am-mu-uk-ma-kán.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

119

Request – Compensation 34′–36′ Or if you, however, impose some compensation separately on me, tell it to me through a dream Promise – Compensation 36′ and I will give it to you. rev. 22′: For taptappa-, see Ch. 5.1.1. rev. 30′–31′: Cf. CHD Š 284b. rev. 33′: The restoration at the beginning of the line follows CHD Š 284b, contra previous editors of the text who restored [šar-ni-ik-ta? k]a-ru-u.

Translation Statement 32–33 Now, I, Muwatalli, the king, raised by you, O Storm-god of Lightning, am continually praying. Requests – Intercession 34–37 The gods who I have invoked with my tongue, [t]o (those) gods I prayed. Intercede for me with the(se) gods, with all of them! [Take] the words of the tongue of mine, Muwatalli, your servant, and present them to the gods!403 Wish – Disallow evil 37–39 The words which I make into a prayer for the gods, they must not turn against me! Proverb 40 The bird retreats into the cage and it lives. Application Proverb to situation Supplicant and Addressee 41 Also I have retreated to the Storm-god of Lightning, my lord. Request – Give good 42 Keep me alive!

403

Literally: ‘and fill them before the gods!’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

120

The Use and Function of Proverbs

Request – Intercession 42f. nu-za A-NA DINGIRMEŠ ku-it ar-ku-wa-⸢ar⸣ i-ia-mi / nu-kán A-WA-TEMEŠ A-NA DINGIRMEŠ an-da šu-un-ni → Wish – Attention 43 nu-[(m)]u ⸢iš⸣-ta-ma-aš-ša-an-du Promise – Praise 44 nu a-pí-ia-ia d10 pí-ḫa-aš-ša-aš-ši-in šar-li-iš-ki-mi404 Comments iii 37: The verb šunna- ‘to fill’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 785, Tischler HEG 2: 1166–72) is used metaphorically here and in iii 43, so also Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 381. The expression ANA (PĀNI) DINGIRMEŠ šunna- ‘to fill … before/to the gods’ refers, in the present context, to the presenting or delivering (a part) of the prayer to the gods (Singer 1996: 65, Tischler HEG 2: 1168). Though the translation of šunna- as ‘to transmit’ (so Singer 1996: 40), may seem fitting in the present context, it needs to be rejected, because the verb does not express movement from one location to another. The translation ‘to present’ suggested here seems closer to the original meaning of šunna- and is therefore preferred. iii 39: Compare the translation of Singer (1996: 40) ‘let them not turn them back to me!’, and similarly Klinger (2013: 126) ‘sie sollen nicht zu mir zurückwenden’. Another possible translation is (iii 37–39) ‘they must not be twisted for me!’, so also Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 381).

CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ ii 11–37 Transliteration Statement 11–13 nu-za ki-i ut-tar A-NA dUTU URUTÚL-na GAŠAN-IA / GAŠAN KUR.KURMEŠ URUḪAT-TI MUNUS.LUGAL ŠA-ME-E Ù ER-ṢE-TIM / am-mu-uk fpu-du-ḫé-pa-aš GÉME-KA arku-wa-ar i-ia-nu-un Request – Support 14 nu-mu dUTU URUTÚL-na GAŠAN-IA ka-a-ri ti-ia → Request – Attention 14 nu-mu iš-ta-ma-aš Introduction Proverb 15 A-NA DUMU.NAM.LÚ.U19.LU-pát-kán an-da me-mi-an kiš-an me-m[i-i]š-⸢kán-zi⸣ Proverb 16 ḫar-na-a-u-wa-aš-wa MUNUS-ni-i DINGIRLUM ka-a-ri ti-i[a-zi] Application Proverb to situation Supplicant 17 am-mu-uk-ka4-za fpu-du-ḫé-pa-aš ḫar-na-a-wa-aš MUNUS-⸢za⸣ Additional Argument – Compensation 18 A-NA DUMU-KA še-er ⸢SAG⸣.DU-az pí-ia-an ⸢ḫar⸣-[mi] Request – Support 19 nu-mu dUTU URUTÚL-⸢na GAŠAN-IA⸣ ka-a-ri ti-⸢ia⸣ 404

B KUB 6.46 omits the ruling after this line.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

121

Request – Intercession 42f. The plea which I make to the gods, present the words to the gods!405 Wish – Attention 43 May they listen to me! Promise – Praise 44 Then I will constantly praise the Storm-god of Lightning. iii 40: For GIŠtaptappa-, see Ch. 5.1.1. iii 42: Singer (1996: 41) translates nu=mu ḫuišnut as ‘and he has kept me alive’. He thus interprets ḫuišnut as a preterite rather than an imperative. Both interpretations of ḫuišnut are grammatically correct, but a translation as a present tense, as suggested by Klinger (2013: 126) ‘und er erhält mich am leben’, needs to be rejected. Comparisons to the structure of other passages in which a proverb is cited and the parallel request in KUB 14.8 rev. 21′ (CTH 378.2), show that nu=mu ḫuišnut constitutes a request here. Hence, ḫuišnut is best interpreted as an imperative (cf. Ch. 5.1.3 and Ch. 5.2.2). Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 381) also understand it as a request, but only because it is part of the plea. iii 43: See the comments on iii 37.

Translation Statement 11–13 This matter, to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, lady of the lands of Ḫatti, queen of heaven and earth, I, Puduḫepa, your servant, made into a prayer. Request – Support 14 O Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, be merciful to me! Request – Attention 14 Listen to me! Introduction Proverb 15 Among men, they say the following saying: Proverb 16 “To a woman of the birth-stool the deity is merciful.” Application Proverb to situation Supplicant 17 Also I, Puduḫepa, am a woman of the birthstool, Additional Argument – Compensation 18 (and) [I] have personally given (compensation) to your son. Request – Support 19 Be merciful to me, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady! 405 Literally: ‘fill the words to the gods!’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

122

The Use and Function of Proverbs

Request – Give good (for supplicant) 20 nu-ut-ta [ú-e-ik-mi? k]u-it na-⸢at⸣-mu pa-a-i Request – Give good (for beneficiary) 21 ⸢A-NA m⸣[ḫa-at-tu-ši-li AR]AD-⸢KA⸣ TI-tar pa-a-i Wish – Give good (for beneficiary) 22–24 [nu-uš-ši dGUL-ša-az] dMAḪMEŠ-az MUḪI.A UDḪI.[A] / [GÍD.DA in-na-ra-wa-tar? pí-i]a-an-te-eš / [a-aš-ša-an-du?] → fragmentary 24–27 […]x-u?-wa-al-la-aš DINGIRLIM-iš / [… ḫ]ar-ti DINGIRMEŠ-eš ḫu-u-⸢ma-an-te⸣-eš / […-i]a-an ḫar-kán-z[i] / […] ku-iš-ki ḫal-za-a-⸢i⸣ Request – Intercession (for beneficiary) 28f. [ŠA mḫa-at-tu-ši-li-ma] ⸢TI⸣-tar DINGIRMEŠ-aš ḫu-u-ma-an-d[a-aš] / [tu-li-ia-aš p]í-di ú-e-ek → Wish – Intercession (for beneficiary) 29–30 ú-e-ku-wa-⸢ar⸣-[te-et] / [ša-ku-wa-aš]-⸢ša⸣-ra-aš ZI-aš e-eš-du fragmentary 31–37 [DUTU U]RUTÚL-⸢na⸣ G[AŠAN-I]A ⸢ku⸣-it ka-ni-iš-t[a …] / [na-aš]-ta [ḫa-pa-anz]u-wa-la-tar ZAG-aš-ša-pát […] / [A?]-⸢NA?⸣ x[… DINGI]RMEŠ-na-aš ZI-ni naaḫ-ḫ[a-an-…] / [… ŠA dUT]U ⸢URU⸣TÚL-na GAŠAN-IA ZI-an GI[M-an …] / […]xmi na-at dUTU URUTÚL-na GAŠAN-[IA ša-a]k-ti / [… n]u-za-kán ke-e-da-ni memi-n[i …] / [… nu-mu?] ú-e-ku-wa-ar EGIR-pa [le-e? wa-aḫ-nu-wa-an-zi?] Comments ii 11: Sürenhagen (1981: 113) translates kī uār as ‘diese Worte’ and thus interprets it as a plural (nomacc.n.pl). However, since ut-tar is written without plene-spelling it is better understood as a singular (nom.-acc.n.sg). ii 14: The translation of the verb phrase kāri tiya- ‘to be merciful’ follows Kloekhorst 2008: 449, but see also Puhvel HED 4: 80, Tischler HEG 1: 503 and HW 100. Compare the translations of Sürenhagen 1981: 113 ‘Willfahre mir!’, Singer 2002a: 103 ‘Have pity on me!’, and Puhvel HED 4: 80 ‘accommodate me!’. Tischler (HEG 1: 503) and Puhvel (HED 4: 81) see kāri as a petrified dat.-loc. and etymologically related to Greek χάριϛ ‘grace, favour’ (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 449). The verb used is tiya- ‘to step, to go stand, to place oneself, to set it’. According to Puhvel (HED 4: 81) kāri tiya- literally means ‘step to graciousness, resort to favor’, and according to Tischler (HEG 1: 503) it means ‘(für jemanden) in die Gnade (o.ä.) treten’. De Roos (2007: 184, fn. 429) suggested that kāri tiya- may mean to ‘post oneself at someone’s head’ and, thus, to ‘assist’. He bases this on the interpretation of *kar as meaning ‘head’ in words like kitkar ‘at the head’. However, kāri is considered to have a different etymology. ii 15: For the translation of memiya(n)- as ‘saying’ rather than ‘proverb’, see p. 102. For the figura etymologica with mema-, see CHD L–N 270f. ii 16: For the multiple interpretations of what a ‘woman of the birth-stool’ is, see Ch. 5.1.2. ii 17: Probably nothing was written in the break. However, Singer (2002a: 103) seems to restore kuit at the end of the line, for he translates: ‘[Since] I, Puduḫepa, am a woman of the birthstool …’. ii 18: The noun šarnikzel ‘compensation’ is not written. The interpretation that this sentence refers to the paying of compensation is based on comparison with iv 37′, which probably has the same meaning, see Ch. 5.1.4. Compare the translations of Singer 2002a: 103 (ii 18) ‘and I have devoted myself to your son’,

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

123

Request – Give good (for supplicant) 20 Give me that [w]hat [I ask? of] you! Request – Give good (for beneficiary) 21 Give life to [Ḫattušili] your [serv]ant! Wish – Give good (for beneficiary) 22–24 Through [the GUL-šeš] (and) the Mother-goddesses may [long] years, days, [and vigour be gr]anted [to him.] fragmentary 24–27 […]… god […] you [h]ave. All the gods […] they have […]-ed […] someone calls […]. Request – Intercession (for beneficiary) 28f. Request life [for Ḫattušili] in the [pla]ce [of the assembly] of all the gods! Wish – Intercession (for beneficiary) 29–30 [and] may [your] request be [whole]hearted. fragmentary 31–37 [O Sun-goddess] of Arinna, [m]y l[ady], since you acknowledged [me …]… [depend]ability and even right [… t]o [… is/are] respectf[ul] of the will of [the god]s […] ho[w] I […] the will of [the Sun-godd]ess of Arinna, my lady, you [kno]w it, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, [my] lady. [… An]d about this matter […] the request [must not turn] against [me]. and similarly Sürenhagen 1981: 113 (ii 17–18) ‘Ich, Puduḫepa, habe mich als Frau in Kindesnöten um Deines Sohnes willen persönlich gewidmet’. ii 19: NU at the beginning of the line is written before the vertical ruling marking the outer left side of the column, i.e., in the intercolumnium. This suggests that the scribe had forgotten to copy the sign and only realised this after he had already written most of the line. ii 22–24: Restorations follow Sürenhagen 1981: 112. ii 24: On the photographs of the tablet a large Winkelhaken preceded by traces of another smaller Winkelhaken is visible before WA. These traces cannot be the end of ZU, so we may reject the restoration [gi-enz]u-wa-al-la-aš ‘gnädig’ of Sürenhagen (1981: 112) and followed by Ünal (1991: 85). The traces also do not belong to BI, which Singer reads: [karp]iwalaš ‘angry’ (Singer 2002a: 103, 110, fn. 21). ii 25: Sürenhagen (1981: 112) restores [ku-wa-pí tu-li-ia ti-i]a-an ḫar-kán-z[i] on the basis of KUB 21.19 iv 17′ and translates ‘[Sobald] all[e] Götter [zur Versammlung hingetre]ten sind [ ]’ (ibid. 113). Similarly Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 384.1) restore [… tu-li-y]a-an ḫar-kán-z[i]. ii 27: Sürenhagen (1981: 112) restores [Ú-UL?] ku-iš-ki ḫal-za-a-⸢i⸣[…] ‘[nie]mand ruft’ (ibid. 113). ii 28f.: The restorations follow Sürenhagen 1981: 112. ii 30: The restoration follows Sürenhagen 1981: 112. Usually šakuwaššara- ‘complete, entire, whole’ occurs in the instrumental or ablative case in the expression šakuwaššarit ZI-it or šakuwaššaraza ZI-za ‘with (your) whole heart, wholeheartedly’ (CHD Š 63). Sürenhagen (ibid. 120f.) rejects Kammenhuber’s (1964: 199) translation of ZI-aš ešdu as “es soll das der Seele/Wunsches sein”. ii 32: The restoration follows Lebrun 1980: 332 and Singer 2002a: 103, 110, n. 22. For [ḫapanz]uwalatar ‘dependable’, see Puhvel HED 3: 118, cf. HW2 Ḫ 215. The restoration [pu-pu]-wa-la-tar of Wegner (1981: 142) is rejected since it does not fit the traces on the tablet (Güterbock 1983: 161, fn. 13, CHD P 381).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

124

The Use and Function of Proverbs

ii 33: A participle of naḫḫ- ‘to fear, to be(come) respectful’ (CHD L–N 338–42) needs to be restored. Compare in the Prayer of Arnawanda and Ašmunikal (CTH 375), KUB 17.21+ iv 5: nu ú-e-eš DINGIRMEŠ-aš ku-it na-[aḫ-ḫa-an-t]e-eš ‘Because we are respectful to the gods …’ (CHD L–N 341), and in an instruction to the temple officials KUB 13.6 ii 16: nu-za DINGIRMEŠ-aš ZI-ni me-ek-ki na-aḫ-ḫa-an-te-eš e-eš-tén ‘Be very careful about the will of the gods!’ (CHD L–N 340).

CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ iv 28′–47′ Transliteration Direct Address + Description – Relationship Addressee to his parents ≈ Hymn? 28′–32′ [zi-ik? d10 URUzi-ip]-pa-la-an-da EN-IA / [A-NA dIŠKUR-za? Ù? A-N]A dUTU URU TÚL-na a-aš-ši-ia-an-za DUMU-aš / [A-NA dIŠKUR A-B]I-KA Ù A-NA dUTU URU TÚL-na AMA-KA / tar-kum-m[a-i-ši nu-kán dIŠKUR] A-BU-KA ⸢d⸣UTU URUTÚL-na AMA-KA / tu-el me-⸢mi⸣-[an Ú-UL wa]-aḫ-nu-wa-an-zi iš-ta-ma-aš-ša-an-zi-ta Requests – Intercession 33′–35′ nu-za ku-u-un ku-i[n me-mi-an?] am-⸢mu⸣-uk fpu-du-ḫé-pa-aš GÉME-KA / arku-wa-ar i-[ia-nu-un] nu-mu zi-ik dIŠKUR URUzi-ip-pa-la-an-da EN-IA / tarkum-ma-a-i na-⸢an⸣-[kán p]a-ra-a ar-nu-ut → Request – Support 35′f. DINGIRLUM-mu EN-IA / ke-e-da-ni me-mi-ni ⸢ka⸣-ri ti-ia → Proverbial Allusion = Application Proverb to situation Supplicant 36′ ḫar-na-a-u-aš-za ku-it MUNUS-za Additional Argument – Compensation 37′ A-NA DINGIRLIM EN-IA še-er S[AG.D]U-za šar-ni-in-kán ḫar-mi Request – Intercession 38′f. nu-mu-kán DINGIRLUM EN-IA A-NA ⸢d⸣[IŠKUR] A-BI-KA Ù A-NA dUTU URUTÚL-na AMA-KA / u-wa-a-i-nu-ut → Description – Good behaviour beneficiary 39′–43′ mḫa-at-tu-ši-li-i[š-š]a ARAD-KA A-NA ZI DINGIRLIM / še-er ⸢da-ri⸣-ia-at nu-za apé-⸢e⸣-[el SA]G.DU-an ZI ŠÚ-ia / uš-ša-ni-⸢iš⸣-ki-it ku-it-ma-an [ŠA DING]IR⸢LIM⸣ EN-IA / URUne-ri-ik-ka4-an a-aš-ši-ia-an-t[a-an UR]U-an EGIR-pa / ú-e-te-et → Request – Support (for beneficiary) 43′f. nu-kán zi-ik-ka4 DINGIRLUM [EN-I]A / A-NA mḫa-at-tu-ši-li ARAD-KA aš-šu-li ḫ[ar-pí-i]a-aḫ-ḫu-ut Request – Intercession 45′–47′ nu-za ke-e ku-e A-WA-TEMEŠ A-NA dIŠKUR A-BI-KA / Ù A-NA dUTU URUTÚL-na AMAKA ar-ku-wa-ar e-eš-⸢ša⸣-aḫ-ḫi / na-at-mu d10 URUzi-ip-pa-la-an-da EN-IA para-a ⸢ar⸣-nu-ut

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

125

ii 34–35: Singer (2002a: 103) translates ‘[Don’t] you see, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, how I [fulfilled(?)] the wish of the Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady?’. ii 37: The restoration is based on KUB 6.45+ iii 39 (CTH 381), for which see p. 118. Similarly, Singer (2002a: 103) translates ‘[…] the request [do not turn(?)] back.’ If the comparison to KUB 6.45+ iii 39 is warranted, the preceding clauses may be similar to KUB 6.45+ iii 37–39 and refer to the performance of a prayer ‘about this matter’.

Translation Direct Address + Description – Relationship Addressee to his parents ≈ Hymn? 28′–32′ [You, O Storm-god of Zip]palanda, my lord, (are) the beloved son [to the Storm-god and t]o the Sun-goddess of Arinna. [What(ever) you] convey [to the Storm-god,] your [fath]er, and to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, your mother, [the Storm-god,] your father, (and) the Sun-goddess of Arinna, your mother, will [not t]wist your wor[d.] They will listen to you. Requests – Intercession 33′–35′ This [matter] whic[h] I, Puduḫepa, your servant, m[ade into] a prayer, you, O Storm-god of Zippalanda, my lord, convey it for me! Transmit it! Request – Support 35′f. O God, my lord, be merciful to me in this matter! Proverbial Allusion = Application Proverb to situation Supplicant 36′ Because I am a woman of the birth-stool, Additional Argument – Compensation 37′ (and) I have compensated p[ersona]lly to the God, my lord, Request – Intercession 38′f. intercede for me, O God, my lord, with the [Storm-god], your father, and with the Sun-goddess of Arinna, your mother! Description – Good behaviour beneficiary 39′–43′ Also Ḫattušili, your servant, has exerted himself for the will of the god. He continually risked hi[s he]ad and soul while he rebuilt Nerik, the belov[ed ci]ty [of the Go]d, my lord. Request – Support (for beneficiary) 43′f.’ Also you, O God, [m]y lord, stand by Ḫattušili, your servant, favourably! Request – Intercession 45′–47′ These words which I made into a prayer for the Storm-god, your father, and for the Sun-goddess of Arinna, your mother, transmit them for me, O Storm-god of Zippalanda, my lord! Comments iv 28′–32′: The restorations are based on KUB 21.27+ iv 13′–17′ and Sürenhagen 1981: 118. iv 30′: The restoration of ku-it is based on KUB 21.27+ iv 15′; Sürenhagen (1981: 118) does not restore it.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

126

The Use and Function of Proverbs

iv 32′: Singer (2002a: 105) translates: ‘… will [not] refuse your word’. The last three signs of this line are written vertically on the tablet in the intercolumnium. iv 33′–35′: Compare in the same text KUB 21.27+ iv 18′–22′ and iv 45′–47′. iv 33′: The restoration of me-mi-an follows Lebrun 1980: 335. Sürenhagen (1981: 118) restores INIM, but the break is large enough to fit two or perhaps even three signs. Lebrun’s restoration of ku-i[t] before memiyan is inaccurate, since an accusative commune kuin is expected because of the preceding kūn. iv 34′: The last two signs are written vertically on the tablet in the intercolumnium. The restoration i-[ianu-un] is based on KUB 21.27+ iv 20′ (so also Lebrun 1980: 335). Sürenhagen 1981: 118 restores: i-[ia-mi]. iv 37′: See the discussion in Ch. 5.1.4. iv 38′: The last two signs on the line, AMA-KA, were not copied in the hand-copy, but they are clearly visible on the photographs that can be accessed online through the Konkordanz, cf. Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 384.1. These signs are written vertically on the tablet in the intercolumnium. Neither Lebrun (1980: 335), Sürenhagen (1981: 118), nor Singer (2002a: 105) read these signs. iv 40′: The translation of tarai- as ‘to exert oneself’ follows Kloekhorst 2008: 833. Singer (2002a: 105) translates ‘… took pains for the god’s will’. iv 41′: ušniya-, translated here at ‘to risk’, literally means ‘to put up for sale’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 930). iv 41′–43′: The offered translation, understanding the temporal clause marked by kuitman as being subordinate to the preceding clause(s), follows Singer 2002a: 105 and Sürenhagen 1981: 119. iv 45′–47′: Compare in the same text KUB 21.27+ iv 18′–22′ and iv 33′–35′.

The four prayer passages presented above are all structured in the same way. They each cover exactly one paragraph, except for the passage from the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381), which is divided into two paragraphs.406 Their structures can be summarised as follows. § 1 Statement – ‘I, (PN,) perform a prayer (arkuwar) …’ 2 Requests 3 Proverbial section a. Introduction of the proverb / § b. Citation of the proverb c. Application of the proverb to the situation of the supplicant and the addressee d. (Additional argument) 4 Requests (and wish(es)) 5 (Promise) § The cited proverb (3b) is preceded by an introduction (3a) and followed by an application of the proverb (3c). These three elements together form the ‘proverbial section’ (3). The proverbial allusion in Puduḫepa’s prayer forms the entire proverbial section.

406

Unlike CTH 381 A (KUB 6.45+), the duplicate B (KUB 6.46) omits the horizontal ruling at the end of the passage. The first sentence of the following section even begins in the same line as the final sentence of this passage (KUB 6.46 iv 13).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

127

The proverbial section is framed by requests (2 and 4). Only in the prayers of Muršili II and Muwatalli II the passage ends with a promise (5). Each passage, except the one with the proverbial allusion, begins with a statement concerning the performance of a prayer/plea (arkuwar) (1). The paragraph containing the proverbial allusion deviates most from this schema for which there are two possible explanations: firstly, the passage contains an allusion to a proverb and does not cite the actual proverb, and secondly, the proverbial passage with the allusion is incorporated in an existing prayer for intercession. The discussion below focuses primarily on the passages containing a proverb, though the similarities with the passage with the proverbial allusion will also be addressed. A comparative overview of the structures of the separate prayer passages is presented in Table 17 (p. 133). In that table and in the discussion below the numbers in brackets refer to those of the schema above. 5.2.1 e Proverbial section The citation of the proverbs (3b) and their following applications (3c) have already been discussed above in Ch. 5.1. As mentioned, the proverbial allusion in Puduḫepa’s prayer is in itself the application to the situation of the supplicant. In the other passages, such an application or explanation of the proverb follows immediately after its citation. In the two passages from Puduḫepa’s prayer an additional argument (3d) is inserted after the argument made by the proverb and the proverbial allusion, see Ch. 5.1.4. This is considered part of the proverbial section (3), because it has the same function within the discourse as the proverb with its application, with which it is grouped together. Strictly speaking, it is, however, a separate argument. In Puduḫepa’s address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna in CTH 384 and in the ‘Second’ plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2), the citations of the proverbs are introduced (3a). In CTH 378.2 it is partly broken off, but it can be restored on the basis of another introduction of a proverb earlier in the prayer. Here the proverb is introduced as something that is common or true at any time.407 The reference to the addressee in dative-locative case (=a) – remarkably in the singular – indicates that what follows applies to the addressee. In CTH 384 the proverb is introduced as something people always say, implying that it is well-known.408 This not only indicates that what follows is a proverb, but also explains why the proverb is quoted in direct speech. The proverb in the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) is not introduced. Instead, it is preceded by a horizontal ruling. It is tempting, though perhaps a bit speculative, to interpret this ruling as a non-verbal introduction of the proverb. Nonetheless, the paragraph divider does indicate a transition of some kind, as does the introduction of a proverb. In Puduḫepa’s address to the Storm-god of Zippalanda (CTH 384) containing the proverbial allusion there is no introduction of the proverb. This may be expected since no proverb is cited in this passage.

407 408

KUB 14.8 rev. 21′, cf. the comments on this line on p. 118. KUB 21.27+ ii 15, cf. p. 102.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

128

The Use and Function of Proverbs

The introduction, citation and application of the proverb form the core of the paragraphs under discussion. This ‘proverbial section’ (3) is the basis of the argument made by these passages. The introduction of the proverb indicates that what follows is a statement of general validity, i.e., a proverb. The application explains how the proverb relates to the supplicant, the addressee, and the situation in which they find themselves. The proverbial section can also consist solely of a proverbial allusion, which serves the same rhetorical function within the text. 5.2.2 Framing the Proverbial section The proverbial section (3) is surrounded by requests (2 and 4). In Puduḫepa’s address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 384) two identical requests frame the proverbial section. These requests use the same verb phrase as the proverb: kāri tiya- ‘to be merciful’.409 They also contain a direct address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna to ensure her attention. By using the same verb phrase as the proverb, Puduḫepa asks the Sun-goddess of Arinna to do what the proverb claims to be the rule, i.e., that she should be merciful (kāri tiya-) to Puduḫepa. This emphasises and strengthens the argument made by the proverb. The verb phrase kāri tiya- connects the entire passage. The repeated requests surround the proverb with its preceding introduction and its following application. They strengthen the proverb’s rhetoric and at the same time refer to the proverb itself. The first request preceding the proverbial section, is combined with a request to listen to Puduḫepa, i.e., a request for attention.410 The second request to be merciful to the supplicant is followed by more requests and wishes.411 The paragraph ends with a horizontal ruling. The proverbial allusion in Puduḫepa’s address to the Storm-god of Zippalanda is preceded by the same request (2) to be merciful to the supplicant, Puduḫepa.412 Here the verb phrase kāri tiya- makes the connection between the proverbial allusion and the proverb more explicit. By requesting what is dictated by the proverb alluded to, the request strengthens the argument made by the proverbial allusion, just as the identical requests that surround the proverb in the address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. The request to be merciful is preceded by two requests for intercession.413 The proverbial allusion and the additional argument are also followed by requests (4). These are again two requests for intercession separated by a request for the wellbeing of the beneficiary of the prayer, Ḫattušili III.414 These requests surrounding the proverb and the proverbial allusion concern the supplicant, Puduḫepa, and not Ḫattušili III for whose well-being she performs the prayer. The requests to be merciful (kāri tiya-), for attention, and for intercession are all requests for Puduḫepa. This is because the proverb applies to Puduḫepa and not to 409 410 411 412 413 414

KUB 21.27+ ii 14 and 19. On kāri tiya-, see the comments on KUB 21.27+ ii 14 on p. 122. KUB 21.27+ ii 14. KUB 21.27+ ii 20–37. KUB 21.27+ iv 35′. KUB 21.27+ iv 33′–35′. KUB 21.27+ iv 38′–47′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

129

Ḫattušili. Therefore, the surrounding requests also apply to her. Requests for the well-being of Ḫattušili, the beneficiary of the prayer, only follow afterwards: in the section addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna requests and wishes for Ḫattušili conclude the paragraph; in the address to the Storm-god of Zippalanda a request for Ḫattušili, introduced by a description of his good care for Nerik, occurs before the final request for intercession. These relate to the ultimate goal of the prayer, ascertaining the well-being of Ḫattušili. Therefore, for the text as a whole they are more important than those for the benefit of Puduḫepa. This is particularly true for the part addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Nonetheless the requests that precede and follow the proverbial sections are necessary to ensure the addressee’s willingness to grant those other more important requests. This is also why the passage containing the proverb precedes the requests for Ḫattušili’s well-being and long life. The passage containing the proverbial allusion addressed to the Storm-god of Zippalanda is in fact a prayer on its own. It is an intercessory prayer intended to support the longer, and more important, prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna written on the obverse of the tablet. Therefore, the primary requests are those for intercession, in which Puduḫepa asks to pass on the prayer for Ḫattušili’s well-being. The passage from the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) is also part of an intercessory prayer to the Storm-god of Lightning. The proverbial section is likewise framed by requests for intercession (2 and 4).415 The first two requests for intercession are followed by a wish not to allow the words of the prayer to turn against the supplicant.416 Immediately after the proverbial section and before the requests for intercession, there is a request to keep the supplicant, Muwatalli II, alive.417 It employs the verb ḫuišnu- ‘to keep alive, to let live’, a causative of the verb used in the preceding proverb ḫuiš- ‘to live’.418 Thus, also in CTH 381 the proverb is combined with a request that uses a similar verb phrase. As in CTH 384, this strengthens the argument made by the proverb and its application, because it asks the addressed deity to do that which he should do according to the proverb. A wish for attention419 and a promise (5) to praise the Storm-god of Lightning420 conclude the paragraph.421 The “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) cites the same proverb as the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381). Here a request to keep the supplicant alive, identical to the one in CTH 381, occurs immediately before the proverbial section.422 It is preceded by a request for attention.423 In this text the proverb and the request to

415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423

KUB 6.45+ iii 34–37, 42f. // KUB 6.46 iv 3–6, 11f. KUB 6.45+ iii 37–39 // KUB 6.46 iv 6–8. KUB 6.45+ iii 42 // KUB 6.46 iv 11. Note that the same proverb with the causative verb ḫuišnu- occurs in CTH 378.2, see Ch. 5.1.1. KUB 6.45+ iii 43 // KUB 6.46 iv 13. This wish for attention relates to the preceding request for intercession. KUB 6.45+ iii 44 // KUB 6.46 iv 13f. In CTH 381 B KUB 6.46 the paragraph does not end here, cf. p. 126, fn. 406. KUB 14.8 rev. 21′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 46′. KUB 14.8 rev. 21′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 45′f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

130

The Use and Function of Proverbs

keep the supplicant alive both employ the verb ḫuišnu- ‘to keep alive’. Interestingly, the request to keep the supplicant alive occurs here, just before the quotation of the proverb, for the first time in this prayer and it is repeated three more times towards the end of the text.424 The proverbial section is followed by a request (4) to reveal how much compensation still needs to be paid for the gods to end the plague in Ḫatti. This is introduced by a descriptive passage in which the supplicant complains that even though enough restitution has already been paid, the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods are still angry.425 A promise (5) to pay the necessary compensation concludes the paragraph. The proverbial sections are thus framed by requests (and wishes) in all four passages. This was done because the citation and application of the proverb together function as a strong argument to persuade, or perhaps even force, the addressee to favour the supplicant and grant his or her requests (see Ch. 5.1). The close proximity to the proverb probably increased the chance of the request to be granted. To ensure the addressees’ attention the requests can contain a direct address mentioning the addressed deity by name. Requests for attention are included for the same reason. It is remarkable that all four passages contain requests that use the same verb phrase as the cited proverb. As Table 17 shows, these requests always occur in close proximity to the proverb. They can either precede (CTH 378.2), or follow (CTH 381, CTH 384: proverbial allusion), or form a circular structure around (CTH 384) the proverbial section. Whatever position is adopted, they strengthen the argument made by the proverb and its application by asking for that what the proverb dictates. This implies that the composers carefully composed these prayer passages with the intention to emphasise the rhetorical power of citing a proverb as much as possible. 5.2.3 e Introductory Statement All paragraphs in which a proverb is cited are introduced by a statement (1) in which the supplicant states that he or she has made or is making an arkuwar ‘plea, prayer’. These are presented and analysed below. Such statements always mark the beginning of a new section of the prayer (cf. p. 77). The passage containing the proverbial allusion in CTH 384 does not begin with such a statement. Instead, it is introduced by a description of the addressee, the Storm-god of Zippalanda, which focuses on his relationship with his parents, the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the Storm-god. This forms the beginning of the rather short prayer to the Storm-god of Zippalanda. It merely consists of the passage with the proverbial allusion and a vow.426 Since the requests and the proverbial section follow the introduction immediately, no new section of the prayer begins here. Therefore, a statement marking the beginning of a new section is not necessary.

424 425 426

KUB 14.8 rev. 37′, rev. 45′, and KUB 14.10+ iv 21′. KUB 14.8 rev. 30′–36′ // KUB 14.11+ iv 1′f. KUB 21.27+ iv 48′–l.e. 4. There may have been a fifth line of text on the left edge.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Strengthening the Argument

131

CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 20′:427 20′ nu-za ka-a-ša A-NA dIŠKUR EN-IA ḫi-i[(n-g)]a-ni še-er ar-ku-u-wa-ar e-eš-šaaḫ-ḫ[i] Herewith, I perform a prayer to the Storm-god, my lord, because of the plague. CTH 381, KUB 6.45+ iii 32–33:428 32 [k]i-nu-na am-mu-uk mNIR.GÁL LUGAL-uš tu-e-da-az 33 [IŠ]-TU d10 pí-ḫa-aš-ša-aš-ši šal-la-nu-wa-an-za ar-ku-ú-e-eš-ki-mi Now, I, Muwatalli, the king, raised by you, O Storm-god of Lightning, am continually praying. CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ ii 11–13: 11 nu-za ki-i ut-tar A-NA dUTU URUTÚL-na GAŠAN-IA 12 GAŠAN KUR.KURMEŠ URUḪAT-TI MUNUS.LUGAL ŠA-ME-E Ù ER-ṢE-TIM 13 am-mu-uk fpu-du-ḫé-pa-aš GÉME-KA ar-ku-wa-ar i-ia-nu-un This matter, to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, lady of the lands of Ḫatti, queen of heaven and earth, I, Puduḫepa, your servant, made into a prayer. The three statements are each preceded by a horizontal ruling. They contain a direct address to secure the addressee’s attention and are formulated in the first person singular. In the prayers of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) and Puduḫepa (CTH 384) more emphasis is given to the supplicant by adding the personal pronoun of the first person ammuk and the supplicant’s name. The divine epithets ‘my lord’ in CTH 378.2 and ‘my lady’ in CTH 384, as well as the designation of Puduḫepa as ‘your servant’ in CTH 384, emphasise that the addressee is hierarchically superior to the supplicant. In CTH 381 the relationship seems more personal or intimate, since Muwatalli II is referred to as having been raised by the Storm-god of Lightning. Different verb phrases and grammatical constructions are used in each statement, but the three verb phrases =za arkuwar iya-, =za arkuwar ēšša-, and arkuwai- all have the same basic meaning, ‘to make an arkuwar’ or ‘to make a plea’.429 The reason for the arkuwar ‘prayer’, ‘plea’ is made explicit only in the prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2), ‘because of the plague’. In Puduḫepa’s prayer (CTH 384) it is referred to as kī uar ‘this matter’. The ‘making of the arkuwar’ refers to the performance of the prayer or a part thereof. By pronouncing the statement, the supplicant says what he or she is doing at that very moment. In other words, the moment of speaking and of performing the action described are simultaneous. This is emphasised by kāša ‘here-

427 428 429

For variants in the duplicate KUB 14.11+ iii 44′–45′, see p. 116. Duplicate: KUB 6.46 iv 1–2. On arkuwar and arkuwai- see pp. 32f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

132

The Use and Function of Proverbs

with’430 in CTH 378.2 and by kinuna ‘now’ in CTH 381. In CTH 384 there is no such adverb indicating temporal proximity, so the moment of speaking and performing the action described might not be simultaneous in this case. In CTH 378.2 and CTH 381 arkuwar refers to the pronounced statement itself and probably also to the section which it introduces. It may also refer to other parts of the prayer, including those preceding the statement, or even to the prayer as a whole. On the other hand, in the prayer of Puduḫepa it seems to refer to the text preceding the statement. This is indicated by the use of the preterite tense, the lack of an adverb of temporal proximity, and the use of kī uar ‘this matter’, which in the phrase =za kī uar … arkuwar iyanun ‘I made this matter into a prayer’ seems to refer back to all the issues discussed up to that point in the prayer.431 5.2.4 Concluding Remarks The discussed paragraphs are all structured in a remarkably similar way, see Table 17. After the new section of the prayer is introduced by stating what the supplicant is doing (1), i.e., performing a prayer, we find requests (2), followed by the proverbial section (3), and finally more requests (4). If a promise (5) is made it occurs at the end of the paragraph. The proverb is not merely cited (3b). It is introduced (3a) and how it applies to the current situation of the supplicant and addressee is mentioned explicitly (3c). In this way it is explained why the social norm expressed by the proverb must be obeyed by the addressee(s). The composers of these texts carefully considered how to structure these passages in such a way that the argument made by the proverb would come across as strongly as possible. In each passage, the argument is strengthened by requests that use the same verb as the cited proverb. These requests ask exactly that what the proverb dictates. They can either precede or follow the proverb or, as in Puduḫepa’s prayer, surround it to form a circular structure. Both proverbs and discourse structure can thus be employed in prayers as a rhetorical strategy to persuade the addressed deity to help the supplicant. The truth or advice that these proverbs proclaim should apparently be honoured by the gods. Nonetheless, to avoid any misunderstanding it was deemed necessary to explain how the proverb applied to the situation of the supplicant and the addressee(s).

430 431

Cf. p. 78 incl. fn. 260. The preceding part of the prayer contains descriptions of Ḫattušili III’s good behaviour towards the city of Nerik and his nephew and predecessor Urḫi-Teššub, which is contrasted by bad behaviour towards Nerik by previous kings. More issues may have been addressed in the parts that are now lost. Just before the paragraph under discussion begins, we seem to find promises made to the gods.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

5

4

3

2

1

ḫuišnu-

waštul tarna-

Compensation

Confession

Description = Introduction Request + Promise

Promise

§ ḫuiš-

Disallow evil

Intercession

Promise

Wish

Request

Request

Praise

Attention

Intercession

ḫuišnu-

Application Proverb

Proverb

Wish

Request

Intercession

Request Attention

kāri tiya-

kāri tiya-

for Beneficiary for Beneficiary

Request Wish

Intercession

Wish

fragmentary

Intercession

Request

fragmentary

for Supplicant

kāri tiya-

Request Request

Compensation

Additional Argument

Application Proverb

Proverb

Introduction Proverb

Request

Request

=za arkuwai iya-

KUB 21.27+ ii 11–37 Statement

KUB 21.27+ iv 28′–47′

kāri tiya-

Intercession

Intercession

Request

Request

Description = Introduction Request

Request

Additional Argument

Intercession

for Beneficiary

Beneficiary

Intercession

Compensation

Proverbial Allusion = Application Proverb

Request

Request

Request

Direct Address + Description

CTH 384

Table 17. Parallel structures of passages with a proverb as explicit argument.

Compensation

Compensation

waštul tarna-

Request

=za arkuwar iya-

Explanation 2

ḫuišnu-

Explanation 1

Proverb

Introduction Proverb

Request

Attention

Request

arkuwai-

Statement

KUB 6.45+ iii 32–44

=za arkuwar ešša-

KUB 14.8 rev. 20′–36′

Statement

CTH 381

CTH 378.2

Strengthening the Argument

133

134

The Use and Function of Proverbs

5.3 CONFESSION The “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) contains one more proverb. It occurs in the passage immediately preceding the one containing the proverb of the bird treated above. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 13′:432 13′ ŠA A-BU-ŠU-kán wa-aš-túl A-NA DUMU-ŠÚ ⸢a⸣-ri → The sin of the father (lit. his father) comes upon his son.433 The meaning of the proverb is clear: a son is responsible for any sin or transgression (waštul) committed by his father.434 This may only have been valid after the father had passed away, as is the case here for Muršili II. Unlike the proverbs discussed above, it does not function as an explicit argument. Instead, it is part of an elaborate confession. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 10′–19′435 Transliteration SUBSECTION A Direct Address 10′ dIŠKUR436 URUḪA-A[(T-TI BE-LÍ-IA437 DINGIRMEŠ BE)]-LUMEŠ-IA → Introduction Proverb-like Statement of general validity 10′ ki-ik-ki-iš-ta-a-r[(i438 QA-TAM-M)]A → Proverb-like Statement of general validity 10′ wa-aš-te-eš-kán-zi Application Proverb-like Statement of general validity = Confession father 11′ nu A-BU-IA-i[(a wa-aš-t)]a-⸢aš nu-kán⸣ [(Š)]A dIŠKUR URUḪA-AT-TI EN-I[A (mem)]i-ia-an439 za-a-i-iš440 Negative Confession 12′ am-mu-uk-ma ⸢Ú-UL⸣ ku-it-⸢ki⸣ [(wa)]-aš-da-aḫ-⸢ḫu-un⸣441 → 432 433 434

435 436 437 438 439 440 441

Duplicates: KUB 14.11+ iii 30′ and KUB 14.10+ iii 33′f. Beckman 1997b: 215 (no. 5), HW2 A 212b. This proverb is often compared to the Old Testament Ezekiel 18:2 ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’, see e.g., Beckman 1997b: 215 and Singer 2005: 561– 62 (with further references in fn. 13). Duplicates: B KUB 14.11 + KBo 55.25 iii 25′–43′ and C KUB 14.10+ iii 28′–46′. B KUB 14.11+ iii 25′: d10. B KUB 14.11+ iii 25′: C KUB 14.10+ rev.iii 28′: EN-⸢IA⸣. B KUB 14.11+ iii 26′: ki-ik-ki-iš-ta-ri. B KUB 14.11+ iii 28′: me-mi-an. B KUB 14.11+ iii 28′: za-a-iš. B KUB 14.11+ iii 29′: wa-aš-ta-aḫ-ḫu-un.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Confession

135

The passage containing this proverb, KUB 14.8 rev. 10′–19′, is analysed below on the micro-level of the text unit. The analysis shows that also here the proverb and the discourse structure both have a rhetorical function. In this case they both give extra weight to a confession. The passage is edited below with indication of the different text units.

Translation SUBSECTION A Direct Address 10′ O Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord! O Gods of Ḫatti, my lords! Introduction Proverb-like Statement of general validity 10′ As it happens constantly (that)442 Proverb-like Statement of general validity 10′ people always sin, Application Proverb-like Statement of general validity = Confession father 11′ also my father has sinned; he has transgressed the word of the Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord. Negative Confession 12′ But I have not committed any sin.

442

Literally: ‘The following happens constantly’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

136

The Use and Function of Proverbs

SUBSECTION B Introduction Proverb 12′ nu ki-ik-ki-i[(š-t)a]-a-⸢ri⸣ QA-TAM-MA Proverb 13′ ŠA A-BU-ŠU-kán wa-aš-túl A-NA DUMU-ŠÚ443 ⸢a⸣-ri → Application Proverb to Situation Supplicant 13′f. n[(u-ká)]n am-mu-uk-ka4 Š[(A)] A-BI-IA wa-aš-túl / a-ar-aš → Confession – Supplicant 14′f. na-at-za-kán ka-a-ša A-NA d10 URU⸢ḪA⸣-A[T-T]I EN-IA Ù444 ⸢A⸣-[(N)]A DINGIRMEŠ BE-LUMEŠ-IA / pé-ra-an ⸢tar⸣-na-an ⸢ḫar⸣-mi e-eš-zi-ia-at ⸢i⸣-[(i)]a-u-e-na-at → SUBSECTION C Wish – Appeasement 15′–17′ [(nu-za)]-kán ŠA A-BI-IA ku-it wa-aš-túl / ⸢tar⸣-na-an ⸢ḫar⸣-mi nu A-⸢NA⸣ d10 URU ḪA-AT-TI EN-IA ⸢Ù A⸣-NA DINGIRMEŠ BE-LUMEŠ-IA ZI-an-za / nam-ma wa-ar-šiia-ad-du → Request – Support 17′ nu-mu ge-en-zu nam-ma da-a-at-tén445 → Request – Remove evil 17′f. nu-kán IŠ-TU KUR URUḪA-AT-TI / ⸢ḫi⸣-in-kán446 ar-ḫa nam-ma u-i-ia-at-tén → Request – Disallow evil 18′f. nu-kán ke-e-uš447 ku-i-e-eš LÚ.MEŠNINDA.GUR4.RA-uš448 / LÚ.MEŠiš-pa-an-tu-uz-ziia-⸢li⸣-uš449 te-e-pa-u-e-eš a-aš-ša-an-te-eš450 na-at-m[u451 (le-e ak-ka)]-an-zi452 Comments rev. 11′: García Trabazo (2002: 322) reads A-BU-IA instead of A-BU-IA-i[a]. rev. 16′f.: The translation of ZI-anza … warš- ‘to lift the spirit, to reconcile’ follows Kloekhorst 2008: 969f. rev. 19′: The reading [(ak-ka)]-an-zi with -an- rather than kán, which we find in B (KUB 14.11+ iii 43′), is based on the copy. Except for Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 378.2), none of the editions mention that A has a different spelling than B.

443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452

B KUB 14.11+ iii 30′: DUMU-ŠU. B KUB 14.11+ iii 33′ omits. B KUB 14.11+ iii 39′: da-at-tén. B KUB 14.11+ iii 40′: ḫi-in-⸢ga⸣-[ni. B KUB 14.11+ iii 41′: ku-u-uš. B KUB 14.11+ iii 41′: LÚMEŠ NÍG.SI.⸢SÁ⸣. B KUB 14.11+ iii 42′: LÚ.MEŠiš-pa-an-tu!-zi-ia-le-e-eš. B KUB 14.11+ iii 43′: ⸢a⸣-ša-an-te-eš. B KUB 14.11+ iii 43′: na-at. B KUB 14.11+ iii 43′: ak-kán-zi.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Confession

137

SUBSECTION B Introduction Proverb 12′ As it happens constantly (that)453 Proverb 13′ the sin of the father comes upon his son. Application Proverb to situation Supplicant 13′f. The sin of my father came upon me too. Confession – Supplicant 14′f. Herewith, I have confessed it to the Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord, and to the gods, my lords. It is (so), we have done it! SUBSECTION C Wish – Appeasement 15′–17′ Because I have confessed the offence of my father, may the spirit of the Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord, and of the gods, my lords, be lifted again. Request – Support 17′ Take pity on me again! Request – remove evil 17′f. Send the plague away again out of Ḫatti! Request – disallow evil 18′f. Those few sacrificers of bread and wine who are remaining, do not let them die on me! 5.3.1 e Proverb with its Introduction and Application The other proverbs in prayers were part of a proverbial section (3) consisting of an introduction (3a), citation (3b), and application (3c) of the proverb. The prayer passage under discussion, KUB 14.8 rev. 10′–19′ (CTH 378.2), also contains a proverbial section with the same structure: introduction, citation of the proverb, and its application to the situation of the supplicant. The proverb is introduced as something that always happens, i.e., as something that is common or a general truth,454 which warrants the interpretation as a proverb. It is probably identical to the introduction of the proverb concerning the bird that occurs further on in the same text.455 The proverb’s constituents are a ‘transgression’ or ‘sin’ (waštul), a ‘father’ (ABU), and a ‘son’ (DUMU). The relationship between them is one in which the transgression of the father ‘comes upon’ (ar- with dat.-loc.)456 the son. As in the proverbial sections discussed in Ch. 5.1.3, the proverb is followed by its application in which the constituents of the proverb are identified with specific individuals. But unlike in the other 453 454 455 456

Literally: ‘The following happens constantly’. KUB 14.8 rev. 12′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 30′ // KUB 14.10+ iii 33′f. KUB 14.8 rev. 21′, see p. cf. p. 116. Kloekhorst 2008: 196, HW2 A 208–19, Puhvel HED 1/2: 108–11.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

138

The Use and Function of Proverbs

applications of proverbs, the addressee of the prayer is not equated with any of the proverb’s constituents. The proverb, therefore, does not define a relationship between the supplicant and the addressed deity. Instead, the proverb is only applied to the situation of the supplicant, Muršili II. He is identified as the proverbial ‘son’ and his father, Šuppiluliuma I, as the proverbial ‘father’. This is emphasised by the use of the personal pronoun ammuk ‘I’ and the attached conjunction =ya, which has an additive function ‘also, too’.457 An overview of the identifications is presented in Table 18. Constituents and their relationships

Proverb

Constituent 1

Sin (waštul) of the father

Constituent 2 Transfer (constituent 1 transfers to constituent 2)

Son

Transgression (waštul) of the supplicant’s father (ŠA ABI=IA) Supplicant (Muršili II)

ar- ‘to come upon’

ar- ‘to come upon’

CTH 378.2 Application

Table 18. Identification of the constituents of the proverb with the sin (waštul).

By stating that his father’s wrongdoing came upon him, Muršili acknowledges that he is culpable for the transgressions committed by his father.458 The explicit application of the proverb, moreover, eliminates any possible misunderstandings of what is meant by the proverb. The proverb and its application have a parallel formulation, see Table 19. They both employ the verb ar- ‘to come (to), to arrive (at)’ with a dative-locative, albeit in a different tense: the proverb uses the present tense, and the application the preterite. Proverbs are statements of general validity that express timeless truths. In Hittite, such statements are always formulated in the present tense.459 In the application the 457

458

459

On this function of =a/=ya, see Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 401 (§29.43 and §29.45). Compare the application of the proverb in KUB 21.27+ ii 17 where =ya is used in the same way (see p. 110). Possibly we may also restore =ya at the beginning of KUB 6.45+ iii 41 instead of =ma, which is written in the duplicate KUB 6.46 iv 10: am-mu-uk-ma-kán (cf. p. 107). The lack of =ya in the application of the proverb with the bird in CTH 378.2 can be explained by the fact that it is not a direct but an indirect application, consisting of two explanatory passages and a confession. Compare in the “First” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.1) KUB 14.14 rev. 23′f.: ki-nu-na-ia-atkán ku-it am-mu-u[k] / a-ar-aš → ‘Because it now came upon me too, …’, see CHD Š 284b, Tischler HEG 2 922 (N.B. as obv.!). This clause is parallel to the application of the proverb in CTH 378.2. The transgression is only referred to by the anaphoric pronoun =at. With this clause Muršili II acknowledges that he is culpable for another transgression committed by his father, Šuppiluliuma I: the murder of Tudḫaliya the Younger. Hence, it may be considered as an allusion to the proverb under discussion here. See p. 102 incl. fn. 340.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

139

Confession

dative-locative ammuk ‘I’ occurs at the beginning of the sentence to emphasise that it is the supplicant who takes responsibility for the transgression (waštul). By contrast, in the proverb the dative-locative follows after the nominative instead. This creates a chiastic construction, which serves a stylistic purpose. Proverb, KUB 14.8 rev. 13′ ŠA A-BU-ŠU-kán

wa-aš-túl

GEN=3SG.POSS=PTC

NOM

A-NA DUMU-ŠÚ DAT-LOC=3SG.POSS

⸢a⸣-ri 3SG.PRS.ACT

Application, KUB 14.8 rev. 14′ n[(u-ká)]n CONJ=PTC

am-mu-uk-ka4 DAT-LOC=CONJ

Š[(A)] A-BI-IA

wa-aš-túl

GEN=1SG.POSS

NOM

a-ar-aš 3SG.PRT.ACT

Table 19. Parallel formulation of the proverb and application in CTH 378.2.

The primary difference with the passages discussed in Chs. 5.1–5.2 is that the application of the proverb ‘the sin of the father comes upon his son’ does not concern the addressee in any way. This is because unlike the other proverbs, this one does not function as an explicit argument. It is because of the identification of one constituent with the supplicant and another with the addressee that the other proverbs dictate a relationship between the supplicant and addressee in which the latter needs to support and help the former. As a result, the proverb functions as an explicit argument. In contrast, the proverb under discussion here is only applied to the situation of the supplicant. The addressee is not identified with any of its constituents. Therefore, it only dictates that the supplicant, Muršili, is accountable for his father’s misdeeds and it does not function as an explicit argument within the prayer. Instead, the proverbial section introduces and strengthens a confession. This confession does function as an argument. By citing the proverb and applying it to his own situation, Muršili accepts responsibility for his father’s transgressions because this is the way it should be. In this way Muršili reminds the addressed deities that he adheres to the generally accepted social rules. He expects the same in return. In the following paragraph he asks the addressed deities to obey the social norm dictated by another proverb.460 5.3.2 Structuring a Powerful Confession The paragraph in which the proverb, ‘the sin of the father comes upon his son’, is cited clearly forms a separate section of the prayer. It is separated from the remainder of the text by horizontal rulings. Moreover, the beginning of the section is explicitly marked by a direct address to the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods.461 The entire pas-

460 461

KUB 14.8 rev. 20′–36′, see Ch. 5.1 and Ch. 5.2. KUB 14.8 rev. 10′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 25′ // KUB 14.10+ iii 28′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

140

The Use and Function of Proverbs

sage has been carefully structured in such a way that the rhetoric of the confession is as powerful as possible so the gods will grant the supplicant’s requests. It consists of three subsections: A, B, and C, see Table 20. Subsection B consists of the proverbial section and a confession that follows immediately. This is followed by a wish and three requests (C), which end the paragraph.462 Unlike when a proverb is used as an explicit argument, the proverbial section is not preceded by requests. Instead, we find a passage (A) with the same structure as the proverbial section (B). It consists of a negative confession which is introduced by a proverb-like statement of general validity with introdction and application to the situation of the supplicant’s father.463 Subsection

Text units

§ Introduction

Direct Address

Subsection A

Introduction Negative Confession ≈ Proverbial section

Introduction Proverb-like Statement of general validity Proverb-like Statement of general validity Application Proverb-like Statement of general validity = Confession father

Negative Confession

Subsection B

Subsection C

Introduction Confession = Proverbial section Confession Wish Request Request Request

Introduction Proverb Proverb Application Proverb

– Appeasement – Support – Remove evil – Disallow evil

§ Table 20. Structure KUB 14.8 rev. 10′–19′ (CTH 378.2).

The proverbial section in which Muršili accepts his culpability for transgressions committed by his father introduces a confession of such a misdeed committed by his father. The formulaic confession consists of three clauses: the actual confession in the form of a statement followed by two short clauses that confirm it. The confession

462 463

KUB 14.8 rev. 15′–19′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 38′–43′ // KUB 14.10+ iii 43′–46′. KUB 14.8 rev. 10′–12′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 26′–29′ // KUB 14.10+ iii 29′–32′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Confession

141

uses the verb tarna- ‘to let go, to allow, to leave (something)’464 in a periphrastic perfect construction. The use of the adverb kāša ‘herewith’ indicates that the moment of speaking and the described act occur simultaneously and are one and the same. Obviously, by stating that he confesses an offence, Muršili is doing exactly that: confessing. The transgression is referred to by the enclitic anaphoric pronoun =at (nom.acc.n). It is explicitly stated that it is not Muršili II’s offence but his father’s. The transgression, the violation of a treaty, is described in more detail earlier in the prayer.465 In the clauses that confirm the confession, the subject switches from the first person singular to the first person plural. This suggests that we are dealing with a communal confession, i.e., the king did not perform the prayer on his own.466 After the confession the addressed deities are asked to be appeased because of the confession.467 The subordinate clause establishes a causal relationship between the confession and the expected appeasement of the gods. Moreover, it uses similar formulations as the preceding confession: it states explicitly that the father of Muršili II committed the transgression and it uses the verb tarna- ‘to let go, to allow, to leave (something)’ in a periphrastic perfect construction. These similarities emphasise the close connection between the confession and the following wish. Acknowledging an offence is thus identified as a reason for the gods to ease their anger. It is a rhetorical strategy intended to appease the gods and to persuade them to favour the supplicant. The proverbial section introduces the confession, gives it an extra dimension, and makes it more elaborate. More words and time are dedicated to acknowledging the offences. It thus supports, emphasises, and strengthens the argument made by the confession.

464 465

466 467

Kloekhorst 2008: 846, Tischler HEG 3: 192–97. For the expression waštul tarna- ‘to confess an offence’, see Tischler HEG 3: 194. According to the prayer, Muršili II learned about his father’s transgression from an ‘old tablet’. Šuppiluliuma I violated a treaty with Egypt by attacking the land of Amqa which was in Egyptian territory. This frightened the Egyptians – according to the prayer-text – and the Egyptians asked Šuppiluliuma for a son to become the pharao of Egypt. When Šuppiluliuma gave the Egyptians one of his sons, they murdered him on his way to Egypt. As a response Šuppiluliuma again attacked Egypt, and again he was victorious. The prisoners of war who were deported to Ḫatti were the first to fall ill and so they were the ones who brought the plague into Ḫatti (KUB 14.8 obv. 13′–31′ with dupl.). It was established through oracular inquiry that this transgression of the treaty by Muršili’s father Šuppululiuma was one of the causes for the anger of the Storm-god of Ḫatti, which in turn caused the plague (KUB 14.8 obv. 32′–38′ with dupl.). The so-called Zananza affair, named after the Hittite prince who was sent to Egypt on request of the Egyptian queen and its aftermath, is also known from other sources. Most information on this affair can be found in the ‘seventh tablet’ of the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma (CTH 40), which was composed by or on behalf of Muršili II. For an edition, see Güterbock 1956: 90–98, and more recently Del Monte 2009: 83–125. For a recent German translation of a part of the text, see Klinger 2005c. Thus far only one letter from the Egyptian queen to Šuppiluliuma I concerning this matter has come down to us in a fragmentary state: KBo 26.51, for which see Edel 1994: no. 1. Cf. Bryce 2005: 178–83. For other indications that multiple people were involved in the performance, see Ch. 8.3.4. KUB 14.8 rev. 15′–17′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 35′–38′ // KUB 14.10+ iii 39′–42′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

142

The Use and Function of Proverbs

Subsections A and B do not only have the same structure, they also share some phraseology, and they both concern confessing offences. They each begin with the same clause introducing what follows as something that is common or true.468 In B it introduces the proverb. In A it introduces a proverb-like statement of general validity. The statement is rather short, consisting of the single word wašteškanzi ‘people always sin’.469 Proverbs are by definition statements of general validity and, although it is usually not recognised as such, wašteškanzi ‘people always sin’ may very well be a proverb or a proverbial allusion. In particular the parallel structure of subsections A and B and the identical introductions of the proverb in B and the statement of general validity in A support this. In any case, the expression expresses a general truth. Even today it is often said that people make mistakes. Compare for instance the modern English proverb ‘to err is human, to forgive divine’. The proverb-like statement has one constituent: the unspecified third person plural subject of the verb, translated here as ‘people’. They are said to be sinful, i.e., to be committing transgressions regularly. In the following application they are identified with ‘my father’ (ABU=IA), i.e., the supplicant’s father, Šuppiluliuma I.470 It uses the same verb, wašta- ‘to sin, to offend, to commit offences’, as the statement. As in the direct applications of proverbs, also here the conjunction =ya is attached to ‘my father’ to emphasise that the preceding statement applies to him.471 The proverb-like statement of general validity is not applied to any of the actors of the prayer, but to the father of the supplicant, see Table 21. The application has the form of a confession that the supplicant’s father has committed a transgression. A second sentence describes this transgression as the breach of a treaty.472 Constituents and their relationships

CTH 378.2 Proverb-like Statement of general validity

Application

Constituent 1

People

Supplicant’s father (ABI=IA)

Action: (by constituent 1)

wašta- ‘to sin’, ‘to commit offences’

wašta- ‘to sin’, ‘to commit offences’

Table 21. Identification of the constituents of the proverb-like statement.

The proverb-like statement of general validity with its introduction and application introduces a negative confession in which the supplicant, Muršili II, denies having

468 469 470 471 472

KUB 14.8 rev. 10′ (A) and rev. 12′ (B) with duplicates. The lack of a conjunction nu in rev. 10′ might suggest that the preceding direct address is part of this sentence. KUB 14.8 rev. 10′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 26′. wašteškanzi is a 3pl.prs.impf.act of wašta- ‘to sin, to offend’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 985). KUB 14.8 rev. 11′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 27′f. // KUB 14.10+ iii 30′–31′. See p. 138, fn. 457. KUB 14.8 rev. 11′, cf. p. 141, fn. 465.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Findings

143

committed any misdeed.473 Again we find the verb wašta- ‘to sin, to offend, to commit offences’. The personal pronoun ammuk ‘I’ emphasises that it is Muršili who did not do anything wrong. The attached conjunction =ma contrasts this denial of guilt from the preceding clauses in which Muršili acknowledges that his father did commit an offence. The two structurally parallel subsections A and B follow each other immediately. They are followed by a wish and three requests in subsection C. It begins with the wish for the gods to be appeased, which refers to the confession, followed by a request for support, a request to abolish the plague in Ḫatti, and finally a request not to let the people who prepare the offerings for the gods die. A horizontal ruling marks the end of the paragraph. The following paragraph contains the proverb about the bird retreating into its cage, which is discussed in detail in Chs. 5.1–5.2 above. The argument made by the confession is emphasised by the parallelism between subsections A and B. Both contain a confession of the transgression committed by the supplicant’s father. However, in A the confession is not the primary message that is conveyed. Rather, this negative confession, emphasising the innocence of the supplicant, Muršili II, stands in contrast to the positive confession in B, in which the supplicant takes responsibility for his father’s misdeeds. This contrast of positive and negative emphasises the positive, i.e., the noble deed of the supplicant that consists in confessing his father’s transgression and assuming responsibility for it. The repetitive structure highlights the contrast. Subsection A thus supports and strengthens the confession made in B through the use of two rhetorical strategies: contrast and repetition of structure. Together A and B form an elaborate confession that functions as an argument within the prayer. The supplicant not only stresses that he is willing to take responsibility, but he also emphasises his own innocence in the matter. After this powerful argument the supplicant can direct his requests to the gods (C), since he expects that they will heed his plea.

5.4 FINDINGS Proverbs can be cited in prayers either as an explicit argument to persuade the divine addressee(s) to favour the supplicant and grant the presented requests, or to support such an argument. Proverbs are well suited for both usages since they state a general and unquestionable truth. The proverbs are structurally incorporated into the prayer in a standardised pattern. A statement (CTH 378.2 [2], CTH 381, CTH 384) or a direct address (CTH 378.2 [1]) indicates that a new section of the prayer begins. The proverbial passage consists of an introduction of the proverb, followed by its citation and application. The application can be direct (CTH 378.2 [1], CTH 381, CTH 384) or indirect (CTH 378.2 [2]), and can consist of multiple sentences (CTH 378.2 [1 and 2]). It prevents any possible misunderstandings of the intended meaning of the proverb.

473

KUB 14.8 rev. 12′ // KUB 14.11+ iii 28′f. // KUB 14.10+ iii 32′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

144

The Use and Function of Proverbs

The proverbial section is always followed by requests and wishes. If the passage contains a promise, it is positioned at the end of the paragraph. The argumentative proverbs are also preceded by requests. In addition, they are accompanied by one or more requests that use the same verb as the proverb. By asking what the proverb dictates, they urge the addressed deity to behave in accordance to the proverb. The proverb used in the introduction of a confession is preceded by a passage that is parallel to the proverbial section with its following confession. This passage also contains a statement of general validity which may be a proverb or proverbial allusion. It ends with a negative confession, whereas the second passage with the proverb ends with a positive confession. The repetitive structure and the use of contrast strengthen the power of the confession. The structures of the paragraphs in which a proverb is cited strengthen the arguments made by the proverbs and the confession. In particular the requests which ask for that what the proverb dictates and the structurally parallel passages, in which a negative confession is contrasted with a positive one, appear to be powerful rhetorical strategies. The attention of the addressees is drawn at the beginning of each paragraph by a direct address or a statement containing a direct address. Multiple direct addresses throughout the paragraphs maintain the addressees’ attention. The composers of these prayers carefully considered how to structure these passages in a way to ensure the arguments would come across as strongly as possible. They clearly considered these passages as separate sections of the prayer, since they separated them from the rest of the prayer by horizontal rulings and they marked the beginning with a direct address or a statement. They each cover one paragraph; only in the Model prayer of Muwatalli (CTH 381) is the relevant passage divided into two paragraphs. The paragraph divider is made just before the citation of the proverb, and one could interpret the ruling as a non-verbal introduction to the proverb. No chronological development is apparent in the way proverbs are used and structurally incorporated in prayers. The proverbial section in the Model prayer of Muwatalli (CTH 381) is the simplest one. Perhaps this is because this model prayer was not composed for one specific situation. The composer may have used the older “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) in which the same proverb is cited as a source. CTH 378.2 is the oldest of the three prayers and the integration of the proverbs in the prayer seems compositionally the most advanced. Two, or possibly three, proverbs are cited in the text. The first passage, in which a proverb is used to support and strengthen a confession, also employs repetition and contrast for the same purpose. The following paragraph cites the proverb concerning the bird. Its elaborate application is cleverly composed and functions as an explicit argument. It consists of two explanatory narratives and a confession. Both passages show an elegant style and ingenious structure. Perhaps, one may consider the circular structure in which the proverbial section is preceded and followed by a request asking for that what the proverb dictates, in the prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384) as a later development.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

6. THE PRAYER FOR MURŠILI II TO THE SUN-GODDESS OF ARINNA AND RELATED PRAYERS The case study presented in this and the following chapters concerns the creation of new prayers by reusing older texts of the same genre while retaining a rhetorically sound structure. The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, referred to as CTH 376.II in the present study,474 forms the basis of this case study. Parallels suggest that the complete wording of at least two separate prayers was combined to create this prayer. CTH 376.II thus provides a unique opportunity to examine how existing prayers could be reused and combined with other material to compose a new prayer and how the structure and rhetorical strategies are adapted to a new context. To shed light on these issues, a careful analysis of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, its textual history, and its relationships to other prayers is conducted in this chapter and those following. Ch. 6.1 gives an introduction to CTH 376.II and its closely related prayers. This includes a discussion of the relative chronology of these texts and their main manuscripts in Ch. 6.2. The overall structure of CTH 376.II is treated in Ch. 6.3. Ch. 6.4 presents an overview of the parallels to the closely related prayers. A more detailed analysis of these parallels and their implications for the textual history of the separate prayers is presented in Chs. 7–8. The findings are presented in Ch. 9. Editions of the prayers under discussion with indication of their structure can be found in Appendices II–V.

6.1 A GROUP OF CLOSELY RELATED PRAYERS Three Hittite prayers are parallel to substantial parts of CTH 376.II, see Table 22. They have already been recognised as a coherent group since the early days of Hittitology.475 The MH Prayer against plague and enemies (listed here as CTH 376.I) and

474 475

On the CTH numbering of this text and its related prayers KUB 24.4+ (CTH 376.I) and KUB 30.13(+) (CTH 376.III), see p. 314, fn. 989. Already by Ehelolf 1928. Gurney (1940) was the first to make an edition of these prayers. He recognised that KUB 24.1 and KUB 24.2 were duplicates of each other and that KUB 24.3 and KUB 24.4 each contained a different composition. Even though he knew the four tablets belonged to three separate texts, he made a combined edition of the three prayers because he considered them to be ‘so closely related that a separate edition of each would be superfluous’ (Gurney 1940: 8), cf. p. 5. Gurney used the fragment 2156/g (= KUB 30.13) as a duplicate of KUB 24.3+ ii 10–23 (CTH 376.II), but thanks to a non-physical join to KBo 12.132 and VBoT 121 (Torri 2010), it has become clear that the fragment belongs to a different prayer, i.e., CTH 376.III, which parallels KUB 24.4+ and a part of KUB 24.3+ to a large extent.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

146

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and Related Prayers

the Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.III) are parallel to a part of the plea of CTH 376.II. The Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family (CTH 377) is parallel to other large portions of the plea and the elaborate prayer introduction, but it does not share any parallels with CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III. What makes these parallels so striking is the fact that all three prayers are in their entirety parallel to a large part of CTH 376.II. This suggests direct relationships between the four texts. CTH 376.I 376.III 376.II 377

Prayer Prayer against plague and enemies Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies Prayer for Muršili II to the Sungoddess of Arinna Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family

Main Text Witnesses

Edition

A KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12

Appendix II

KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121

Appendix III

A KUB 24.3+

Appendix IV

A KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 B KUB 24.2

Appendix V

Table 22. CTH 376.II and closely related prayers.

The Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) is a general prayer for the well-being of the royal family and the prosperity of the land of Ḫatti. The scribe was required to perform the prayer daily.476 Other independent or personal prayers in the corpus were not performed daily, but on a specific occasion when a specific problem had arisen. CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, and CTH 376.III were a response to a plague that was tormenting in Ḫatti and problems with enemies. One of these prayers, CTH 376.II, was performed fourteen times according to its colophon: seven times in Ḫattuša and seven times in Arinna (see p. 87). The fragment Privat 35 has also been associated with this group of prayers.477 It contains a request for the well-being of the royal family similar to such requests in CTH 377 as well as clauses comparable to the request to send evil to the enemy in CTH 377 67′–79′ and KUB 24.3+ iii 1′–11′ (CTH 376.II). These are however not exact parallels and, therefore, Privat 35 has not been included in Table 22. Due to its fragmentary state of preservation, CTH 376.III is only of limited use for our purposes. The main text witnesses of the other three prayers are relatively well

476 477

See Ch. 4.3. On the unique position of CTH 377 within the corpus of Hittite prayers, see Ch. 4. Czyzewska 2012: I 144. Due to its fragmentary state of preservation Privat 35 is not included in the catalogue in Appendix I. For the fragment, see Appendix VII and Schwemer 2006: 239–41.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Relative Chronology

147

preserved, which makes them suitable for structural analysis.478 The discussion below therefore focus primarily on these three prayers.

6.2 RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY While examining the textual history of this group of prayers and their interrelationships one needs to take the dates of these texts into consideration. This is particularly relevant when one considers one text to have served as a model for another. Below, a relative chronology of the four prayers and their primary text witnesses is established. First the dates of the text compositions are discussed and subsequently the palaeography and dates of the best-preserved text witnesses.479 Both CTH 376.II and CTH 377 mention Muršili II. These two compositions may therefore, in the form that they have come down to us, be dated to his reign. The other two prayers do not preserve the name of a monarch, nor do they refer to any specific event that can be used to date the compositions. The language and orthography of CTH 376.I indicate a Middle Hittite date for this prayer. Note for example the use of the particles =an480 and =apa481. The occurrence of ḫurlaš KUR-e ‘land of the Hurrians’ (KUB 24.4+ obv. 17′) also suggests a date before Muršili II.482 A passage in the “Fourth” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.4) seems to provide a possible date for CTH 376.I. A historical anecdote at the beginning of the plea mentions an earlier plague during the reign of Muršili’s grandfather, Tudḫaliya II/III, at a time when Ḫatti was also oppressed by enemies.483 Possibly the plague and problems with ene478 479 480 481 482

483

For each of these prayers one or more duplicate fragments have been identified. For an overview of all the manuscripts, see the editions in Appendices II–V and the relevant entries in Appendix I. On dating Hittite texts see Ch. 1.3. KUB 24.4+ obv. 18′. It is replaced in CTH 376.II by =kan (KUB 24.3+ ii 35). KUB 24.4+ rev. 11. In CTH 376.II it is replaced by =ašta (KUB 24.3+ ii 62). Carruba 1983: 5. In CTH 376.II ḫurlaš KUR-e ‘land of the Hurrians’ is replaced by KUR URUmi-it-ta-anni (KUB 24.3+ ii 34). Similarly, Kizzuwatna occurs in CTH 376.I but is omitted in CTH 376.II, probably because it had become part of the Hittite empire by that time (Carruba 1983: 6). The occurrence of the geographical name Lukka in CTH 376.I KUB 24.4+ obv. 27′ is surprising, because it is rarely attested in MS texts. The only other MS attestation is KUB 60.157 iii 3, but one should also consider the occurrence in the Annals of Tudḫaliya I, KUB 23.11 iii 14′ (NS). For these and other attestations, see Gander 2010: 15, fns. 55–57. On the relative date of CTH 376.I (KUB 24.4+) compared to CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+), see Carruba 1983: 4–8, cf. Carruba 1969: 239–44. Gurney (1940: 12–14) attributed CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377 all to Muršili II, dating the composition of CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II to the beginning of his reign, and CTH 377 several years later. Thanks to a better understanding of Hittite palaeography and the different phases of the Hittite language, CTH 376.I is now considered to be a MH/MS prayer and thus to predate Muršili II. KUB 14.13+ i 28–30: nu ⸢ú-et⸣ KUR URUḪA-AT-T[I A-N]A PA-NI A-BI A-BI-[IA me-ek-ki?] / dam-me-eš-⸢ḫaa⸣-[i]t-ta-at nu [… I]Š-TU LÚKÚR ḫa[r-ak-ta x x? x?] / ⸢QA-TAM-MA⸣ ÚŠ-za ⸢ḫar⸣-ak-t[a nu an-tu-u]ḫ-šaa-tar te-[pa-u-eš-ta] ‘And then during the reign of [my] grandfather Ḫatti was [heavily] oppressed. And [… was] dev[astated] by the enemy. […] in the same way perished from the plague. [The popu]lation di[minished].’ (Bo 7019 non vidi), cf. Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 378.4.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

148

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and Related Prayers

mies that are the subject of CTH 376.I, were those referred to in this passage in the “Fourth” plague prayer. If correct, CTH 376.I may have been composed in the reign of Tudḫaliya II/III.484 The date of CTH 376.III is difficult to ascertain due to its fragmentary state of preservation. Since this prayer was probably an adaptation of CTH 376.I or a similar prayer (see Ch. 6.4), its date of composition must have been later than that of CTH 376.I. The oldest prayer of the group is thus the Middle Hittite CTH 376.I. CTH 376.II and CTH 377 were composed during the reign of Muršili II and CTH 376.III was probably composed some time after CTH 376.I, though it is unclear when. The mention of the queen and princes next to Muršili II in CTH 377 is often interpreted as an indication that this prayer was composed later in the reign of Muršili II than CTH 376.II, at a time when he had a wife and children.485 However, it is more likely to be a remnant of the precursors of this prayer and does not need to reflect the real situation of the time (see Ch. 4.3 and Ch. 8.3.3). Therefore, it is not a reliable criterion for dating the composition. The language of CTH 376.II and CTH 377 is New Hittite, but both texts contain some older orthographic and linguistic features, suggesting they go back to older compositions.486 Which of these two prayers was composed first remains uncertain. It is possible that they were composed around the same time. The overview in Table 23 shows that the relative chronology of the primary text witnesses seems to agree with that of the compositions.487 The main manuscript of the Middle Hittite CTH 376.I, KUB 24.4+, is written in late Middle Script. Old signforms predominate,488 but the date has to be based on the latest attested sign-forms. These include the late forms of AZ and UG with the subscript; DA and ID, some forms of which resemble the typical MS stepped form; TA with two small inscribed verticals;489 and E, UN, URU, and SAR, in which the first vertical reaches the upper horizontal. The MS tablet KUB 24.4+ could be a contemporary manuscript of this MH prayer.490 The primary text witness of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.3+, is written in early New Script and might therefore be a contemporary original.491 The signs are written closely together, giving the tablet a

484 485 486

487 488 489 490 491

Carruba (1983: 8, 15) dates KUB 24.4+ to the reign of Arnuwanda I or slightly later; Singer (2002a: 48) suggests a date in the reign of Šuppiluliuma I or earlier. Gurney 1940: 13f., Carruba 1983: 12, Singer 2002a: 54, Czyzewska 2012: I 248, cf. Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 425. Carruba 1983, Carruba 1969: 239–44, Czyzewska 2012: I 156f. (CTH 376.II), Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 426f. (CTH 377). On the dependence of CTH 376.II and CTH 377 on MH sources, see Chs. 7–8 and Ch. 9.3. Cf. Neu and Rüster 1975: 7. Note the old forms of AḪ, ḪAR, AL, DA, ID, DI, KI, DU, EL, GI, ḪA, IG, KÙ, LI, RU, ŠA, GA, and TAR, cf. Appendix VIII. On this tablet ŠA and GA are also consistently written with small inscribed verticals. In contrast, Carruba (1983: 6) argues that the scribal error in KUB 24.4+ rev. 9 suggests the tablet is a copy. Note the late forms of AḪ, ḪAR, AG, DA, ID, KÙ, GAD, GI, and TAR, cf. Appendix VIII.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

149

Relative Chronology

crowded impression. The many older sign-forms492 may have arisen from the text’s dependence on older Middle Hittite compositions (see Chs. 7–8, and Ch. 9.3). CTH

Main Text Witnesses

376.I

A KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121 A KUB 24.3+ A KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 B KUB 24.2

376.III 376.II 377

Date Composition

Date Manuscript

MH ? (after CTH 376.I) NH (Muršili II) NH (Muršili II)

MS

(IIc)

NS

(IIIb?)

NS LNS NS

(IIIa) (IIIc) (IIIb?)

Table 23. Dates of CTH 376.II and closely related prayers.

Two text witnesses of the prayer to Telipinu (CTH 377) are relatively well preserved. Manuscript B, KUB 24.2, is written in NS, either IIIa or IIIb, and was probably written down later than KUB 24.3+.493 Manuscript A, KUB 24.1+, is written in LNS and is certainly a later copy.494 Note the very late forms of BI, KI (i 2), ḪA, and SAR. The writing on this tablet is particularly cursive, with varying degrees of cursiveness. The tablet format is remarkable as well. It is one of the few Hittite tablets of this size in landscape orientation.495 Its orthography also shows characteristics that indicate KUB 24.1+ to have been written down later than KUB 24.2.496 The use of the enclitic possessive pronoun =i (2sg.poss.dat-loc) in KUB 24.2 obv. 11 (Éka-ri-im-ni-it-ti) suggests that the text goes back to an OH or MH composition.497 The later duplicate KUB 24.1+ i 13 has Éka-ri-im-ni without the enclitic pronoun followed by an erased sign, probably ID.498 This suggests that the scribe who wrote KUB 24.1+ saw Éka-ri-im-niit-ti in his Vorlage, but realised that this formulation with the enclitic possessive pronoun was wrong or outdated and, therefore, corrected or updated his text by erasing the already copied sign ID.499 KUB 24.2 and KUB 24.1+ both employ older sign-forms,

492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499

E.g., the older forms of AG, DA, ID, DU, E, EL, GI, LI, RU, ŠA, and TAR, cf. Appendix VIII. Note the late forms of AḪ, ḪAR, AG, DA, ID, DU, E, URU, KÙ, RU, ŠA, TA, and TAR, cf. Appendix VIII. As pointed out by Neu and Rüster (1975: 7), orthographic and linguistic criteria also suggest that KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) is older than KUB 24.2 and KUB 24.1+ (CTH 377). Landscape orientation is particularly rare for tablets of this size, see Appendix V.2 with further references. Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 427f. Their list of variants between KUB 24.1+ and KUB 24.2 is however not complete. For a complete list, see Table 54. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 137 (§6.1). So also Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 428, fn.12. It is possible that KUB 24.2 was the Vorlage for KUB 24.1+, though this cannot be ascertained, cf. Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 427.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

150

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and Related Prayers

but less in KUB 24.1+ than in KUB 24.2.500 In both manuscripts the use of older signforms has clearly been reduced in comparison to KUB 24.3+. CTH 376.III has come down to us in a single text witness. It is difficult to date the fragmentary tablet with certainty. It consists of three fragments that are joined nonphysically. It uses the old forms of AG, AZ, DA, ID, KI, ḪA, an old and a late form of LI, and late forms of ḪAR, DU, E, URU, KÙ, RU, and TAR. The late forms of LI and URU suggest a New Script (IIIb) date.501 The tablet thus seems to have been written down later than KUB 24.3+, but earlier than KUB 24.1+. In a relative chronology of the five tablets KUB 24.4+ is the oldest, followed by KUB 24.3+, then KUB 24.2 and possibly KUB 30.13(+), and KUB 24.1+ is the latest. This confirms the findings of Neu and Rüster, who examined the palaeography of four of these five tablets.502 Nontheless, the fact that KUB 30.13(+) (CTH 376.III) and the two main text witnesses of CTH 377 have been written down later than the main text witness of CTH 376.II, does not mean that these two compositions were necessarily created at a later date. A remarkable feature of the palaeography of all five tablets is that ŠA, GA, and TA are not distinguished with differently sized inscribed verticals. One would expect the inscribed verticals to be smaller in the forms of TA than in those of ŠA and GA, especially in the later manuscripts, but within one tablet they are always of the same size and positioned in the same way in all three signs. In KUB 24.4+ and KUB 24.2 the inscribed verticals are small, beginning in between the two horizontals, and in KUB 24.3+, KUB 24.1+, and KUB 30.13(+) they reach the upper horizontal.503

6.3 STRUCTURE The overall structure of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) is rather complex, consisting of multiple textual elements, see Table 24. The text begins with the elaborate prayer introduction consisting of an introduction proper, invocation, ‘only in Ḫai’ passage and a hymn. The first lines of the hymn are of a rather general nature and could apply to any deity. The remainder is a solar hymn in which Mesopotamian and Anatolian features of a solar deity are described. The plea can be divided into three parts on the basis of their content and their apparent origin. The first part, Plea I, functions as the introduction of the plea. It consists of requests

500

501 502 503

For example, KUB 24.2 uses only the old forms of LI and UN, but both the old and late forms of AG, whereas, KUB 24.1+ uses both the old and late forms of LI and AG, and only an old form of UN; cf. Appendix VIII and Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 426. On the date of KUB 30.13(+), see also Torri 2010: 366, van den Hout 2007: 405 (KBo 12.132), 406 (KUB 30.13), and Klinger and Neu 1990: 149f. (KUB 30.13 joined to KBo 7.63). Neu and Rüster 1975. They examined the palaeography of KUB 24.4+, KUB 24.3+, KUB 24.2, and KUB 24.1+. Only minor variations occur occasionally with the verticals being positioned slightly higher or slightly lower. In KUB 30.13(+) 3b″ a second form of ŠA occurs, see Appendix VIII.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Parallels

151

to listen to the prayer and to support the supplicant. The following part, Plea II, is not directed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, who is the primary addressee of the prayer, but to the gods. It contains descriptive sections, as well as requests and wishes concerning plague and problems with enemies. The final part, Plea III, is again addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. It primarily consists of requests and wishes for the well-being of Muršili II and the prosperity of the land of Ḫatti.504 Parallels suggest that Plea I, Plea II, and Plea III each originate from a different source.505 Their separate textual histories explain the change of subject matter between the three parts and the different addressee in Plea II. The prayer ends with an instruction to the congregation that is present during the performance of the prayer. A colophon is preserved in manuscripts A (KUB 24.3+) and B (KUB 36.80). Textual elements PRAYER

ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION Introduction Invocation ‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage Hymn PLEA I = Introduction Plea PLEA II − Plague and Enemies PLEA III − Well-being INSTRUCTION

COLOPHON Table 24. Overall Structure of CTH 376.II.

6.4 PARALLELS CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III, and CTH 377 are each parallel to one or more textual elements of CTH 376.II. An overview of which textual elements have parallels in which prayers is presented in Table 25. When an element is preserved in a prayer it is indicated with ✓; – indicates that the element was not part of that prayer; [–] indicates that it was probably not part of the prayer; [Broken] indicates that it was part of the prayer but is lost in a break. A more detailed overview of the parallels between the four texts is presented in Table 26 (p. 153). The left column lists the textual elements in the order as they occur in CTH 376.II. The plea is, moreover, subdivided into sec504 505

For a different interpretation of the structure, see Daues and Rieken 2018: 124. See Ch. 6.4 and Ch. 8. See also the reconstructed textual history in Ch. 9.3 incl. Figure 6 (p. 291).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

152

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and Related Prayers

tions and text units. These sections and text units are also indicated in the editions in Appendices II–V. The text units given in italics do not occur in CTH 376.II but do occur in one of the other prayers. Those units that are now lost but were probably included in the text are indicated with [Broken]. Horizontal rulings are not indicated. The text designation that occurs in CTH 377 1–2 and the colophons are not included in Tables 25 and 26. CTH 376.II

CTH 376.I

CTH 376.III

CTH 377 ✓

ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION

✓

Introduction Invocation

[–]

✓

[–]

✓

PRAYER

‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage [–]

✓ (first part) [–]

✓

–

Hymn PLEA I

= Introduction Plea

[–]

PLEA II

− Plague and Enemies

✓

PLEA III

− Well-Being

–

–

✓

–

–

✓

INSTRUCTION

(fragmentary)

Table 25. Parallels to the textual elements of CTH 376.II in related prayers.

The beginning of the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I) is lost. A large part of the plea is preserved including the end. The end of the plea is also the end of the prayer. The plea of CTH 376.I is almost identical to Plea II of CTH 376.II.506 The colophon is partly preserved in the text’s primary text witness, KUB 24.4+. The Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.III) also only preserves parts of the plea, which are largely parallel to Plea II of CTH 376.II and the plea of CTH 376.I. Some passages have no parallel in either prayer. These were probably inserted into a prayer similar or identical to CTH 376.I. The Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II (CTH 377) does not share any parallels with CTH 376.I or CTH 376.III. The prayer is parallel to the elaborate prayer introduction, Plea III, and the instruction of CTH 376.II. There are, however, two significant variations. Firstly, in CTH 377 only the beginning of the hymn is preserved, which is of a general nature and could be applied to any deity. It is unlikely that the hymn in CTH 377 continued with a solar hymn as is the case in

506

Due to the close similarities between CTH 376.I and Plea II of CTH 376.II it is difficult to ascertain whether a small duplicate fragment duplicates CTH 376.I or the longer CTH 376.II. On the assignment of fragments to either prayer, see the introductions to Appendices II and IV.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

153

Parallels

Structural Elements

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION

Introduction Invocation ‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage general hymn

–

–

Hymn

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377

B obv. 1–3

3–7

B obv. 3–10, A i 2′–5′

8–17

i 6–28′

18–46

i 29′–31′

47–49

i 31′–34′

[Broken]

i 34′–58′

solar hymn

[Broken] ii 1–3

PLEA I Requests – Support + Attention PLEA Rhetorical Question + Answer II Description Problem (Plague) Complaint Requests + Wishes Description Problem (Plague and Enemies) Request – kaawatar Requests + Wishes Description Problem (Enemies) Request – kaawatar Request + Wishes

ii 4–9 [Broken]

1′

ii 10

1′–2′

ii 11–13

E obv. 1′–2′, A obv. 1′–7′

3′–9′

ii 13–24

obv. 8′–9′

10′–11′

ii 24–26

obv. 10′–14′ obv. 15′–28′

[Broken]

ii 26–31

obv. 19′–20′

cf. 1″–3c″

ii 37

obv. 20′

[–]

ii 38

obv. 21′–24′

4″–6″

ii 39–44

obv. 25′–rev. 3

6″–10″

ii 45–52

rev. 4–8 rev. 8–9

[Broken]

rev. 10–14

1‴–4‴

rev. 15–17

5‴–7‴

–

ii 32–36

ii 53–57 ii 58–60 ii 61–66

PLEA Request – Remove evil III Request – Send evil to enemy

[Broken] iii 1′–11′

71′–79′

Requests Request – Support Direct Address + Epithet Requests – Give good

iii 12′–14′

[Broken]

iii 15′–17′

50′–51′

–

52′

iii 17′–32′

53′–64′

iii 33′–35′

–

iii 35′–37′

–

–

80′–85′

iii 37′–41′

86′–88′

Wishes (fragmentary) Request – Support Requests – Give good Wishes – Give good Promise INSTRUCTION

65′–66′ 67′–71′

–

–

iii 41′–43′

–

iii 43′–44′

89′

Table 26. Parallels between CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

154

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and Related Prayers

CTH 376.II, because the break is not large enough and because it is improbable that characteristics typical of a solar deity would be ascribed to the vegetation deity Telipinu (see Ch. 7.4). Secondly, the structure of the plea differs slightly from that of Plea III in CTH 376.II. Two blocks of text have a different position within the plea of CTH 377 when compared with its parallel clauses in CTH 376.II: CTH 377 50′–64′ is parallel to KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–32′ but the following lines, CTH 377 65′–79′, are parallel to KUB 24.3+ iii 1′–11′ and what preceded it in the break. Thus, in one of the prayers the two blocks of text have switched places (see Ch. 8.3.1). In addition, some clauses in Plea III of CTH 376.II do not occur in the plea of CTH 377 and vice versa. None of the prayers in the group have a parallel to Plea I or to the second part of the hymn, i.e., the solar hymn, of CTH 376.II. One can only speculate whether one of these prayers included such a passage at all. Though the prayer to Telipinu contains the beginning of the hymn, the remainder of the hymn describing characteristics specific for a solar deity was not part of this prayer. The solar hymn and Plea I are parallel to a part of the introductory hymn in the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372) and the Prayer of a king (CTH 374). These parallels are not as close as those discussed above, since many clauses attested in CTH 372 and CTH 374 have been omitted from CTH 376.II. The MH Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), from which CTH 372 and CTH 374 have derived, probably contained the same parallel passage even though it is now lost (see Ch. 7.4.2 and Ch. 8.1.1). Another prayer that needs to be mentioned here is the Fragmentary prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 376.4). This prayer, which may date to the Middle Hittite period,507 also began with the elaborate prayer introduction, even though it is only partly preserved. The remainder of the text does not seem to have any parallels to CTH 376.II or any of the other prayers in the group. It is evident that the group of prayers – CTH 376.II, CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III, and CTH 377 – is closely related. To unravel how these prayers relate to each other, a detailed analysis of the parallels is conducted in Chs. 7–8. Parallels with other Hittite prayers, including recitations in rituals, are also examined. Furthermore, the complex structure of CTH 376.II and the rhetorical function of each textual element within the composition are analysed and compared to the structure and textual elements of the closely related prayers. The findings on the composition and textual history of CTH 376.II and its related prayers are presented in Ch. 9.

507

See p. 54 and p. 316, fn. 996.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

7. THE ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION AND ITS ORIGINS The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) begins with the elaborate prayer introduction which consists of four elements: the introduction proper, the invocation, the so-called ‘only in Ḫai’ passage, and the hymn. Parallel versions of the elaborate prayer introduction occur in the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family (CTH 377) and the Fragmentary prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 376.4). The latter may be a prayer of Muršili II, but his name is not preserved.508 The four introductory elements always occur in the same order. The introduction proper was a standard opening for any prayer and hymnic material was also included in some other prayers, but the invocation and the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage occur only in these three prayers. This makes the elaborate prayer introduction a unique feature of these texts. Introductory elements Introduction proper Invocation ‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage Hymn

CTH 376.II

CTH 377

CTH 376.4

A KUB 24.3+

B KUB 36.80

A KUB 24.1+

B KUB 24.2

KUB 36.81

[…]

obv. 1–3

i 3–7

obv. 3–6

[…]

[…], i 1′–5′

obv. 3–13, […]

i 8–17

obv. 7–14

[…], i 1′–5′

i 6′–28′

[…]

i 18–ii 11

obv. 15–23, […]

i 6′–20′, […]

i 29′–34′, […], ii 1–3

[…]

ii 20–22, […]

[…]

[…]

Table 27. Attestations of the elaborate prayer introduction.

It is remarkable that all three prayers containing the elaborate prayer introduction concern Muršili II. Their composition, at least in the form that they have come down to us, can therefore be dated to his reign. These texts thus all date to a relatively short period of time. This does not mean that we are dealing with the standard opening for a prayer in this period, because it did not introduce all prayers of Muršili II; e.g., the four so-called plague prayers begin only with a simple introduction. None of the three prayers preserve the complete wording of the elaborate prayer introduction, see Table 27. CTH 376.II and CTH 377 preserve all four elements with

508

Lebrun 1980: 166, Singer 2002a: 73, Miller 2014: 549, fn. 120.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

156

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

some lines of the hymn missing. CTH 376.4 is more fragmentary and preserves only parts of the invocation and the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. The close parallels between the three elaborate prayer introductions suggest that it did contain all four elements. They moreover imply that the three elaborate prayer introductions share a common textual history. Each element of the elaborate prayer introduction is analysed below focusing on its structure on the meso- and micro-level, its rhetorical function within the prayers, and its textual history. This includes an assessment of the variants between the different versions and a comparison with parallels in other prayers. The analyses demonstrate a different origin for each of the introductory elements. The composer of the elaborate prayer introduction used multiple sources as aids to compose this complex prayer introduction. The four textual elements are treated in the order in which they occur in the prayers: first the introduction proper (Ch. 7.1), followed by the invocation (Ch. 7.2), the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage (Ch. 7.3), and finally the hymn (Ch. 7.4). The findings are summarised in Ch. 7.5.

7.1 INTRODUCTION PROPER Unlike other elements of the elaborate prayer introduction, the introduction proper occurs at the beginning of practically every Hittite prayer.509 It introduces the actors of the prayer, i.e., the addressee, the supplicant and/or beneficiary, and occasionally also the speaker. It thus clarifies immediately at the beginning of the prayer who is addressing whom and, if applicable, on whose behalf, leaving no room for any possible misunderstandings. Two of the three prayers containing the elaborate prayer introduction preserve the introduction proper: the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II, KUB 36.80 obv. 1–3) and the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family (CTH 377 3–7). In both prayers the introduction proper forms the beginning of the prayer-text to be recited.510 In addition to the addressee and the beneficiary it also introduces the person who recites the prayer, thus making clear that the prayers were performed by someone other than the beneficiary. CTH 376.II, KUB 36.80 obv. 1–3:511 1 [dUTU URUa-ri-in]-⸢na?⸣ u-i-a-it-⸢mu⸣ [m]⸢mur⸣-ši-l[i-iš? LUGAL-uš] 2 [tu-e-el? ARAD-K]A? ⸢i⸣-it-wa am-me-el A-NA B[E-EL-TI-IA?] 3 [A-NA dUTU URU]⸢a⸣-ri-in-na me-mi →

509

510 511

See Ch. 3.4. A different type of introduction occurs in CTH 372, CTH 374, and probably CTH 373. These prayers are introduced by a direct address followed by a short hymnic passage. Only after the short hymn is the supplicant or beneficiary introduced, see Ch. 7.4.1 and Ch. 9.3.1. In CTH 377 the introduction is preceded by a text designation which is separated from the rest of the text by a horizontal ruling, see Ch. 3.5. For a full edition of the entire prayer, see Appendix IV. See also the comments on these lines there.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Introduction Proper

157

[O Sun-goddess of Arinn]a! Muršil[i, the king, you]r [servant], has sent me (saying): ‘Go speak to my l[ady, the Sun-goddess of] Arinna!’ CTH 377 3–7 (KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 i 3–7 // KUB 24.2 obv. 3–6):512 3

Ai3 B obv. 3

4

Ai4 B obv. 4

5

Ai5 B obv. 4f.

6

Ai6

[dte-li-p]í-nu-uš šar-ku-uš n[a-ak-ki-iš D]INGIRLIM-iš zi-ik ⸢d⸣te-li-pí-nu-uš šar-ku-uš na-ak-ki-iš DINGIR-uš zi-ik u-⸢i⸣-[i]a-at-mu m⸢mur-ši-DINGIRLIM⸣ L[UGAL-uš tu]-⸢e⸣-el ARAD-KA mmur-ši-i-li u-i-ia-at-mu LUGAL-uš tu-e-el ARAD-KA → MUNUS.LUGAL-aš-ša MUNUS.LUGAL-aš-⸢ša⸣ dte-li-pí-nu-un

B obv. 5f. dte-li-pí-nu-un

7

Ai7 B obv. 6

tu-e-el GÉME-iš [u-i]-⸢e⸣-[e]r i-it-wa / tu-e-el GÉME-KA u-i-e-er i-it-wa →

an-ze-el EN-NI DINGIRLAM / an-ze-el EN-NI DINGIRLAM

ŠA ⸢SAG⸣.DU-NI mu-ga-⸢a-i⸣ ŠA SAG.DU-NI mu-ga-a-i

O Telipinu, an eminent (and) honoured deity are you! Muršili, the king, your servant, and the queen, your servant, sent (sg!) me. They sent (me saying): ‘Go invoke Telipinu, our lord, our personal god!’ The introduction proper of CTH 376.II is largely parallel to that of CTH 377. The variants are analysed below to see what they can tell us about the textual history of these passages. The introduction proper consists of two text units: (1) a direct address to the addressee, and (2) an instruction to perform the prayer on behalf of the beneficiary. Such instructions are rare in Hittite prayer. The only other attestation occurs in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) where it is likewise preceded by a direct address with epithet. The prayer does not contain any other introductory elements. This parallel introduction is included in the analysis below. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.10 + ABoT 2.22 + KUB 26.86 i 1–5: 1 [dI]ŠKUR URUḪA-AT-TI BE-LÍ-IA [Ù DINGIRMEŠ URUḪA-AT-TI] 2 [BE-L]UMEŠ u-i-ia-at-mu mmu-ur-š[i-li-iš LUGAL-u]š? 3 [š]u-me-e-el ARAD-KU-NU i-it-wa A-NA ⸢d⸣[IŠKU]R ⸢URUḪA⸣-AT-TI 4 BE-LÍ-IA Ù A-NA DINGIRMEŠ BE-LUMEŠ-IA k[i-i]š-ša-an 5 me-mi → ‘[O Stor]m-god of Ḫatti, my lord, [and O Gods of Ḫatti, lor]ds! Murš[ili, the King], your (pl.) servant, sent me (saying): “Go, speak the f[oll]owing to the [Stor]m-god of Ḫatti, my lord, and to the Gods, my lords!”’

512

For a full edition of the entire prayer, see Appendix V. See also the comments on these lines there.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

158

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Comments i 2: At the beginning of the line, one would expect a possessive pronoun in the first person singular after [BE-L]UMEŠ, cf. BE-LUMEŠ-IA in i 4. At the end of the line, the lower part of a vertical wedge is visible. García Trabazo (2002: 308) follows Götze (1929: 206) in restoring LUGAL.GAL with a question mark. Lebrun (1980: 203) refrains from any restoration. However, the sign at the end of this line is almost certainly not GAL, because in that case at least part of the last horizontal wedge of GAL should be visible. The restoration suggested here, LUGAL-uš, would fit the traces and agrees with CTH 377 4, where we also find LUGAL-uš.

7.1.1 Direct Address It is common for introductions to begin with a direct address to the deity to whom the prayer is directed. Mentioning the addressed deity first, indicates his superiority over the supplicant and/or beneficiary.513 In CTH 377 the direct address to Telipinu is combined with an epithet that has the form of a descriptive nominal clause: ‘O Telipinu, an eminent (and) honoured deity are you!’.514 The direct address to the Sungoddess of Arinna in CTH 376.II possibly did not have an epithet.515 In the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) the introduction begins with a direct address to the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the gods followed by the epithets ‘my lord’ and ‘lords’ respectively.516 7.1.2 Instruction to Perform the Prayer The direct address is followed by an instruction previously uttered by the beneficiary and directed to the person who recites the prayer.517 This instruction consists in all three prayers of an introductory clause and a quotation. The reciter states that he was sent by Muršili II (in CTH 377 together with the queen) and he quotes in direct speech the instruction that he was given. The first clause introduces the quotation and the beneficiary, Muršili II with the epithet ‘the king, your servant’.518 In CTH 377 5 he is mentioned with the queen who is referred to as ‘your servant’. The used verb is uiya- ‘to send’ in the preterite tense, positioned at the beginning of the sentence. A remarkable and philologically significant variation is the double use of the verb in CTH 377 4–5, at the beginning and end of the clause. The sentence begins with uiyat=mu (3sg.prt.act=1sg.dat-loc), which we also find in KUB 36.80 obv. 1 (CTH 376.II) and KUB 14.10+ i 2 (CTH 378.2). However, unlike in the other two prayers the subject in CTH 377 is plural. One would, therefore, expect a plural form. This expected form does occur at the end of

513 514 515 516 517 518

An exceptional sequence in which the introduction of the supplicant precedes that of the addressee can be found in KUB 31.123 + FHL 3 obv. 1–3 (CTH 375 2.A). CTH 377 3. Similar direct addresses with epithet occur in CTH 377 18 and 47 (omitting šarku‘eminent’), and their parallels in CTH 376.II, KUB 24.3+ i 6′ and 29′. It is debatable whether or not an epithet needs to be restored at the beginning of KUB 36.80 obv. 1, see the comments on this line in Appendix IV. One would expect the epithet of the gods to be ‘my lords’ rather than ‘lords’. It thus differs from the instruction at the end of CTH 376.II and CTH 377 which instructs the congregation that is present to call out a phrase at that moment, see Ch. 8.3.4. KUB 36.80 obv. 1f. (CTH 376.II); CTH 377 4; KUB 14.10+ i 2f. (CTH 378.2).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Introduction Proper

159

the clause as a second verb form, uyer (3pl.prt.act). The singular form in CTH 377 is probably a remnant of the passage used as the model for these lines. In that model text the subject was probably singular, as in CTH 376.II and CTH 378.2. The composer of CTH 377 added the second verb form, correctly in its plural form, because he realised the subject in his text was plural. He placed the verb in its standard position, at the end of the sentence, but did not remove the form at the beginning.519 The second clause represents the words of the instruction that Muršili II (in CTH 377 together with the queen) gave to the person who was to perform the prayer. It is written in direct speech and employs a phrasal construction with the verb pāi- ‘to go’ in the imperative. The main verb of the clause is mugai- ‘to invoke’ in CTH 377 and mema- ‘to speak’ in CTH 376.II and CTH 378.2. The adverb kiššan ‘as follows, thus’ has been added only in CTH 378.2. The addressee is mentioned in all three prayers in the dative-locative case and with a standard epithet ‘(my) lord(s)’ (CTH 378.2), ‘my lady’ (CTH 376.II), or ‘our lord’ (CTH 377). The verb mugai- is rarely used in NH prayers, but more common in MH ones.520 Therefore it is probable that mugai- is primary and that the forms of mema- represent a later alteration. The addition of kiššan in CTH 378.2 also seems to be secondary, since it is rarely used with mugai-.521 The person to whom this instruction is directed is not identified. He is merely referred to in the first person singular by the enclitic pronoun =mu (1sg.dat-loc). In CTH 377 this refers to the anonymous scribe who is mentioned in the text designation and the colophon as the one calling upon the gods. This scribe is the supplicant who prays for the well-being of the royal family (see Ch. 4.1). For the other two prayers it is unclear whether the person commissioned to perform the prayer was also a scribe or some other official or priest.522 That Muršili II did not recite these prayers himself is also clear from the fact that throughout CTH 376.II and CTH 377 he is referred to in the third person. The “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.2) is, on the other hand, written as if Muršili is speaking himself. Throughout the text he is referred to in the first person, with only one exception here in the introduction proper. The introduction with instruction and the fact that the first lines after the introduction are written in direct speech, imply that the prayer was performed by someone other than Muršili.523 7.1.3 Reconstruction of the Precursor The three introductions proper discussed above are so similar that they probably all go back to the same precursor, which we may refer to as Text X. The following secondary alterations have been identified. In CTH 377 5 MUNUS.LUGAL-ašš=a tuēl GÉME519 520 521 522 523

See also the comments on CTH 377 4f. in Appendix V. It is for instance used in the MH prayer CTH 371, see Ch. 3.3.3. CHD L–N 319–22 lists two attestations of mugai- with kiššan: ABoT 1.1 i 6–7 and KBo 14.68 i 3–4. In contrast, Ehelolf (1928: 33a, fn. 2) thought the first person referred to the clay tablet on which the prayer was written and which functioned as a messenger. From KUB 14.11+ i 12 onwards the direct speech particle =wa(r) is omitted. The first sentence after the introduction proper in KUB 36.80 obv. 3f. (CTH 376.II) is also written in direct speech.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

160

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

uyer is a later addition, as is kiššan in KUB 14.10+ i 4 (CTH 378.2). The primary form mugai is preserved in CTH 377 7, but it has been replaced by memi in KUB 36.80 obv. 3 (CTH 376.II) and KUB 14.10+ i 5 (CTH 378.2). This leads to the following reconstruction of the precursor Text X for the introduction proper of CTH 376.II, CTH 377, and CTH 378.2. KA

Text units Direct Address(+ Epithet)? Instruction

Reconstructed introduction proper Text X DN (šarkuš nakkiš šiuš zīk)? uiyat=mu PN LUGAL-uš tuēl ARAD-KA īt=wa DN mugai

O DN (an eminent (and) honoured deity are you!) PN, the king, your servant, has sent me (saying): ‘Go invoke DN my lady/lord!’ The introduction proper of the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family (CTH 377) was based, either directly or indirectly, on the reconstructed Text X. The composer added the queen as a second beneficiary next to the king and an additional verb form: uyer. Possibly he also added an epithet to the direct address, but he maintained the original verb form mugai. There is no trace of these alterations in the introduction proper of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sungoddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) or the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2). This suggests that they derived independently from the reconstructed Text X and not from CTH 377. The composer of CTH 376.II changed mugai in Text X into memi. The introduction of CTH 378.2 is most likely to have been based on that of CTH 376.II or a similar introduction, for it too has memi instead of mugai. In addition, the composer added kiššan before memi, changed the divine names, and added standard epithets to them. The relationships between the separate prayer passages are depicted in Figure 1. Text X (reconstructed)

CTH 376.II (B KUB 36.80 obv. 1–3)

CTH 377

(A KUB 24.1+ i 3–7 // B KUB 24.2 obv. 3–6)

CTH 378.2 (C KUB 14.10+ i 1–5)

Figure 1. Textual history of the introduction proper with instruction.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Invocation

161

7.2 INVOCATION Within the corpus of Hittite prayers, the so-called invocation occurs only within the elaborate prayer introduction, where it follows immediately after the introduction proper.524 Its purpose is to ensure the presence of the addressed deity during the performance of the prayer. This implies that the addressee’s presence was necessary for a successful communication of the prayer. In the invocation the deity is requested to come from wherever he/she is and to listen to the prayer. Not only the words of the invocation, but also bread and wine offerings and the aromatic scent of offered cedar and oil are used to lure the deity to the place where the prayer is performed. This is the only part of the prayer in which we find explicit references to offerings presented to the addressed deity. Interestingly, the invocations do not contain a single reference to the beneficiary. Even the first person does not refer to the person who performed the prayers for Muršili II. All three prayers that begin with the elaborate prayer introduction preserve at least a part of the invocation. It is completely preserved in the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) and in the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II). Note however that in CTH 376.II the beginning is preserved in KUB 36.80 (B) and the end in KUB 24.3+ (A). The Prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 376.4) preserves only a few fragmentary lines of the end of the invocation. The invocations in these three prayers are so similar that they can be considered as parallel versions derived from the same source. To emphasise their similarities and variations, the five text witnesses that preserve (a part of) the invocation are edited below in a Partitur. The separate sources are indicated by their catalogue numbers as listed in Appendix I, Nos. 11, 12, and 17, respectively, and the letter of the manuscript. To ease comparison the translations of the separate versions are also presented in parallel. The different sections and text units that form the invocation are indicated in the Partitur and in the translation to highlight its structure.

524

The invocation is not to be confused with the so-called ‘early invocations’, a group of three MH prayers within a ritual (CTH 371, CTH 385.10, CTH 389.2). Furthermore, in many studies the term ‘invocation’ is used in a wider sense than in the present study. For instance, Singer (2002a: 50, 54) considers the introduction proper in CTH 376.II and CTH 377, and the text designation in CTH 377, as part of the invocation and not as separate elements. Similarly, Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 423) refer to CTH 377 1–17 as a ‘formulaic evocation’ and mugawar. In addition, Singer (2002a: 82f.) uses the term invocation for the first introductory section of CTH 382. Though one could argue the term is suitable, it is important to distinguish this passage from the invocation of the elaborate prayer introduction, because of the significant differences in style, structure, and function. Occasionally the term also seems to be used as a synonym for ‘prayer’ (e.g., Singer 2002a: 86–92).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

162

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Texts and Tablets included CTH CTH 376.II

No. 11 11 12 12 17

CTH 377 CTH 376.4

ms. A B A B

siglum KUB 24.3+ KUB 36.80 KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 KUB 24.2 KUB 36.81

lines i 1′–5′ obv. 3–13 i 8–17 obv. 7–14 i 1′–5′

Transliteration, Partitur525 SECTION I Statement / § 11 B obv. 3f. nu-wa dUTU UR[Ua-ri-in-na] / [DINGIRLAM ŠA S]AG.DU-IA mu-ga-a-mi → 12 AB Wish – Summoning 11 B obv. 4f. nu-za-ká[n ma-a-an] / [na-ak-k]i-iš dUTU URUa-ri-in-na ne-pí-š[i?] → d 12 A i 8 nu-za-kán ma-⸢a-an⸣ na-ak-ki-i[š] te-li-pí-nu-uš še-er ne-pí-ši še-er ne-pí-ši 12 B obv. 7 nu-za-kán ma-a-an na-ak-ki-iš dte-li-pí-nu-uš 11 B obv. 5f. [DINGIRMEŠ-aš] / [iš-tar-na] še-er ma!-a-an-za a-ru-ni → DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na ⸢ma-a-an a⸣-r[u-n]i → 12 A i 9 12 A obv. 8 DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na ma-a-an a-ru-ni → 11 B obv. 6 12 A i 9 12 B obv. 8

ma-a-an-za A-N[A ḪUR.SAGMEŠ] na-aš-ma A-NA ḪUR.SAGMEŠ! na-aš-ma A-NA ⸢ḪUR⸣.SAGMEŠ!

11 B obv. 7 12 A i 10 12 B obv. 9

[…]x-ka4 ⸢wa-aḫ-ḫa⸣-an-na pa-a-a[n-za] wa-ḫa-an-na [p]a-a-an-za → wa-ḫa-an-na pa!-a-an-za →

11 B 12 A i 10 12 B obv. 9

–? ⸢na⸣-aš-⸢ma!⸣-za I-NA KUR LÚKÚR za-aḫ-ḫi-ia pa-a-an-za ⸢na⸣-aš-ma-za I-NA KUR LÚKÚR za-aḫ-ḫi-ia pa-a-an-za

11 B 12 AB

–

11 B obv. 8 [ki-nu-na]-⸢at-ta⸣ → 12 A i 11 ki-nu-na-at-⸢ta⸣ ša-ne-ez-zi-⸢iš⸣ wa-ar-šu-la-aš 12 B obv. 10 ki-nu-na-at-ta ša-ne-ez-⸢zi⸣-iš wa-ar-šu-la-aš → 11 B obv. 8f. [GI]Š[E]R[I]N-an-za Ì-aš-š[a?] / […]x[… kal-li-iš]-du → GIŠ 12 A i 12 ERIN-an-za ⸢Ì⸣-an-za kal-⸢li-iš⸣-du → Ì-an-za / kal-li-iš-du → 12 B obv. 10f. GIŠERIN-an-za Fragmentary 525

Cf. the comments on the relevant lines in Appendix IV (CTH 376.II) and Appendix V (CTH 377).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Invocation

11 A i 1′f. 11 B obv. 9ff. 12 A 12 B

[… ]x / […] → nu-ut-ta[…] / […] Ì-aš-ša š[a- …] / […] → – –

Request – Summoning 11 A i 1′f. [… EGIR]-pa Éka-ri-im-m[a?] / [… ]→ 11 B obv. 11f. [… EGI]R-⸢pa⸣ Ék[a?-… ] / [… ]→ 12 A i 12f. na-aš-ta EGIR-pa / Éka-ri-im-ni erasure an-⸢da e⸣-[ḫ]u erasure → 12 B obv. 11 na-aš-ta EGIR-pa Éka-ri-im-ni-it-ti an-da e-[ḫ]u SECTION II Statement ]→ 11 A i 3f. [… -m]i NINDAḫar-ši-it / [… 11 B obv. 12f. [… -t]a? k[a?-…] / [… ]x x? […] 12 A i 13f. nu-ut-ta ka-a-ša / mu-ki-iš-ki-mi NINDAḫar-ši-i[t DUGiš-pa-a]n-du-zi-it 12 B obv. 12 nu-ut-ta ka-a-ša mu-ki-iš-ki-mi NINDAḫar-ši-it DUGiš-pa-an-du-zi-it 17 i 1′ [… ]x x[… ] Request – Satisfaction 11 A i 4′ [… ka-l]a-an-ga-an-za e-eš 11 B (Breaks) 12 A i 15 nu-uš-ša-an pa-ra-a ka-⸢la-a-an⸣-[ká]n-za e-eš → 12 B obv. 13 nu-uš-ša-an pa-ra-a ka-la-a-an-kán-za e-eš → [… ]⸢pa⸣-ra-a ka[l-… ] 17 i 2′ Request(s) – Attention 11 A – 12 A – (cf. i 16f.) 12 B – (cf. obv. 14) 17 i 3′f. [… nu]-mu dUTU URU⸢a⸣-[ri-in-na] / [iš-ta-ma-na-an? la-ga-a-an? ḫar-ak?] 11 A i 5′ [nu-ut-ta ku-it me-mi-iš-ki-mi] → 12 A i 15f. nu-ut-ta ku-i[t] / me-mi-iš-ki-mi → 12 B obv. 13f. nu-ut-ta ku-it / me-mi-iš-ki-mi → 17 i 4′ [nu-ut-t]a? ku-it me-mi-i[š-ki-mi] 11 A 12 A i 16f. 12 B obv. 14 17

–? nu-mu DINGIRLUM iš-⸢ta⸣-ma-na-an / la-ga-a-an ḫar-ak → nu-mu DINGIRLUM iš-ta-ma-na-an la-ga-a-an ḫar-ak → – (cf. i 3′f.)

11 A i 5′ 12 A i 17 12 B obv. 14 17 i 5′

[na-at iš-t]a-ma-⸢aš-ki⸣ na-at iš-t[a-m]a-aš-ki na-at i[š-ta-ma-aš-ki] [na-at iš-ta-m]a?-aš-⸢ki⸣

11 A 12 AB 17

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

163

164

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Translation CTH 376.II (No. 11)

CTH 377 (No. 12)

CTH 376.4 (No. 17)

B KUB 36.80 obv. 3–13, A KUB 24.3+ i 1′–5′

A KUB 24.1+ i 8–17 // B KUB 24.2 obv. 7–14

KUB 36.81 i 1′–5′

SECTION I Statement (Herewith) I invoke the Sun-goddess of [Arinna], my [per]sonal [goddess]

§

Wish – Summoning [Whether] you, O [honour]ed Sun-goddess of Arinna, are in heave[n among the gods] above, or whether you are in the sea, or whether you are gone to roam i[n the mountains …],

Whether you, O honoured Telipinu, are above in heaven among the gods, (or) whether (you are) in the sea, or are gone to roam in the mountains, or (whether) you are gone to an enemy land for battle,

[now], may the [c]e[da]r a[nd] the oil [… summon] you!

§ now, may the fragrant odour – the cedar (and) the oil – summon you!

[Broken]

Fragmentary And to you [… cedar] and oil […].

–

Request – Summoning [Come ba]ck [into your] chape[l]!

Come back into your chapel!

SECTION II Statement He[rewith] I [am (constantly) invoking y]ou with thick bread [(and) libation]!

Herewith I am (constantly) invoking you with thick bread (and) libation.

[Broken]

Request – Satisfaction Be [sa]tisfied!

Be satisfied!

[Be] sa[tisfied]!

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

165

Invocation

CTH 376.II (No. 11)

CTH 377 (No. 12)

CTH 376.4 (No. 17)

Request(s) – Attention [What I keep saying to you, li]sten [to it]!

What I keep saying to you, O God, hold (your) ear inclined to me and listen to it!

O Sun-goddess of A[rinna, keep (your) ear inclined] to me! What [I] ke[ep saying to] y[ou, list]en [to it]!

§

§

§

Comments on CTH 376.4 (No. 17), KUB 36.81 i 1′–5′: i 2′: Lebrun (1980: 157, fn. 1) erroneously reads kat-[ta?] for ka[l-…]. i 3′f.: Restored after CTH 377 16f. (=12 A i 16f. // 12 B obv. 14). i 5′: According to the copy the first partly preserved sign is A, of which only the final broken vertical is preserved, but this is not clearly visible on the available photograph. The reading -m]a suggested here is based on the parallels in CTH 376.II and CTH 377. Collation of the tablet is necessary to provide certainty of the correct reading.

The structure of the invocation is discussed below (Ch. 7.2.1), as well as the variants between the different versions and their implications for their interrelationships (Ch. 7.2.2). Similar recitations are attested in a number of Kizzuwatnean evocation rituals and disappearing god myths. The relationship between the invocations and this group of MH rituals is explored in Ch. 7.2.3. A request in the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) that recalls a wish in the invocation is treated in Ch. 7.2.4. 7.2.1 Structure On the basis of formal criteria and content the invocation can be divided into two sections, each consisting of multiple text units (see Table 28). Section I summons the addressed deity, whereas Section II ensures the deity will listen to the prayer. Section I

II

Text unit Statement / § Wish – Summoning Fragmentary (only in KUB 36.80) Request – Summoning Statement Request – Satisfaction Request(s) – Attention

§ Table 28. Structure of the invocation.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

166

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

In CTH 376.II Section I is introduced by a statement in which the speaker states that he is ‘invoking’ (mugai-) the Sun-goddess of Arinna.526 The statement marks the beginning of the invocation and separates it from the introduction proper. In CTH 377 we find a horizontal ruling instead. This suggests that rulings and statements can be used interchangeably to mark a new section of a prayer.527 What follows is a wish and a request summoning the addressee. The fragmentary lines in KUB 36.80 obv. 9– 11 (CTH 376.II B) probably also belong to a wish or request to summon the addressee. The wish lists four possible locations where the deity could be and the reasons to be there: to be among the gods in heaven, to be in the sea, to roam in the mountains, or to do battle in an enemy land.528 No reason is given for being in the sea. The deity is asked to be attracted from these places by the wonderful scent of the cedar and oil that were apparently presented as offerings. The section ends with a request in which the addressed deity is asked to return to his Ékarimmi-, a cultic building of some kind, translated here as ‘chapel’.529 This suggests that the prayer may have been performed in the Ékarimmi-. Section II consists of requests to be satisfied and to listen to the prayer which are introduced by a statement. The statement marks the beginning of the section. The speaker states that he is invoking the addressee with thick bread and libation, using the verb mugai- ‘to invoke’ in the imperfective -ške-form.530 Emphasis is placed on the offerings by positioning them behind the verb.531 An implicit reference to them can be found in the following request to be satisfied, since the offerings are what should satisfy the deity. The first legible signs of KUB 36.81 (CTH 376.4) belong to this request to be satisfied. Subsequently, we find one (CTH 376.II) or two (CTH 377 and CTH 376.4) requests for attention. These requests to listen to the prayer conclude the invocation and are followed by a horizontal ruling in all manuscripts.532 7.2.2 Variants The separate versions of the invocation contain several textual, linguistic, and orthographic variants. We have already noted the different openings of the invocation in the form of a statement (CTH 376.II) or a horizontal ruling (CTH 377), and the fragmentary lines in KUB 36.80 obv. 9–11 (CTH 376.II) which do not occur in CTH 377. Other relevant textual variants occur in the wish summoning the addressed deity in

526

527 528 529 530 531 532

KUB 36.80 obv. 3f. The statement is, in contrast to the remainder of the invocation, written in direct speech. This raises the question whether KUB 36.80 really is a manuscript of CTH 376.II and not of another prayer that had a similar introduction, cf. p. 315, fn. 994. Compare the horizontal ruling before KUB 6.45 iii 40 (CTH 381) that introduces a proverb istead of an introductory clause, see Ch. 5.2.1 and Table 17 (p. 133). The conditional clause mentioning the enemy land is omitted in KUB 36.80, cf. the comments on KUB 36.80 obv. 8 in Appendix IV. Puhvel HED 4: 82f., Kloekhorst 2008: 428, Hoffner 2000: 72. KUB 36.80 obv. 3f. employs the same verb, albeit not in the imperfective, and omits kāša. Extraposition is not very common in Hittite, see Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 408 (§30.9). Only in KUB 36.80 this is broken off.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

167

Invocation

Section I and the request(s) for attention at the end of Section II. These and their implications are discussed below. Table 29 presents an overview of the linguistic and orthographic variants.533 CTH 376.II

CTH 377

A KUB 24.3+ i 1′–5′ // B KUB 36.80 obv. 3–13 B obv. 5f.

ne-pí-š[i? DINGIRMEŠ-aš] A i 8f. // B obv. 7f. / [iš-tar-na] še-er

B obv. 6

ma!-a-an-za

A i 9 // B obv. 8

ma-a-an

B obv. 6

ma-a-an-za

A i 9 // B obv. 8

na-aš-ma

B obv. 7

⸢wa-aḫ-ḫa⸣-an-na

A i 10 // B obv. 9

wa-ḫa-an-na

B obv. 8

Ì-aš-š[a?]

A i 12 // B obv. 10

Ì-an-za

É

A i 13

É

A i 2′

B obv. 11

É

A i 4′

[ka-l]a-an-ga-an-za

A i 15 // B obv. 13

ka-la-a-an-kán-za

ka-ri-im-m[a?]

CTH 376.4

A KUB 24.1+ i 8–17 // B KUB 24.2 obv. 7–14

KUB 36.81 i 1′–15′

še-er ne-pí-ši DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na

[Broken]

ka-ri-im-ni ka-ri-im-ni-it-ti i 2′

ka[l-…]

Table 29. Linguistic and orthographic variants in the invocations.

The wish summoning the addressee in Section I consists in CTH 377 of four conditional clauses and a main clause. A horizontal ruling separates the conditional clauses from their following main clause. The fourth conditional clause, ‘or (whether) you are gone to an enemy land for battle’,534 and the ruling are both omitted in CTH 376.II. The omission of the ruling in CTH 376.II fits within the overall minimal use of paragraph dividers in this text.535 The omitted conditional clause is more difficult to explain. Either the precursor did contain the clause, which was then maintained in CTH 377 but omitted in CTH 376.II, or it did not contain it, meaning that the clause in CTH 377 is a later addition which did not find its way into CTH 376.II. There are several arguments in favour of the latter scenario. First of all, one may consider the

533

534 535

Omissions are considered textual variants and are therefore not included in Table 29. The following omissions are not treated in this chapter: KUB 36.80 obv. 7: […]x-ka4 and obv. 9: […]x are omitted in CTH 377; CTH 377 11: ša-ne-ez-zi-⸢iš⸣ wa-ar-šu-la-aš is omitted in KUB 36.80 (CTH 376.II), though it may have been written in the fragmentary lines in KUB 36.80 obv. 9–11, note in particular obv. 10 where the beginning of ŠA is visible. KUB 24.1+ i 10 // KUB 24.2 obv. 9 (CTH 377). The omitted ruling after the introduction proper in KUB 36.80 may also be seen in this light. Furthermore, several rulings of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage in CTH 377 are lacking in CTH 376.II (see Ch. 7.3), and Plea II of CTH 376.II omits many rulings that are found in the parallel in CTH 376.I (see p. 233).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

168

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

text critical principle lectio brevior: while copying a text one is more likely to add text than to omit it.536 Secondly, there appears to be no reason for the composer of CTH 376.II to omit this clause deliberately, since it reflects one of the main topics of the plea: problems with enemies.537 Thirdly, the composer of CTH 377 could have inserted the clause in an attempt to make the invocation suit his text better. By adding this reference to enemy lands, he refers to a subject that recurs in the plea.538 Moreover, we know from the secondary additions to the introduction proper of CTH 377, that the composer of this text was not reluctant to adjust the text(s) he used as a model for his new prayer. A possible fourth argument is the use of the reflexive particle =za. The particle only started to be used in nominal clauses in the first or second person during a later phase of Middle Hittite and is common in New Hittite.539 Therefore, in NH texts such as CTH 377 and CTH 376.II, a lack of =za in first- and second-person nominal clauses may be a remnant of an older MH text used as a model for those lines. Since both prayers go back to MH compositions (see Chs. 6.2 and 9.3), the use of =za represents a later innovation. Each of the conditional clauses belonging to the wish is a nominal clause with the subject in the second person singular, referring to the addressed deity. In CTH 377 =za occurs only in the first and the fourth clause.540 The reflexive =za is likely to be a later addition in both cases, but for the fourth clause it may indicate that the entire clause is a later addition. Otherwise, one would expect the particle to have been added to all the preceding clauses as well. Of course, this remains conjecture since the composer and copyists may have been inconsistent.541 The request(s) for attention at the end of Section II contain notable textual variants. In CTH 376.II we find one request to listen to the words of the prayer consisting of a relative and a main clause.542 The versions in CTH 377 and CTH 376.4 combine this request for attention with another one asking the addressee to ‘hold (his) ear inclined’ (ištamanan lagān ḫark-), the position of which differs in the two prayers.543 In CTH 377 it is positioned in between the relative clause and the main clause of the other request for attention, but in CTH 376.4 it seems to precede both clauses, see

536

537 538 539 540 541

542 543

The principle is related to the idea praestet difficilor lectio, i.e., preferring the more difficult reading as the original one (West 1973: 51). The assumption is that the added words simplify the text. However, this additional clause does not simplify the text, nor does it make it more complicated. If the clause was omitted in CTH 376.II, this was probably done intentionally, since unintentional omission usually consists of short words, not of complete clauses (West 1973: 24). CTH 377 67′–79′. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 362–64 (§28.32–42). KUB 24.1+ i 8, 10 // KUB 24.2 obv. 7, 9 (CTH 377). KUB 36.80 obv. 4–7 (CTH 376.II) employs =za in all three clauses. Note that this fourth conditional clause is introduced by našma ‘either, or’, as is the preceding one (KUB 24.1+ i 9–10 // KUB 24.2 obv. 8–9), whereas the first two conditional clauses in CTH 377 have mān ‘if’ (KUB 24.1+ i 8–9 // KUB 24.2 obv. 7–8). KUB 36.80 obv. 4–7 (CTH 376.II) uses mān in all three conditional clauses, cf. p. 176, fn. 576. KUB 24.3+ i 5′ (CTH 376.II). Compare the comments on this line in Appendix IV. KUB 24.1+ i 15–17 // KUB 24.2 obv. 13–14 (CTH 377) and KUB 36.81 i 3′–5′ (CTH 376.4).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Invocation

169

Table 30. Since this request does not occur in CTH 376.II, it is probably a secondary addition. Its position in CTH 376.4 seems more accurate, since there it does not occur in between two linked clauses. The positioning of the request to ‘hold the ear inclined’ in CTH 377 within another request for attention appears out of place, particularly since the inserted request does not refer to the preceding or following clause in any way. A parallel occurs in Plea I of CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ ii 7–9), see Table 30.544 There the addressed deity is asked to listen, not to the words of the speaker, but to the words of Muršili II, who is referred to in the third person. The textual history of this passage suggests that the request ‘to hold the ear inclined’ is indeed a secondary insertion. The composer of CTH 376.II considered the requests for attention in Plea I as the end of the elaborate prayer introduction. In order to make the elaborate prayer introduction into a coherent text, these requests were also included at the end of the invocation (cf. pp. 231f.). It is remarkable that in CTH 377 Telipinu is not addressed by name in the inserted request for attention, but simply as DINGIRLUM ‘god(dess), deity’.545 Such an address to an anonymous deity (DINGIR) in an independent or personal prayer seems to indicate that the clause or passage has been taken from another text addressed to a different deity. This phenomenon is apparent in the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384), a composition that consists of five prayers each directed to a different deity. The shorter prayers for intercession to Mezzulla546 and the Storm-god of Zippalanda547 are largely parallel to each other with one striking difference: the prayer to the Storm-god of Zippalanda contains an additional passage concerning the city of Nerik (KUB 21.27+ iv 35′–44′). This passage has been inserted into the fixed structure of the text that we also find in the prayer to Mezzulla. Only in this inserted passage is the Storm-god of Zippalanda addressed anonymously as ‘god’ (DINGIR), whereas he is consistently addressed by name in the remainder of the prayer. The address to the anonymous deity is thus characteristic for the inserted passage. The passage was probably based on parts of the prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna belonging to the same composition, because this prayer contains the proverb which is alluded to in the inserted passage and it also concerns Nerik.548 The name of the Sungoddess of Arinna was replaced by DINGIR ‘god(dess), deity’ rather than by the correct divine name. Perhaps this was done because it required less effort, for one did not need to consider which name one ought to insert. It may also be a result from writing the new text from dictation: the person reading out the original source may simply have said ‘god’ (Hittite šiuš), or something meaning ‘divine name’, when the deity was mentioned in order for the scribe to insert the correct divine name. However, the scribe may have written exactly what he had heard, i.e., DINGIR.

544 545 546 547 548

For Plea I of CTH 376.II, see Ch. 8.1. KUB 24.1+ i 16 // KUB 24.2 obv. 14 (CTH 377). KUB 21.27+ iv 13′–27′. KUB 21.27+ iv 28′–l.e. 4. For KUB 21.27+ iv 28′–47′, see pp. 124–26. and the analysis in Chs. 5.1–5.2. The prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna is written on the obverse of KUB 21.27+ (CTH 384).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

and listen to them!

[list]en [to it]!

and listen to it!

Table 30. Parallel requests for attention in the invocation and Plea I.

⸢na⸣-at iš-ta-ma-aš-ki

[na-at iš-ta-m]a?-aš-⸢ki⸣

O Sun-goddess of Arinna, hold (your) ear in[clin]ed

nu ⸢dUTU URU⸣a-ri-in-na GEŠTU-[an] pa-ra-a l[a-ga]-⸢a-an⸣ ḫar-ak

The words which Muršili, the king, speaks continuously to you,

nu-ut-ta mmur-ši-DINGIRLIM-iš! LUGAL-uš ud-da-a-ar ⸢ku⸣-e ⸢me⸣-mi-eš-ki-iz-zi

–

KUB 24.3+ ii 7–9

CTH 376.II – Plea I

na-at iš-t[a-m]a-aš-ki

O God, hold (your) ear inclined to me

–

What [I] ke[ep saying to] y[ou],

What I keep saying to you,

nu-mu DINGIRLUM iš-ta-ma-na-an la-ga-a-an ḫar-ak

[nu-ut-t]a? ku-it me-mi-i[š-ki-mi]

O Sun-goddess of A[rinna, keep (your) ear inclined] to me!

nu-ut-ta ku-it me-mi-iš-ki-mi

–

KUB 36.81 i 3′–5′

A KUB 24.1+ i 15–17 // B KUB 24.2 obv. 13–14

[nu]-mu dUTU URU⸢a⸣-[ri-in-na iš-ta-ma-na-an? la-ga-a-an? ḫar-ak?]

CTH 376.4 – Invocation

CTH 377 – Invocation

170 The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Invocation

171

The only direct address to an anonymous deity (DINGIR) in CTH 377 occurs here in the invocation in the inserted request to ‘hold the ear inclined’. In all other direct addresses Telipinu is called by name.549 The direct address to the anonymous deity suggests that the source of the inserted clause, and possibly of the entire invocation, did not address Telipinu, but another deity. The Sun-goddess of Arinna seems a good candidate, considering that all other versions of the invocation that have come down to us are directed to her. We may even take it a step further and argue that the elaborate prayer introduction as a whole was originally composed for the Sun-goddess of Arinna, since two of the three prayers that begin with it are addressed to her. The address to an anonymous deity in CTH 377 may be the result of converting it to this new context.550 7.2.3 Relationship to the Evocation Rituals and Disappearing God Myths Invoking a deity to the location where the prayer is performed is the purpose not only of the invocation, but also of several rituals. We may distinguish two groups of rituals that are intended to attract a deity who has left his temple and his city, usually out of anger, back home: the so-called evocation rituals and disappearing god myths. Even though the latter are generally referred to as myths, they are actually mythologised rituals in which the procedures are presented as if they are performed by a deity. The ritual is framed by a mythological story concerning the disappearance of a certain deity and how it disrupts the human and divine world. Most of these compositions are linked to the seasons. For instance, when the Sun-god disappears, frost comes, and when Telipinu disappears, nothing grows and not a single animal or person procreates. The disappearance of the Moon-god is linked to the actual monthly disappearance of the moon. All these rituals serve to appease the disappeared deity so that he may return and the natural order can be restored. The best preserved and, hence, the best-known text of this type is the so-called Telipinu Myth (see p. 97). Although no Old Script versions of the disappearing god myths are attested, they are generally considered to go back to the Old Hittite period or even earlier.551 In the evocation rituals from Kizzuwatna a disappeared deity is lured back to Ḫatti and his temple by means of ritually constructed paths. These paths, usually seven in number, are created from offering materials such as honey, wine, and oil, but fabrics can be used as well.552 Consisting of food, the paths can be eaten by the evoked deities.553 In this way offerings are used to lure the gods to the location where the

549 550

551 552 553

CTH 377 3, 6, 8, 18, 36, 40, 47, 52′, 69′. In the text designation, which was not to be recited, Telipinu is also referred to anonymously as ‘deity’ (DINGIR), in the third person. Here DINGIR probably derives from the text on which the text designation was modelled: an instruction to pray regularly to the gods for the well-being of the royal family, such as KUB 34.42, for which see Ch. 4.3. Hoffner 1998: 9. Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 12–19, cf. ibid. 21f. The Telipinu Myth also refers to a path (KASKAL) that has been sprinkled, and over which Telipinu is requested to come back (KUB 33.1+ ii 28′–30′). E.g., in KUB 15.34+ i 48–49, for which see p. 174.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

172

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

ritual is performed, just as in the invocation in Muršili II’s prayers. The Kizzuwatnean evocation rituals probably date to the Middle Hittite period. Several are preserved in MS manuscripts.554 The evocation rituals and the disappearing god myths have the same purpose as the invocation of the elaborate prayer introduction, i.e., attracting a deity to the place where the ritual or prayer is performed. Therefore, they may very well be related to each other.555 Several significant textual parallels confirm such a connection. These are discussed below. Most of them are not exact parallels to parts of the invocation, but their similarities are nonetheless striking. They occur in recitations that were to be spoken during the performance of the ritual. The invocation lists four possible locations where the deity may be at the moment of recital: heaven, the sea, the mountains, or an enemy land. They occur within the wish summoning the addressee. Several evocation rituals also list various locations where the deity could be, i.e., the Ritual of the purapši-priests Ammiḫatna, Tulbi, and Mati from Kummanni for the purification of the temple, KBo 23.1+ i 17–25 (CTH 472), the evocation ritual for the Male Cedar-deities, KUB 15.34+ i 50–65 (CTH 483), and the evocation ritual for the DINGIR.MAḪ, the GUL-šeš, Zukki and Anzili, KUB 15.32+ i 39–45 (CTH 484). CTH 472 is a ritual for the purification of a temple which contains an evocation rite. This is why it is considered among the Kizzuwatnean evocation rituals.556 Two almost identical rituals are preserved on the New Script KBo 23.1+ (CTH 472). The first occurs in i 1–ii 22 and the second in ii 23–iv 42. The two rituals can be considered duplicates of each other.557 The recitation that is part of the evocation rite in these rituals, KBo 23.1+ i 17–25, is presented below. The passage is similar to Section I of the invocation in CTH 376.II, CTH 377, and CTH 376.4. CTH 472, KBo 23.1+ i 17–25:558 17 nu DINGIRLAM ḪUR.SAGḪI.A-az ÍDMEŠ-az a-ru-na-az 18 IŠ-TU 7 KASKALḪI.A-ia ḫu-u-it-ti-ia-az-zi ⸢nu⸣ me-ma-i 19 DINGIRLUM ku-e-da-ni ku-e-da-ni pa-ap-ra-an-ni pí-ra-an 20 ar-ḫa píd-da-it-ta nu-uš-ši ma-a-an ne-pí-ši 21 pa-it-ta ma-a-an-kán ḪUR.SAG-i pa-it-ta 22 ma-a-an-⸢ša-an⸣ a-ru-ni pa-it-ta ma-a-⸢an-kán?⸣ 7 KASKALMEŠ pa-it-ta 23 ki-nu-na ne-pí-ša-az ⸢e⸣-[(ḫu ḪUR.SAG-az) e-ḫ]u ÍDMEŠ-az

554 555 556 557 558

E.g., KUB 15.34+ and KBo 54.69+. Already Houwink ten Cate (1969: 87) compares the invocation to the evocation rituals. Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 10f. Other duplicates are KBo 24.50, KBo 23.2, KUB 30.38a, and Bo 3964 + KBo 59.207. Duplicates: KBo 23.1+ ii 44–49 and KBo 23.2 iii 1′–7′. For an edition of the entire text, see e.g., Strauß 2006: 253–71, Strauß 2014, and Lebrun 1979.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Invocation

173

24 e-ḫu a-ru-na-az e-ḫu IŠ-⸢TU 7? KASKAL⸣ḪI.A e-ḫu 25 IŠ-TU 7 PA-A-DÁ-NI e-ḫu He draws the deity from the mountains, from the rivers, from the sea, and from the seven paths. He speaks: ‘For whatever impurity the deity has fled, whether he went to heaven, (or) whether he went to the mountain, (or) whether he went to the sea, (or) whether he went to the seven paths,’ ‘now c[(ome)] from heaven! [Co]me [(from the mountain)]! Come from the rivers! Come from the sea! Come from the seven paths! Come from the seven paths!’ Comments i 17–18: It is remarkable that AZ is consistently written with the subscript in these lines, whereas in i 23– 25 it is consistently written in the older form without the subscript. i 24: Whether the number seven was indeed written in this line remains uncertain. One would expect the head of the bottom wedge to be partly visible, but only traces of the lower end of a vertical wedge can be seen.

The Middle Script559 KUB 15.34+ (CTH 483) is according to its colophon the third tablet of an evocation ritual for the male Cedar-deities. These gods were probably at home in the ‘land of the cedar’, an area in northern Syria including Kizzuwatna.560 The ritual consists of seven evocations. In each the Cedar-deities are evoked from another locality: the rivers, the sea, the wells, the mountains, the fire (and the oven), the netherworld, and heaven. The composition contains multiple prayer-recitations, some of which resemble each other. The passage presented below, KUB 15.34+ i 48– 65, is part of the first recitation, which begins in KUB 15.34+ i 40. The passage contains clauses that resemble the wish and request to summon the addressed deity in Section I of the invocation. The list of possible whereabouts is more elaborate than the one in the invocation. It also contains a request for support (i 49f.) that is parallel to a request in the plea of CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ iii 15′–17′) and CTH 377 (ll. 50′–51′), for which see Ch. 8.3.3. Below, KUB 15.33b+ is treated as a duplicate to KUB 15.34+, though it is not a true duplicate, but rather a parallel text addressed to the Goddesses of kingship of Ḫatti.561 559 560

561

Note e.g., the use of old LI and URU with the first vertical just reaching the upper horizontal. Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 180. Compare the mention of the ‘land of the cedar’ in the prayer of Puduḫepa (CTH 384) KUB 21.27+ i 4–6: nu-za-kán I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI dUTU URUTÚL-na ŠUM-an daiš-t[a] / nam-ma-ma-za ku-it KUR-e GIŠERIN-aš i-ia-at / nu-za-kán dḫé-pát ŠUM-an da-iš-ta ‘In Ḫatti you gave yourself the name Sun-goddess of Arinna, but furthermore, in the land which you made (that) of the cedar, (there) you gave yourself the name Ḫepat’. Contra Haas and Wilhelm (1974: 181), these are not the Female Cedar-deities because the traces in KUB 15.33b+ iv 16′ do not belong to ERIN. KUB 15.33b+ iv 16′ reads: A-NA DINGIRMEŠ MUNUSMEŠ [L]UGAL-u-[iz-na-aš …]. The parallel in KUB 15.34+ iv 56′ has ‘male Cedar-deities’ here. Compare

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

174

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

CTH 483, KUB 15.34+ i 48–65:562 48 DINGIRMEŠ LÚMEŠ GIŠERIN-aš in-na-ra-u-wa-an-te-eš KASKALMEŠ a-d[a-an-d]u 49 a-ku-wa-an-du na-at-za iš-pí-ia-an-du ni-in-kán-du [na-aš-t]a DINGIRMEŠ 50 A-NA LUGAL MUNUS.LUGAL an-da aš-šu-li na-iš-tén nu-za DINGIRMEŠ L[ÚME]Š GIŠ ERIN-aš 51 [k]u-wa-pí ku-⸢wa-pí⸣ ma-a-an-za ne-pí-ši ma-a-an ták-ni-i ma-⸢a⸣-[an-z]a ḪUR.SAGMEŠ 52 [ma]-⸢a⸣-an ⸢TÚLMEŠ⸣ ma-a-an-za I-NA KUR URU⸢mi⸣-it-ta-an-ni ma-[a]-an-za KUR URUki-in-za 53 [KUR UR]Udu-ni-ip KUR URUú-ga-ri-it KUR URUzi-in-zi-ra ⸢KUR⸣ URUdu-na-na-pa 54 [(KUR URUi)]-⸢da?⸣-ru-kat-ta563 KUR URUga-ta-an-na KUR URUa-la-al-ḫa 55 [KUR URUki-n]a-aḫ-ḫi KUR URUMAR.TU KUR URUzi-tu-u-na KUR URUzu-un-zu-ra 56 [KUR URUnu-ḫa-aš-š]i KUR URUú-gul-zi-it KUR URUa-ra-ap-ḫi KUR URUzu-un-zu-ur-[ḫi] 57 [ma-a-an-za I-N]A KUR URUa-aš-šur564 KUR URU⸢KÁ⸣.DINGIR.RA KUR URUša-an-ḫara KUR URUmi-iz-r[i] 58 [KUR URUa-la-š]i-ia KUR URUa-al-zi-ia KUR URUpa-pa-aḫ-⸢ḫi⸣ KUR URUkum-⸢ma-a⸣-[ni] 59 [KUR URUḫa-ia-š]a KUR URUlu-ul-lu-wa KUR URUar-⸢za⸣-w[(a KUR URU)…] 60 […-w]a? KUR URUta-la-u-wa KUR URUma-⸢a⸣-[ša (KUR URUga-al-ki-ša)] 61 [KUR URUku-un-t]a-ra-a KUR URUi-ia-la-an-ti [(KUR URUú-i-lu-ša)] 62 [(KUR) URU…]x-ia KUR URUlu-uḫ-ma KUR URUša[(p-pu-wa565 KUR UR)U…] 63 [KUR URUpár-ta-ḫu-i-n]a KUR URUga-šu-ú-la KUR URUḫi-[mu?-wa? (KUR URUla-alḫa)]566 64 [(ḫu-u-m)a-an-da-za KUR-e]-⸢za⸣ ku-wa-pí im-ma ku-w[a-pí …] 65 [(ki-nu-na EGIR-pa I-N)]A KUR URUḪA-AT-TI [ú-wa-at-tén] May the vigorous Male Cedar-deities eat (and) drink the paths! May they eat their fill (and) quench their thirst! O Gods, turn in favour to the king

562

563 564 565 566

KUB 15.33b+ iv 4′: […]x-iz-na-aš ŠA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI (cf. KUB 15.34+ iv 41′), and the colophon preserved in DBH 43.2 115 + Bo 9737 (unpublished, non vidi): DINGIRMEŠ MUNUSMEŠ LUGAL-u-iz-na-aš (Schwemer, personal communication). It is remarkable that KUR URUḪATTI occurs multiple times in KUB 15.33b+, but not at all in KUB 15.34+. Perhaps the many unpublished fragments that have been joined to KUB 15.33b+ can shed light on the ritual’s relationship to KUB 15.34+. Duplicates: KBo 58.69+ i 1′–2′ and KUB 15.33b+ i 1′–13′ (but see p. 173, fn. 561). For an edition of the entire ritual, see Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 180–209; for a translation, see Goetze 1950b: 351–53. The three unpublished fragments Bo 8027, Bo 7206, and Bo 3234 were unavailable to me and have not been taken into account. Unless otherwise indicated, I follow the restorations of Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 190–93. KUB 15.33b+ i 2′. KUB 15.33b+ i 5′: KUR URUaš-šur. KUB 15.33b+ i 10′: KUR URUša-⸢ap-pu⸣-wa. KUB 15.33b+ i 11′–12′ adds: KUR URU[…] / KUR URUga-aš-ga.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Invocation

175

(and) queen! O Male Cedar-deities, wherever you are, whether in heaven, whether in the netherworld, whethe[r yo]u are (in) the mountains, [wh]ether (in) the water sources, whether you are in the land of Mittanni, whether you are in the land of Kinza, Tunip, Ugarit, Zinzira, Tunapa, [I]darukatta, Gatanna, Alalaḫ, [Kin]aḫḫi, Amurru, Zituna, Zunzura, [Nuḫašš]e, Ugulzit, Arapḫa, (or) Zunzur[ḫi], [whether you are i]n the land of Aššur, Babylon, Šanḫarra, Egypt, [Alašš]iya, Alziya, Papaḫḫi, Kumma[nni, Ḫayaš]a, Lulluwa, Arzawa, […, …], Talawa, Ma[(ša, Galkiša), Kunt]ara, Iyalanti, [(Wiluša), …], Luḫma, Ša[(ppuwa), …, Partaḫuina], Gašula, Ḫi[muwa], (or) [(Lalḫa, al)]l the lands, wherever you are […], [(now) come (back in)]to Ḫatti! The evocation ritual for the Mother-goddesses (DINGIR.MAḪ), the Fate-goddesses (dGUL-šeš), Zukki, and Anzili (CTH 484) is comparable to the ritual for the Male Cedar-deities (CTH 483) discussed above. It also contains seven evocations. In each evocation the deities are evoked from a different locality: the netherworld, fire, wells, sea, rivers, mountains, and heaven. A recitation is included in the first evocation from the netherworld.567 The first part of this recitation, KUB 15.32+ i 39–45, is presented below.568 It contains clauses similar to the wish and the request to summon the deity in the invocation of the elaborate prayer introduction. In particular the references to offerings are remarkable in this respect. CTH 484, KUB 15.32+ i 39–45:569 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

567

568 569 570 571 572

DINGIR.MAḪ⸢MEŠ⸣570 dGUL-še-eš DINGIRMEŠ-aš571 an-tu-⸢uḫ-ša-aš-ša tu⸣-eg-ga-aš DINGIR.MAḪMEŠ 572 dGUL-še-eš dzu-uk-ki-iš ⸢an⸣-zi-li-iš ku-wa-pí-wa-za ⸢im-ma⸣ ku-wa-pí ku-e-da-ni-wa-za im-ma ku-e-da-ni KUR-e [m]a-a-an-wa-za ne-pí-ši ma-a-an-wa-za ták-⸢ni⸣-i ḪUR.SAGMEŠ-aš ÍDMEŠ-aš [n]u KUR.KURMEŠ ḫu-u-ma-an-da an-da ḫal-za-a-i ki-nu-na-wa EGIR-pa ú-wa-at-tén šu-me-en-za-an ŠA EN.SÍSKUR É-ri iš-ta-na-a-ni ⸢GIŠ⸣ŠÚ.A-ki-it-ti ke-e-da-ni SÍSKUR-ni

The recitation is only written out (and referred to) in the first evocation of the ritual, but it might have been repeated at every other evocation, as in the evocation ritual KUB 15.34+ (CTH 483). Though the various prayer-recitations in this text are not identical, they do resemble each other closely, see Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 180. Only the first recitations in KUB 15.34+, belonging to the preparation of the ritual, are much more elaborate than those repeated at each evocation. The second part of the recitation, KUB 15.32+ i 46–59, is edited on pp. 267f. Duplicate: KUB 15.31 i 36–42. For editions of the entire ritual, see Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 148–81 and Fuscagni 2016. KUB 15.31 i 36: [DINGI]R.MAḪMEŠ-aš. KUB 15.31 i 36 omits -aš. KUB 15.31 i 37: [DINGI]R.MAḪḪI.A.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

176

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

O Mother-goddesses, Fate-goddesses, Mother-goddesses and Fate-goddesses of the gods and the human body, Zukki, (and) Anzili! Wherever you are, in whichever land you are, whether you are in heaven, whether you are in the netherworld, the mountains (or) the rivers, – he calls out all the lands – now come back to your altar in the house of the lord of the ritual, to your (sg!) throne, (and) to this offering! These three rituals list more possible locations than the invocation, see Table 31. The list of locations begins in each of them with a wildcard: ‘wherever’.573 Heaven and the mountains are mentioned in each of the passages,574 whereas the sea occurs only in KBo 23.1+.575 Instead of the enemy land, KUB 15.34+ i 52–64 contains a list of specific lands to which the deities could have gone, and KUB 15.32+ i 43 instructs the performer to call out all the lands. CTH 472

CTH 483

CTH 484

KBo 23.1+ i 17–25

KUB 15.34+ i 50–65

KUB 15.32+ i 39–45

Heaven Sea Mountains

Heaven Sea Mountain

Heaven – Mountains

Enemy land

–

list of 44 lands

–

Seven paths Rivers Seven paths

Netherworld Water sources –

Heaven – Mountains instruction to call out all the lands Netherworld Rivers –

Invocation

Table 31. Possible whereabouts of the summoned deity.

As in the invocation, the different locations are mentioned in subordinate clauses introduced by mān ‘if, whether’.576 In the rituals these clauses are subordinate to one or more requests to return from these places. The requests are introduced by kinuna ‘now’, just like the main clause of the wish in the invocation. KBo 23.1+ i 23–25 uses eḫu ‘come!’ (2sg.imp.act).577 The same verb form is used in the request to summon the deity in the invocation. The other two rituals employ the second person plural imperative of uwa- ‘come’ (KUB 15.34+ i 65 (restored), KUB 15.32+ i 44). 573 574 575 576 577

KUB 15.34+ i 51 and KUB 15.32+ i 40f.: kuwapi (imma) kuwapi ‘wherever’; KUB 15.32+ i 41: kuedani=wa=za imma kuedani KUR-e ‘Wherever you are, in whichever land you are’. The mountains and the rivers are among the places where the eagle and the bee search for Telipinu in the Telipinu Myth (KUB 17.10 + KBo 55.8 i 24′–25′, IBoT 3.141 i 7′–9′, KUB 33.5 ii 17′–19′). Although the sea is not mentioned in the passages of CTH 483 and CTH 484 under discussion, both evocation rituals consist of seven evocations, in one of which the deities are drawn from the sea. That we find mān here, and never našma, suggests that našma in CTH 377 is secondary, whereas mān is primary, cf. p. 168, fn. 541. Kloekhorst 2008: 233.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Invocation

177

The references to offerings in the invocation and some of the evocation rituals are remarkable. In the invocation cedar and oil are offered to attract the addressed deity with their fine scent. In addition, thick bread and wine are given. Similarly, in KUB 15.32+ i 45 (CTH 484) the DINGIR.MAḪ, the GUL-šeš, Zukki and Anzili are asked to return to the offering (SÍSKUR) that was apparently placed to lure them. A promise to bring offerings to these deities when they return occurs further on in the text.578 The invocation refers explicitly to the scent of the cedar and oil. This we may compare to the mention of a ‘fragrant odour’ (šanezziš waršulaš) in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna, KBo 31.76+ i 11′–12′ (CTH 334), for which see p. 264. Unlike in the invocation, the odour is not intended to attract the deity, but to soothe or satisfy her. Nonetheless, a request for satisfaction using the same verb kalank- ‘to soothe, to satiate, to satisfy’579 also occurs in the invocation.580 Similar requests occur in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna (CTH 334), the Telipinu Myth (CTH 324), and a disappearing god myth concerning the Storm-god of queen Ašmunikkal (CTH 326). CTH 334, KBo 52.9+ obv. 11′–12′ (LNS): 11′ ka-[a-ša ga-l]a-ak-⸢tar⸣ ki-i[t]-ta [n]u ŠA DINGIR.MAḪ ZI-ŠU 12′ [ka-ra-az-z]a-ši-iš ka-la-an-k[án-za e-eš-t]u He[re] lies [gal]aktar, may it satisfy the soul (and) [insid]e of Ḫannaḫanna! CTH 324, KUB 33.1+ ii 12′–13′ (MS): 12′ ka-a-ša ga-la-ak-tar ki-it-ta […] 13′ ga-la-an-kán-za e-eš-tu → Here lies galaktar, may […] be satisfied! CTH 326, KUB 33.21+ iii 16′–19′ (NS): 16′ … […] 17′ ga-la-ak-tar ki-it-ta nu-uš-ši […] 18′ ga-la-an-ga-za e-eš pár-ḫu-e-n[a-aš …] 19′ na-aš-ši-pa an-da mu-ga-a-an-za ⸢e⸣-[eš-du] [Here] lies galaktar, may […] be satisfied towards her! Parḫue[na …], [may he] be invoked for her! A close parallel to the statement introducing Section II of the invocation occurs in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna, KBo 31.76+ i 7′–8′ (CTH 334). There are some minor variants between the two clauses. The most notable variant is in the syntax. In KBo 31.76+ the offerings, the ‘thick bread and libation’, are positioned before the verb, whereas in the invocation they occur after the verb, thus giving emphasis to the of-

578 579 580

KUB 15.32+ i 51f., see p. 267. Puhvel HED 4: 18–20, Kloekhorst 2008: 428. KUB 24.3+ i 4′ (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ i 15 // KUB 24.2 obv. 13 (CTH 377), KUB 36.81 i 2′ (CTH 376.4).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

178

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

fering materials.581 The conjunction nu at the beginning of the clause is lacking in KBo 31.76+. Both employ a form of mugai-: KBo 31.76+ in the first person plural; the invocation in the first person singular. The conjunction =(i)a is suffixed to išpanduzzit ‘libation’ in KBo 31.76+, but not in the invocation. Other variants are orthographic. Invocation582

nu=a kāša mukiškimi NINDAḫaršit DUGišpanduzit Herewith I invoke you with thick bread and libation.

KBo 31.76+ i 7′–8′583

kāša=a IŠTU NINDA.GUR4.RA išpanduzzi=a / [muki]šgaweni With thick bread and libation, we herewith [invo]ke you.

As the overview in Table 32 shows, only Section I of the invocation, i.e., the wish and the request to summon the deity, has parallels in the evocation rituals. Parallels to the statement and the request for satisfaction at the beginning of Section II occur in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna (CTH 334). Similar requests for satisfaction are also attested in other disappearing god myths. The requests for attention that conclude the invocation do not have a counterpart in the disappearing god myths or the evocation rituals.

I

II

Structure Invocation

CTH 472

CTH 483

CTH 484

CTH 334

CTH 376.II, CTH 377, CTH 376.4

KBo 23.1+

KUB 15.34+

KUB 15.32+

KBo 31.76+

–

–

–

i 19–25

i 50–65

i 39–45

– – –

Statement / § Wish – Summoning Fragmentary (only in KUB 36.80) Request – Summoning Statement Request – Satisfaction Request(s) – Attention §

cf. i 11′–12′

– – –

– – –

– – –

i 7′–8′ i 11′–12′584

–

Table 32. Overview of textual parallels to the invocation.

The similar function of the invocation, the evocation rituals, and the disappearing god myths, and the parallels discussed above, imply that the invocation was related to rituals of this type concerning a disappearing deity. The invocation is preserved in prayers that can be dated to the reign of Muršili II, whereas the disappearing god myths and some, if not all, evocation rituals are of an earlier date. Therefore, it is 581 582 583 584

Dardano 2019: 19. KUB 24.3+ i 3′f. // KUB 36.80 obv. 12f. (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ i 13f. // KUB 24.2 obv. 12 (CTH 377). Cf. p. 264. Compare the requests for satisfaction in the disappearing god myths presented on p. 177 (KBo 52.9+ obv. 11′–12′, KUB 33.1+ ii 12′–13′, KUB 33.21+ iii 16′–19′).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

179

probable that rituals concerning a disappearing deity were used as aids to compose the invocation. The textual parallels are not close enough to identify a direct precursor. Possibly the invocation was composed by taking single clauses from one or more rituals, which were adapted freely. The requests for attention were adopted from Plea I of CTH 376.II and go back to the same precursor as Plea I. 7.2.4 A Request to Summon the Gods in CTH 381 Though requests for attention are attested in the large majority of the prayers in the corpus, requests and wishes to summon the gods are rare. They occur only in the prayers that contain the invocation as part of the elaborate prayer introduction and in the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381). In this text the Sun-god of Heaven is asked to summon the gods from six different locations (KUB 6.45+ iii 23–24). The request resembles the wish to summon the addressed deity at the beginning of the invocation.585 In CTH 381 the ‘temples’ (ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ) and the ‘thrones’ (GIŠGU.ZAMEŠ) are among the places where the gods could be. These locations are not mentioned in the invocation, nor in any of the parallels in the evocation rituals, see Table 31. The formulations also differ. In CTH 381 the locations where the gods may be, occur in the ablative case and the employed verb is ḫalzai- ‘to call, to summon’. In the invocation we find the synonymous verb kalliš- instead and the possible whereabouts of the addressed deity are mentioned in conditional clauses. The request in CTH 381 could have been inspired on one of the prayers of Muršili II that contains an invocation or on rituals concerning a disappearing deity. CTH 381, KUB 6.45+ iii 23–24:586 23 na-aš ne-pí-ša-aš587 dUTU-uš ne-pí-ša-az KI-az588 ḪUR.SAGME.EŠ-az 24 ÍDME.EŠ-az IŠ-TU ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ-ŠU-NU589 GIŠGU.ZAMEŠ-ŠU-NU ḫal-za-a-i O Sun-god of Heaven, call them (i.e., the summoned gods) from heaven, from the netherworld, from the mountains, from the rivers, from their temples (and) their thrones!

7.3 ‘ONLY IN ḪATTI’ PASSAGE The ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is named after its characteristic ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula: …=a … INA KUR URUḪATTI=pat … ‘For you … only in the land of Ḫatti’. The rhetorical

585 586 587 588 589

KUB 36.80 obv. 4–9 (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ i 8–12 // KUB 24.2 obv. 7–11 (CTH 377). Duplicate: B KUB 6.46 iii 62–64. B KUB 6.46 iii 62: ne-pí-〈ša〉-aš. B KUB 6.46 iii 63: ták-na-az. B KUB 6.46 iii 64: IŠ-TU ÉME.EŠ.DINGIRLIM-ŠU-NU GIŠGU.ZAME.EŠ-ŠU-NU.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

180

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

function of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is to enlist the addressee’s support for the beneficiary and the land of Ḫatti. This is achieved by describing how the beneficiary, i.e., the Hittite king, and the land of Ḫatti take care of the deity while contrasting it with the lack of such care in other lands. In this way the close relationship between the Hittites, including the Hittite king, and the addressed deity is emphasised, as is the deity’s dependence on Ḫatti and its monarch. The ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage thus persuades the addressee to support no other land but Ḫatti and its king. In the literature the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is generally not distinguished from the hymn.590 However, content and formulation distinguish the two. The hymn praises the addressee by describing his or her qualities, employing primarily the second person. It thus focuses solely on the addressed deity (see Ch. 7.4). Instead, the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage focuses on the relationship between the Hittites and the addressee, and it primarily consists of descriptions in the third person. Moreover, in all attested versions the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is separated from the preceding invocation and the following hymn by horizontal rulings. All three prayers containing the elaborate prayer introduction preserve the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. CTH 376.II and CTH 377 preserve it in its entirety. CTH 376.4 only preserves the beginning. In the three prayers the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passages are parallel to each other, but not identical. The close parallelism implies that they are different versions of the same ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, which have ultimately derived from the same source. To ease comparison, the separate versions are edited below in a Partitur and the translations are presented in parallel. The separate sources are indicated by their catalogue numbers as listed in Appendix I – i.e., 11, 12, and 17 – and the letter of the manuscript. The different sections and text units that form the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage are indicated in the Partitur and in the translation to highlight its structure (cf. Table 33 on p. 188). In the left margin of the translation it is indicated whether the topic of the clause is positive (+), negative (–), or neutral (±). Texts and Tablets included: CTH CTH 376.II CTH 377 CTH 377 CTH 376.4

No. 11 12 12 17

ms. A A B

siglum KUB 24.3+ KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 KUB 24.2 KUB 36.81

lines i 6′–28′ i 18–ii 19 obv. 15–23 i 6′– 20′

Transliteration, Partitur591 11 A 12 AB 17

590 591

E.g., Singer (2002a: 11) describes these passages as containing the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif, but he does not distinguish them from the following hymn, see ibid. 51. Cf. the comments on the relevant lines in Appendix IV (CTH 376.II) and Appendix V (CTH 377).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

181

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

SECTION I Direct Address + Epithet 11 A i 6′ [… ]x DINGIRLIM-iš d 12 A i 18 zi-ik-za te-li-pí-nu-uš n[a-ak-ki-i]š DINGIRLIM-⸢iš⸣ 12 B obv. 15 zi-ik-za dte-li-pí-nu-uš na-ak-ki-iš DINGIRLIM-iš → 17 i 6′ [… ] na-ak-ki-iš DINGIRLIM-i[š] Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee in Ḫatti 1) Temples 11 A i 7′ [… ]→ 12 A i 19 nu-ut-ta DINGIRLIM-IA Ù ÉM[EŠ.DINGIRMEŠ] → 12 B obv. 15f. nu-ut-ta DINGIRLIM-I[A] / Ù ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ → 17 i 7′ [… ]-ia → 11 A i 7′ I-NA KU]R URUKÙ.BABBARTI ta-aš-ša-nu-wa-an 12 A i 19f. ⸢I⸣-NA KUR URUḪA[T-TI-PÁT] / da-aš-ša-nu-wa-an → 12 B obv. 16 I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát ta-aš-nu-wa-an → I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pá[t] / [… ]→ 17 i 7′f. 11 A i 8′ [… ] É.DINGIRLIM-KA 12 A i 20 nam-ma-ma-ta [ta?-me]-⸢e?⸣-da-ni ut-n[i-e] 12 B obv. 16f. nam-ma-ma-at-t[a] / ⸢ta-me-e⸣-da-ni KUR-e → KUR-e É.D[INGIRLIM-KA] 17 i 8′ [… ]-ta da-me-e-da-ni 11 A i 9′ [… ]→ 12 A i 21 Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki e-e[š-zi] → 12 B obv. 17 Ú-UL ku-wa-⸢pí⸣-ik-ki e-eš-zi 17 i 9′ [… -z]i → 2) Festivals and rituals 11 A i 9′f. [nu-u]t?-⸢ta⸣ EZEN4ḪI.A SÍSKURḪI.A-ia / [I-NA KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-pát] → 12 A i 21f. [n]u-ut-ta EZE[N4ḪI.A] / SÍSKUR I-NA KUR URUḪAT-TI → ḪI.A ḪI.A E]ZEN4 SÍSKUR I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát → 12 B obv. 18 [… ḪI.A ḪI.A 17 i 9′f. nu-ut-ta ⸢EZEN4⸣ SÍSKUR -i[a] / [… ]→ 11 A i 10′f. [šu-up-pí pár-ku]-⸢i⸣ pé-eš-kán-zi / [… ]→ 12 A i 22f. p[ár-k]u-i šu-up-pí / pí-iš-kán-zi nam-⸢ma⸣-ma-ta dam-me-e-d[a-ni] 12 B obv. 18f. pár-ku-i / [šu-up-pí pí-iš-ká]n-⸢zi nam⸣-[m]a-ma-at-ta ta-me-e-da-ni 17 i 10′f. [šu-up-p]í pár-ku-i pé-eš-kán-zi / [… -d]a?-ni → 11 A i 11′ […]-⸢e⸣ Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki pé-eš-kán-zi 12 A i 24 ut-ni-e Ú-UL ku-w[a]-⸢pí-ik-ki pí⸣-i[š-kán-zi] 12 B obv. 20 [… ]x-ki pí-iš-kán-zi KUR-e Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki / [pé-eš-kán-zi?] → 17 i 11′f. 11 A 12 AB 17

– –

3) Adorned temples 11 A i 12′ […

I]Š-TU KÙ.BABBAR

KÙ.GI

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

182

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

12 A i 25 ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ-ta pár-ku 12 B obv. 21 [… 17 i 12′f. [… ]-x-ia-at-ta pár-ga-u-wa

IŠ-T[U

…

]→

KÙ.B]ABBAR KÙ.GI → IŠ-TU KÙ.BABBAR / [… ] →

11 A i 13′ [… ] e-eš-zi nam-ma-ma-at-ta 12 A i 25f. [… ] / I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-⸢TI-pát⸣ [… ] ]→ 12 B obv. 21f. ⸢ú-nu-wa-an-ta⸣ I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-[TI-pát] / [… 17 i 13′f. [… I-NA] KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát e-eš-zi / [… ]→ 11 A i 14′ 12 A i 27 12 B obv. 22 17 i 14′f.

[… ]-ik-ki e-eš-zi ta-me-e-da-ni K[UR-e … ] (end column, Randleiste) Ú]-⸢UL⸣ ku-wa-pí-ik-k[i e-eš-zi] […]x x x x[… [… -d]a-ni KUR-⸢e Ú-UL⸣ ku-wa-pí-ik-ki / [e-eš-zi] →

4) Valuable objects 11 A i 15′ [… KÙ.G]I? NA4ḪI.A → ? ḪI.A ḪI.A 12 A ii 1 [GAL ] -ta BI-IB-RI KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.BABBAR.GI4 NA4[ḪI.A] 12 B obv. 23 [… ]→ NA4ḪI.A 17 i 15′ [… -t]a? BI-IB-RIḪI.A ⸢KÙ.BABBAR KÙ⸣.GI 11 A i 15′f. 12 A ii 2 12 B obv. 23′ 17 i 16′

[…

11 A 12 A 12 B 17

(Breaks) –

5) Festivals 11 A i 16′ 12 A ii 3 17 i 16′f.

I-NA KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-pát ⸢I⸣-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát [… KUR URUḪ]A-⸢AT-TI-pát

/ [… ] → e-eš-zi e⸣-e[š-zi] ]x e-eš-zi →

[…

EZEN4ḪI.A-it-ta EZEN4ḪI.A-ia-at-ta

EZEN4?.I]TUḪI.A MU-ti mi-i-ia-na-aš EZEN4.ITU EZEN4ḪI.A erasure MU-aš me-e-a-na-aš

/ […

m]i-i-ia-an-aš →

11 A i 17′ 12 A ii 4 17 i 17′f.

[zé-na-an-da-aš?

gi-im-ma-an-t]a?-aš? ⸢ḫa-me-eš-ḫa⸣-an-da-aš gi-im-ma-an-ta-aš ḫa-mi-iš-ḫa-an-da-aš zé-e-na-an-⸢da-aš⸣ / [gi-im-ma-an-ta-aš? ḫa-mi-i]š-ḫa-an-da-aš →

11 A i 18′ 12 A ii 5 17 i 18′

⸢a-ú-li-uš⸣ x-[… ]→ zé-na-an-da-aš a-ú-li-uš mu-ki-iš-na-aš-ša a-ú-⸢li⸣-[uš] ⸢mu-ki⸣-iš-ša-na-aš

11 A i 18′f. 12 A ii 6 17 i 19′

[EZ]EN4ḪI.A I-⸢NA⸣ [KUR U]RU⸢KÙ⸣.BABBARTI-pát / e-eš-ša-an-zi EZEN4ME.EŠ I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát e!-eš-zi erasure [… KUR URUḪA-AT?]-TI-pát e-eš-š[a-an-zi] →

11 A i 19′f. 12 A ii 7 17 i 19′f.

nam-ma-⸢ma⸣-[at-ta] ta-me-e-da-ni ⸢KUR⸣-e / Ú-UL → nam-ma-ma-at-ta ta-me-e-da-ni KUR-e! Ú-U[L] [… ]x x / [… ]→

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

183

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

11 A i 20′ 12 A ii 8 17 i 20′

ku-wa-pí-ik-ki e-eš-š[a-a]n-zi ku-wa-pí-ik-ki e-eš-ša-an-zi [ku-wa-p]í-⸢ik-ki e?⸣-[… ]

11 A 12 A 17

(Breaks)

SECTION IIA Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee in Ḫatti + Direct Address 6) Honouring the addressee’s divinity (= worship) 11 A i 21′ nu tu-el ŠA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na DINGIRLIM-ia-tar → 12 A ii 9 ⸢nu tu⸣-el ⸢ŠA⸣ dte-li-pí-nu erasure DINGIRMEŠ-tar → 11 A i 21′f. 12 A ii 9f.

I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-⸢TI⸣-pát / na-ak-ki-⸢ia⸣-aḫ-ḫa-an → ⸢I⸣-[NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát] / ⸢na?⸣-[a]k?-k[i?-ia-aḫ-ḫ]a-an

→

Description – Good behaviour of the beneficiary towards the addressee 7) Respect 11 A i 22′ nu-ut-ták-kán mmur-ši-DINGIRLIM-iš erasure LUGAL-uš ARAD-⸢KA⸣ 12 A ii 10 nu-ut-ták-kán mmur-š[i-DINGIRLIM-iš LUGAL-uš ARAD-KA] 11 A 12 A ii 11

– [MUNUS.LUGAL-aš GÉME-KA] ⸢Ù DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL⸣ A[RADMEŠ-KA]

11 A i 23′ 12 A ii 12

I-NA KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-⸢pát na-aḫ⸣-ḫa-an-za → [I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát na-aḫ-ḫa-an-te-eš] →

SECTION IIB Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee 8) Images, rituals, and festivals (+ Direct Address) 11 A i 23′f. nu tu-el ŠA dUTU URUa-r[i]-in-na / ḫi-im-mu-uš SÍSK[U]RḪI.A → x[… ]→ 12 A ii 12f. [nu tu-el] / [ŠA dte-li-p]í-nu 11 A i 24′f. 12 A ii 13f.

⸢EZEN4⸣ḪI.A i-ia-u-wa-an-zi / ša-ra-a ti-it-ta-nu-uš-kán-zi → […]x[x] / [… -z]i ša-ra-⸢a⸣ [… -ká]n-z[i]

11 A i 25′f. 12 A ii 15

nu-ut-ta ḫu-u-ma-an pár-ku-i / pé-eš-kán-zi → [… ḫ]u-u-ma-an šu-up-p[í pár-ku-i p]í-iš-kán-zi

9) Respect for valuable objects 11 A i 26′ nam-ma-aš-ša-an É.DINGIRLIM-KA A-NA KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI 12 A ii 16 [nam-ma-aš-ša]-an erasure É.DINGIRLIM-K[A? BI-IB-R]IḪI.A-KA 11 A i 27′ 12 A ii 17

na-aḫ-ša-ra-az ti-ia-an-za → [TÚG?ḪI.A-KA] Ú-NU-TEMEŠ-KA na-⸢aḫ-ša-ra-za⸣ ti-ia-an-za

11 A 12 A ii 18

– [x x x x x E]GIR-pa kap-pu-wa-an A-NA Ú-NU-UT

11 A i 27′f. 12 A ii 19

nu ma-ni-in-ku-wa-an / ⸢Ú⸣-UL ku-iš-ki ti-ia-az-zi [x x x x ma-ni-i]n-ku-wa-an Ú-UL ku-iš-ki ti-ia-az-zi

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

184

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

11 A 12 A

Translation CTH 376.II (No. 11)

CTH 377 (No. 12)

CTH 376.4 (No. 17)

A KUB 24.3+ i 6′–28′

A KUB 24.1+ i 18 - ii 19 // B KUB 24.2 obv. 15–23

KUB 36.81 i 6′–20′

SECTION I Direct Address + Epithet +

[You, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are an honoure]d deity.

You, O Telipinu, are an honoured deity.

[You, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are] an honoured deity.

Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee in Ḫatti 1) Temples +

−

[For you, my god and the temples are] made strong [in] Ḫatti. [But, moreover, in another land] your temple [is never (made strong) for you].

For you, my god and the temples are made strong only in Ḫatti. But, moreover, in another land (your temple) is never (made strong) for you.

[For you, my god] and [the temples are made strong] onl[y] in Ḫatti. [But, moreover], in another land [your] tem[ple i]s [never (made strong)] for you].

2) Festivals and rituals +

−

For you, they continually provide the festivals and ritual(s) in a [holy (and) pur]e manner [only in Ḫatti]. [But, moreover, in another lan]d they never provide (them) [for you].

For you, they continually provide the festivals (and) ritual(s) in a pure (and) holy manner only592 in Ḫatti. But, moreover, in another land they never provide (them) for you.

For you, they continually provide the festivals an[d] rituals [in a hol]y (and) pure manner [only in Ḫatti]. [But, moreover, in anoth]er land [they] never [provide (them) for you].

§ 3) Adorned temples +

592

[For you, lofty temples adorned] with silver (and) gold exist (sg.) [only in Ḫatti].

For you, lofty temples adorned wi[th si]lver (and) gold [exist] only in Ḫatti.

For you, lofty [temples adorned] with silver [(and) gold] exist only [in] Ḫatti.

A omits.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

185

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

CTH 376.II (No. 11) −

Moreover, [in another land it neve]r exists for you.

CTH 377 (No. 12)

CTH 376.4 (No. 17)

[Moreover], in another l[and it] neve[r exists for you].

[Moreover, in anoth]er land [it] never [exists for you].

4) Valuable objects +

[For you, cups (and) rhyta of silver, gold, (and)] stones [exist] only in the land of Ḫatti.

For you, [cup]s (and) rhyta of silver, gold, (and) stone[s] exist (sg.) only in the land of Ḫatti.

[For y]ou, [cups] (and) rhyta of silver, gold, (and) stones exist [only in Ḫatti].

5) Festivals +

−

[For you, festivals – the] monthly [festival]s, the annual (festivals): [the fe]stivals [of autumn, winte]r, (and) spring, the animal sacrifices [and (the festivals) of the mukeššar] – exist only in Ḫatti. But, moreover, in another land they never ex[i]st [for you].

For you, festivals – the monthly festival(s), the annual festivals: the festivals of winter, spring (and) autumn, the animal sacrifices and (the festivals) of the mukeššar – exist (sg.) only in Ḫatti.

§

§

But, moreover, in another land they never exist for you.

For you, festivals [– the monthly festivals, the ann[ual] (festivals): [the festivals] of autumn, [winter, sp]ring, the animal sacrific[es] (and the festivals) of the mukeššar – ex[ist] only [in Ḫat]ti. [But, moreover, in another land they neve]r e[xist for you].

SECTION IIA Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee in Ḫatti + Direct Address

[Broken]

6) Honouring the addressee’s divinity (= worship) +

Your godhood, O SunYour godhood, O goddess of Arinna, is Telipinu, is honoured honoured only in Ḫatti. [only in Ḫatti]. Description – Good behaviour of the beneficiary towards the addressee 7) Respect

+

Only in Ḫatti is Muršili, the king, your servant, respectful to you.

[Only in Ḫatti are] Murš[ili, the king, your servant, and the queen your servant], and the princes, [your] s[ervants, respectful to] you.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

[Broken]

186

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

CTH 376.II (No. 11)

CTH 377 (No. 12)

CTH 376.4 (No. 17)

SECTION IIB Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee 8) Images, rituals, and festivals (+ Direct Address) +

+

+

They continually set up your images, O Sungoddess of Arinna, to fully perform the rituals (and) festivals. They continually provide everything in a pure manner for you.

They [continually set up your images, O Telip]inu, [to] fully [perfor]m [the rituals (and) festiva]l(s).

Furthermore, for the silver (and) gold of your temple respect is established.

[Furthermore], [for] your [garment]s, [your rhyta], (and) your utensils (of) your temple respect is established. [They …] are taken care of. No one will step near the utensils […].

They continually [pr]ovide everything in a hol[y (and) pure manner for you]. 9) Respect for valuable objects

+ ±

— No one will step near it.

§

§

Comments on CTH 376.4 (No. 17), KUB 36.81 i 6′–20′ i 11′f.: Restored on the basis of i 10′ in the same text. i 18′: It is unclear how many signs are broken off at the beginning of the line.

Below, the structure and content of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is discussed, with a special focus on the employed rhetorical strategies (Chs. 7.3.1–7.3.2). Subsequently, the variants between the different versions and their implications for the interrelationships between them are treated (Ch. 7.3.3). The MH Prayer of Arnuwanda and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška (CTH 375) contains a passage comparable to the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. The relevant passage also employs the ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula, but it is not part of the prayer’s introduction and it differs considerably from the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage in the prayers of Muršili II. Therefore, it is better understood as a passage employing the ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula or motif, and not as an actual ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. This passage and its relationship to the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is analysed in Ch. 7.3.4. Evidence suggesting that

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

187

the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage or a similar passage may have been used in prayers during the reign of Muwatalli II is presented in Ch. 7.3.5. 7.3.1 Structure The overall structure of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is simple: it consists of descriptions that are introduced by a direct address with epithet praising the addressee (see Table 33). A horizontal ruling divides the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage into two sections: Sections I and II.593 These two sections are also to be distinguished on the basis of their formulation and content. Only in the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) is Section I divided into three paragraphs. The additional rulings are probably remnants of an older precursor (see Ch. 7.3.4 and p. 286). Section II can be divided into two subsections, IIA and IIB, on the basis of formulation and content. The primary feature that distinguishes Section I from Section II is the use of contrast as a rhetorical strategy. In Section I the good care provided for the addressed deity in the land of Ḫatti is contrasted with the lack of it in other lands, see Table 34. After each positive description of the good behaviour of the Hittites in Section I we find the following negative clause: namma(=ma)=a tamēdani utnē (…) UL kuwapikki … ‘(But,) moreover, in another land it/they never …’. In most cases the verb ēš- ‘to be, to exist’ is used. The contrasting negative clause is only omitted in the fourth description concerning the valuable objects of the deity. In Section II it is not employed at all. There only positive topics are expressed. The two sections can also be distinguished by their content. Section I deals solely with the good behaviour of Ḫatti towards the addressed deity, whereas Section II also concerns the good behaviour of the beneficiary, i.e., the Hittite king Muršili II, in CTH 377 together with the queen and the princes. Section I and II are introduced in a similar way. A direct address with epithet introduces Section I and, hence, the entire ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage.594 The remainder of Section I does not contain any direct addresses. Section II is introduced by a description that contains a direct address.595 Not only the direct address distinguishes this clause from the other descriptions of good behaviour towards the addressee, but also the lack of the enclitic dative-locative =a referring to the addressee. The addressed deity is referred to in the genitive case instead.

593 594

595

The ruling occurs after KUB 24.3+ i 20′ (CTH 376.II) and KUB 24.1+ ii 8 (CTH 377). It is not preserved in KUB 24.2 (CTH 377) and KUB 36.81 (CTH 376.4). KUB 24.3+ i 6′ (CTH 376.II); KUB 24.1+ i 18 // KUB 24.2 obv. 15 (CTH 377); KUB 36.81 i 6′ (CTH 376.4). The same clause introduces the hymn that follows the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage (KUB 24.3+ i 29′ (CTH 376.II); KUB 24.1+ ii 20 (CTH 377)), cf. Ch. 7.4. KUB 24.3+ i 21′ (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ ii 9 (CTH 377).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

188

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Section § I

§ II

Text units Direct Address + Epithet Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee in Ḫatti 1) Temples 2) Festivals and rituals § (only in CTH 377) 3) Adorned temples 4) Valuable objects § (only in CTH 377) 5) Festivals

A

B

Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee in Ḫatti + Direct Address 6) Honouring the addressee’s godhood (= worship) Description – Good behaviour of the beneficiary towards the addressee 7) Respect Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee 8) Images, rituals, and festivals (+ Direct Address) 9) Respect for valuable objects

§ Table 33. Structure of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage.

The two introductory clauses express the same notion. They concern the addressed deity and describe him/her as an honoured deity.596 In the introduction of Section I this is done by the adjective nakki- ‘important, valuable, powerful, honoured’.597 A factitive verb derived from the same word, nakkiyaḫḫ-, is employed at the beginning of Section II. Here it is stated that the *šiuniyatar ‘godhood’, i.e., the state of being a deity,598 of the addressee ‘is honoured’ (nakkiyaḫḫ-) ‘only in Ḫatti’. There is one more direct address in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. This one marks the beginning of Section IIB and is part of a descriptive clause. Direct addresses give emphasis to the sentence in which they are incorporated. Moreover, they draw the addressee’s attention by calling him or her by name. Not every direct address in Hittite prayer marks the beginning of a new section. Whether or not it has an introductory function, depends on the distribution of all the direct addresses in that part of the text. The three direct addresses that occur in the ‘only in 596 597 598

Compare the similar references to the addressed deity in the first part of the hymn, see p. 218. CHD L–N 364–68, Kloekhorst 2008: 593, Tischler HEG 2: 257–61. Cf. the comments on KUB 24.3+ i 21′ in Appendix IV.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

189

Ḫatti’ passage, are all placed at the beginning of a section or subsection. This distribution implies that they function as explicit markers of a new section or subsection. Text units Direct Address + Epithet (= introduction) Description – Good behaviour towards the addressee in Ḫatti 1) Temples

made strong (daššanu-)

‘in no other land’ (namma=ma=tta tamēdani utnē É.DINGIRLIM-KA UL kuwapikki ēšzi) 2) Festivals and rituals

performed (pai-/pi-) in a pure and holy fashion

‘in no other land’ (namma=ma=tta tamēdani utnē UL kuwapikki piškanzi) § (only in CTH 377) 3) Adorned temples

exist (ēš-) exist (ēš-)

§

+ − + − +

‘in no other land’ (namma=tta tamēdani utnē UL kuwapikki ešzi) 4) Valuable objects

+/ − +

− +

(only in CTH 377)

5) Festivals

exist (ēš-)

‘in no other land’ (namma=ma=tta tamēdani utnē UL kuwapikki ēššanzi)

+ −

Table 34. Detailed structure of ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage Section I.

Sections IIA and IIB are distinguished from each other because the characteristic ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula is employed in Section IIA but not in Section IIB. Furthermore, the land of Ḫatti and the beneficiary are the ones exercising the good behaviour towards the addressed deity in Section IIA. Instead, in Section IIB the subject is an anonymous third person plural and there are no explicit references to the land of Ḫatti or the beneficiary. Since most descriptions of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage concern Ḫatti and the good behaviour described is identical or similar to some descriptions of Section I, we may assume that the people of Ḫatti are the anonymous third person plural in Section IIB.599 An overview of the textual features that are decisive for the division of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage into sections and subsections is presented in Table 35 below. To this we may add the visual separation between Sections I and II by a horizontal ruling.

599

However, Ḫatti is never the grammatical subject in any of the descriptions of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. References to the land of Ḫatti in Sections I and IIA consist merely of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula, which is lacking in Section IIB.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

190

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Section I

Section II A

B

Direct Address + Epithet

Description including Direct Address

Description including Direct Address

‘Only in Ḫatti’ formula

✓

✓

—

Contrast

✓

—

—

Ḫatti

Ḫatti, Beneficiary

Anonymous (3pl. ‘they’)

Introduced by

Good behaviour of … towards the addressee

Table 35. Distinguishing features of the sections in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage.

7.3.2 Descriptions of Good Behaviour towards the Addressee The ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage consists primarily of descriptions stressing the good behaviour of the land of Ḫatti and its king towards the addressee. These descriptions, numbered 1–9 (see Table 33 [p. 188]), are discussed below in the order in which they occur in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. All acts of good behaviour described in Section I are for the deity addressed. After the introductory direct address with epithet, Section I begins by stating that the temples are made strong for the addressee only in Ḫatti and nowhere else (1). Subsequently, the text turns to the performance of festivals and rituals (2), which are said to be provided properly, i.e., in a ‘holy’ (šuppi) and ‘pure’ (parkui) manner, in Ḫatti. Also here we find the contrasting formula that they are not performed in any other land. Then the text returns to the temples by stating that temples elaborately adorned with silver and gold exist only in Ḫatti and in no other land (3). Having raised the topic of valuables, the following description concerns cups and rhyta of silver, gold, and precious stones (4). These are also said to exist for the deity in Ḫatti, but the contrasting formula is not included. The similar theme of descriptions 3 and 4 could be the reason why they are surrounded by horizontal rulings in CTH 377. Section I ends with another description concerning the performance of festivals with the contrasting formula (5). Various types of festivals are listed: monthly, annual, seasonal, sacrificial, and mukeššar festivals. It seems the composer tried to include all existing festivals. Sections IIA and IIB do not contain the contrasting formula. The two descriptions that form Section IIA both concern worshipping or honouring the addressed deity. First, it is stated that the deity is honoured (nakkiyaḫḫ-), i.e., worshipped, only in Ḫatti (6). Subsequently, the beneficiary, Muršili II, in CTH 377 together with the queen and princes, is said to be respectful (naḫḫ-) to the addressee only in Ḫatti (7). Section IIB revisits some of the topics of Section I. First, the proper performance of rituals and festivals recurs (8). As in description 2, they are said to be provided (pai-

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

191

/pi-) in a ‘holy’ (šuppi)600 and ‘pure’ (parkui) manner. In addition, it is stated that the images of the addressed deity are set up for these performances. The final description concerns valuable objects (9), which is also the topic of descriptions 3 and 4. Here CTH 376.II and CTH 377 differ from each other. CTH 376.II mentions gold and silver of the deity’s temple and is thus comparable to description 3. By contrast, CTH 377 seems closer to description 4, because it mentions a temple, utensils, and probably also cups and rhyta, belonging to the addressed deity. Possibly, the silver and gold of the temple in CTH 376.II refer to the objects mentioned in CTH 377. This description (9) thus recalls the two earlier ones concerning valuable objects (3 and 4). It states, both in CTH 376.II and CTH 377, that respect is established (naḫšara- dai-/ti-) for these valuables and that not a single person will approach them. This final clause, ‘no one will step near’ the valuables,601 is the only clause with a negative element in Section II. Nonetheless, it does not create a radical contrast to what precedes it, since stating that ‘no one’ does what is forbidden (i.e., approaching valuable objects), conveys a positive message. The good behaviour of Ḫatti and its king towards the addressee that is described in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage can be summarised as follows. In Sections I and IIB the good behaviour consists of the care for temples and valuable objects belonging to the addressed deity, and the proper provision of rituals and festivals for the deity. In Section IIA worship seems to be the main concern. 7.3.3 Relationships between the ‘Only in Ḫai’ Passages The close parallelism between the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passages in the three prayers of Muršili II implies that they are different versions of the same ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage and that they derived from the same source. When examining the variants, it stands out that KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and KUB 36.81 (CTH 376.4) share more features with each other than they do with either of the two manuscripts of CTH 377, KUB 24.1+ and KUB 24.2.602 This suggests that the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage of CTH 376.II and CTH 376.4 are more closely related to each other than to the version of CTH 377. The features shared by KUB 24.3+ and KUB 36.81, but not by KUB 24.1+ and KUB 24.2 are listed below. a.

In CTH 377 Section I of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is divided into three paragraphs. The two horizontal rulings occur after description 2 (KUB 24.1+ i 11′ // KUB 24.2 i 24) and after description 4 (KUB 24.1+ ii 2 // KUB 24.2 i 23).603 Both KUB 24.3+ and KUB 36.81 do not have any rulings in these positions. Instead,

600 601 602

KUB 24.1+ ii 15 (CTH 377). KUB 24.3+ i 25′ (CTH 376.II) omits šuppi ‘holy’. KUB 24.3+ i 27′f. (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ ii 18f. (CTH 377). The variants also clearly show that KUB 24.1+ is the latest tablet of this group, cf. Ch. 6.2, and that it contains more scribal errors than the others. Note for instance the singular parku ‘lofty’ in KUB 24.1+ i 25, where one would expect a plural form, as we find in KUB 36.81 i 12′ (CTH 376.4). KUB 24.2 breaks off after this line. The horizontal ruling is not preserved.

603

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

192

b. c. d.

e. f. g. h.

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Section I forms a single paragraph in both texts. The two additional rulings in CTH 377 may be a remnant of an older text used as a model. É.DINGIRLIM-KA ‘your temple’ occurs in KUB 24.3+ i 8′ and KUB 36.81 i 8′, but not in the parallel lines in CTH 377 (KUB 24.1+ i 20 // KUB 24.2 obv. 17). Whether it is omitted in CTH 377 or added in the other two prayers is unclear. KUB 24.1+ i 22 // KUB 24.2 obv. 18–19 has parkui šuppi ‘in a holy (and) pure manner’. In KUB 24.3+ i 10′ and KUB 36.81 i 10′ the order of these words is reversed: šuppi parkui. Which sequence is primary remains unclear. The 3pl.prs.impf.act of pai-/pi- ‘to give’ is consistently written pé-eš-kán-zi with the sign EŠ in KUB 24.3+ i 10′, 11′, and 26′ and KUB 36.81 i 10′, whereas it is always spelled with the sign IŠ, pí-iš-kán-zi, in CTH 377 (KUB 24.1+ i 23, 24 // KUB 24.2 obv. 19, 20 and KUB 24.1+ ii 15). The orthography of miyana-: KUB 24.3+ i 16′ and KUB 36.81 i 17′ have mi-i-iaan-aš, whereas it is spelled me-e-a-na-aš in KUB 24.1+ ii 3. In the enumeration of seasonal festivals in KUB 24.3+ i 17′ and KUB 36.81 i 17′f. zenandaš ‘autumn’ is positioned before gimmantaš ḫamišḫandaš ‘winter (and) spring’,604 but in KUB 24.1+ ii 4f., it occurs after these two. The verb in KUB 24.3+ i 19′ and KUB 36.81 19′ is, as expected, in the third person plural ēššanzi, whereas KUB 24.1+ ii 6 has ēšzi, in the third person singular. Since the singular form is a scribal error, it is probably a later feature. The enclitic conjunction =ya in KUB 24.3+ i 9′ and KUB 36.81 i 9′, 12′ and 16′ is omitted in the parallels in CTH 377 (KUB 24.1+ i 22 // KUB 24.2 obv. 18 and KUB 24.1+ i 25 and ii 3).

In addition, we may refer to description 9 concerning valuable objects, which is preserved in KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and KUB 24.1+ (CTH 377) but not in CTH 376.4. The valuables are described differently in the two prayers (see Ch. 7.3.2). CTH 377 contains a clause that does not occur in CTH 376.II: KUB 24.1+ ii 18: ‘[They …] are thought of again’. It is currently impossible te determine whether or not this is a later addition. 7.3.4 A Possible Precursor: the ‘Only in Ḫai’ Motif in CTH 375 The ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula, which is characteristic for the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, is also attested in the earlier MH Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška (CTH 375). The relevant passage (Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311, KUB 17.21+ i 1′– 27′) is edited below. It appears to resemble the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage thematically as well as functionally: it emphasises the gods’605 relationship with the land of Ḫatti and the supplicants, the Hittite king Arnuwanda I and queen Ašmunikkal, by describing their good behaviour towards the addressed deities.

604 605

These clauses are, however, partly restored. Cf. the comments on KUB 36.81 i 18′ on p. 189 and on KUB 24.3+ i 17′ in Appendix IV. KUB 31.123 + FHL 3 (CTH 375.2.A), which may preserve the beginning of the prayer, identifies the overall composition as being directed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the gods.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

193

The passage is addressed to the gods. Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal are the supplicants. As in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, the good behaviour primarily comprises the care for the temples and valuable objects of the gods, and the performance of rituals and festivals for the gods. The passage does not only employ the ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula, but also several contrasting formulas – one of which is similar to the one used in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage – and it uses other phraseology that also occurs in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, albeit in a different immediate context. In spite of these similarities, this passage from CTH 375 is not another version of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. There are two main reasons for this claim: firstly, there are no exact parallels with the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, and secondly, unlike the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, it is neither a separate textual element, nor is it part of the prayer introduction. Instead, it is an integral part of the plea that interacts with other parts of the text. Therefore, it is a passage employing the ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula or motif, and will be referred to as such. The term ‘only in Ḫai’ passage continues to be used for the actual ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage that is part of the elaborate prayer introduction in prayers of Muršili II. Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 and KUB 17.21+ i 1′–27′ are edited separately below, even though they may be duplicates. Bo 3322+ 11′–18′ duplicate KUB 17.21+ i 5′–12′, and the fragmentary Bo 3322+ 7′–10′ seem to duplicate KUB 17.21+ i 1′–4′. Since I was unable to see the unpublished Bo 3322, its transliteration follows Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 375.13). The numbering of the lines does not follow this edition but is continuous. The text units that form the passage with ‘only Ḫatti’ motif are indicated in the edition (cf. Table 36 on p. 201).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

194

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

CTH 375, Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 Transliteration SECTION A (fragmentary) Statement? + Direct Address (fragmentary) 1′ ⸢nu ka-a-ša šu-ma-a-aš A-NA⸣ DIN[GIRMEŠ …] → Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees? (fragmentary) a) ? 1′ [… URUḫa-at-tu-ša-aš?] 2′ KUR-ia-aš i-wa-ar nam-ma x-[…] 3′ NU.GÁL ku-wa-pí-ik-[ki] b) Rituals 4′ SÍSKURḪI.A-aš-ma-aš šal-li pár-k[u-i …] 5′ ta-me-e-da-ni KUR-e URUḫa-at-[tu-ša-aš-pát KUR-e? …] 6′ Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki pé-eš-[kán?-zi?] c) ? + temples? 7′ ⸢iš⸣-ša-az-zi-ia-aš-ma-kán ⸢a⸣-[… (an-ze-el)] 8′ [i-w]a?-ar Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-k[i …? (É.DINGIRMEŠ-KU-NU-ia-aš-ma-aš)] 9′ [ki]-iš-šu-wa-an-ta ta-me-e-da-n[i? KUR-(e? Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki)?] 10′ [x]x-e-da-[…] SECTION B Description – Relationship of Ḫatti to the addressees + Direct Address d) True and pure land 11′ [nu] šu-ma-a-aš DINGIRMEŠ-aš URUḫa-a[t-tu-ša-aš-pát (ḫa-an-da-a-an pár-ku-i)] 12′ [KU]R-e → Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees in Ḫatti e) Rituals 12′ SÍSKURḪI.A-aš-ma-aš [(pár-ku-i šal-li ša-ne-ez-zi)] 13′ [U]RUḫa-at-tu-ša-aš-pát [(KUR-ia pí-⸢iš⸣-ga-u-e-ni)] f) Respect (+ Direct Address) 14′ [nu-u]š-ša-an šu-m[a-a-a]š DINGIRME[Š-aš (na-aḫ-ša-ra-at-ta-an)] 15′ [x x]x[x]x [URUḫa-at-tu-ša-aš]-⸢pát⸣ KUR-[e zi-ik-ki-u-wa-ni] SECTION C ‘You know’ formula + Direct Address (= transition) 16′ [(nu šu-me-eš-pát DINGIR)?M]EŠ-eš DINGIR[(MEŠ-aš iš-ta-an-z)a-(ni-it še-ek-te-ni)] Descriptions – Lack of good behaviour towards the addressees g) Temples 17′ [(ka-ru-ú-za šu-me-e)]n-za-an ⸢É?⸣[(.DINGIRMEŠ-K)U-N(U EGIR-an an-ze-el)] 18′ [i-wa-a(r Ú)-U(L)] ⸢ku⸣-iš-k[i (kap-pu-u-wa-an ḫar-ta)]

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

195

Translation SECTION A (fragmentary) Statement? + Direct Address (fragmentary) 1′ Herewith [we …] to you, O Go[ds!] Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees? (fragmentary) a) ? 1′ […] 2′ as in the land [of Ḫatti], moreover [in another land] 3′ [it] neve[r] exists. b) Rituals 4′ For you, [we continually provide] rituals in a great (and) pur[e …] fashion. 5′ […] in another land [… only in the land of] Ḫat[ti …] 6′ [they] never provide [them]. c) ? + temples? 7′ And nowhere he makes them […] 8′ [a]s [we (do) … And for you], 9′f. in [s]uch othe[r land they never … your temples]. SECTION B Description – Relationship of Ḫatti to the addressees + Direct Address d) True and pure land 11′f. For you, O Gods, [only the land of] Ḫa[tti is true (and) pure]. Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees in Ḫatti e) Rituals 12′f. For you, [we continuously provide pure, great, and fine] rituals only in the land of Ḫatti. f) Respect (+ Direct Address) 14′f. For y[o]u, O God[s, we continuously establish respect …] only [in] the land [of Ḫatti]. SECTION C ‘You know’ formula + Direct Address (= transition) 16′ [Only you, O God]s, [know with (your)] divine [spirit], Descriptions – Lack of good behaviour towards the addressees g) Temples 17′f. [(that) previously] no one [had taken care of] your t[emples [lik]e we (do)].

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

196

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

h) Temples 19′ [… É.]⸢DINGIR⸣ME[Š-KU-NU …] (Remainder lost) Comments 1′f.: Cf. KUB 17.21+ i 7′ (CTH 375, 1.A), for which see below. 2′: Possibly namma=[a tamēdani utnē] should be restored at the end of this line. Compare the contrasting formula employed in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage: namma(=ma)=a tamēdani utnē (…) UL kuwapikki … ‘(But,) moreover, in another land it/they never …’. 4′: Perhaps one could restore ša-ne-ez-zi after pár-ku-i, cf. KUB 17.21+ i 6′ (CTH 375 1.A). 5′: The restoration is based on l. 13′, contra Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 375.13) who restore URUḪA-AT-[TI …]. 6′: The restoration is based on KUB 24.3+ i 11′ (CTH 376.II) and KUB 24.2 obv. 20 (CTH 377). This is contra Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 375.13) who restore the first person plural: pé-eš-[ga-u-e-ni].

CTH 375, KUB 17.21+ i 1′–27′606 Transliteration Obv. i, beginning lost SECTION A (fragmentary) Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees? (fragmentary) c) ? + temples 1′ […]x an-⸢ze?-el?⸣ 2′ [i-w(a?-ar Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-k)i607 …-z]i? É.DINGIRMEŠ-KU-NU-ia-aš-ma-aš 3′ [ki-(iš-šu-wa-an-ta ta-me-e-da-n)i?608 KUR]-⸢e?⸣ Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki 4′ […]x? SECTION B Description – Relationship of Ḫatti to the addressees + Direct Address d) True and pure land 5′ nu šu-ma-a-aš DINGIRMEŠ-aš URUḫa-at-tu-ša-aš-pát ḫa-an-da-a-an pár-ku-i 6′ KUR-e → Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees in Ḫatti e) Rituals 6′ SÍSKURḪI.A-aš-ma-aš pár-ku-i šal-⸢li⸣ ša-ne-ez-zi 7′ URUḫa-at-tu-ša-aš-pát KUR-ia pí-⸢iš⸣-ga-u-e-ni → f) Respect (+ Direct Address) 7′ nu-uš-ša-an 8′ šu-ma-a-aš DINGIRMEŠ-aš na-aḫ-ša-ra-at-⸢ta⸣-an URUḫa-at-tu-ša-aš-pát

606

607 608

Variants in the following duplicates are indicated in footnotes: KUB 31.124(+) (CTH 375 1.B) i 1′–4′ (duplicates KUB 17.21+ i 23′–27′), and KBo 51.17(+) (CTH 375 1.C) i 1′–8′ (duplicates KUB 17.21+ i 19′–27′). For the duplicate Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 (CTH 375 1.G), see above. Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 8′. Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 9′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

197

h) Temples 19′ [… te]mple[s …] (Remainder lost) 7′–10′: The restorations are based on KUB 17.21+ i 1′–4′ (CTH 375 1.A). 8′: Possibly no verb needs to be restored here because the verb is already written at the beginning of the sentence in l. 7′: ⸢iš⸣-ša-az-zi=ia=aš=ma=kán. 9′: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 375.13) read ta-me-e-da-x[…]. 11′–18′: Cf. KUB 17.21+ i 5′–12′ (CTH 375 1.A). 19′: See the comments on KUB 17.21+ i 13′ below.

Translation Obv. i, beginning lost SECTION A (fragmentary) Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees? (fragmentary) c) ? + temples 1′ [And nowhere he makes them … as] we (do) 2′ […]. And for you, 3′f. [in such other lan]d [they] never […] your temples. SECTION B Description – Relationship of Ḫatti to the addressees + Direct Address d) True and pure land 5′f. For you, O Gods, only the land of Ḫatti is true (and) pure. Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees in Ḫatti e) Rituals 6′f. For you, we continuously provide rituals in a pure, great, and fine manner only in the land of Ḫatti. f) Respect (+ Direct Address) 7′f. For you, O Gods, we continuously establish respect only

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

198

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

9′

KUR-e

zi-ik-ki-u-wa-ni

SECTION C ‘You know’ formula + Direct Address 10′ nu šu-me-eš-pát DINGIRMEŠ DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-ta-an-z[a]-⸢ni-it⸣ še-ek-te-⸢ni⸣ Descriptions – Lack of good behaviour towards the addressees g) Temples 11′ ⸢ka-ru-ú⸣-za šu-me-en-za-an É.DINGIRMEŠ-K[U-N]U EGIR-an an-ze-el 12′ [i-wa-a]r Ú-[U]L ku-iš-ki kap-pu-u-⸢wa⸣-an ḫar-ta h) Respect for temples 13′ nu-uš-[ma-aš-ša-an A-NA É.DINGIRME]Š-K[U-N]U ⸢na⸣-aḫ-ša-ra-at-ta-an 14′ ki-iš-ša-an ⸢Ú-UL⸣ [ku-iš-ki t]i-ia-an ḫar-ta i) Valuable objects (+ Direct Address) 15′ nu-za šu-me-en-za-an ⸢ŠA⸣ [DINGIRMEŠ] ⸢a⸣-aš-šu KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI BI-IB-RIḪI.A 16′ TÚGḪI.A an-ze-el i-⸢wa-ar⸣ EGIR-an Ú-UL ku-iš-ki 17′ kap-pu-u-wa-an ḫar-ta j) Divine statues (+ Direct Address) 18′ nam-ma ⸢šu⸣-me-en-za-an DINGIRMEŠ-aš ku-e ALAMḪI.A-KU-NU ŠA KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI 19′ nu-uš-ša-an ku-e-da-ni DINGIRLIM-ni609 ku-it tu-e-ek-ki-iš-ši 20′ an-da ú-iz-z[a-p]a-an610 DINGIRMEŠ-ša611 ku-e Ú-NU-TEMEŠ ú-iz-za-pa-an-ta612 21′ na-at an-ze-el i-wa-ar EGIR-pa Ú-UL ku-iš-ki 22′ ne-u-wa-aḫ-ḫa-a[(n613 ḫa)r-t]a k) Respect for rituals 23′ nam-ma-aš-ma-aš-ša-⸢an⸣ [S]ÍSKURḪI.A-aš614 pár-ku-ia-an-na-aš ud-da-ni-i 24′ na-aḫ-ša-ra-at-t[a-a]n ki-iš-ša-an Ú-UL ku-iš-ki ti-ia-an ḫar-ta l) Rituals and festivals 25′ nu-uš-ma-aš UD-aš ITI-aš MU-ti615 me-ia-ni-ia-aš616 SÍSKURḪI.A617 26′ EZEN4ḪI.A618 ki-iš-ša-an ša-ra-a Ú-UL ku-iš-ki 27′ ti-it-ta-nu-wa-an ḫar-ta

609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618

C KBo 51.17(+) i 1′: DINGIRLIM. C KBo 51.17(+) i 2′: [ú]-⸢e⸣-ez-pa-an. C KBo 51.17(+) i 2′: DINGIRMEŠ-na-ša. C KBo 51.17(+) i 2′: ⸢ú-e-ez-pa-a-an-da⸣. C KBo 51.17(+) i 4′: […]-⸢a?⸣-aḫ-ḫa-an. C KBo 51.17(+) i 5′: ma-al-te-eš-na-aš. C KBo 51.17(+) i 7′: MUKAM-ti. C KBo 51.17(+) i 7′: me-ia-an-ni-ia-aš. B KUB 31.124(+) i 3′: [… SÍSK]UR; C KBo 51.17(+) i 7′: SÍSKUR. B KUB 31.124(+) i 3′ and C KBo 51.17(+) i 7′: EZEN4ḪI.A-ia.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

199

9′ in the land of Ḫatti. SECTION C ‘You know’ formula + Direct Address 10′ Only you, O gods, know with (your) divine spirit, Descriptions – Lack of good behaviour towards the addressees g) Temples 11′f. (that) previously no one had taken care of your temples [lik]e we (do). h) Respect for temples 13′f. [For] y[ou]r [temple]s, no [one] has [es]tablished respect in this way. i) Valuable objects (+ Direct Address) 15′–17′ O Gods, no one had taken care of your goods – silver, gold, rhyta, (and) garments – like we (do). j) Divine statues (+ Direct Address) 18′ Furthermore, O Gods, which(ever of) your statues of silver and gold, 19′ and what(ever) is old on the body of which(ever) deity, 20′ and which(ever) utensils of the gods are old, 21′f. no one [ha]d renewe[d] them like we (do). k) respect for rituals 23′ Furthermore, for you, in the matter of the purity of the rituals 24′ no one had established respect in this way. l) rituals and festivals 25′–27′ For you, no one had set up fully the rituals (and) festivals of the day, month, (and) annual occurrence in this way.

Comments 1′–4′: Cf. Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 7′–10′ (CTH 375 1.G), for which see above. 2′: Perhaps we may restore [iš-ša-az-z]i on the basis of Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 7′f. There the form occurs at the beginning of the sentence, whereas here it would occur at the end. 3′: The reading [KUR]-⸢e?⸣ is tentative and based on comparison with the clause namma(=ma)=a tamēdani utnē UL kuwapikki (verb) ‘(But,) moreover, in another land it/they never …’ in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passages in the prayers of Muršili II. The visible traces – the lower parts of two vertical wedges – could belong to E. However, anzel reminds one of the formula anzel iwar used in Section C of this passage in CTH 375. 11′f.: Cf. Puhvel HED 4: 69f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

200

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

13′: Gerçek 2012: 293 restores [A-NA ÉME]Š-K[U-N]U. However, since the duplicate Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 19′ has […]DINGIRMEŠ[…], I have restored É.DINGIRMEŠ-KU-NU. Compare also i 2′: É.DINGIRMEŠ-KU-NU-ia-aš-ma-aš.

The MH Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal (CTH 375) predates the prayers of Muršili II. Therefore, it is tempting to see this as the forerunner of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage.619 This hypothesis is explored below by examining the similarities between the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage and the passage employing the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375 and their implications. This includes a comparison of the function of each passage within the prayer as a whole. First, the structure and characteristics of the supposed precursor in CTH 375 shall be described. The passage employing the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375 consists almost entirely of descriptions concerning good behaviour towards the addressed deities. Based on formulation, it can be divided into three sections: A, B, and C (see Tables 36 and 37).620 The sections are separated from each other by horizontal rulings, but note that rulings also divide Sections A and C into multiple short paragraphs. Section B consists of one single paragraph. The beginning of the entire passage seems to be preserved in Bo 3322+ 1′ where the occurrence of kāša ‘herewith’ suggests that we are dealing with a statement containing a direct address. As we have seen, such statements typically introduce a new section of a prayer. Here it marks the beginning of Section A and, possibly, of the entire passage. Section B is introduced by a description that contains a direct address. In contrast to the other parts of the passage, it focuses on the land of Ḫatti, which is described as a ‘true and pure land’ for the gods (d).621 Section C is introduced by a clause which will be referred to as the ‘you know’ formula after the use of šek-/šak- ‘to know’ in the second person. It also contains a direct address. This clause labels all the following descriptions as something that the addressed gods ‘know with their divine spirit’ (DINGIRMEŠ-aš ištanz[a]nit šekteni).622 The distribution of the direct addresses shows a clear pattern that largely corresponds to the division into sections proposed here. The direct addresses in the first clause of Section A, the first and the final clause of Section B, and the first clause of Section C clearly mark either the beginning or end of a section. This raises the question whether or not the direct addresses in descriptions i and j have the same

619 620 621 622

Cf. Carruba 1983: 14, Singer 2002a: 50, Houwink ten Cate 1969: 88. The sections and the individual text units are numbered with letters to avoid confusion with the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. Bo 3322+ 11′f. // KUB 17.21+ i 5′f. Compare the introduction of ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage Section II, which focuses on the addressed deity, unlike the other descriptions in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. KUB 17.21+ i 10′ // Bo 3322+ 16′. The formula is attested twice more in CTH 375 (KBo 53.10+ i 13′ // KBo 51.17+ ii 4f.; KBo 53.10+ ii 12). Each time the clause marks a transition between two sections of the prayer, see pp. 287f. The formula also occurs multiple times in the Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 383), where ištanzan-/ZI ‘spirit’ is employed in the dat.-loc. In the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384), KUB 21.27+ i 16– 18, the ‘you know’ formula is used without reference to ištanzan-/ZI, see p. 288.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

201

function. The composer of the text probably did consider it as a transition of some kind. One could divide Section C into three subsections on the basis of content, the distribution of the direct addresses, and the fact that descriptions j and k are introduced by namma ‘furthermore’, which can be a marker for the beginning of a new (sub)section: C1 runs until description i, it concerns temples and valuable objects; C2 consists of description j and concerns divine statues; C3 consists of descriptions k and l and concerns rituals and festivals. Section A

Text units [Broken] Statement? + Direct Address (fragmentary) Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees? (fragmentary) a) ? § b) Rituals § c) ? + temples?

§ B

Description – Relationship of Ḫatti to the addressees + Direct Address d) True and pure land Descriptions – Good behaviour towards the addressees in Ḫatti e) Rituals f) Respect (+ Direct Address)

C

‘You know’ formula + Direct Address Descriptions – Lack of good behaviour towards the addressees g) Temples § h) Respect for temples i) Valuable objects (+ Direct Address) § j) Divine statues (+ Direct Address) § k) Respect for rituals l) Rituals and festivals

§

§ Table 36. Structure of the passage with ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

202

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Section A is not well preserved. It seems to employ the ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula623 and a contrast formula reminiscent of the one used in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, namma(=ma)=a tamēdani utnē (…) UL kuwapikki … ‘(But,) moreover, in another land it/they never …’ (Bo 3322+ 2′f., 5′f., 8′, and 9′). Section B also employs the ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula, but without any contrast formula. Descriptions e and f are written in the first person plural, which refers to the supplicants, Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal. Section B is primarily positive since it describes good behaviour towards the divine addressees. The same is probably true for Section A.

Introduced by ‘Only in Ḫatti’ formula Time Primarily formulated Contrast Contrast formula Good behaviour of … towards the addressee

Section A (fragmentary)

Section B

Section C

Statement? including Direct Address

Description including Direct Address

‘You know’ formula including Direct Address

✓?

✓

−

present positive (?)

present positive

past negative

✓ tamēdani utnē UL kuwappikki (?)

−

✓ anzēl iwar or kiššan ‘no one’ UL kuiški

Ḫatti (?)

− Ḫatti, Supplicant (= Beneficiary)

Table 37. Distinguishing features of CTH 375 Sections A, B, and C.

Section C, on the other hand, is almost entirely negative, because of the grammatical subject of the descriptions (g-l): UL kuiški ‘no one, nobody’. Moreover, with Section C the text not only switches from positive to negative, but also from the present to the past. The latter is clear from the use of the adverb kāru ‘previously, formerly, before’ in KUB 17.21+ i 11′, and the use of the periphrastic construction in the preterite tense throughout Section C. The section describes the lack of good behaviour towards the gods in past times when the Hittites were either not there or unable to take care of the gods. The lack of good behaviour is contrasted by short references to the present, either by means of anzēl iwar ‘as we (do), like us’ (g, i, and j) or kiššan ‘thus, in this way’ (h, k, and l). Which of the two was used seems to depend on the combination with specific verbs or objects. The phrase anzēl iwar occurs in the two text units that concern valuable objects (i, j) and in those that use the verb phrase āppan kappuwan

623

In description c the second person pronoun in the dat.-loc. =a seems to be lacking.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

203

har(k)- (g, i); kiššan is used in the text units that concern rituals and festivals (k, l), and in those that contain the phrase naḫšaraan tiyan ḫar(k)- (h, k). It is remarkable that the characteristic ‘only in Ḫatti’ formula occurs only in the first part of both the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage and the passage with the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375. In spite of this and the similar themes (i.e., the care for temples, valuable objects, rituals, and festivals of the gods), there are remarkably few exact parallels between the passage with the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375 and the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage from the prayers of Muršili II. Only descriptions 2 and 5 of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage seem to have a parallel in CTH 375. They both concern festivals (and rituals). In description 2 the festivals and rituals are said to be provided (pai-) in a ‘holy’ (šuppi-) and ‘pure’ (parkui-) manner ‘only in Ḫatti’. In CTH 375 we find a similar statement about the provision of rituals in description e, and possibly also in b. There (in e) the same verb pai- ‘to give’ is used. The rituals are said to be provided in a ‘pure’ (parkui-), ‘great’ (šalli-) and ‘fine’ (šanezzi-) fashion.624 Description 5 concerns monthly, yearly, and seasonal festivals, as well as sacrificial and mukeššar festivals. This echoes description l of CTH 375 in which daily, monthly, and yearly festivals are mentioned. The verb phrase used in l, šarā tianu- ‘to set up, to install’,625 is also used in description 8 of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, whereas description 5 of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage employs ēš- ‘to be’. Other noteworthy similarities can be found in some of the verb phrases that are employed. In CTH 375 āppa(n) kappuwai- ‘to take care of, to care for, to (re)consider, to think of (again)’ is used in a description concerning temples (g) and one concerning valuable objects (i). The same verb phrase is used in CTH 377 in description 9, which also concerns valuables.626 Both the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage and CTH 375 use a form of naḫšara- dai-/ti- ‘to establish respect’ in the descriptions that mention respect for the addressed deity or his belongings (9 [‘only in Ḫatti’ passage]; f, h, k [CTH 375]). Once a participle of naḫḫ- ‘to be respectful’ is employed (7 [‘only in Ḫatti’ passage]). These parallels and the general similarities suggest a connection between the passage employing the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375 and the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. CTH 375 may be a precursor of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage with multiple intermediary stages in prayers that have not come down to us. Alternatively, it may have been used directly by the composers of the elaborate prayer introduction as a model for the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. In this case, the passage in CTH 375 would merely have been used as a source of inspiration, for it was not adopted verbatim, or it was used from memory. Another possibility is that the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage did not derive from CTH 375, but from another unknown text that both the composers of CTH 375 and the composers of the prayers of Muršili II or an earlier version of the ‘only in

624 625 626

Compare also the description of Ḫatti as a ‘true’ (ḫandan) and ‘pure’ (parkui) land in description d and the reference to the ‘purity of the rituals’ ([S]ÍSKURḪI.A-aš parkuyannaš) in k. Cf. CHD Š 220, Tischler HEG 3: 385–87, Kloekhorst 2008: 883. The clause is omitted in CTH 376.II.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

204

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

Ḫatti’ passage used as a model to create these passages. In any case, there certainly is a connection, whether direct or indirect, between CTH 375 and the later ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage that is part of the elaborate prayer introduction in prayers of Muršili II. A significant difference between the two passages is their function within the overall composition or, in other words, the way in which they are embedded within the text. The ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is an introductory element that is part of a longer introduction referred to as the elaborate prayer introduction in the present study. The passage employing the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375 does not function as an introductory element, even though it occurs close to the beginning of the prayer. Rather it forms an integral part of the plea of the prayer, which seems to have been carefully composed and structured.627 This is clear from the fact that: (1) many topics that are addressed in the passage with the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif recur throughout the prayer from different perspectives,628 and (2) the transition from the passage with the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif to the following section is rather fluent. It is marked merely by a horizontal ruling and the adverb namma ‘furthermore’.629 The following section, KUB 17.21+ i 28′–31′, describes terrible behaviour towards the addressed gods, which was probably committed by the Kaška in past times.630 Its content and time frame are thus comparable to those of Section C, which immediately precedes it.631 The passage with the ‘only in Ḫatti’ motif in CTH 375 is an integral part of the plea of the prayer. By the time Muršili II commissioned his prayers, the motif had developed into a standard formulaic introductory element that, together with the introduction proper, invocation, and hymn, introduced some of Muršili II’s prayers. Whether the change from an integral part of the plea to an introductory element took place during the reign of Muršili II or earlier cannot be ascertained, since no other versions of the motif have come down to us. 7.3.5 e ‘Only in Ḫai’ Passage in Later Prayers? The ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage is not attested in later prayers. However, a passage from the beginning of the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) suggests that it was still used in the introduction of a prayer. The relevant passage is presented below. Muwatalli states that he will begin his prayer by addressing precisely those issues

627 628

629 630 631

Contrast (positive-negative) and historical contrast (past-present) are used as rhetorical strategies throughout the prayer. Note in particular KUB 17.21+ iii 12–20, which resembles Section C. The following topics recur in the prayer: temples in KBo 53.10(+) ii 3, ii 9′–11′; valuable objects in KUB 17.21+ ii 20′–23′, iii 1–3, iii 21–24; rituals and/or festivals in KUB 17.21+ iii 13–14, iii 15–16, iv 5–6; respect in KBo 53.10(+) i 11′, ii 3 (for temples), KUB 17.21+ iv 5; and divine statues in KUB 17.21+ ii 32′f. KUB 17.21+ i 28′. The Kaška are not mentioned in these lines (KUB 17.21+ i 28′–31′), but judging by other passages of the prayer they are probably meant here, cf. KUB 17.21+ ii 14′–iii 11, iv 1–4. The primary distinction between KUB 17.21+ i 28′–31′ and the preceding Section C is the grammatical subject of the sentences: UL kuiški ‘no one’ (3sg) in Section C (KUB 17.21+ i 10′–27′), and the third person plural in KUB 17.21+ i 28′–31′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

‘Only in Ḫatti’ Passage

205

that are treated in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage before making his personal plea. Nonetheless the remainder of the text does not contain a passage that resembles the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage or a part thereof. CTH 381, KUB 6.45+ i 20–27:632 20 ki-nu-na-mu DINGIRMEŠ633 am-me-el ŠA LÚSANGA-KU-NU ARAD-KU-NU me-mi-an 21 ar-ku-wa-ar iš-ta-ma-aš-tén ḫu-u-da-ak-ma-az šu-me-el-pát634 ŠA ENLÍ 22 23 24 25

DINGIRMEŠ635 ŠA ÉME.EŠ.DINGIRLIM-KU-NU erasure636 ŠA ALAM-KU-NU ar-ku-wa-ar i-ia-mi DINGIRMEŠ637 ŠA KUR URU.GIŠGIDRUTI638 GIM-an i-ia-an-te-eš639 GIM-an-na-at640 i-da-la-wa-aḫ-ḫa-an-te-eš641

EGIR-ŠU-ma-za642 ŠA ZI-IA A-WA-TEMEŠ643 ar-ku-wa-ar i-ia-mi nu-mu DINGIRMEŠ644 ENMEŠ 645 GEŠTU-an pa-ra-a e-ep-tén nu-mu ke-e ar-ku-wa-ar-riḪI.A 646

26 27 is-ta-ma-aš-tén647 →

Now, O Gods, listen to me (and) to my, your priest’s, your servant’s, word (and) plea (arkuwar). First, I will make a plea about you, O divine lords, about your temples, (and) about your statues; how the gods of Ḫatti are treated and how they are mistreated. Subsequently, I will make a plea about (what is in) my soul (i.e., a personal plea). O Gods, lords, hold (your) ear inclined to me! Listen to these pleas of mine!

632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647

Duplicate: KUB 6.46 i 21–28. For this passage, see also Singer 1996: 8f., 32, 52. KUB 6.46 i 21: DINGIRME.EŠ. KUB 6.46 i 22: am-me-el-pát. KUB 6.46 i 22: DINGIRME.EŠ BE-LU. KUB 6.46 i 23: šu-me-el. The erased signs in KUB 6.45+ appear to be šu-me-el (Singer 1996: 8). KUB 6.46 i 24: DINGIRME.EŠ. KUB 6.46 i 24: URUḪA-AT-TI. KUB 6.46 i 24: i-ia-an-te-eš17. KUB 6.46 i 14 ma-aḫ-ḫa-na-at. KUB 6.46 i 25: i-da-la-wa-aḫ-ḫa-an-te-eš17. KUB 6.46 i 26: EGIR-an-〈〈na〉〉-da-ma-za. KUB 6.46 i 26: A-WA-TEME.EŠ. KUB 6.46 i 27: DINGIRME.EŠ. KUB 6.46 i 27: ENME.EŠ. KUB 6.46 i 27: ar-u!-wa-ar-riḪI.A. KUB 6.46 i 28: iš-ta-〈〈ma〉〉-aš-tén.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

206

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

7.4 HYMN The elaborate prayer introduction ends with a hymn praising the deity to whom the prayer is directed. Emphasising the deity’s qualities should ensure the addressee is in a good mood to receive the following plea. In this way the hymn contributes to the successful communication of the prayer. Two of the three prayers containing the elaborate prayer introduction preserve a hymn: the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sungoddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)648 and the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377).649 These hymns focus on the addressed deity: the goddess of Arinna and Telipinu, respectively. They consist of descriptions which are primarily formulated in the second person singular. In particular the many direct addresses calling the addressee by name and the use of the second person pronoun – in most instances with the particularizing particle =pat attached to it – place explicit emphasis on the addressee. The hymn to the Sun-goddess of Arinna in CTH 376.II can be divided into two sections, see Table 38. Section I consists of rather general descriptions stressing the supremacy of the Sun-goddess of Arinna. It lacks any reference to characteristics specific to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Her name could, therefore, easily be replaced by that of another deity, making it a general hymn that could, in theory, be directed to any important deity. Section II, on the other hand, is a solar hymn that focuses on characteristics typical for a solar deity and divine judge. This solar hymn is parallel to a part of the solar hymn that introduces the Prayer of a king (CTH 374) and the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372). CTH 376.II I

General Hymn

II

Solar Hymn

CTH 377 I

General Hymn […] —

Table 38. Structure of the hymn in CTH 376.II and CTH 377.

CTH 377 preserves only the first few lines of the hymn to Telipinu. These are, except for the name of the addressed deity and a few orthographic variants, identical to the first lines of Section I of the hymn to the Sun-goddess of Arinna in CTH 376.II. The break at the end of KUB 24.1+ obv. ii and the beginning of rev. iii (CTH 377 A) is too small to include the entire hymn of CTH 376.II.650 Moreover, since Telipinu is not a solar deity it is unlikely that the solar hymn (Section II) would have been addressed

648 649 650

KUB 24.3+ i 29′–ii 3. KUB 24.1+ ii 20–22. Approximately 18 lines are missing at the end of KUB 24.1+ ii and the beginning of rev. iii. These lines contained the end of the hymn and the beginning of the plea. However, this estimate is uncertain, because throughout the entire tablet the size of the script is irregular, cf. Appendix V.2.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

207

Hymn

to him.651 CTH 377, therefore, probably included Section I in its entirety and omitted Section II (see Table 38). 7.4.1 Parallel Hymns The hymns of CTH 376.II, CTH 377, CTH 372 and CTH 374 are edited below. To ease comparison the transliteration is given in a Partitur and the translations are presented next to each other. In the Partitur the separate sources are indicated by their catalogue numbers as listed in Appendix I. The editions of CTH 374 and CTH 372 follow Schwemer 2015. Since the manuscripts of the MH Prayer of a king (CTH 374) are all rather fragmentary, its transliteration switches between A, B, and C. The edition of the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372) follows ms. A, KUB 31.127+, since it is the only tablet that preserves the hymn in its entirety. Variants occurring in duplicates are indicated in footnotes. Texts and Tablets included: CTH CTH 374652

No. 6

CTH 372653 CTH 376.II CTH 377

7 11 12

ms. A B C A A A

siglum KUB 30.11+ KUB 31.134 (+) KUB 31.129 KUB 36.75+ KUB 31.127+ KUB 24.3+ KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10

lines obv. 1′–8′, 1″–16″ i 1′–8′, 1″–12″ i 1′–18′, ii 1′–7′ i 1–48 i 29′–ii 3 ii 20–22

Transliteration, Partitur654 SECTION I: GENERAL HYMN (only CTH 376.II (No. 11) and CTH 377 (No. 12)) 11 A 12 A 11 A i 29′ 12 A ii 20

⸢zi⸣-ik-za dUTU URUa-ri-in-na na-ak-ki-iš DINGIRLIM-iš [zi-ik-za dte-l]i-pí-nu-uš na-⸢ak⸣-ki-iš DINGIRLIM-iš

11 A i 30′ 12 A ii 21

⸢nu⸣-ut-ták-kán ŠUM-an lam-na-aš iš-tar-⸢na na⸣-ak-⸢ki-i⸣ → [ … -a]n? ŠUMḪI.A-aš iš-tar-na-aš na-⸢ak-ki⸣-i

11 A i 30′f. 12 A ii 22

DINGIRLIM-ia-tar-ma-ták-⸢kán⸣

11 A i 31′ 12 A

nam-⸢ma⸣-za-⸢kán⸣ DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na (Breaks)

11 A i 32′

zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na na-ak-ki-iš ⸢šal-le⸣-eš-ša-az

651 652 653 654

[

…

/ DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na na-ak-ki-i → ] ⸢DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na na⸣-a[k]-⸢ki⸣-[i]

Cf. Gurney 1940: 10–11, Güterbock 1958: 237, 243, Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 424. Another duplicate is D KBo 53.8(+) i 1′–3′, which duplicates A obv. 3″–5″ // B i 5″–8″ // C i. 9′–12′. Duplicates: B KUB 31.128 i 1–11 (duplicates A i 1–13), D KUB 31.133 i 1′–25′ (duplicates A i 19–45). Cf. the comments on the relevant lines in Appendix IV (CTH 376.II) and Appendix V (CTH 377).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

208

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

11 A i 33′

zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na nam-ma-ták-kán ⸢da⸣-ma-a-iš ⸢DINGIR⸣LUM

11 A i 34′

⸢na⸣-ak-ki-iš šal-li-iš-ša Ú-UL e-eš-zi →

SECTION II: SOLAR HYMN (only CTH 364 (No. 6), CTH 372 (No. 7), and CTH 376.II (No. 11)) 7Ai1 ⸢d⸣UTU-e iš-ḫa-mi655 ḫa-an-da-an-za656 → 11 A i 34′ ḫa-an-ta-an-⸢da⸣-ša-⸢az⸣ 7 A i 1f. 11 A i 35′

ḫa-an-né-eš-na-aš / iš-ḫa-aš ne-pí-ša-aš → [ḫa-a]n-né-eš-na-aš EN-aš zi-ik-pát ne-pí-ša-aš-ša

7 A i 2f. 11 A i 36′

da-a-ga-zi-pa-aš-ša657 LUGAL-u-e erasure / KUR-e658 zi-ik du-ud-du-uš-ki-ši → [ták-na-a]š-ša LUGAL-u-iz-na-tar zi-ik-pát du-ud-du-uš-ki-ši

7 A i 3f. 11 A

tar-ḫu-u-i-la-tar / zi-ik-pát pé-eš-ki-ši659 zi-ik-pát ḫa-an-da-an-za –

7Ai5 11 A

[(DIN)]GIR-⸢uš⸣ ge-en-zu-ú da-aš-ki-ši660 zi-ik-pát –

7A 11 A i 37′

– [KUR.KUR]⸢MEŠ⸣-a[š-k]án ZAGḪI.A-uš zi-ik-pát zi-ik-ki-ši

7Ai6 11 A i 38′

mu-ga-a-u-wa-ar zi-ik-pát e-eš-ša-at-ti661 [mu-g]a-⸢u⸣-[w]a-ar-ra zi-ik-pát iš-ta-ma-aš-ki-ši

7Ai7 11 A i 39′

zi-ik-pát ge-en-zu-wa-la-aš dUTU-uš d URU [zi-i]k-pát-za UTU a-ri-in-na gi-i[n]-zu-wa-la-aš DINGIRLUM zi-i[k]

7Ai8 11 A i 40′

⸢nu⸣662 ge-en-zu zi-ik-pát da-aš-ki-ši ḫa-an-da-an-za-kán663 n[u g]i-in-zu zi-ik-pát da-aš-ki-[š]i pa-ra-a ḫa-an-da-an-za-ša-⸢kán⸣

7Ai9 11 A i 41′

⸢an-tu⸣-uḫ-ša-aš664 tu-uk-pát a-aš-šu-uš → ⸢an-tu⸣-uḫ-wa-aḫ-ḫa-aš tu-uk-pát A-NA dUTU [UR]Ua-ri-in-na aš-ši-ia-an-za

7 A i 9f. 11 A i 42′

na-an zi-ik-⸢pát⸣ / šar-[l]i-iš-ki-ši → na-an zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na [ša]r-le-eš-ki-ši

7 A i 10 11 A

dUTU-uš

655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664

–

šu-wa-ru ma-ia-an-za

7 B KUB 31.128 i 1: iš-ḫa-a-mi. 7 B KUB 31.128 i 1: ḫa-an-da-a-an-za. 7 B KUB 31.128 i 2: ták-na-aš-ša. 7 B KUB 31.128 i 2: ut-n[e-e]. 7 B KUB 31.128 i 3: ir-ḫu-ú-ša-kán zi-ik-pát zi-i[k-ki-ši]. 7 B KUB 31.128 i 4: ḫu-iš-nu-uš-ki-ši (istead of ge-en-zu-ú da-aš-ki-ši). 7 B KUB 31.128 i 5: iš-ta-ma-aš-ki-ši. 7 B KUB 31.128 omits. 7 B KUB 31.128 i 7: [ḫ]a-an-da-a-an-za-kán. 7 B KUB 31.128 i 7: an-tu-⸢wa-aḫ-ḫa⸣-[aš].

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Hymn

7 A i 11 11 A

DUMU dN[I]N.GAL za-ma-kur-te-et ŠA NA₄ZA.GÌN-aš

–

Interlude: Statement 6 B i 1′ [LUGAL-uš ARAD-KA?] → 7 A i 12 ka-a-[(š)]a-at-ta DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU-aš ARAD-KA 11 A – 6 B i 1′ 7 A i 13 11 A

[a-ru-a-n]u-un nu-[ut-ta me-mi-iš-ki-mi] a-ru-wa-a-[i]t nu-ut-ta me-mi-iš-ki-iz-zi –

6B 7A 11 A

–

Continuation Solar Hymn 6 B i 2′ [ne-pí-ša-aš t]ák-na-a-aš-ša [ḫu-u-la-le-eš-ni] 7 A i 14 ne-pí-š[a-aš t]ák-na-aš-ša ḫu-u-la-le-eš-ni → 11 A i 43′ ne-pí-ša-aš-ša-az ták-na-aš-ša ḫu-u-⸢la⸣-le-e-eš-ni 6 B i 3′ 7 A i 14f. 11 A i 44′

[zi-ik-pát] dUTU-uš la-lu-[ki-ma-aš] [la]-⸢a⸣-lu-ki-ma-aš → zi-ik-pát / dUTU-uš zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na la-lu-uk-k[i-m]a-aš

6B 7A 11 A

– –

6 B i 4′ 7 A i 15f. 11 A

[dUTU]-⸢e šar-ku⸣ LUGAL-u-⸢e⸣ [(DUMU dNIN.GAL)]665 dUTU-e šar-ku-i LUGAL-u-e / DUMU dNIN.GAL ⸢ut⸣-ni-ia-an-da-aš → –

6 B i 5′f. 7 A i 16f. 11 A

[iš-ḫi-ú]-⸢ul⸣ ša-ak-l[i-in zi-ik-pát] / [dUTU-u]š ḫa-an-te-eš-ki-[(ši)]666 → ša-ak-la-in / iš-ḫi-ú-ul zi-ik-pát ḫa-an-te-[i]š-ki-ši → –

6 7 A i 17f. 11 A

–

dUTU-i

–

/ šar-ku LUGAL-u-e →

6 A obv. 2′f. na-aš-ta KUR-ia iš-tar-na / [(zi-ik-pá)t667 aš-ša-nu]-wa-an-za → 7 A i 18f. DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš-kán iš-〈tar-〉na zi-ik-pát / aš!-nu!-an-za → KUR.KURḪI.A-ša-za-kán iš-tar-na zi-ik-pát aš-š[a-nu-w]a-an-za → 11 A i 45′

665 666 667

6 A KUB 31.130(+) obv. 1′. 6 A KUB 31.130(+) obv. 2′. 6 B KUB 31.129(+) i 7′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

209

210

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

6 A obv. 3′ 7A 11 A i 45′

dUTU-uš DINGIR-uš

–

zi-ik668

DINGIRLIM-iš

6 AB 7A 11 A

– –

6 A obv. 4′ 7 A i 19f. 11 A

[da-a-aš-šu iš-ḫi-iš-ša tu]-uk-pát dUTU-i pí-ia-an ḫa-an-da-an-za669 da-a-aš-šu ⸢iš⸣-ḫ[i-i]š-ša tu-uk-pát pí-ia-a[n] / ḫa-an-da-a-an-za → –

6 A obv. 5′ 7 A i 20 11 A

[iš-ḫa-aš zi-ik] → ma-ni-ia-[aḫ]-ḫa-ia-aš iš-ḫa-a-aš zi-⸢ik⸣ –

6 A obv. 5′ 7 A i 21 11 A i 46′

[KUR]-⸢e-aš⸣ ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš at-ta-aš an-na-aš zi-ik at-ta-aš an-na-aš zi-⸢ik⸣ da-an-ku-wa-ia-aš KUR-e-[aš] nu-za KUR-e-aš ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš at-ta-aš an-na-aš z[i-i]k

6A 7A 11 A

–

6 A obv. 6′ 7 A i 22 11 A

[dEN.LÍL-aš at-ta-aš-te-eš KUR]-⸢e⸣ → at-ta-aš-t[e-e]š KUR-e

dUTU-i GAL-li LUGAL-u-⸢e⸣ dEN.LÍL-aš

–

6 A obv. 6′f. 4 ḫal-ḫal-tu-u-mar tu-uk-pát ki-iš-ša-⸢ri-it⸣-ti / [ti-ia-an ḫar-zi] → 7 A i 23 4 ḫal-ḫal-du-ma-ri tu-uk-[pá]t ki-iš-ri-it-ti670 ⸢ti-ia-an⸣ ḫar-zi 11 A – 6 A obv. 7′ 7 A i 24 11 A i 47′

[ḫa-an-ne-eš-n]a-aš iš-ḫa-a-aš zi-ik → ḫa-an-né-eš-na-aš iš-ḫa-a-aš zi-ik → ḫa-an-né-eš-na-ša-az pa-ra-a ḫa-an-da-an-za EN-aš zi-ik

6 A obv. 7′f. nu ḫa-⸢an-ne⸣-[eš-na-aš] / [pé-e-di da-ri-ia-aš-ḫa-aš-ti-i]š NU.GÁL → 7 A i 24f. nu ḫa-an-[n]é-eš-na-aš pé-e-di / da-ri-ia-aš-ḫa-aš-ti-iš NU.GÁL671 → NU.GÁL 11 A i 48′ nu-ut-ta ḫa-an-né-eš-na-aš pé-di tar-ri-ia-aš-ḫa-aš 6 C i 1′f. 7 A i 25f. 11 A i 49′

668 669 670 671 672

[(ka-ru-⸢ú⸣)-i-li-ia-aš-ša-kán672 DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš] ⸢iš-tar⸣-na / [dUTU-uš] → ka-⸢ru-ú⸣-i-li-ia-aš-ša-kán / DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš iš-⸢tar-na⸣ ⸢d⸣UTU-uš → ka-ru-ú-i-li-ia-ša-za-kán DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na zi-ik-pát

Schwemer (2015: 363) reads dUTU-uš 〈ḫa-an-da-an-za〉(?) DINGIR-uš zi-ik. 6 B breaks. 7 D KUB 31.133 i 5′: [k]i-iš-š[a-ri-it-ti]. In 7 D KUB 31.133 a horizontal ruling follows here, after i 6′. 6 A KUB 31.130(+) obv. 8′. Subsequently, A obv. breaks.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Hymn

6 C i 2′ 7 A i 26 11 A i 50′

[šar-ku-u]š [š]ar-ku-uš → aš-ša-nu-wa-an-za →

6C 7A 11 A

– –

6 C i 3′ 7 A i 26f. 11 A i 50′

[DINGIRMEŠ-aš-ša-an SÍSKU]R → DINGIRMEŠ-aš-ša-an SÍSKUR / [z]i-ik-pát → DINGIRMEŠ-na-ša-aš-ša-an SÍSKURḪI.A zi-ik-pát

6 C i 3′f. 7 A i 27 11 A i 51′

dUTU-uš

6 C i 5′ 7 A i 28 11 A i 52′

[DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš ḪA.LA-Š]U-⸢NU zi-ik⸣-pát zi-ik-ki-ši [DINGIRME]Š-na-aš ḪA.LA-[ŠU-NU z]i-ik-pát zi-ik-ki-ši DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš ḪA.LA-ŠU-NU zi-ik-pát zi-ik-ki-ši

6 BC 7A 11 A

– –

6 C i 6′f. 7 A i 29 11 A i 53′

GIŠ [ne-pí-ša-aš] IG a-ap-pa tu-uk-pát dUTU-i / [ḫa-aš-kán-z]i → GIŠ IG⸣ a-ap-pa tu-uk-pát dUTU-i ḫa-aš-kán-zi [(ne-p)]í-⸢ša-aš ⸢ne⸣-[p]í-ša-aš-ša-aš GIŠIG EGIR-pa tu-uk-pát ḫa-aš-kán-zi

6 C i 7′f. 7 A i 30 11 A i 54′

na-aš-ta ne-pí-ša-aš KÁ-uš zi-ik-pát / [(aš-ša-n)]u-an-za673 → ⸢nu⸣-[(ká)]n [(n)]e-pí-ša-aš KÁ-aš zi-ik-pát aš-ša-nu-wa-[a]n-za → [nu-ká]n? ⸢ne⸣-p[í-ša-a]š KÁ-uš zi-ik-pát aš-ša-nu-wa-an-za

6 C i 8′ 7 A i 30f. 11 A i 55′

dUTU-uš

211

/ [zi-ik-ki-ši ka-ru-ú-i-l]i-ia-ša-aš-ša-an z[(i-ik-ki-š)]i ⸢ka⸣-ru-ú-i-li-ia-aš-ša-an dUTU URUa-ri-in-na zi-ik-ki-ši ka-ru-ú-i-li-ia-ša-aš-ša-an

šar-ra-aš-ki-it-ta / šar-re-eš-ki-ši674 [dUTU URUa-ri-in-na] ⸢šar?⸣-ri-iš-ki-it-ta →

dUTU-uš!

6 ABC 7A 11 A

–

6 C i 9′ 7 A i 32 11 A i 55′

[nu? ne]-pí-ša-aš → nu ne-pí-ša-aš DINGIRMEŠ-eš tu-uk-pát675 kat-ta-an ka-ni-na-an-te-eš676 ne-pí-ša-aš-ša

673 674 675 676

6 A KUB 30.11+ obv. 2″. 7 D KUB 31.133 i 11′: šar-ra-aš-ki-it-ta. 7 D KUB 31.133 i 12′ adds dUTU-i 7 D KUB 31.133 i 12′: ka-ne-na-an-t[e-eš].

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

212

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

6 C i 9′ 7 A i 33 11 A i 56′

ták-na-a-aš-ša DINGIRMEŠ-eš tu-uk-pát ták-na-aš-ša DINGIRMEŠ-eš ⸢tu⸣-uk-pát → [ták-na-aš-ša? DINGIRMEŠ-eš] erasure [tu-u]k?-pát →

6 C i 10′ 7 A i 33 11 A i 56′f.

[dU]TU-i

kat-ta-an ka-ne-na-an-te-eš kat-ta-⸢an⸣ ka-ni-na-an-te-eš677 → A-NA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na / [ … ]→

6 BC678 7A 11 A

– –

6 C i 11′ 7 A i 33f. 11 A i 57′

dUTU-uš me-mi-iš-ki-ši → [ku-i]t-ta ku-it-⸢ta⸣679 / dUTU-uš me-mi-iš-[k]i-ši → [x]x x ⸢dUTU⸣ URUa-ri-in-na me-mi-eš-ki-ši

6 C i 11′f. 7 A i 34 11 A i 58′

DINGIRMEŠ-ša DINGIRMEŠ-ša

[

6 BC 7A 11 A

– (obv. i breaks)

6 C i 13′ 7 A i 35

⸢d⸣UTU-uš ku-ri-i[(m-ma-aš w)]a-an-nu-mi-aš-ša → dUTU-uš dam-me-iš-⸢ḫa⸣-an-da-aš681 ku-ri-⸢im⸣-ma-aš-š[a a]n-tu-uḫ-ḫa-aš

6 C i 13′f. 7 A i 36

at-ta-aš / ⸢an⸣-na-aš zi-ik at-ta-aš an-na-aš zi-ik →

6 ABC 7A

–

6 C i 15′ 7 A i 36

[nu] dUTU-uš ku-ri-i[(m-ma-aš d)]am-mi-iš-ḫa-an-ta-aš-ša ku-ri-im-[m]a-aš dam-m[i-i]š-⸢ḫa-an-da-aš⸣682

6 C i 16′ 7 A i 37

[(a)]n-tu-uḫ-ša-aš k[at-ta-wa-a-(tar z)]i-ik-pát dUTU-uš an-tu-uḫ-ša-aš kat-ta-wa-a-tar zi-ik-[pá]t dUTU-uš

6 C i 17′ 7 A i 38

[(šar)]-⸢ni-ik-ki⸣-i[(š-ki)]-ši šar-ni-in-ki-iš-ki-ši

/ ⸢a⸣-ap-pa tu-uk ⸢dUTU-i⸣ a-ru-ú-iš-kán-zi680 a-[a]p-pa tu-⸢uk⸣-pát! a-ru-ú-e-eš-kán-⸢zi⸣ … A-NA dUTU URUa-ri-i]n-⸢na a-ru-ú-i-iš⸣-k[án-zi]

6 C683 7A

677 678 679 680 681 682 683

7 D KUB 31.133 i 13′: [… dUTU]-⸢i⸣ KI.MIN. The ruling is omitted in 6 A KUB 30.11+. 7 D KUB 31.133 i 13′: ku-i-ta. 6 B KUB 31.134(+) i 8″: a-ru-e-eš-kán-zi; 6 A KUB 30.11(+) obv. 5″ [a-ru]-⸢e⸣-eš-kán-zi. 7 D KUB 31.133 i 14′: dam-mi-iš-ḫa-an-da-aš. 7 D KUB 31.133 i 16′ adds [-š]a. The ruling is omitted in 6 A KUB 30.11+.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Hymn

213

6 A obv. 7″f. ma-a-na-aš-t[a ka-ru-ú-wa-r(i-wa-ar)]684 / [x (x)]x dUTU-uš ne-e-pí-ša-az → dUTU-uš ne-pí-⸢ša-az⸣685 7 A i 39 ma-a-na-aš-ta ka-ru-ú-wa-ar-wa-ar 6 A obv. 8″f. ša-ra-a u-up-[zi nu-uš-ša-an] / [ša-ra-a]z-zi-ia-aš ⸢KUR⸣-ia-aš → 7 A i 40 ša-ra-a u-up-zi nu-uš-ša-an ša-ra-a-a[(z-z)]i-ia-⸢aš⸣ u[t-n]é-e-aš686 6 A obv. 9″ 7 A i 41

kat-te-ra-aš-ša KUR.KUR-aš [tu-el-pát] kat-te-ra-aš-ša ut-ne-ia-aš ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš [(t)]u-el-pát

6 A obv. 10″ ⸢dUTU⸣-wa-aš la-lu-⸢uk⸣-ki-ma-aš ti-ia-[ri] dUTU-wa-aš 〈la-a-lu-ki-ma-aš〉 ti-ia-ri → 7 A i 42 6A 7A

–

6 A obv. 11″ nu erasure ŠA UR.GI7 ⸢ŠA⸣ ŠAḪ ḫa-an-ne-eš-šar zi-ik [ḫa-a]n-na-at-ta UR.GI7-aš ŠAḪ-aš-ša ḫa-[a]n-né-eš-ša[r] / ḫa-an-na-at-ta-ri → 7 A i 42f. nu 6A 7A

–

6 A obv. 12″ šu-up-pa-la-an-na ḫa-an-ne-eš-ša iš-ši-it → 7 A i 43 šu-up-pa-la-an-na ḫa-an-né-eš-šar iš-š[i-i]t 6 A obv. 12″f. ku-i-[e-e]š Ú-UL me-mi-iš-kán-z[i] / a-pa-at-ta ḫa-⸢an⸣-na-at-ta-ri → 7 A i 44 ku-i-e-eš Ú-UL me-mi-iš-kán-zi a-pa-a-at-ta ḫa-an-[n]a-at-ta-ri 6 A obv. 13″ i-da-a-la-u-wa-aš-ša [ḫ]u-wa-ap-pa-aš 7 A i 45 i-da-la-u-wa-aš-ša ḫu-u-wa-ap-pa-aš-ša → 6 A obv. 14″ an-tu-uḫ-ša-[aš ḫa-a]n-ne-eš-ša zi-ik-pát dUTU-[u]š ḫa-an-na-at-ta 7 A i 45f. an-tu-uḫ-ša-⸢aš⸣ ḫa-an-né-eš-šar / zi-ik-pát ḫa-an-na-at-ta-ri → 6 AC 7A 11 A

– (Beginning obv. ii)

6 A obv. 15″ an-tu-uḫ-ša-a[n-na-a]z ku-in DINGIRMEŠ ša-a-an-zi → 7 A i 46f. an-tu-uḫ-š[a-a]n-na-az ku-in / DINGIRMEŠ ša-an-zi → 11 A ii 1 [an-t]u-uḫ-ši-ia-za-kán ku-e-da-ni DINGIRMEŠ š[a-a?-an-zi] 6 A obv. 15″f. na-an-ša-an ar-ḫa / pa-aš-ku-wa-an-z[i] → 7 A i 47 na-aš-ša-an ar-ḫa pa-aš-ku-wa-an-z[i] 11 A ii 2 [n]a-an-ša-an ar-ḫa pa-aš-ku-wa-an-z[i] → 6 A obv. 16″ [na-an] a-ap-pa zi-ik-pát dUTU-[(u)]š ge-en-zu-wa-ši 7 A i 48 na-an a-ap-pa zi-ik kap-pu-u-wa-ši na-an ge-en-⸢zu-wa⸣-[ši] g[e]-e[n-zu-wa-ši] 11 A ii 2f. [na-an EGIR-pa] / [z]i-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na

684 685 686

6 C KUB 36.75+ obv. i breaks. 7 D KUB 31.133 i 18′: [ne-p]í-iš-za dUTU-uš. 7 D KUB 31.133 i 19′: KUR-eḪI.A.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

214 6 AC 7A 11 A

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

– –

Translation Hymn Section I (CTH 376.II and CTH 377) CTH 376.II (No. 11)

CTH 377 (No. 12)

A KUB 24.3+ i 29′–34′

A KUB 24.1+ ii 20–22

§ SECTION I: GENERAL HYMN You, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are an honoured deity. Your name is honoured among names, and your godhood is honoured among the gods. Furthermore, among the gods, only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are honoured, and only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are great. Moreover, no other deity is honoured and great (compared) to you.

[You, O Tel]ipinu, are an honoured deity. [Your nam]e is honoured among names, [and your godhood] is honoured among the gods.

[Broken]

Translation Hymn Section II (CTH 374, CTH 372, and CTH 376.II) CTH 374 (No. 6)

CTH 372 (No. 7)

CTH 376.II (No. 11)

A KUB 30.11+ obv. 1′–8′, 1″– 19″ // B KUB 31.134(+) i 1′–8′, 1″–12″ // C KUB 36.75 i 1′–18′

A KUB 31.127+ i 1–48

A KUB 24.3+ i 34′–ii 3

SECTION II: SOLAR HYMN O Sun-god, my lord, just lord of judgement, king of heaven and earth! You govern the land mercifully.

[Broken]

The lordsic of just [ju]dgement are you alone, and only you govern the kingship of heaven and earth mercifully.

Only you constantly provide strength. Only you are a just god. You alone take pity. — Only you act upon (var. listen to) mugawar(s).

— Only you establish the borders of the lands, and only you listen to mugawar(s).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

215

Hymn

CTH 374 (No. 6)

CTH 372 (No. 7) Only you are merciful, O Sun-god, and only you take pity. The just man is dear to you, and only you let him prevail.

[Broken]

CTH 376.II (No. 11) Only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are a merciful deity, and only you take pity. The just man is dear to you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, and only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, let him prevail.

O Sun-god, the most vigorous son of Ningal your beard is of lapis lazuli. Interlude: Statement [Herewith] I, [the king, your servant], have [prostrated myself to you] and [I am speaking to you].

Herewith a mortal, your servant, has prostrated himself to you and is speaking to you.

§

§

—

Continuation Solar Hymn [In the circumference of heaven] and earth [only you], O Sun-god, are the (source of) li[ght].

In the circumference of heav[en] and earth only you, O Sun-god, are the (source of) [l]ight.

§ [O Sun-go]d, eminent king, son of Ningal, [only you, O Sun-go]d establish the [la]w (and) custo[m], and throughout the land only you are worshipped.

— O Sun-god, eminent king, son of Ningal, only you establish the custom (and) law of the people. O Sun-god, eminent king, among the gods only you are worshipped.

O Sun-god, a 〈…〉? deity are you.

—

§ [The strong bond] is given to [y]ou alone, O Sun-god. [You are] the just [lord]. To all the lands you are father (and) mother.

The strong bond is given to you alone. You are the just lord of government. To the dark lands you are father (and) mother.

And in the circumference of heaven and earth only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are the (source of) light. — — Throughout the lands only you are a worshipped goddess,

—

and to all the lands you are father (and) mother.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

216

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

CTH 374 (No. 6)

CTH 372 (No. 7)

§ [Enlil, your father, has placed] the four corners of [the land] in your hand.

§ O Sun-god, great king, Enlil, y[ou]r father, has placed the four corners of [the land] in your hand. The lord of judgement are you and your fatigue does not exist in the place of judgement. Also among the primeval gods you, O Sun-god, are eminent.

The lord of [judgeme]nt are you and your fatigue does not exist in the place of judgement. [Also] among the prim[eval gods you, O Sun-god, are eminen]t.

§ You, O Sun-god, set the offerings for the gods. Only you set the primeval gods their shares.

— Only you set the offerings for the gods. Only you set the primeval gods their shares.

§ [The]y [keep] re[opening] the door of [heaven] for you alone, O Sun-god, and only you, O (widely) worshipped Sun-god, pass through the gate of heaven. § The gods of [he]aven and earth are bowed down for you alone, O Sun-god.

— They keep reopening the door of heaven for you alone, O Sun-god, and only you, O (widely) worshipped Sun-god, pass through the gate of heaven.

§ [Whatev]er you, O Sungod, say, the gods keep prostrating themselves again to you, O Sun-god.

§

§ The gods of heaven are bowed down for you alone and the gods of earth are bowed down for you alone (var. adds [O Sun-go]d). — Whatever you, O Sun-god, say, the gods keep prostrating themselves again to you alone.

—

CTH 376.II (No. 11)

—

The just lordsic of judgement are you and your fatigue does not exist in the place of judgement. Among the primeval gods you in particular are worshipped. — Only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, set the offerings for the gods. Only you set the primeval gods their shares. — They keep reopening the door of heaven for you alone, [and] only you, O (widely) worshipped [Sungoddess of Arinna], pass through the gate of hea[ve]n. — And [the gods] of heaven [and earth are bowed down for yo]u alone, O Sun-goddess of Arinna. — [Wha]tever you, O Sungoddess of Arinna, say, [the gods] keep prostrat[ing themselves again to you (alone), O Sun-goddess of Ari]nna. [Broken]

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

217

Hymn

CTH 374 (No. 6) O Sun-god, the father and mother of the orphaned and bereaved are you.

§ O Sun-god, only you keep compensating the g[rievan]ces of the orphaned and oppressed person, O Sun-god. § When [at daybr]eak […] the Sun-god ris[es] up through the sky, [only your] light, O Sun-god, appear[s] in the [upp]er land and lower lands. § You judge the case of dog and pig. § And the case of animals who do not speak with the mouth, also that you judge. And only you, O Sun-god, judge the [c]ase of the evil and wicked person. § The person at whom the gods are angry and who they reject, only you, O Sun-god, are compassionate towards [him] again. §

CTH 372 (No. 7)

CTH 376.II (No. 11)

O Sun-god, the father and mother of the oppressed and orphaned person are you. — [Onl]y you, O Sun-god, keep compensating the g[rievan]ces of the orphaned and oppressed person, O Sun-god.

§ When at daybreak the Sun-god rises up through the sky, only your 〈light〉, O Sun-god, appears in all the upper land and lower lands. — You judge the case of dog and pig. — And the case of animals who do not speak with the mouth, also that you judge. And only you judge the case of the evil and wicked person. — The person at whom the gods are angry and who they reject, you regard him again and [you] are compassionate towards him. —

[Broken]

The person at whom the gods are angry and who they reject, only [y]ou, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are compassionate towards [him again]. —

Comments on CTH 374 (No. 6), A KUB 30.11+ obv. 1′–8′, 1″–19″ // B KUB 31.134(+) i 1′–8′, 1″–12″ // C KUB 36.75 i 1′–18′ Unless otherwise indicated the resorations follow Schwemer 2015: 363–65. B i 1′: Schwemer (2015: 363) does not restore ARAD-KA.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

218

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

A obv. 3′: Schwemer (2015: 363) adds 〈ḫa-an-da-an-za〉 ‘just, righteous’ before DINGIR-uš. Compare also KUB 24.3+ i 45′ (CTH 376.II). A obv. 4′: Cf. the comment on KUB 31.127+ i 19 (CTH 372) below.

Comments on CTH 372 (No. 7), KUB 31.127+ i 1–48 Unless otherwise indicated the restorations follow Schwemer 2015: 376–79. i 2: At the end of the line one can still see the traces of erased ut-ne-e zi-, which agrees with the beginning of the following line, cf. Schwemer 2015: 376, fn. 3. i 19: Following Schwemer (2015: 390) I understand išḫišša(r) as a form of išḫiyeššar ‘bond’, cf. Güterbock 1980: 45 who translates it as ‘lordship’. i 20: maniyaḫḫaš išḫa- is according to CHD L–N 168b a calque of an Akkadian epithet of the Sun-god Šamaš, but it remains unclear which epithet they refer to.

7.4.2 Textual History The two sections of the hymn each have a different textual history. There are no close parallels to Section I as a whole. On the level of the clause we only find parallels within the elaborate prayer introduction. The first line of Section I, describing the addressee as an ‘honoured deity’ (nakkiš DINGIRLIM-iš),687 is identical to the first line of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage.688 Other comparable clauses are in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage the first line of Section II,689 in the invocation the address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and Telipinu which uses the adjective nakki- ‘honoured’,690 and the first line of the introduction proper in CTH 377, where Telipinu is also referred to as an ‘honoured deity’.691 All these clauses using the adjective nakki- to refer to the addressed deity seem to have been created specifically for the elaborate prayer introduction. They mark the beginnings of the separate introductory elements and connect them by using the same term, nakki-. Interestingly, the adjective nakki- ‘honoured’ is used in all five sentences that form Section I of the hymn. This general hymn (Section I) was probably created for the elaborate prayer introduction as an introduction to the solar hymn (Section II) that we find in CTH 376.II. Moreover, the extensive use of the adjective nakki- ‘honoured’ connects the hymn to the invocation and the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, and makes the elaborate prayer introduction a coherent textual element. Telipinu is also described as an ‘honoured deity’ in the Telipinu Myth, KUB 17.10+ i 28f.: dte-li-pí-nu-un na-ak-ki-in DINGIRLAM ‘Telipinu, the honoured god’. Since part of the invocation was inspired on the disappearing god myths (see Ch. 7.2.3), perhaps the abundant use of nakki- was inspired by this phrase in the Telipinu Myth.

687 688 689 690 691

KUB 24.3+ i 29′ (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ ii 20 (CTH 377). KUB 24.3+ i 6′ (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ i 18 // KUB 24.2 obv. 15 (CTH 377), KUB 36.81 i 6′ (CTH 376.4), cf. Ch. 7.3.1. KUB 24.3+ i 21′ (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ ii 9f. (CTH 377), cf. Ch. 7.3.1. KUB 36.80 obv. 5 (CTH 376.II), KUB 24.1+ i 8 // KUB 24.2 obv. 7 (CTH 377). KUB 24.1+ i 3 // KUB 24.2 obv. 3 (CTH 377).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

219

Hymn

Section II (the solar hymn) is parallel to the first part of the hymn to the male Sungod that introduces the Prayer of a king (CTH 374)692 and the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372).693 The close parallelism suggests a common textual history. CTH 374 is a Middle Hittite composition based on the MH Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373). CTH 372, which could be a New Hittite composition since we only have NS manuscripts, is also derived from the Prayer of Kantuzili. Therefore, it is almost certain that the Prayer of Kantuzili contained the same hymn to the Sun-god as CTH 372 and CTH 374, even though it is not preserved in this text.694 Güterbock already established in 1958 that the hymn in CTH 376.II derived from the hymn to the male Sun-god that introduced CTH 372–74.695 However, this is only true for Section II of the hymn in CTH 376.II, i.e., the solar hymn. Convincing evidence of this dependency can be found in the references to the Sun-goddess of Arinna in CTH 376.II as išḫa- ‘lord’.696 CTH 376.II Section II: Solar Hymn KUB 24.3+ i 34′–42′ — KUB 24.3+ i 43′–ii 3

CTH 374

CTH 372

[✓] Interlude: Statement Continuation Solar Hymn

✓ Interlude: Statement Continuation Solar Hymn

Table 39. Parallels in CTH 374 and CTH 372 to the solar hymn of CTH 376.II.

There are numerous variants between CTH 376.II, CTH 374, and CTH 372, from orthographic and linguistic variants to the omission of entire sentences. For instance, the relevant lines in CTH 372 and CTH 374 are interrupted by a statement in which the beneficiary is introduced,697 but this interlude does not occur in CTH 376.II (see Table 39). Furthermore, the hymns in CTH 372 and CTH 374 are longer than the hymn of CTH 376.II. The variants do not suggest that the hymn to the Sun-goddess in CTH 376.II was modelled directly on CTH 374 or CTH 372. Probably another prayer that goes back to the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), containing the same hymn was used as a model.

692 693 694 695 696

697

KUB 30.11+ obv. 1′–8′, 1″–19″ // KUB 31.134(+) i 1′–8′, 1″–12″ // KUB 36.75 i 1′–18′. KUB 31.127+ i 1–48. So already Güterbock 1958: 238, cf. Schwemer 2015: 349, 352. On the relationships between CTH 372–74, see Ch. 9.3.1, especially Figure 7 (p. 297). Güterbock 1958: 237, 244, Güterbock 1980, Houwink ten Cate 1969: 88, Carruba 1983: 10f., Wilhelm 1994: 68, cf. Gurney 1940: 10f. KUB 24.3+ i 35′, 47′. This was first pointed out by Walther in the Vorwort of KUB 24 s.v. No. 1–4 (1930), cf. Gurney 1940: 10 and Güterbock 1958: 237; contra the earlier ideas of Ehelolf (1928: 33) who, at the time unaware of the existence of CTH 372–74, argued that the reference to the Sungoddess as ‘lord’ indicated that the hymn was actually a hymn to Telipinu or a general hymn that could be addressed to any major deity. KUB 31.134 (+) KUB 31.129 i 1′ (CTH 374); KUB 31.127+ i 12–13 (CTH 372).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

220

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

The prayers of Kantuzili, a king, and a mortal (CTH 372–74) are partly based on Mesopotamian prayers.698 The Mesopotamian influence is particularly apparent in the hymn to the Sun-god which combines Mesopotamian and Anatolian motifs.699 Remarkably, many of the clauses omitted in CTH 376.II are those that describe qualities typical for the Mesopotamian Sun-god Utu/Šamaš, such as the references to Ningal and Enlil as the Sun-god’s parents, and the statement that the Sun-god’s beard is of lapis lazuli.700 This suggests that foreign concepts were omitted deliberately because they had no valuable meaning or relevance during the reign of Muršili II when CTH 376.II was composed, at least not for the Hittites.701 Other clauses seem to have been omitted from CTH 376.II because they were repetitive and, therefore, considered superfluous.702 The person who edited the hymn to the male Sun-god to incorporate it into a prayer to the female Sun-goddess of Arinna, either CTH 376.II or a precursor, apparently decided to leave out all clauses that were either irrelevant or erroneous in his eyes, i.e., clauses that were repetitive or foreign and did not describe the Sungoddess of Arinna. The textual history of the hymn in CTH 376.II and CTH 377 may be reconstructed as follows. Hymns praising a deity were initially foreign to the Hittites.703 The hymn to the male Sun-god, first composed for the MH Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), was partly based on Mesopotamian hymns to the Sun-god Utu/Šamaš. This solar hymn was included with minor adaptations in the Prayer of a king (CTH 374) and in the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372). It also found its way, with some significant alterations, into the NH Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II). The old hymn to the male Sun-god was probably used as a model for a precursor of this text, which we may refer to as Text X. To adjust the hymn to its new context it was shortened, the language and content were updated,704 and a new beginning was added, i.e.,

698

699 700 701

702

703 704

Güterbock 1958, Güterbock 1974, Wihelm 1994: 65, Metcalf 2011, Schwemer 2015: 349. The closest parallel has been identified in the Old Babylonian Sumerian prayer ‘Utu the Hero’ (H 150 with duplicates), see Metcalf 2011. An edition of H 150 has been published by Cavigneaux 2009: 7–13. A fragmentary Akkadian version from Ortaköy, ancient Šapinuwa, has recently been published by Schwemer and Süel (2021: 17–31) as DAAM 2.6. This tablet was written by a Hittite scribe, which shows that the Hittites studied this Mesopotamian text before using it to compose CTH 372–74. Güterbock 1958, Schwemer 2015: 349. KUB 31.127+ i 10–11, 15–17, 22–23 (CTH 372), KUB 31.134(+) i 4′–6′, KUB 30.11+ obv. 6′–7′ (CTH 374). Possibly, ‘the strong bond is given to you alone. You are the just lord of government’ (KUB 31.127+ i 19–20 (CTH 372); KUB 30.11+ obv. 4′–5′ (CTH 374)), was also omitted in CTH 376.II because it was not considered a proper description of the Sun-goddess of Arinna. E.g., KUB 31.127+ i 4f. ‘only you are a just god’ and KUB 31.127+ i 5 ‘you alone take pity’ are omitted in CTH 376.II for this reason. The former, echoes KUB 31.127+ i 1 ‘just lord of judgement’, and the latter is repeated in KUB 31.127+ i 8. Laroche 1964–65: 27f., Wilhelm 1994, Archi 1995: 2367, Haas 2006: 245, see also Güterbock 1958: 241f., de Roos 1995: 2001f. and Popko 1995: 132f., cf. the remarks on Hittite hymns on pp. 39f. For instance, the reflexive =za was added to the nominal clauses in CTH 376.II.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

221

Hymn

Mesopotamian precursor

CTH 373 (or a similar text)

Text X (reconstructed)

CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ i 29′–ii 3)

CTH 377 (KUB 24.1+ ii 20–22)

CTH 381 (KUB 6.45+ iii 13–17)

Figure 2. Textual history of the hymns in CTH 376.II and CTH 377.

Section I: general hymn.705 Though many of the Mesopotamian notions were omitted in the new text, remnants of the hymn’s Mesopotamian origin are still apparent, for instance, in the references to the Sun-goddess of Arinna as ‘just lordsic of judgement’.706 The composer of CTH 377 only adopted the new general beginning of the hymn (Section I) probably from the same precursor, Text X (see Figure 2). The Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) contains a hymnic passage consisting of clauses that we also find in the solar hymns of CTH 372, CTH 374, and CTH 376.II. This short hymn with introduction, KUB 6.45+ iii 13–17, is addressed to the Sun-god of Heaven. It goes back to the hymn to the Sun-goddess of Arinna in CTH 376.II and the hymns to the male Sun-god preserved in the Prayer of a king (CTH 374) and the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372).

705 706

Cf. Güterbock 1980, who argues that the hymn was improved by the composer of CTH 376.II. Cf. Gurney 1940: 10, Güterbock 1958: 241f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

222

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

CTH 381, KUB 6.45+ iii 13–17:707 13 d⸢UTU⸣ ŠA-ME-E EN-IA ŠA DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU708 LÚSIPA-aš709 ša-ra-a-kán 14 ú-⸢wa-ši⸣ ne-pí-ša-aš710 dUTU-uš a-ru-na-az nu-uš-ša-an ne-pí-ši 15 ti-[(ia)]-⸢ši⸣ dUTU ŠA-ME-E EN-IA ŠA DUMU.LÚ.U19.LUTI 711 UR.GI7-aš!712 16 ŠAḪ-aš gi-im-ra-aš-ša713 ḫu-it-na-aš DI-NAM714 UD-ti-li715 17 zi-ik dUTU-uš ḫa-an-ne-iš-ki-ši716 O [Su]n-god of Heaven, my lord, shepherd of mankind! You, O Sun-god of Heaven, c[om]e up from the sea and you step into heaven. O Sun-god of Heaven, my lord! Over man, dog, pig, and the beast of the field, you, O Sungod, give daily judgement. CTH 381 also contains a passage that seems to describe an ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage (see Ch. 7.3.5) and it has parallels with at least one other prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2, see Ch. 5.1–5.2). Therefore, it is probable that the composer of CTH 381 took the lines for his solar hymn from CTH 376.II, and not from one of the older prayers. Other passages in Hittite prayers that may be interpreted as hymns do not have any significant parallels to the hymns in CTH 376.II, CTH 377, or CTH 372–74.717

7.5 FINDINGS The elaborate prayer introduction forms the beginning of three prayers dating to the reign of Muršili II: the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of the royal family (CTH 377), and the Fragmentary prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 376.4). The latter only preserves a part of the invocation and the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, but presumably also contained the other elements, i.e., the introduction proper and the hymn. Since the three versions of the elaborate prayer

707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717

Duplicate KUB 6.46 iii 52–56. For a full edition of the entire text, see Singer 1996. KUB 6.46 iii 52: DUMU.LÚ.U19.LUUT-TI. KUB 6.46 iii 52: LÚ?ú-e-eš-ta-ra-aš. KUB 6.46 iii 53: ne-pí-aš. KUB 6.46 iii 55: DUMU.LÚ.U19.LUUT-TI. The sign looks like MAŠ, with small, possibly erased, vertical wedge. KUB 6.46 iii 55: UR.GI7-aš. KUB 6.46 iii 55: gi-im-ra-aš. KUB 6.46 iii 55f.: DI-šar ḫu-it-ta-aš. KUB 6.46 iii 56: UDKAM-li. KUB 6.46 iii 56: ḫa-an-ni-iš-ki-ši. Other hymns or hymnic passages occur in KUB 21.19+ i 1–13 (CTH 383) and KUB 21.27+ i 3–6, iii 43′–47′, iv 13′–14′, 28′–29′ (CTH 384).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Findings

223

introduction resemble each other closely they must have a common origin. Each of the textual elements – introduction proper, invocation, ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, and hymn – has nonetheless its own textual history. The elaborate prayer introduction was composed either during the reign of Muršili II or slightly earlier on the basis of various Middle Hittite sources. The first version was probably directed to the Sungoddess of Arinna. The introduction proper does not seem to have a Middle Hittite precursor. It may have been first composed for the prayers of Muršili II. The so-called invocation is loosely based on recitations from Middle Hittite Kizzuwatnean evocation rituals and the even older disappearing god myths. The ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage seems to have been inspired on sections of the MH Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška (CTH 375). The hymn to the Sun-goddess of Arinna in CTH 376.II goes back to the hymn to the male Sun-god that introduced the MH Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), though it is not preserved in this text. We only know it from the largely parallel prayers of a king, (CTH 374) and a mortal (CTH 372). This solar hymn was shortened, its language was updated, and any superfluous or irrelevant clauses were omitted in order to adjust it to its new context and make it suitable for the Sungoddess of Arinna. In addition, a new beginning of the hymn was composed, which did not describe any solar characteristics. Instead, it is rather general, describing the addressee as an ‘honoured deity’ (nakki- šiu-). Therefore, this part of the hymn could in theory be directed to any deity. The Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) only contains this new general hymn and omits the solar hymn. Clauses in which the addressee is referred to as an ‘honoured deity’ were also included in the other elements of the elaborate prayer introduction. In this way the separate elements are explicitly connected and the elaborate prayer introduction is made into a cohesive part of the prayers. The introductory elements are separated from each other by horizontal rulings.718 The beginning of each element is also explicitly marked by specific textual markers. The same is true for the (sub)sections within one element, see Table 40. The introduction proper, the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, and the hymn are each introduced by the same nominal clause consisting of a direct address with epithet.719 A direct address, albeit integrated in the first clause, also marks the beginnings of ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage Sections IIa and IIb. In addition, there is a ruling before Section IIa. The invocation is introduced by a statement which contains a direct address. The beginning of invocation Section II is also marked by a statement. This one does not contain a direct address, but unlike the earlier statement, it does employ the adverb kāša ‘herewith’. Only the beginning of the solar hymn (Section II) does not appear to be marked in 718

719

The only exception occurs in KUB 36.80 (CTH 376.II B) where there is no ruling in between the introduction proper and the invocation. All other manuscripts of CTH 376.II do not preserve this part of the text. In KUB 36.80 (CTH 376.II B), the introduction proper begins only with a direct address (without epithet) which is not integrated into the following sentence. The beginning of the prayer is not preserved in any of the other manuscripts of CTH 376.II.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

224

The Elaborate Prayer Introduction and Its Origins

any way. In the precursor, CTH 373, the hymn was probably introduced by a direct address, for this is the case in the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372), which derived from CTH 373. The composer of the elaborate prayer introduction to the Sun-goddess of Arinna apparently created a fluid transition from the general hymn (Section I) to the solar hymn (Section II). The hymn is not followed by a horizontal ruling in CTH 376.II, which is remarkable. A ruling only occurs after the three requests that form Plea I (see Ch. 8.1). Only the use of kinuna ‘now’ marks the beginning of Plea I. Nonetheless, the transition from the hymn to Plea I is rather fluid. This, together with the fact that (1) the first part of Plea I derives from the same text as the preceding solar hymn (see Ch. 8.1.1) and (2) Plea I ends with the same request(s) for attention as the invocation (see Ch. 7.2.2), suggests that Plea I was composed as a part of the elaborate prayer introduction. Therefore, Plea I is included in Table 40 below. Whereas each individual textual element of the elaborate prayer introduction was based on different sources, their coherence was created by adding new material: (1) the identical direct address with epithet at the beginning of the introduction proper, the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, and the hymn, and (2) the almost identical request(s) for attention at the end of the invocation and Plea I. These repetitions made the elaborate prayer introduction and Plea I into a unity. Textual Elements and Sections INTRODUCTION I INVOCATION II § I ‘ONLY IN § ḪATTI’ IIa PASSAGE IIb § I HYMN II PLEA I §

Introduced by Direct Address + Epithet (CTH 376.II omits Epithet) Statement including Direct Address (CTH 377: § ) Statement including kāša Direct Address + Epithet Description including Direct Address Description including Direct Address Direct Address + Epithet — kinuna within Request

Table 40. Textual markers indicating the beginning of a (sub)section.

The variants between the different versions of the elaborate prayer introductions suggest that the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and the Fragmentary prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (CTH

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Findings

225

376.4) are more closely related to each other than to the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family (CTH 377). The precise relationship between the elaborate prayer introductions of CTH 376.II and CTH 376.4 is difficult to establish due to the fragmentary state of the latter. The variants in the introduction proper of CTH 377 and CTH 376.II suggest that they each derived independently from a third source that has not come down to us. The direct address to the anonymous ‘god’ (DINGIR) in the invocation of CTH 377 suggests that it was based on a version addressed to a different deity, presumably the Sun-goddess of Arinna. We may cautiously conclude that the elaborate prayer introductions of CTH 377 and CTH 376.II were both derived independently from another version addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. This text has probably not come down to us. Perhaps one could consider the elaborate prayer introduction of CTH 376.4 as the possible forerunner, but this cannot be established due to its fragmentary state of preservation. The elaborate prayer introduction prepares the deity for the most important part of the prayer: the plea. Each of the introductory elements has a different rhetorical function. First, the participants of the prayer are introduced in the introduction proper. Notable is the instruction of Muršili II to perform the prayer, which indicates that these prayers were not performed by the king himself. Subsequently, the invocation summons the addressee to come to listen to the prayer. Then, in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage the addressed deity is reminded of how well he/she is taken care of in Ḫatti and by the beneficiary. This is emphasised by contrasting it with the lack of care in other lands. The aim is to ensure that the addressee will favour Ḫatti and the beneficiary, Muršili II. Finally, the hymn is intended to please the addressed deity by means of praise. Flattery, i.e., describing the qualities of the addressee, should have a positive effect on the deity’s mood. This is beneficial for a positive response to the prayer. The first two elements of the elaborate prayer introduction thus establish the communication with the addressee, and the final two elements aim to ensure that the addressee is in a good mood and in favour of the beneficiary and the land of Ḫatti.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

8. A PLEA IN THREE PARTS The plea is the most important part of any Hittite independent or personal prayer because it contains the primary requests that need to be granted by the addressed deity. These requests give the main goal of the prayer.720 When they are fulfilled, the communication of the prayer was successful. The plea also contains other text units, such as descriptions, requests for support, and requests for attention – i.e., to listen to the prayer or to look favourably upon the beneficiary – which all serve to ensure a successful communication of the prayer. Arguments are presented to convince the addressed deity to grant the requests (see Ch. 3.6), and other rhetorical strategies are employed as well. The problem that needed to be resolved and which was the reason to compose and perform the prayer is usually described in the plea. Such descriptions and descriptions of specific transgressions committed by previous rulers make the personal prayers difficult to be reused at a later moment in time. Nonetheless the plea of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) seems to have been created by combining textual material from two or three separate prayers. How is this possible? The plea of CTH 376.II can be divided into three parts – Plea I, Plea II, and Plea III – on the basis of their content and their apparent origin (see Ch. 6.1). The prayer ends with an instruction, which may be considered separate from the plea. The problems that prompted the prayer’s composition are only described in Plea II. Plea I consists solely of supportive requests and functions as an introduction to the plea. It derived from the same source as the solar hymn that immediately precedes it (see Ch. 7.4.1, Ch. 8.1.1). Plea III is largely parallel to the plea of the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377). It concerns the general well-being of the king and the prosperity of Ḫatti (see Ch. 4, Ch. 8.3). Plea II contains descriptions of plague and enemies that are troubling the land of Ḫatti. Since it is almost identical to the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I), it is probable that Plea II derives directly from that prayer. The analysis of Plea II and its relationship to CTH 376.I (Ch. 8.2) shows that the descriptions of the problems that were tormenting Ḫatti were slightly adjusted to their new context. Nonetheless, it was relatively easily to incorporate the plea of CTH 376.I into a prayer of Muršili II, because the problems described in it, plague and enemies, were rather common in Hittite times. In the present chapter the plea of CTH 376.II is carefully analysed with a special focus on its structure, the rhetorical strategies employed, and the textual history. In particular the relationships with CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III, and CTH 377 are examined

720

These are usually requests to ‘give good’, to ‘remove evil’, and to ‘send evil to the enemy’. On these types of requests, see pp. 78f., cf. Daues and Rieken 2018: 99f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

228

A Plea in Three Parts

and how the various sources have been adjusted to their new contexts. Editions of these three prayers and CTH 376.II can be found in Appendices II–V. The different parts of the plea of Muršili II’s prayer are treated separately: Plea I in Ch. 8.1, Plea II in Ch. 8.2, and Plea III in Ch. 8.3. The instruction that follows the plea and concludes the prayer is the subject of Ch. 8.4.

8.1 PLEA I: INTRODUCTORY REQUESTS The first part of the plea of CTH 376.II, Plea I, begins with two requests for support (KUB 24.3+ ii 4–6) followed by a request for attention (KUB 24.3+ ii 7–9), see Table 41.721 The first two requests ask support for the beneficiary, Muršili II. The addressee is first requested to ‘sustain’ (luluwai-) him and subsequently to ‘hold’ him ‘by the hand’ (kiššarta ḫark). The request for attention consists of one relative and two main clauses. Only the second main clause refers back to the relative clause. The addressee is asked to ‘hold the ear inclined’ (parā ištamanan lagān ḫark) and to listen (ištamai-) to the words spoken by Muršili, the beneficiary of the prayer. This probably refers to the words of the prayer, or at least to the remainder of the plea, even though Muršili is not the one speaking. Text unit Request Request Request(s) §

– Support – Support – Attention

Concerns beneficiary beneficiary the words of the beneficiary

Table 41. Structure Plea I of CTH 376.II.

A horizontal ruling separates Plea I from the following Plea II, but there is no ruling separating it from the preceding solar hymn. The lack of a ruling between the solar hymn and Plea I may be explained by their common textual history (see p. 223). The beginning of Plea I is marked by the adverb kinuna ‘now’ in KUB 24.3+ ii 4, similar to the use of kāša ‘herewith’ (or kinuna) in statements (see p. 78). The first request introduced by kinuna, also contains a direct address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. However, in this case it cannot be understood as marking the beginning of a new section of the prayer, because a direct address occurs in all requests of Plea I. These direct addresses might indicate that Plea I functions as an introduction to the plea as a whole. This is supported by the fact that the beneficiary, Muršili II, is mentioned by name in each of the requests and that Plea I consists solely of supportive requests.

721

These are not the first requests of the prayer. The invocation also contains requests summoning the Sun-goddess of Arinna and asking her to listen to the prayer, see Ch. 7.2.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea I: Introductory Requests

229

The composer of CTH 376.II probably did not consider these requests that form Plea I as part of the plea. Rather, for him they formed the end of the elaborate prayer introduction. The hymn would then end with these general requests for support and attention. The request for attention connects the hymn to the invocation, which ends with the same request (see Table 30 [p. 170] and Ch. 7.5). Plea I, therefore, not only introduces Plea II and Plea III, but it also forms a fluid transition from the elaborate prayer introduction to the plea. 8.1.1 Parallels and Textual History Plea I does not have any parallels in the group of prayers that are closely related to CTH 376.II, i.e., the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I), the Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.III), or the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377). However, none of these prayers preserve the beginning of the plea. It is possible that CTH 377 began with a passage similar to Plea I, but for CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III this seems unlikely (see Ch. 9.3.).722 Parallels to Plea I occur in the Prayer of a king (CTH 374), the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372), and the invocation of the elaborate prayer introduction preserved in CTH 376.II, CTH 377, and CTH 376.4. The requests for support are parallel to a passage in CTH 374 and CTH 372. The concluding request for attention is parallel to the end of the invocation and it resembles two clauses in CTH 372. The parallels in CTH 372 and CTH 374 are of particular interest since these prayers also have a parallel to the solar hymn that precedes Plea I (see Ch. 7.4). CTH 374, KUB 30.11+ obv. 17″–19″:723 17′ am-mu-ga LU[GAL-un ARAD-KA dUTU-uš l]u-lu-wa-i-ši nu dUTU-i [UZ]U? NINDA-an 18′ [KA(Š š)i]-⸢ip⸣-[pa-an-za-ki-mi n]u-mu-za ḫa-an-da-a-a[n-ta-an ARAD-K]A LUGAL-un 19′ [dUTU-uš ki-šar-ta e-ep-š]i! You, O Sun-god, shall [su]stain me, the ki[ng, your servant, (that) I may keep] off[ering mea]t, bread (and) [bee]r to the Sun-god. [You, O Sun-god shall tak]e me, [you]r jus[t servant, by the hand]. CTH 372, KUB 31.127+ i 49–51: 49 ku-u-un-na LÚ NAM.U19.LU-aš ARAD-KA dUTU-uš lu-lu-wa-a-i 50 nu dUTU-i NINDA-an KAŠ ši-ip-pa-za-ki-u-wa-an ti-ia-az-zi 51 na-an ḫa-an-ta-⸢an⸣-ta-an ARAD-KA dUTU-uš ki-šar-ta e-ep

722 723

The beginning of CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III may be preserved in KBo 46.5, for which see pp. 292f. Duplicate: KUB 36.75 ii 6′f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

230

A Plea in Three Parts

Sustain also this mortal, your servant, O Sun-god! He will proceed to offer bread (and) beer to the Sun-god. Take him, your just servant, by the hand, O Sun-god! The close parallelism between the requests for support in Plea I (KUB 24.3+ ii 4–6) and the parallel passages in CTH 374 (KUB 30.11+ obv. 17″–19″) and CTH 372 (KUB 31.127+ i 49–51) presented above, suggest a common origin. Nonetheless, there are four remarkable variants between the passages. Firstly, in CTH 372 and CTH 374 we find a promise to present offerings to the addressed deity in between the two requests for support. This promise does not occur in Plea I. It was probably left out since beer offerings were typically Mesopotamian and not Hittite.724 Secondly, kinuna ‘now’, which marks the beginning of Plea I, is not used in the parallel request for support in CTH 372 and CTH 374.725 The beginning of the passage in CTH 372 and CTH 374 is not marked explicitly, unless mentioning the beneficiary can be interpreted as such a marker. The horizontal ruling preceding the requests in CTH 374 does not function as a marker either. Rather, it needs to be seen in light of the apparently typical MH practice of dividing a prayer into numerous short paragraphs consisting of only a few lines (see pp. 75, 286). In CTH 376.II kinuna thus appears to have been added to mark a transition in the prayer-text. Thirdly, in the second request for support CTH 372 and CTH 374 use the verb epp-/app- ‘to seize, to take’, whereas in CTH 376.II we find ḫark- ‘to hold’. Finally, the present tense [l]u-lu-wa-i-ši (2sg.prs.act of luluwai-) in KUB 30.11+ obv. 17′ (CTH 374) is odd. One would expect an imperative as we find in KUB 31.127+ i 49 (CTH 372) and KUB 24.3+ ii 5 (CTH 376.II). A few lines later in CTH 372 (KUB 31.127+ i 56–57) we find a statement and a request to listen to the words of the prayer that resembles the requests for attention at the end of Plea I (KUB 24.3+ ii 7–9).726 The statement is similar to the relative clause and the request resembles its main clause. The additional request to ‘hold the ear inclined’ (ištamanan lagān ḫark) positioned in between the relative clause and its main clause in Plea I, does not have a parallel in CTH 372. CTH 372, KUB 31.127+ i 56–57: 56 nu-ut-ta ka-a-ša LÚ.NAM.U19.LU ARAD-K[A] 57 ut-tar me-ma-i nu ud-da-a-ar-ti-it iš-ta-⸢ma-aš⸣-[ki]727 Herewith a mortal, your servant, speaks a word to you. Ke[ep] listen[ing] to his728 words!

724 725

726 727

Many lines have been omitted from the solar hymn for similar reasons, see pp. 220f. Perhaps kinuna in KUB 24.3+ ii 4 (CTH 376.II), is a free adaptation or a replacement of ku-u-un-na in KUB 31.127+ i 49. However, this remains conjecture since, in spite of the possible resemblance of the two words, it is a large step from ku-u-un-na to ki-nu-na. In CTH 374 these clauses are lost in a lacuna. Schwemer 2015: 379 reads iš-ta-⸢ma-aš⸣-[zi]. However, since one would expect a request here, I have restored an imperative in the imperfective on the basis of KUB 24.3+ i 17 and ii 9. Cf. the parallel KUB 24.3+ i 17 in KUB 24.1+ i 17 (CTH 377 17) and KUB 36.81 i 5′ (CTH 376.4).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea I: Introductory Requests

231

The resemblance between KUB 31.127+ i 56–57 and the request for attention in Plea I is striking and suggests a common origin. We may conclude that Plea I as a whole derived from a single source, similar to CTH 372 and CTH 374, and that the request to ‘hold the ear inclined’ is a secondary insertion (cf. Ch. 7.2.2). In CTH 372 and CTH 374 the passage containing these parallel clauses occurs within the long hymn to the male Sun-god that introduces these prayers, in an interlude that briefly interrupts the praise. The requests for support form the beginning of this interlude and the request for attention forms the end. In the middle there are references to offerings for the animals of the Sun-god.729 The part of the hymn that immediately precedes this interlude, is parallel to the solar hymn that preceeds Plea I in CTH 376.II. This suggests that the solar hymn and Plea I were adopted simultaneously from the same source. They go back to a prayer similar to CTH 372 and CTH 374, possibly to the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373).730 The precursor was used as a model for Plea I and the composer altered it freely. The promise, which we find in KUB 30.11+ obv. 17′f. (CTH 374) and KUB 31.127+ i 50 (CTH 372), was omitted; the references to offerings preserved in KUB 31.127+ i 52–56 were omitted; the name of the beneficiary was altered; kinuna was added at the beginning of Plea I; and the request to ‘hold the ear inclined’ (ištamanan lagān ḫark) was added to the request for attention. The common origin of the solar hymn and Plea I explains the lack of a orizontal ruling in between the hymn and Plea I in CTH 376.II. The composer probably did not consider a ruling was necessary here because – using the same source to create the solar hymn and plea I – he did not consider them as separate textual elements. He did, however, recognise a transition of some kind which he marked by adding kinuna at the beginning of Plea I. Another parallel to the requests for attention occurs at the end of the invocation earlier in CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ i 5′). There it only consists of two clauses, omitting the request to ‘hold the ear inclined’ (ištamanan lagān ḫark). The latter request does occur in the parallel invocations of CTH 377 and CTH 376.4.731 Only in CTH 377 it is also placed in between the relative clause and the main clause of the other request, making CTH 377 15–17 almost identical to KUB 24.3+ ii 7–9 (Plea I), see Table 30 (p. 170). The parallel with the invocation supports my hypothesis that Plea I was composed as the end of the elaborate prayer introduction. The requests for attention from Plea I were added at the end of the invocation in order to connect it explicitly to the end of Plea I. In this way this first part of the text, consisting of the elaborate prayer introduction and Plea I, was made into a coherent unity. The secondarily inserted request to ‘hold the ear inclined’ (ištamanan lagān ḫark) found its way into Plea I of

728 729 730 731

The reference to the prayer uddār=tit ‘your words’ may be a scribal error for uar=šit ‘his words’. This is the second interlude of the hymn to the Sun-god in these prayers, see Table 53 (p. 296). See Ch. 7.4.1, Ch. 9.3, and p. 223. CTH 372 and CTH 374 both derive independently from CTH 373, see Ch. 9.3.1 including Figure 7 (p. 297). KUB 24.1+ i 15–17 // KUB 24.2 obv. 13–14 (CTH 377) and KUB 36.81 i 3′–4′ (CTH 376.4).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

232

A Plea in Three Parts

CTH 376.II and into the requests ending the invocation in CTH 376.4 and CTH 377, but not into the one into the end of the invocation of CTH 376.II. 8.1.2 Findings Plea I concludes the elaborate prayer introduction and prepares the addressed deity for the plea that follows by asking the deity to be on the side of the beneficiary and to listen to the prayer. It was adopted from the same source and at the same time as the preceding solar hymn. Therefore, the composer did not see them as two separate textual elements, but merely as separate sections. The identification of Plea I as a textual element separated from the hymn is thus a modern one made on the basis of two formal characteristics: (1) it consists solely of requests; (2) the adverb kinuna ‘now’ marks the beginning of this new section of the text. Since Plea I was considered as part of the elaborate prayer introduction by the Hittite scribes, it is possible that it was included in CTH 377, but this remains uncertain.

8.2 PLEA II: A PRAYER AGAINST PLAGUE AND ENEMIES Plea II gives the reasons for the composition and performance of CTH 376.II.732 The two reasons are (1) a plague causing the people involved in the preparation of offerings for the gods to die, and (2) lands that have turned hostile against Ḫatti and are now enemies. There are no references to these two problems in any other part of the prayer.733 This is one of the five features that makes Plea II stand out from the remainder of CTH 376.II. The other four distinguishing features are described below. Firstly, Plea II is primarily directed to the gods, whereas the rest of CTH 376.II is addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Only two sentences of Plea II address the Sun-goddess of Arinna.734 Secondly, Plea II does not contain a single reference to the beneficiary or supplicant of the prayer, or to any other Hittite king or queen. Thirdly, the requests and wishes presented in Plea II seem rather general in nature. Finally, Plea II of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) is related to a relatively large number of other prayers. The closest parallels are the MH Prayer concerning plague and enemies (CTH 376.I) and the Fragmentary prayer concerning plague and enemies (CTH 376.III). There is also a relationship to the so-called plague prayers of Muršili II (CTH 378.1–4), in particular in the first section of Plea II. One passage has a parallel in the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) and the Prayer of a mortal

732

733 734

KUB 24.3+ ii 10–66. KUB 24.3+ breaks after ii 66. The remainder of Plea II may be restored on the basis of KUB 24.4+ rev. 15–17 (CTH 376.I) and KUB 30.13(+) 5‴–7‴ (CTH 376.III), for which see Appendices II and III. The references to plague and enemy lands in Plea III do not refer to the problems described in Plea II, but to possible dangers for Ḫatti, see Ch. 8.3.1. KUB 24.3+ ii 58–60.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

233

(CTH 374) and, finally, the prayer fragment KBo 22.78 is parallel to two passages of Plea II.735 These relationships are discussed in more detail below. In Ch. 8.2.1, we consider how Plea II of CTH 376.II relates to CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III. Subsequently, the structure of Plea II and the rhetorical strategies employed are analysed in Ch. 8.2.2. How the description of the plague and its consequences in Plea II relates to the plague prayers is treated in Ch. 8.2.3. The parallels in KBo 22.78 are discussed there as well. The textual history of one specific passage, consisting of wishes to reveal a past offence through divination, is discussed in Ch. 8.2.4. Some additional parallels are treated in Ch. 8.2.5. Finally, the findings on the composition and textual history of Plea II are summarised in Ch. 8.2.6. 8.2.1 Relationship to CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III Plea II of CTH 376.II is parallel to the plea of the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I). They almost seem identical. There are only few variants of any significance. Most variants are of an orthographic nature and occasionally a word has been omitted or added in one of the two texts. Only once is an entire clause omitted in CTH 376.II.736 Since Plea II is almost identical to the plea of CTH 376.I, they can be understood as parallel versions of the same plea, and they are treated as such in the analysis presented below. The main difference between the two versions is that CTH 376.I contains many more horizontal rulings, which divide the text into numerous small paragraphs, a feature common for Middle Hittite prayers (see pp. 75, 286). The final lines of Plea II are not preserved in any of the manuscripts of CTH 376.II, but these can be restored on the basis of the parallel in CTH 376.I, KUB 24.4+ rev. 15–17. Vice versa, the first lines of the plea of CTH 376.I can be restored on the basis of KUB 24.3+ ii 10f., the beginning of Plea II of CTH 376.II. The end of the prayer-text of CTH 376.I probably corresponds to the end of Plea II in CTH 376.II. The similarities between Plea II and the plea of CTH 376.I imply a close connection between the two prayers. Since the Middle Hittite CTH 376.I predates the prayer of Muršili II (see Ch. 6.2), and because there are no major textual variants between the two texts, it is possible that a manuscript of CTH 376.I was the source used by the composer of CTH 376.II as a Vorlage for Plea II. Though one or multiple intermediary versions may have existed, I have not found any evidence in the texts to suggest the necessity to assume there were any. The numerous orthographic variants between Plea II and CTH 376.I indicate that the composer of CTH 376.II updated the language and orthography of the MH prayer.737 The content was barely altered. There is only

735 736

737

For KBo 22.78, see Appendix VI. CTH 376.I, KUB 24.4+ obv. 19′: [n]u KUR URUḪA-AT-TI i-da-a-la-u-wa-an-ni ⸢ša-an⸣-ḫi-iš-[ká]n-zi ‘They continually seek Ḫatti in an evil way’ is omitted in CTH 376.II. For the variants between KUB 24.4+ (CTH 376.I) and KUB 24.3+ ii 10–66 (CTH 376.II Plea II), see Table 54 (pp. 333–35). For instance, the particle =apa in KUB 24.4+ rev. 11 has been replaced in KUB 24.3+ ii 62 by =ašta. Furthermore, KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) uses more logograms and CVC-signs than KUB 24.4+ (CTH 376.I), cf. Carruba 1983: 5f. and Ch. 6.2 above.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

234

A Plea in Three Parts

CTH 376.I Plea

CTH 376.III Plea

CTH 376.II Plea II

Figure 3. Relationships between Plea II of CTH 376.II and related pleas.

one significant alteration in the lists of hostile enemy lands: Kizzuwatna has been omitted in CTH 376.II,738 and the ‘land of the Hurrians’ (ḫurlaš utnē) in KUB 24.4+ obv. 17′ (CTH 376.I) has been replaced by Mittanni in KUB 24.3+ ii 34 (CTH 376.II).739 Possibly these small modifications reflect the intentions of the composer to adjust the text to its new context.740 Besides CTH 376.I, the Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.III) also resembles Plea II. Some sections of this fragmentary prayer written in NS are close parallels to passages in CTH 376.II and CTH 376.I, whereas others differ.741 The prayer ends at the same point as CTH 376.I.742 This suggests that CTH 376.III was based on the Middle Hittite CTH 376.I or a similar prayer, just like Plea II of CTH 376.II, see Figure 3. The composer of CTH 376.III added several lines to the text and probably altered others.743 To what extent the text was modified cannot be ascer-

738 739 740

741

742

743

Kizzuwatna is mentioned in KUB 24.4+ obv. 17′ and 22′ but not at all in CTH 376.II. Note, however, that Mittanni also occurs already in KUB 24.4+ obv. 22′ (CTH 376.I). So Carruba 1983: 5f., who claims that the political entity called the ‘land of the Hurrians’ (ḫurlaš utnē) did not exist anymore when CTH 376.II was written and that Kizzuwatna had become a Hittite province by that time. KUB 30.13(+) 1′–11′ is almost identical to KUB 24.3+ ii 10–26 and KUB 24.4+ obv. 1′–9′ (Section 1a and 1b); KUB 30.13(+) 4″–10″ is parallel to KUB 24.3+ ii 39–52 and KUB 24.4+ obv. 21′–rev. 3′ (Sections 2c and 3a); KUB 30.13(+) 1‴–4‴ is parallel to KUB 24.3+ ii 61–66 and KUB 24.4+ rev. 10–14 and KUB 30.13(+) 5‴–7‴ is parallel to KUB 24.4+ rev. 15–17 (Section 3c). KUB 30.13(+) 1″–3c″ appears similar to KUB 24.3+ ii 37 and KUB 24.4+ obv. 19′f. (Section 2a), but there are significant differences suggesting that the passage has been altered to adjust the prayer to a new situation (Torri 2010: 367). It is remarkable that the altered passage is similar to Section 2a of Plea II, for this passage was also modified before it was included into CTH 376.II. For the structure of Plea II and its different (sub)sections, see Table 42 (p. 236). The plea ends in KUB 30.13(+) 7‴. The following lines, KUB 30.13(+) 8‴–11‴, do not belong to the prayer-text to be recited. They probably belong to the colophon, see p. 337 and the comments on these lines in Appendix III. In particular KUB 30.13(+) 3a″–3c″, written on the reverse of the tablet, is interesting in this respect, see the comments on these lines in Appendix III.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

235

tained due to its fragmentary state. We may cautiously assume that the plea of this prayer followed that of CTH 376.I for the most part. The fact that the plea of CTH 376.I was reused in later prayers on at least two occasions suggests that plague and rebellious lands were recurring issues in Hittite Anatolia. The lack of references to the beneficiary and/or supplicant of the prayer and the rather general nature of the requests, for which see Ch. 8.2.2, probably made CTH 376.I suitable to be reused in new contexts. 8.2.2 Structure and Rhetoric Plea II has a clear structure consisting of three sections, see Table 42. The beginning of Plea II is marked by a rhetorical question followed by the answer to it. This power-ful figure of speech draws the attention of the deities addressed and blames them for allowing a plague to enter Ḫatti.744 Each of the three sections begins with a descrip-tive passage and ends with requests and wishes. The transition from the description to the requests is bridged by one or two clauses. In Section 1 the transition consists of a complaint (1b) concerning the current incompetence of mankind, which certainly refers to the people of Ḫatti.745 In Sections 2 and 3 the transitions consist of a wish to let what is described become a reason for vengeance (kaawātar) for the addressed deity. In Section 2 this wish is directed to the gods (2b), but in Section 3 it is directed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and combined with a request not to degrade her name (3b). These are the only sen-tences in Plea II directed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. She is also mentioned in the third person in the preceding description (3a), in which the gods are not mentioned at all. The remainder of Plea II is addressed to the gods. Section 1 concerns a plague (ḫinkan), whereas Sections 2 and 3 concern hostile enemy lands. These problems, which are troubling the Hittite empire and are the motivation for the prayer, are thematised in the descriptions. The plague (ḫinkan) causes the death of people who are in some way involved in the preparation of offerings for the gods (1a). The first sentence of Section 2 refers to both topics and thus functions as a transition.746 The beginning of Section 3 is marked by the adverb namma ‘furthermore’. Sections 2 and 3 each concern problems with different enemy lands, which are mentioned explicitly. The hostile lands listed in Section 2a vary in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II: CTH 376.I lists the land of the Hurrians, Kizzuwatna, and Arzawa, whereas CTH 376.II mentions only Mittanni and Arzawa (cf. pp. 233f.). They are described as kuriwana-lands747 who are disrespectful towards the gods and their temples. The 744

745 746 747

KUB 24.3+ ii 10 with the parallel KUB 30.13(+) 1′. For further parallels, see Ch. 8.2.3. Its introductory function remains, even if one interprets it as a statement rather than a rhetorical question, so e.g., Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.1, cf. the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 10 in Appendix IV. Since the incompetence of mankind was caused by the lack of ḫaatar, it was ultimately caused by the gods, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 25 in Appendix IV. KUB 24.3+ ii 32f. with the parallel KUB 24.4+ obv. 15′f., see also Daues and Rieken 2018: 114. On kuriwana-lands, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 33 in Appendix IV.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

236

A Plea in Three Parts

description in Section 3a concerns the land of the Kaška, Arauwanna, Kalaspa, Lukka, and Pitašša, who used to belong to the Hittite empire until they instigated attacks against Ḫatti. It is made clear that the insubordination of these lands also affects the Sun-goddess of Arinna, for she will no longer receive their payments of tribute. This descriptive passage (3a) uses a combination of three structural rhetorical strategies: contrast, repetition, and historical contrast, see Table 43. Sections and subjects

Text units

Function

§ 1a 1

Plague 1b 1c 2a

2

Enemies

2b 2c

Rhetorical Question with Answer – Problem (plague) Description Problem (plague) Complaint Request + Wishes Description Problem (plague and enemies) Description Problem (enemies) Wish – Revenge Requests

introduction transition transition transition

§ 3a

3

Enemies

3b 3c

Description Problem (enemies) − Historical § Description Problem (enemies) Wish – Revenge + Request – Reputation § Requests + Wishes

transition

Table 42. Structure Plea II of CTH 376.II and the plea of CTH 376.I.

It begins by referring to a past situation when the five lands – the land of the Kaška, Arauwanna, Kalaspa, Lukka, and Pitašša – were part of the Hittite empire.748 From a Hittite point of view this was a good situation. The text continues on a more negative note by stating that these lands started to revolt against Ḫatti.749 This apparently took place in the recent past and still continues into the present. Subsequently, we find an anecdote concerning good times that lie further back in time, in the distant past, as is clear from the use of karū ‘formerly’. Here it is stated how powerful and victorious the Hittites used to be against their neighbouring lands and how, under Muršili I (ca.

748 749

KUB 24.3+ ii 45–48, with the parallel KUB 24.4+ obv. 25′–27′. Cf. KUB 30.13(+) obv. 6″–7″. KUB 24.3+ ii 48–50, with the parallels KUB 24.4+ obv. 28′–rev. 2, KUB 30.13(+) obv. 8″–9″.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

237

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

1620–1590 BCE), they destroyed Aleppo and Babylon and gave the spoils to the Sungoddess of Arinna.750 Then the text jumps back to the present, marked by kinuna ‘now’, and returns to the negative subject of the surrounding lands attacking Ḫatti.751 This sentence is similar to an earlier one concerning the bad behaviour of enemy lands in the first part of the passage.752 The repetition highlights the primary message that is communicated in this passage: the terrible behaviour of the rebelling lands. This negative message is emphasised by contrasting it with a positive anecdote about a time when the Hittites were powerful and successful against their enemies. The contrast and the historical perspective thus created, give the text more depth and the message a stronger impact. Text units Description Problem (enemies) − Historical § Description Problem (enemies)

lands part of Ḫatti bad behaviour enemy lands Ḫatti’s supremacy over enemies bad behaviour enemy lands

Positive / negative

Introduced by

+

namma

past recent past - present

+

karū

distant past

−

kinuna

present

−

Chronology

Table 43. The use of contrast and historical contrast in Plea II Section 3a.

Requests matching the subject of the preceding descriptions and which, therefore, appear specific to their context, are the requests to send ‘evil’ to the enemy in 2c and 3c.753 The other requests and wishes in Plea II are all of a more general nature. In particular those in the section concerning plague (1c) are remarkable since they do not refer to plague in any way. We only find wishes to reveal a past offence754 and a request for support, asking the gods to have pity on Ḫatti.755 In 3c we find general requests and wishes for the well-being and prosperity of Ḫatti756 and a request to 750 751 752 753

754 755 756

KUB 24.3+ ii 51–55, with the parallels KUB 24.4+ rev. 2–6, KUB 30.13(+) obv. 9″–10″. KUB 24.3+ ii 56–57, with the parallel KUB 24.4+ rev. 7–8. KUB 24.3+ ii 50, with the parallel KUB 24.4+ rev. 1–2. In KUB 24.3+ ii 39–41 and KUB 24.4+ obv. 21′–22′ the gods are asked to send plague, enmity, and famine to specific enemy lands (2c). This may be understood as a general request to send any possible evil to the enemy, see Ch. 4.2. Cf. the similar requests in CTH 377 67′–79′ and KUB 24.3+ iii 1′– 11′ (CTH 376.II). In KUB 24.4+ rev. 15, with the parallel KUB 30.13(+) obv. 4‴–5‴, the gods are requested to send plague to the enemy (3c). This is not preserved in KUB 24.3+. KUB 24.3+ ii 26–29, with the parallel KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′–12′. On the textual history of these wishes, see Ch. 8.2.4. KUB 24.3+ ii 30–31, with the parallel KUB 24.4+ obv. 13′–14′. KUB 24.4+ rev. 14, 16–17 and KUB 30.13(+) obv. 4‴, 6‴–7‴ (not preserved in KUB 24.3+).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

238

A Plea in Three Parts

punish only the guilty party.757 None of these seem to be restricted to the context of Plea II. This is remarkable since in other Hittite prayers we usually find requests to end or ignore evil that explicitly name the problem which needs to be resolved. The wishes to reveal an offence through divination (in 1c) suggest that the plague was considered a divine punishment for a human transgression. Though not stated explicitly, Ḫatti’s innocence in this matter and in their problematic situation with hostile enemies is implied in the request to punish only the guilty party (in 3c). The request ‘rested are the disrespectful lands, but the land of Ḫatti is a tired land. Untie the tired one and harness the rested one!’758 gives the impression that the enemy lands should be held responsible for their hostile behaviour towards Ḫatti and its gods. We may interpret the request not to ‘consider the good ones among the evil ones’759 in the same way. This also justifies the requests to send evil to the enemy in 2c and 3c. All these requests should persuade the addressed gods to heed the prayer and help Ḫatti. They thus have a rhetorical function. We find other arguments in the explicit blaming of the gods for the plague and in reminding them continuously of the effects of the plague and the hostile behaviour of enemies on the gods. Other rhetorical strategies employed in Plea II include its clear structure and the use of powerful and figurative speech. For instance, the request to ‘untie the tired one and harness the rested one’ compares the enemy lands and the land of Ḫatti to draft animals.760 The metaphor is clear: the gods control the lands and can give them hardship just as man can tie draft animals to a yoke. Another figurative expression introduces a request for support (in 1c). The expression ‘We have been dangling from the point of a needle’761 stresses the precarious state Ḫatti finds itself in. We may compare the English expression ‘to hang by a thread’. Using a rhetorical question to introduce Plea II is also a powerful rhetorical strategy. It immediately seizes the attention of the addressees and it addresses the problem at hand. In this case the gods are even blamed for allowing the plague into Ḫatti. Its rhetorical power is moreover increased by the direct address to the gods, which also draws the addressees’ attention. The distribution of the direct addresses in Section 1 of Plea II is not arbitrary but the result of a conscious rhetorical strategy in which each direct address marks either

757

758

759 760 761

KUB 24.3+ ii 61–66 and the parallels in KUB 24.4+ rev. 10–13 and KUB 30.13(+) obv. 1‴–3‴. Possibly one can also interpret KUB 24.3+ ii 41–44 as a request to punish only the ones who misbehave, i.e., who are guilty. A similar request occurs in KBo 22.78 7′–12′, see Appendix VI. KUB 24.3+ ii 41–44: wa-ar-ša-an-da šu-ul-la-an-da KUR.KURḪI.A / 〈〈A-NA〉〉 KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-ma tari-ia-an KUR-e / nu ta-ri-ia-an-da-an la-a-at-tén wa-ar-ši-ia-an-da-an-ma / tu-u-ri-ia-at-tén. Cf. the parallels in KUB 24.4+ obv. 23′–24′ and KUB 30.13(+) obv. 4″–6″. KUB 24.3+ ii 62–63: na-aš-ta l[e-e] / a-aš-ša-u-e-eš i-da-a-la-u-wa-aš an-da ⸢ḫar-kán-zi⸣, cf. the parallels in KUB 24.4+ rev. 11 and KUB 30.13(+) obv. 2‴. See the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 43f. in Appendix IV. KUB 24.3+ ii 30: na-aš-ta URUDUZI.KIN.BAR-aš GIŠšar-pa-⸢az⸣ ku-un-ku-u-e-en, cf. the parallels in KUB 24.4+ obv. 13′ in Appendix II, KUB 14.10+ iv 19′–20′ (CTH 378.2) on p. 247, and KBo 22.78 6′–7′, in Appendix VI.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

239

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

the beginning or end of a subsection (1a and 1c). A direct address to the gods occurs at the beginning of 1a in the rhetorical question, at the end of the description (1a), and at the beginning and end of the request and wishes (1c), see Table 44. Text units 1a

Rhetorical Question with Answer – Problem (plague) Description Problem (plague)

1b 1c

consequences of the plague

✓ —

‘you hold us accountable’

✓ —

Wishes

– Reveal offence (divination)

Complaint

= Introduction Request

✓ —

Request

– Support

✓

Complaint Request + Wishes

Direct address

Table 44. Structure Plea II Section 1 with distribution of direct addresses.

In the remainder of Plea II we do not find the same distribution pattern. In Sections 2 and 3 the addressees are mentioned in the transitional passages (2b and 3b) between the descriptions (2a and 3a) and the requests and wishes (2c and 3c). The gods are mentioned in 2b, but in 3b we find the Sun-goddess of Arinna instead. Strictly speaking these are not direct addresses because neither the gods nor the Sun-goddess of Arinna are referred to in the second person. Instead, they are referred to in the third person. In CTH 376.II a direct address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna occurs in the request not to degrade her name, which is also part of the transition (3b). She is, however, not addressed by name but anonymously as ‘goddess’ (DINGIRLUM).762 Further direct addresses to the gods are included in the first three requests of 3c. Section 2 does not contain a single direct address. The mentioning of the addressees in 2b and 3b seems to mark these clauses as transitional clauses. Once this is combined with a direct address (3b). The direct addresses to the gods at the beginning of 3c were probably necessary to clarify that the prayer was once again directed to the gods and not to the Sun-goddess of Arinna alone.763 It can thus be concluded that direct addresses, as well as the mentioning of the addressees in the third person, were used to indicate transitions within the text. The rhetorical strategies employed in Plea II can be summarised as follows.

762 763

KUB 24.3+ ii 59. The direct address does not occur in CTH 376.I, see KUB 24.4+ rev. 9. It is difficult to ascertain why 3b (KUB 24.3+ ii 58–60, KUB 24.4+ rev. 8–9) is addressed to the Sungoddess of Arinna and not to the gods. Perhaps it is because the remainder of CTH 376.II was addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, but this does not seem a valid hypothesis for CTH 376.I. Alternatively, it could be because Sections 3a and 3b had been adopted from a different text, but this remains conjecture.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

240

A Plea in Three Parts

Rhetorical strategies in Plea II: - Clear structure with (sub)sections and transitions marked by: o Rhetorical question with answer + direct address o Direct addresses o Mentioning the addressee(s) (by name) o Adverb: namma - A combination of contrast, repetition, and historical contrast (3a) - Powerful speech: o Rhetorical question with answer o Figurative expressions - Arguments: o The addressees are blamed for the plague o Emphasis on how plague and enemies affect the addressees o Implying Ḫatti’s innocence 8.2.3 Relationship to the Plague Prayers of Muršili II Besides CTH 376.II, four more prayers of Muršili II concerning a plague have come down to us: the so-called plague prayers (CTH 378.1–4). All five prayers probably refer to the same epidemic. This would mean that they were composed around the same time. Unlike CTH 376.II, the four plague prayers do not refer to problems with enemy lands. They are restricted to the topic of the plague. That this epidemic was deadly is not only clear from the descriptions, but also from the Hittite word for plague, ḫinkan, which literally means ‘death’.764 In three plague prayers Muršili II claims that the plague had started during the reign of his father, Šuppiluliuma I, and that it had already lasted for twenty years.765 In fact Muršili II’s two direct predecessors – his father Šuppiluliuma I and his brother Arnuwanda II – are often considered to have died of this very plague.766 The MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I) concerns an earlier plague, possibly during the reign of Tudḫaliya II/III (see p. 147). For which plague CTH 376.III was written remains uncertain due to its uncertain date of composition. The plague prayers do not only deal with the same topic as Section 1 of Plea II, but they also contain some parallels in the description of the

764

765 766

HW2 Ḫ 561–68, Kloekhorst 2008: 339, Puhvel HED 3: 296–301. Another word for ‘death’ is aggatar, but this term is never used to refer to a plague or epidemic. According to HW2 Ḫ 567b ḫinkan refers to death as a punishment, which fits the present context. The plague is considered to be a punishment for a committed offence (waštul) as the requests to reveal a transgression (KUB 24.3+ ii 26–29, KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′–12′) show. The same notion is expressed in the plague prayers (CTH 378.1–4). KUB 14.14+ obv. 9–10 (CTH 378.1), KUB 14.10+ i 9–13 (CTH 378.2), KUB 14.12 obv. 3–6 (CTH 378.3). So e.g., Bryce 2005: 189, 191 and Beal 2000: 82, 84, fn. 9. For a more critical view on whether or not there actually was an epidemic as described in the plague prayers, see Klinger 2012a: 478–80, 491– 94. On the chances of epidemics in Hittite Anatolia, see pp. 95f. incl. fn. 304. A plague is also mentioned in the Comprehensive Annals of Muršili II (KBo 40.3+ i 6′–8′), for which see Groddek 1999: 149f., cf. Beal 2000: 82, fn. 1.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

241

plague (1a). These parallels are discussed below. It seems that these passages in the plague prayers were adopted from CTH 376.II and not the other way around. This means that CTH 376.II was written earlier than the famous plague prayers. In the “Second” and “Third” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2 and CTH 378.3) the plea is introduced in the same way as Plea II, using the same rhetorical question with its answer. These clauses mark the beginning of a new part of the prayer and blame the gods for allowing the plague into Ḫatti. This is a conscious rhetorical strategy (cf. Ch. 8.2.2). The rhetorical questions with answer are almost identical. In the two plague prayers a reference to Ḫatti in the dative-locative case is added, but the direct address to the gods which we find in KUB 24.3+ ii 10 is omitted. In the “Second” plague prayer the clauses are formulated in direct speech. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.10+ i 5–7: 5 ki-i-wa ku-it i-ia-at-tén 6 nu-wa-kán I-NA ŠÀBI KUR URUḪA-AT-TI ḫi-in-kán 7 tar-na-at-te-en → ‘What is this you have done? You have allowed a plague into Ḫatti.’ CTH 378.3, KUB 14.12 obv. 1–2: 1 ki-⸢i⸣ ku-it ⸢i?⸣-[ia-at-tén] 2 nu-kán I-NA ŠÀ KUR URUḪA-AT-TI ḫi-in-kán tar-na-at-tén → What is this [you have done]? You have allowed a plague into Ḫatti. In CTH 376.II the description (1a) focuses on the consequences of the plague, in particular on the death of people who are involved in the preparation of the offerings for the gods and the consequences thereof. When these people have died, the offerings cannot be prepared and they cannot be presented to the gods. Not the plague per se, but the death of these people and the subsequent inability to present offerings seem to be the direct reason for the composition and performance of the prayer. Judging by the following passage, the same is true for the “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.2). CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 obv. 6′–8′: 6′ [nu-kán Š]A DINGIRMEŠ-ia ku-i-e-eš LÚ.MEŠNINDA.GUR4.RA-[uš LÚ.MEŠiš-pa-an-tuuz-zi-ia-li-uš te-e-pa-u-eš] 7′ [aš-ša-a]n-te-eš767 e-še-er na-at ak-ki-i[š-kán-ta-ri768 nu … nu-mu769] 8′ [me-mi-ia-a]š nam-ma na-ak-ki-iš-ta → ‘The [few] sacrificers of bread [and wine o]f the gods, who were [rem]aining, are dy[ing one by one. … And the matte]r troubled [me] again.’ 767 768

769

Cf. KUB 14.8 rev. 18′–19′. A 3pl.prs.impf.mp of akk-/ekk- is restored because the object (=at) is plural and because a present tense is expected, cf. KUB 14.8 rev. 19′: [(ak-kán)]-zi. Other restorations have been proposed by Götze 1929: 208, García Trabazo 2002: 312, Lebrun 1980: 204, and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 378.2. Restoration follows CHD L–N 372a.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

242

.

A Plea in Three Parts

The possible future inability to provide offerings for the gods apparently was a major concern for Muršili II. It is addressed in CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ ii 11–22) and in at least three of the four plague prayers.770 The passage in CTH 376.II and its parallels in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III are the most extensive ones on the subject. The descriptive passage of Plea II Section 1 ends with the claim that the gods hold ‘us’ (=nnaš), referring to the Hittite king and his family or to the Hittite people in general, accountable for ‘that matter’ (apēdani uddāni).771 The latter probably refers to the neglect of the offerings. Evidence for this interpretation can be found in a parallel in a similar context in the “Third” plague prayer of Muršili II, KUB 14.12 rev. 10′–11′, which is presented below. In this text it is stated explicitly that Muršili is the one whom the gods hold responsible for the neglect of the offerings. CTH 378.3, KUB 14.12 rev. 7′–11′: 7′ ma-a-an-ma-kán DINGIRMEŠ-ma BE-LUMEŠ ḫi-in-kán IŠ-T[U KUR URUḪA-AT-TI arḫa? nam-ma? le-e? u-i-ia-at-te-ni?]772 8′ ḫar-ši-ia-al-li-ia-aš-kán iš-pa-an-tu-uz-zi-⸢ia-al⸣-[la-aš-ša ar-ḫa? ak-ki-iškán-ta-ri] 9′ nu ma-a-an a-pu-u-uš-ša ar-ḫa ak-kán-zi nu A-NA DINGIRMEŠ BE-[LUMEŠ-IA NINDA.GUR4.RA?] 10′ iš-pa-an-tu-uz-zi kar-aš-ta-ri nu-mu ú-wa-at-te-e-ni DIN[GIRMEŠ ENMEŠ-IA a-pée-da-ni ud-da-a-ni] 11′ wa-aš-túl ḫar-te-e-ni ku-wa-⸢at⸣-wa-an-na-aš NINDA.GUR4.RA-in iš-pa-an-tuu[z-zi-in Ú-UL pa-a-i] But if [you], O Gods, my lords, [do not send] the plague [away again out of Ḫatti], the sacrificers of thick bread and wine [will keep on dying]. And if they also die, [the offering bread] and the libation will be cut off from the gods, my lords. Then you, O Gods, [my lords], will proceed to hold me accountable [in that matter], (saying): ‘Why [don’t you give us] thick bread and libation?’ The parallels between Plea II and the plague prayers treated above show that their relationship is not limited to the shared topic of plague and its consequences, in particular the death of people who prepare the offerings for the gods. The parallels in the rhetorical question and the complaint that the gods hold the Hittite king and/or the people of Ḫatti responsible for the neglect of offerings are so close that they cannot be coincidental. Since Plea II of CTH 376.II derived from the Middle Hittite CTH 376.I,

770

771 772

KUB 14.14+ rev. 22′–44′ (CTH 378.1), KUB 14.8 obv. 6′–7′, rev. 38′–40′ (CTH 378.2), and KUB 14.12 rev. 7′–11′ (CTH 378.3). It is probable that this subject was also addressed in the “Fourth” plague prayer (CTH 378.4), though it is not preserved. KUB 24.3+ ii 22–24 and the parallels KUB 24.4+ 6′–7′ and KUB 30.13(+) 9′. Cf. KUB 14.12 rev. 12′–13′ and KUB 14.11+ rev. 17′–18′. Alternatively, one could restore mān=ma=kan DINGIRMEŠ=ma BĒLUMEŠ ḫinkan IŠT[U URUḪATTI arḫa namma lē taruptat] ‘But if, O Gods, my lords, the plague [is not removed from Ḫatti]’, cf. KUB 14.10+ iii 7′, iv 21′–22′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

243

the plague prayers probably adopted these clauses from CTH 376.II. The parallel between the wishes to reveal a past offence in Plea II (1c) and the “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.2), treated in Ch. 8.2.4, supports this theory. This means CTH 376.II predates the plague prayers, though the time interval may have been very small, perhaps only a few weeks or days. If CTH 376.II and the plague prayers (CTH 378.1–4) were composed around the same time, the composers of the plague prayers may have consulted both CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II (and possibly also CTH 376.III) or they may simply have remembered clauses from these prayers. In any case the composers of the “Second” and “Third” plague prayer recognised the rhetorical and introductory function of the rhetorical question and also placed at the beginning of the plea. 8.2.4 e Textual History of the Wishes to Reveal a Past Offence The requests and wishes in the section concerning plague (1c) do not refer to plague at all. Instead, the gods are asked to reveal the offence (waštul) that provoked the gods’ anger and led to the plague.773 Several divination experts who may transmit the response of the gods are listed: a man of god, the old women, the diviners, and the augurs. These all represent different divination methods. Old women, diviners, and augurs practised the forms of provoked divination that are attested in the oracle reports.774 The function of the ‘man of god’ ((LÚ)šiuniyant-) is unclear, but he is often thought to be someone to whom the gods speak directly.775 Dreams are also mentioned as a possible means of communication. In this way all possible methods for the gods to contact mankind in Hittite Anatolia seem to be mentioned here. These wishes to reveal a past offence are followed by a complaint about the precarious situation of Ḫatti and a request for support. The wishes to reveal a past offence have a relatively long and complex textual history, as Metcalf has shown.776 This textual history will be described below, beginning with the parallels within the corpus of Hittite prayers and their relationship to CTH 376.II and CTH 376.I. Similar passages occur in the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), the Prayer of a Mortal (CTH 372), the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2), and the prayer fragment KBo 22.78. The relevant passages are presented below.777 773 774

775 776 777

KUB 24.3+ ii 26–29 and KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′–12′. The old women, diviners, and augurs may be mentioned together here in a single clause because they often worked together (so Metcalf 2015b: 51), or because they all performed oracular inquiries. The MUNUS.MEŠŠU.GI ‘old women’ practised the KIN oracle and the ‘snake’ oracle. These divination methods made use of symbols of some kind. The LÚ.MEŠAZU ‘diviners’ practised extispicy, the related ‘bed’ oracle, for which the behaviour of the sheep before it is slaughtered for extispicy is observed, and the ḪURRI-bird oracle. The LÚ.MEŠMUŠEN.DÙ ‘augurs’ discerned ominous signs in the behaviour of birds, a practice known as augury. On Hittite divination, see e.g., van den Hout 2003–2005 and Haas 2008. On KIN oracles, see Archi 1974; on ‘snake’ oracles, see Laroche 1978. See the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 27 in Appendix IV. Metcalf 2015a: 191–220, ibid. 2015b. For KBo 22.78 1′–7′, see the edition in Appendix VI. Metcalf included the Prayer of a king (CTH 374) as one of the prayers that contain the wishes to reveal a transgression through divination, but this text did not include such a passage, cf. Ch. 9.3.1.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

244

A Plea in Three Parts

CTH 373, KUB 30.10 obv. 24′–28′:778 24′ [ki-nu-n]a-⸢mu⸣-za am-me-el DINGIR-IA ŠÀ-ŠU ZI-ŠU ḫu-u-ma-an-⸢te-et⸣ kardi-it ki-i-nu-ud-du nu-mu wa-aš-du-ul-mi-it 25′ [te-e-ed]-du ne-za-an ga-né-eš-mi na-aš-šu-mu DINGIR-IA za-aš-ḫé-ia me-ema-ú nu-mu-za DINGIR-IA ŠÀ-ŠU ki-nu-ud-du 26′ [nu-mu wa-aš-d]u-ul-mi-it te-e-ed-du ne-za-an ga-né-eš-mi na-aš-ma-mu MUNUS ENSI me-e-ma-ú 27′ [na-aš-ma-mu Š]A dUTU LÚAZU IŠ-TU UZUNÍG.GIG me-e-ma-ú nu-mu-za DINGIRIA ḫu-u-ma-an-te-et kar-di-it 28′ [ŠÀ-ŠU ZI-Š]U ⸢ki-i-nu-ud-du⸣ nu-mu wa-aš-du-ul-mi-it te-ed-du ne-za-an gané-eš-mi [Now] may my god open his innermost soul to me with all his heart. May he [tell] me my transgressions so I (can) acknowledge them. May my god either speak to me in a dream – may my god open his heart to me and may he tell [me] my [transgr]essions so I (can) acknowledge them – or let a dream interpretess speak to me [or] let a diviner [o]f the Sun-god speak [to me] (by reading) from a liver. May my god with all his heart open [his innermost soul] to me. May he tell me my transgressions (so) I (can) acknowledge them. CTH 372, KUB 31.127+ ii 50–58:779 50 ki-nu-na-[m]u-⸢za⸣ am-me-el [DINGIR-IA ŠÀ-ŠU ZI-ŠU ḫu-u-ma-an-te-et kar-diit ki-i-nu-ud-du] 51 nu-mu wa-[aš]-⸢du⸣-ul-me-e[t te-e-ed-du ne-za-an ga-né-eš-mi] 52 nu-mu DINGIR-IA za-aš-ḫ[i-ia me-e-ma-ú nu-mu-za DINGIR-IA ŠÀ-ŠU ki-nu-ud-du] 53 nu-mu wa-aš-du-〈ul-〉mi-it [te-e-ed-du ne-za-an ga-né-eš-mi] 54 na-at-mu MUNUSEN[SI! me-e-ma-ú na-at-mu ŠA dUTU LÚAZU] 55 IŠ-TU UZUNÍG.G[IG me-e-ma-ú nu-mu-za DINGIR-IA] 56 ḫu-u-ma-an-t[e-et kar-di-it ŠÀ-ŠU ZI-ŠU ki-i-nu-ud-du] 57 nu-mu wa-aš-túl-m[i-it te-ed-du] 58 ne-⸢ez-za⸣-[an ga-né-eš-mi] Now [may] my [god open his innermost soul to me with all his heart. May he tell] me my transgressions [so I (can) acknowledge them. May] my god [speak] to me [in] a drea[m – may my god open his heart to me] and [may he tell] me my transgressions [so I (can) acknowledge them]. Let a dream

778 779

Cf. Schwemer 2015: 354, 356, and Metcalf 2015b: 45f. The restorations are based on KUB 30.10 obv. 24′–28′ (CTH 373), cf. Schwemer 2015: 381, 388.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

245

in[terpretess say] them to me [(or) let a diviner of the Sun-god say them to me] (by reading) from a liv[er]. [May my god] with all [his heart open his innermost soul to me. May he tell] me [my] transgressions so [I (can) acknowledge] them. The Prayer of a Mortal (CTH 372) is almost identical to the MH Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) on which the text is based. Similarly, the two passages presented above only contain minor differences. Overall, these passages are similar to the wishes to reveal an offence in Plea II (1c), to which they are almost certainly related. Plea II of CTH 376.II derives from the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I), which contains the same requests. The wishes to reveal an offence in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II probably derive from the Prayer of Kantuzili, KUB 30.10 obv. 24′–28′. This is supported by the use of the syntactical disjuctions naššu … našma … našma ‘either … or … or’ in the three prayers and its omission in the Prayer of a mortal. Moreover, the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) may be of an earlier date than CTH 376.I,780 whereas the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372) is probably of a later date. It thus seems plausible that at some point during the Middle Hittite period, the passage from the Prayer of Kantuzili cited above was selected, altered, and subsequently incorporated into CTH 376.I.781 In this text the passage formed a single paragraph, just as in CTH 373 and CTH 372. Several years later the plea of CTH 376.I was inserted into a new prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna written for Muršili II, CTH 376.II, where it was part of a longer paragraph. Several alterations were made to the passage from the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373). The refrain, ‘May my god open his innermost soul to me with all his heart. May he tell me my transgressions so I (can) acknowledge them’, which occurs three times in CTH 373, is omitted in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II. It has been replaced by the following relative clause that introduces the requests: ‘the offence which you, O Gods, perceive’.782 The other clauses are formulated much in the same way as the wishes in Plea II (1c), using imperatives in the third person of the verb mema- ‘to say, to speak’. In CTH 373 the addressed deity is asked to reveal the offence in dreams or through extispicy. These divination methods are also referred to in Plea II (1c). In addition, all other common divination methods are mentioned. In the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2), we find two passages containing wishes to reveal an offence similar to the ones discussed above. The first, KUB 14.8 obv. 1′–3′, occurs close to the beginning of the plea. These lines represent words

780

781 782

However, if the Kantuzili in CTH 373 is indeed Kantuzili ‘the priest’, brother of Tudḫaliya II/III (see p. 52), and if CTH 376.I was indeed composed for Tudḫaliya II/III (see p. 148), the composition dates of the two prayers are not far apart. One or more intermediary versions may have existed. nu DINGIRMEŠ kuit waštul uškaeni (KUB 24.3+ ii 26 and KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′). The suggestion of Metcalf (2015a: 50f.) that the wish to let the offence be revealed through a šiuniyant- ‘man of god’ replaces the refrain of CTH 373 and CTH 372 does not seem plausible because there are no references to any specific means of communication in the refrain.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

246

A Plea in Three Parts

cited from an earlier unheeded prayer of Muršili II that he performed because of the plague. The second passage, KUB 14.10+ iv 8′–22′, is more elaborate and forms the end of the prayer. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 obv. 1′–3′:783 1′ [… ku-e-da-az-ma-wa INIM-az KUR URUḪA-AT-TI ak-ki-i(š-ki-it-ta-ri) nu-wa-ra-at] 2′ [na-aš-šu SI×SÁ-a(t)]-⸢ta-ru⸣ na-aš-ma-wa-〈ra-〉at-za-ká[n te-eš-ḫi-it ú-wa-allu na-aš-ma-wa-ra-at] 3′ [LÚDINGIRLIM-ni-ia]-an-za-ma me-ma-a-ú DINGIRMEŠ-ma-m[u] → ‘[The matter, because of which (people in) Ḫatti] keep on [dy]ing, [let it either be determ]ined [by oracle] or [let me see] it [through a dream, or] let [a man of g]od say [it].’ CTH 378.2, KUB 14.10+ iv 8′–22′: 8′784 [nam-ma-m(a ma)]-⸢a⸣-an ta-me-ta-zi-ia785 ⸢ku⸣-[(e-ez-ka4 ud-da-a-na-az)] 9′ [(ak-ki-i)]š-[k]i-it-ta-ri na-at-za-kán n[(a-aš-šu)786] 10′ [(te-eš-ḫi-i)]t ú-wa-al-lu na-aš-ma-at a-⸢ri⸣-[(ia-še-eš-na-a)]z787 11′ [ḫa-an-da-i]a-at-ta-ru na-aš-ma-at LÚDINGIR⸢LIM⸣-ni-an-za-ma 12′ [(me)]-⸢ma-a-ú⸣ na-aš-ma A-NA LÚ.MEŠSANGA ku-it 13′ [ḫu]-⸢u⸣-ma-an-da-aš788 wa-tar-na-aḫ-ḫu-un789 na-at-za790 šu-up-pa791 14′ [(še-eš-k)]i-iš-kán-zi792 nu-mu d10 URUḪA-AT-TI793 EN-IA 15′ [(ḫu-iš)]-nu-ut794 nu-za DINGIRMEŠ BE-LUMEŠ-IA pa-ra-a ḫa-an-da-a-an-ta-tar795 16′ ti-ik-ku-uš-nu-wa-an-du na-at-za-kán a-pí-ia 17′ ku-iš-ki te-eš-ḫi-it a-uš-du nu ku-e-ez-za 18′ ud-da-a-na-az796 ak-ki-iš-ki-it-ta-ri 19′ na-at ú-e-mi-ia-⸢at⸣-ta-ru nu-kán URUDUZ[I.KI]N.BAR-aš 20′ GIŠšar-pa-az797 ku-un-ku-u-e-ni nu-mu dIŠKU[R UR]UḪA-AT-TI 21′ [E]N-IA ḫu-iš-nu-ut798 nu-kán ḫi-in-kán

783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798

The restorations in brackets are from manuscript B KUB 14.11+ i 23′–24′. A KUB 14.8 rev. 41′ is preceded by a horizontal ruling. A KUB 14.8 rev. 41′: ta-me-e-ta-az-zi-ia; B KUB 14.11+ iv 11′: [ta-me]-⸢e⸣-da-zi-ia. A KUB 14.8 rev. 42′; B KUB 14.11+ iv 12′: na-aš-ma. A KUB 14.8 rev. 42′; B KUB 14.11+ iv 13′: a-ri-ia-še-eš-na-za-kán. A KUB 14.8 rev. 44′: [ḫu-ma-an]-⸢da⸣-a-aš; B KUB 14.11+ iv 16′: da-[pí-an]. B KUB 14.11+ iv 16′: wa-a-tar-na-aḫ-ḫu-un. A KUB 14.8 rev. 44′: na-at-ša-ma-aš. A KUB 14.8 rev. 44′: šu-up-pa-ia. B KUB 14.11+ iv 17′: še-eš-ki-〈iš-〉kán-zi. B KUB 14.11+ iv 18′: U[RUḪ]AT-TI. A KUB 14.8 rev. 45′: ḫu-u-iš-nu-ut; B iv 18′: TI-nu-ut. Restoration is based on C KUB 14.11+ iv 21′. B KUB 14.11+ iv 19′. B KUB 14.11+ iv 22′: ud-da-na-az. A KUB 14.8 breaks off here. B KUB 14.11+ iv 25′: [T]I-nu-ut. B breaks off here.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

247

22′ [I]Š-TU KUR URUḪA-AT-TI ar-ḫa nam-⸢ma⸣ [ta-ru-u]p-da-a-ru [Bu]t [furthermore], if (people) die constantly also because of some other matter, (then) either let me see it in a dream, or let it be [dete]rmined through oracle, or let a man of god say it, or what I instructed all the priests, they will sleep constantly in a pure place for you. O Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord, keep me alive! May the gods, my lords, show divine providence! And then let someone see it in a dream! The matter because of which (people) keep on dying, let (someone) discover it! We are dangling from the point of a needle. O Storm-god of Ḫatti, my [lo]rd, keep me alive! Let the plague be removed out of Ḫatti! Both passages were adopted from the version we find in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II. This is particularly evident in the second passage, because there the sentence following the wishes in Plea II (1c), ‘we have been dangling from the point of a needle’ (see p. 238, fn. 761), has been adopted as well. The tense of this figurative expression has been altered from a preterite in Plea II (1c) to a present tense in KUB 14.10+ iv 20′ (CTH 378.2). Furthermore, a request to keep the supplicant alive and a wish to show ‘divine providence’ (parā ḫandandātar) have been inserted. The relative clause that introduces the wishes to reveal an offence in Plea II (1c), ‘the offence which you, O Gods, perceive’ (see p. 245 incl. fn. 782), is replaced in KUB 14.10+ iv 8′f. (CTH 378.2) by a conditional clause. This may be explained by the function of the passage within the overall prayer. The passage occurs at the end of the prayer when Muršili II has already confessed two past offences.799 Here Muršili asks the Storm-god of Ḫatti to reveal other past transgressions which caused the plague, if there are any. In KUB 14.8 obv. 1′ the wishes are introduced by a relative clause that resembles the conditional clause in KUB 14.10+ iv 8′f. They both refer explicitly to the plague with the verb akk-/ekk- ‘to die’ and to the offence with uar ‘word, matter’. The divination methods mentioned in CTH 378.2 are dreams, oracular inquiry, and the ‘man of god’. These are the same as in Plea II (1c), but in a different order. The list of divination experts who perform oracular inquiries – old women, diviners, and augurs – is replaced by a wish to let the offence be ‘determined through oracle’ (ariyašešnaz ḫandai-).800 The passage at the end of CTH 378.2 contains three wishes

799

800

The confessed offences are the transgression of a treaty with Egypt by his father Šuppiluliuma I and the neglect of the ritual of the Māla river (= Euphrates) by previous kings (see p. 8, fn. 30, and p. 141, fn. 465). KUB 14.10+ iv 10′–11′, cf. KUB 14.8 obv. 2′ (restored).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

248

A Plea in Three Parts

CTH 373 (MH) KUB 30.10 obv. 24′–28′

CTH 376.I (MH) KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′–12′

CTH 372 (NH?) KUB 31.127+ ii 50–58

CTH 376.II (NH) KUB 24.3+ ii 26–29

CTH 378.2 (NH)

KUB 14.8 obv. 1′–3′ and KUB 14.10+ iv 8′–20′

Figure 4. Relationships between passages with wishes to reveal a past offence.

to reveal the transgression in a dream. In each of them a different person is the recipient of the dream: Muršili II (KUB 14.10+ iv 9′–10′), priests (KUB 14.10+ iv 12′–14′), and any person (KUB 14.10+ iv 16′–17′). The latter resembles the wish to reveal the offence in a dream in Plea II (1c).801 A wish to let the offence be discovered is inserted in KUB 14.10+ iv 19′, before the figurative expression of Ḫatti’s miserable state. The relationships between the discussed passages containing wishes to reveal an offence through divination is presented schematically in Figure 4. Adoption without any significant alterations is indicated with a continuous line; a dashed line indicates substantial modifications. Another relevant prayer passage is KBo 22.78 1′–7′.802 It contains remnants of wishes to reveal a past offence similar to those discussed above. Due to its fragmentary state of preservation, it is currently not possible to position KBo 22.78 1′–7′ in Figure 4 with certainty. If the restorations suggested in Appendix VI are correct, the passage contains a wish in the first person singular to reveal the offence in a dream to the supplicant (KBo 22.78 4′–5′). The same wish occurs in KUB 14.10+ iv 9′–10′ and

801 802

KUB 24.3+ ii 29 and KUB 24.4+ obv. 12′. DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU ‘person’ is replaced in CTH 378.2 by kuiški ‘someone’, and zašḫiaz ‘dream’ (abl.) by tešḫit ‘dream’ (instr.). For an edition of KBo 22.78, see Appendix VI.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

249

possibly also in KUB 14.8 obv. 2′ (both CTH 378.2). This would suggest that KBo 22.78 1′–7′ is more closely related to the passages from the “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.2) than to the versions in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II. However, the wish to let the offence be revealed through a ‘man of god’ (KBo 22.78 3′–4′) seems to be formulated in the same way as in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II, using two clauses rather than one as in KUB 14.10+ iv 11′ (CTH 378.2). KBo 22.78, moreover, contains another parallel to CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II.803 This suggests that the preserved lines of KBo 22.78 were based on CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, or a similar prayer. Though the date of the fragment is uncertain, the syllabic spelling of URUDU šepikkuštaš ‘needle’ may imply that it was based on the Middle Hittite CTH 376.I rather than the New Hittite CTH 376.II. Furthermore, the close relationship of KBo 22.78 1′–7′ to CTH 378.2 could mean that the passage in CTH 378.2 was based on KBo 22.78 rather than CTH 376.II, or that both compositions were used as models. To complicate the matter even further, KBo 22.78 also seems to preserve a feature of the wishes to reveal an offence in CTH 373 and CTH 372 that has been omitted in CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II, and CTH 378.2. In KBo 22.78 5′ the words na-at EGIR-pa S[IG5aḫ-mi?] ‘(so) [I (can) make] it ri[ght] again’ seem to reflect n=e=za=an ganešmi ‘so I (can) acknowledge them’ in CTH 373 and CTH 372.804 This would suggest that KBo 22.78 1′–7′ derived from CTH 373 or CTH 372, though the similarity may also be a coincidence. To sum up, KBo 22.78 1′–7′ has features resembling peculiarities of each of the other prayer passages discussed above. It thus remains unclear how it relates to these other prayers. The existence of KBo 22.78 shows that there was at least one other prayer containing another version of these wishes to reveal an offence. The wishes to reveal a past offence through divination have also been compared to literature outside of the Hittite text corpus, written in Sumerian and Ancient Greek. Metcalf has traced the origins of these wishes back to the following passage in the Old Babylonian Sumerian prayer ‘Utu the hero’.805 The Hittites certainly knew this composition, as is clear from the fragmentary version of it, written in Akkadian by a Hittite scribe, that was found in Ortaköy.806 H 150 rev. 10′–14′:807 10′ diĝir.ĝa2 niĝ.ge17.ga.a.ni ḫa.ma.be2 ša.bi3 ĝal2 ba.ra.ab.taka4.a niĝ2.nam.ma.a ga.zu 11′ maš2.šu.gid2.gid2 dutu.kam usu3.kam ḫa.ma!.be2 ša3.bi 12′ ensi! x x x-a.bi ḫa.ma.be2 ša3.bi

803 804 805 806 807

KBo 22.78 7′–12′ resembles requests in Plea II Section 3c (KUB 24.3+ ii 64–66, KUB 24.4+ rev. 11–13, KUB 30.13(+) 2‴–3‴), cf. p. 253. KUB 30.10 obv. 25′, 26′, 28′ (CTH 373), and KUB 31.127+ ii [51, 53], 58 (CTH 372). Metcalf 2015b. DAAM 2.6, see Schwemer and Süel 2021: 17–31. H 150 from Meturan, modern Tell Haddad, is the main manuscript. Other manuscripts were found in Susa (MDP 27, 287, a school tablet) and probably in Sippar (BM 78614, bilingual SumerianAkkadian) and Šapinuwa, modern Ortaköy (DAAM 2.6).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

250

A Plea in Three Parts

13′ pu2.ta AMA.dul.la igi nu.du ḫa.ma.be2 ša3.bi 14′ ma.mu2.da igi nu.du ḫa.ma.be2 ša3.bi Let my god tell me what offended him, let him reveal its meaning to me, may I know everything! The diviner is the one of Utu, the one of the liver omen – let him tell it to me, let him reveal its meaning to me, (var. adds: may I know everything)! The dream-interpreter … – let him tell it to me, let him reveal its meaning to me, (var. adds: may I know everything)! I am deaf, he has shrouded it for me, I cannot see – let him tell it to me, let him reveal its meaning to me, (var. adds: may I know everything)! I see no dream – let him tell it to me, let him reveal its meaning to me, (var. adds: may I know everything)!808 In the first book of the Iliad, ll. 62–64, when Achilles speaks to the assembly because the Greek army is afflicted by a plague, we also find a passage similar to the Hittite wishes to reveal a past offence through divination.809 Since the author of the Iliad seems to have been familiar with western Anatolia, ultimately the passage may very well go back to Hittite sources.810 Iliad 1. 62–64: 62 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δή τινα µάντιν ἐρείοµεν ἢ ἱερῆα, 63 ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον, καὶ γάρ τ᾽ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν, 64 ὅς κ᾽ εἴποι ὅ τι τόσσον ἐχώσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων But come, let us ask some diviner or priest, or even a dream-interpreter, for dreams too are from Zeus, who might tell us why Phoebus Apollo has become so enraged.811 The textual history of the wishes to reveal an offence in Plea II Section 1c is rather complex. The first Hittite version in the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), was based on a Babylonian composition similar to H 150, but probably written in Akkadian. Subsequently, it was altered and incorporated into the Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I). The plea of this prayer was taken over almost verbatim into the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II). The version of these two prayers was modified further and included into the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2).812 The Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372) is a slightly adapted version of the Prayer of Kantuzili. Intermediary versions may have existed and additional versions may have derived from any of these prayers. KBo 22.78 seems to be an example

808 809 810

811 812

Transliteration and translation Metcalf 2015b: 43, cf. Cavigneaux 2009: 9–11, 13 (ll. 53–57). Metcalf 2015a: 191–220, Mouton 2007: 31, fn. 5, West 1997: 47f., cf. Metcalf 2015b: 52, West 2011: 84. Metcalf 2015a: 218, 220. West (2011: 20–24) locates the poet’s home territory close to present-day İzmir, Ancient Greek Smyrna, located on the western coast of Anatolia, and claims that he was familiar with Rhodes, Lycia, and Cyprus. Text and translation Metcalf 2015a: 196. Cf. Metcalf 2015b: 42.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

251

of such an additional version. The wishes to reveal an offence through divination may even have been known to the author of the Iliad who included a similar passage the speech of Achilles. 8.2.5 Further Parallels In the corpus of Hittite prayers we find a number of other parallels to Plea II, in addition to those already discussed above, which deserve our attention.813 First of all, the request to have pity on Ḫatti, which concludes Section 1c,814 also occurs further on in CTH 376.II (Plea III)815 and in each of the four plague prayers (CTH 378.1–4). Such a request is attested four times in CTH 378.1, twice in CTH 378.2, and once in CTH 378.3 and CTH 378.4.816 However, the land of Ḫatti is mentioned only in two of these, i.e., KUB 14.14+ rev. 47′f. (CTH 378.1) and KUB 14.12 rev. 12′ (CTH 378.3). These are presented below. In the other requests the addressed deities are asked to have pity on Muršili II.817 CTH 378.1, KUB 14.14+ rev. 47′–48′: 47′ A-NA KUR URUḪAT-TI-ma gi-i[n-zu nam-ma] 48′ da-at-tén → Take pi[ty] again on Ḫatti! CTH 378.3, KUB 14.12 rev. 12′: 12′ ⸢ki⸣-nu-na DINGIRMEŠ ENMEŠ-IA A-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI ge-en-zu nam-ma da-a[ttén? …] Now, O Gods, my lords, tak[e] pity again on Ḫatti! A similar request for support, albeit without mention of Ḫatti, occurs in the Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-god and Storm-god against slander (CTH 389.2). The request occurs twice in the following fragmentary passage.

813 814 815 816 817

For parallels to the requests for revenge in Sections 2b and 3b, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 38 in Appendix IV. KUB 24.3+ ii 31, KUB 24.4+ obv. 14′. KUB 24.3+ iii 35′–37′. Since only a small part of CTH 378.3 and CTH 378.4 is preserved, these prayers may have contained more similar requests. CTH 378.1, KUB 14.14+ rev. 26′: nu-mu DINGIRMEŠ ENMEŠ-IA gi-i[n-z]u nam-ma da-at-tén ‘O Gods, my lords, take pity on me again!’, rev. 32′f.: nu-mu DINGIRMEŠ BE-LU⸢MEŠ-IA⸣ gi-in-zu erasure nam-ma / da-at-t[én] ‘O Gods, my lords, take pity on me again!’, rev. 49: nu-mu ⸢gi⸣-in-zu da-at-te-en ‘Take pity on me!’; CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 8′: [(nu-mu)] DINGIRMEŠ BE-LUMEŠ-IA ge-en-z[(u da-at)]-tén ‘O Gods, my lords, take pity on me!’, rev. 17′: nu-mu ge-en-zu nam-ma da-a-at-tén ‘Take pity on me again!’; CTH 378.4, KUB 14.13+ iv 17: nu-mu DINGIRMEŠ ke-e-ez PAB ⸢ge-en-zu⸣ nam-ma da-at-tén ‘O Gods, because of this BROKEN (= maer?) take pity on me again!’. Similar requests to have pity on the beneficiary also occur in CTH 373 A KUB 30.10 rev. 3f., and CTH 372 A KUB 31.127+ ii 67.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

252

A Plea in Three Parts

CTH 389.2, KUB 60.156 rev. 1′–3′: 1′ [nu-uš-š]i ⸢ge-en-zu⸣ da-⸢at⸣-t[én …] 2′ [(d10)]-aš-ša LUGAL-i še-er QA-TAM-⸢MA⸣ […] 3′ [nu-u]š-ši ge-en-⸢zu⸣ QA-TAM-⸢MA⸣ [(da-at-tén)] Tak[e] pity on him! [… Sun-god] and Storm-god […] for the king in this way […] Take pity on him in this way! The wishes for the prosperity of Ḫatti that conclude the prayer-text of CTH 376.I, KUB 24.4+ rev. 16–17, and CTH 376.III, KUB 30.13(+) 6‴–7‴, were probably also included at the end of Plea II in CTH 376.II. A parallel to these wishes can be found in the “Third” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.3), KUB 14.12 rev. 14′, for which see below. In this text they also are the final words of the prayer, suggesting that these clauses were probably adopted from CTH 376.I or CTH 376.III rather than from CTH 376.II. Not only the sentences were taken over, but also their position at the end of the prayer. However, as already mentioned, it is possible that CTH 376.II and the four plague prayers were written around the same time by the same (group of) scribes who worked intensively with all these prayers, including CTH 376.I and CTH 376.III. Such a situation would explain the textual parallels. CTH 378.3, KUB 14.12 rev. 14′: 14′ na-at še-eš-du ma-a-ú na-at ka-ru-ú-i-li-ia-at-ta pa-r[a-a ki-ša-ru] May it prosper and thrive! [And may] it [become] as it was before! KUB 14.12 rev. 14′ varies slightly from KUB 24.4+ rev. 16–17 and KUB 30.13(+) 6‴–7‴. The two verbs in the first wish are inverted, the second wish omits āppa, but adds parā, and the land of Ḫatti is not mentioned in either wish. A fixed expression employing the verbs mai- ‘to thrive’ and šešd- ‘to prosper’ in asyndeton forms the first wish. This wish also occurs towards the end of in CTH 376.II,818 in the MH Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle (CTH 371),819 and in the Prayer within a ritual for the royal couple (CTH 385.10).820 The expression is also attested in other prayer-recitations within rituals821 and in texts of other genres.822

818 819 820 821 822

KUB 24.3+ iii 40′f. with the parallel in CTH 377 88′. KBo 7.28+ obv. 15′ and rev. 41′, for which see Ch. 3.3.3. CTH 385.10, KUB 57.63 iii 8′: [n]a-[(a)]t [(ma-a-ú) š]i-⸢iš⸣-du (dupl. KUB 57.60 iii 8′: [n]a-at ma-a-ú […]) ‘May it thrive and prosper!’. E.g., KUB 12.43 2′–3′, KBo 2.32 rev. 6. Compare also the combination of miyatar and šišduwar in KUB 15.34+ ii 22–23, for which see p. 276. E.g., in the Myth of Illuyanka (KBo 3.7 i 5–8) and in the treaty of Arnuwanda I with the Kaška (KBo 8.35 ii 15).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea II: A Prayer against Plague and Enemies

253

A parallel to the request to punish only the guilty party in Section 3c823 occurs in the prayer fragment KBo 22.78 7′–12′, for which see Appendix VI. Another parallel occurs in the Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382). Since the prayer of Muwatalli II, Muršili II’s son, was created at a later date than CTH 376.II, the request in CTH 382 presented below, may have been adopted from CTH 376.II. CTH 382, KBo 11.1 obv. 37–38:824 37 ma-a-an 1EN URULUM-ma ku-iš-ki na-aš-ma 1EN ÉTUM ku-iš-ki […] 38 ḪUL-aḫ-zi na-at-kán DINGIRLUM a-pé-e-da-ni A-NA 1EN URULIM 1EN ÉTI an-da šaan-ḫi → If some single city or some single house […] does wrong, then, O God, avenge it on that single city (or) on that single house! In CTH 382 we also find parallels to the request to look at the land of Ḫatti with favourable eyes (3c).825 This request occurs seven times throughout CTH 382, always at the end of a section of the prayer.826 In most instances it is followed by a request to give good. CTH 382, KBo 11.1 obv. 15: 15 nu d10 KURTAM an-da ták-šu-li-it IGIḪI.A-it nam-ma a-ú → O Storm-god, look at the land with favourable eyes again! Compare also the following request in the Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-god and Storm-god against slander (CTH 389.2). CTH 389.2, KUB 60.156 rev. 5′–6′: 5′ ⸢na⸣-aš-ta LUGAL-un MUNUS.LUGAL-an-na ⸢an-da⸣ S[(IG5-an-te-e)t IGIḪI.(A-it)] 6′ ⸢a-uš⸣-tén → Look at the king and queen with favourable eyes! Finally, we may consider a parallel in a prayer-recitation in the ritual of Ḫanitaššu of Ḫurma (CTH 395). KBo 11.14 ii 16–18 is parallel to the figurative request to ‘untie the tired one and harness the rested one’ (2c).827 It occurs at the end of a recitation to the Sun-god.

823 824 825 826 827

KUB 24.3+ ii 64–66, KUB 24.4+ rev. 11–13, KUB 30.13(+) 2‴–3‴. Cf. KBo 11.1 rev. 6′–7′. KUB 24.4+ rev. 14, KUB 30.13(+) 4‴. The request is not preserved in KUB 24.3+. KBo 11.1 obv. 11, 15, 17, 28, 30, 39, rev. 18, and possibly also in parts of the prayer that are lost. KUB 24.3+ ii 41–44, KUB 24.4 obv. 24′, and KUB 30.13(+) 5″f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

254

A Plea in Three Parts

CTH 395, KBo 11.14 ii 16–18: 16 la-a-a da-ri-⸢ia-an⸣-ta!-[an] 17 tu-ri-⸢ia-ma wa-ar-ši-ia⸣-an-ta erasure828 18 la-a-a ⸢da-ri-ia-an-ta⸣-an tu-u-ri-ia-ma wa-⸢ar-ši⸣-ia-an-⸢ta⸣-[an] Untie the tired one and harness the rested one! Untie the tired one and harness the rested one!829 8.2.6 Findings The plea of the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I) was incorporated, with only minor adaptations, into the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II). In this text it only formed a part of the plea, referred to as Plea II in the present study. The fragmentary prayer CTH 376.III was also based on CTH 376.I, but there the composer made more alterations to the original source text in order to adjust it to the current situation. Plea II concerns a plague, that causes the people involved in the preparing of offerings for the gods to die, and problems with enemies. These were the reasons to compose and perform the prayer. The fact that the plea of CTH 376.I was reused on two separate occasions implies that plague and rebelling enemy lands were recurrent issues for the Hittites. CTH 376.I could easily be reused because it does not mention any Hittite king or queen and all the requests and wishes are of a rather general nature. Rhetorically it is a particularly powerful text, deliberately and carefully composed as such. It employs multiple rhetorical strategies including the use of implicit arguments, figurative language, a clear and simple structure with marked sections and subsections, and a combination of contrast, repetition, and historical contrast (3a). The wishes to reveal an offence through divination (1c) have a long and complex textual history. The passage seems to originate from a Babylonian source. In Hittite literature it is first attested in the MH Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373). From this or a similar prayer it was adopted almost verbatim into the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372), and with significant alterations also into CTH 376.I. When the plea of CTH 376.I was incorporated into CTH 376.II, the wishes to reveal an offence were also taken over. Subsequently, the passage was adopted into the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2). At least one more prayer included these wishes, KBo 22.78, and they even seem to have found their way into the Iliad. The four plague prayers of Muršili II (CTH 378.1–4) concern the same plague as the first section of Plea II. Their composers seem to have used several clauses from CTH 376.II. The “First”, “Second”, and “Third” plague prayer each refer to the death of the people who prepare the offerings for the gods as the most severe consequence of the plague and the reason for the prayer. The most extensive description concerned with this topic occurs in Plea II (1a). The rhetorical question that introduces Plea II is

828 829

Erased AN? Cf. Ünal 1996: 29, Mouton 2016: 152–53, Chrzanowska 2016.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

255

also used to introduce the plea of CTH 378.2 and CTH 378.3. The wishes to reveal a past offence through divination and the following figurative expression concerning the precarious state of Ḫatti (1c) were adopted into the “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.2). The request for support, in which the gods are asked to have pity on Ḫatti, at the end of Section 1c of Plea II, has parallels in all four plague prayers. In addition, in the “Third” plague prayer (CTH 378.3) the claim that the gods hold the Hittites responsible for the lack of offerings (1a) and wishes for the prosperity of Ḫatti (3c) were adopted. The composers of the plague prayers probably took inspiration from CTH 376.II as when writing their prayers, occasionally adopting a sentence or an entire passage. Since the plague prayers may have been composed around the same time as CTH 376.II, it is possible that the composers had CTH 376.I at their disposal as well. This means that they may have consulted both CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II, and possibly CTH 376.III and KBo 22.78 as well. Furthermore, if the scribes who composed the plague prayers also composed CTH 376.II, they could have remembered certain passages and included them in the plague prayers from memory.

8.3 PLEA III: A GENERAL PRAYER FOR WELL-BEING AND PROSPERITY The third and final part of the plea of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), Plea III,830 is of a more general nature than the preceding Plea II. It does not contain any references to a specific problem and the requests all concern the well-being of the beneficiary, Muršili II, and the prosperity of Ḫatti.831 It is largely parallel to the plea of the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377), which also dates to the reign of Muršili II. It is unclear which of the two prayers, CTH 376.II or CTH 377, was composed first. They may have been composed around the same time by the same scribes, even though the two main text witnesses of CTH 377, KUB 24.1+ and KUB 24.2, were written down later than KUB 24.3+, the primary text witness of CTH 376.II (see Ch. 6.2). The most significant difference between Plea III and the plea of CTH 377 is the way they are structured. Two blocks of text occur in a different order in CTH 377 than in the parallels in Plea III.832 This makes the relationship between Plea III and CTH 377 more complex than that between Plea II and CTH 376.I. Whereas Plea II was adopted almost verbatim from CTH 376.I, Plea III and the plea of CTH 377 each seem to have derived independently from a third prayer that has not come down to us. The variation in structure can be explained in light of the function and rhetoric of these textual elements within the respective prayers as a whole. All this, i.e., the structure,

830 831 832

KUB 24.3+ iii 1′–43′. The requests to send evil to the enemy and to remove evil may be understood as general requests to counteract any possible evils, see Ch. 4.2 (concerning CTH 377). Cf. p. 154 and Table 26 (p. 153).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

256

A Plea in Three Parts

rhetoric, and relationship to CTH 377, is analysed in Ch. 8.3.1. Subsequently, the relationships to other prayers and rituals are examined. Parallels within the corpus of Hittite prayers are treated in Ch. 8.3.2. Plea III and the plea of CTH 377 have many parallels with prayer-recitations in rituals, in particular to recitations in the so-called evocation rituals. There also seems to be a connection to the Telipinu Myth and other disappearing god myths. These relationships are discussed in Ch. 8.3.3. 8.3.1 Structure, Rhetoric, and Relationship to CTH 377 Plea III consists of requests and wishes followed by a promise. A schematic overview of the structure of Plea III is presented in Table 45 below. The missing lines at the beginning may be restored on the basis of CTH 377 65′–71′, where we find a request to remove evil and the beginning of the request to send evil to the enemy. The end of the latter is also preserved in CTH 376.II. Sections Negative Section § Positive Section

Text units

Positive / negative

Beginning lost (cf. CTH 377 65′–71′) Request − Send evil to enemy

− −

Requests Request Requests Wishes Request Wishes Promise

+ + + + + + +

− Support − Give good (fragmentary) − Support − Give good

Table 45. Structure of Plea III of CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ iii 1′–43′).

The Hittite scribes divided Plea III into two paragraphs. This agrees with a division of Plea III into two sections based on their content. The first paragraph, consisting of a request to remove evil (now lost) and a request to send evil to the enemy, is solely concerned with ‘negative’ subjects. By contrast, the second paragraph is entirely ‘positive’. It consists of requests and wishes for support and to give good, as well as a promise to provide offerings for the gods.833 The requests and wishes to give good concern the well-being of Muršili II and the prosperity of Ḫatti. The positive and negative sections complement each other. In either section the addressed deity is asked to help the beneficiary. This includes providing good things, such as health, but also

833

The paragraph also includes the instruction that concludes the prayer (KUB 24.3+ iii 43′–44′), which is discussed in Ch. 8.3.4.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

257

to abolish evil things, such as plague and famine, or to send such evils to enemies in order to prevent them from harming Ḫatti or the Hittite monarch. Parallels between Plea III of CTH 376.II and the plea of CTH 377 show that they have a common origin, even though there are some significant variants in content and structure. Plea III contains clauses that do not occur in CTH 377 and vice versa. The fragmentary wishes, the second request for support, and the promise in Plea III834 do not occur in CTH 377. On the other hand, the direct address with epithet in CTH 377 52′ is not included in Plea III. The requests to give good in CTH 377 80′–85′ should also be mentioned here, since they do not occur in Plea III. However, they are similar to earlier requests to give good (CTH 377 53′–55′, 60′–61′) and their parallels in Plea III (KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–20′, 26′–28′). The repetition occurs in CTH 377 80′–85′, but not in Plea III of CTH 376.II, and is the result of their different structures.835 We may also consider the different beneficiaries in the two prayers. The beneficiary of CTH 376.II is Muršili II.836 In CTH 377 he is the beneficiary together with the queen and the princes, but none of them are never mentioned by name in the plea of this prayer.837 Having the queen and princes as beneficiaries next to the king and their anonymity are probably remnants of the text from which the plea of CTH 377 has derived.838 Plea III begins with a negative section, which is followed by a positive one. In CTH 377 the negative section does not occur at the beginning of the plea, but somewhere in the middle. It is preceded and followed by a positive section, see Table 46. The negative section in CTH 377 is demarcated by the repeated listing of four ‘evils’ (idalu- tapašša- ‘evil fever’, ḫinkan ‘plague’, gašta- ‘famine’, and maša- ‘locusts’) at the beginning and end of the section.839 This rhetorical device is known as inclusio.840 834 835

836 837

838 839

KUB 24.3+ iii 33′–37′, 41′–43′. Other textual (i.e., non-orthographic) variants are: GIŠMÚ.SAR ‘gardens’ in CTH 377 74′ and LÚ.MEŠNU.GIŠMÚ.SAR ‘gardeners’ in CTH 377 79′ are omitted in KUB 24.3+ iii 4′f. and 7′, cf. the comments to KUB 24.3+ iii 4′ in Appendix IV; BURU5ḪI.A ‘locusts’ are listed among the evils in CTH 377 79′, but they do not occur in the parallel KUB 24.3+ iii 9′; KUB 24.3+ iii 9′ contains a direct address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, but not in the parallel CTH 377 79′; ḫaššatar ‘offspring’ in KUB 24.3+ iii 23′ is omitted in CTH 377 58′; the reference to Ḫatti in CTH 377 88′ is omitted in KUB 24.3+ iii 40′; CTH 377 62′: LÚ-aš tar-ḫu-u-i-li-in, instead of KUB 24.3+ iii 29′f.: [x x x]x-tar tar-ḫu-u-⸢i⸣-[l]a-atar / [x x x x x]x; CTH 377 86′ (A): nu mi-e-eš-du ḫé-⸢e?-mu?-uš?-ša?⸣ instead of KUB 24.3+ iii 37′f.: [n]a-at-za EGIR-an x[x x x] / [x x x ša-k]u-wa-an-du-uš ḫ[é]-⸢mu?⸣-[uš]; CTH 377 87′ (A): še-e-eš-šau-wa-a[š] instead of KUB 24.3+ iii 39′: še!-iš-du-wa-a[š], cf. the comments on CTH 377 87′ in Appendix V. On the variants between CTH 377 53′–55′, 60′–61′, CTH 377 80′–85′, and KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–20′, 26′–28′, see p. 258, fn. 843. In Plea III Muršili II is mentioned only in the first request for support and in the first request to give good (KUB 24.3+ iii 15′ and 17′). Cf. Ch. 4.1. In the plea of CTH 377 the beneficiaries are mentioned in the request for support, the first request to give good, and the first request to give good in the second positive section (CTH 377 50′f., 53′, and 80′). Only in CTH 377 80′ is the mention of the beneficiaries entirely preserved. In CTH 377 50′f. and 80′ the land of Ḫatti is also mentioned as one of the beneficiaries. See Ch. 8.3.3, cf. Ch. 4.1 and Ch. 4.3. CTH 377 65′–66′ and 78′–79′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

258

A Plea in Three Parts

In CTH 376.II only the end of the negative section is preserved. There we find the same list of evils with the omission of maša- ‘locusts’.841 We may assume that also in this text the negative section began with the list of evils, just like in CTH 377 65′–66′, probably again without mention of maša- ‘locusts’. The negative section is also separated from the preceding and following positive sections by horizontal rulings. Three further rulings occur in the plea of CTH 377, once in the middle of a request.842 Section

Text units

Introductory Section (?)

Beginning lost (cf. KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–14′) Request − Support Direct Address + Epithet Requests − Give good § *continuation requests − give good

Positive Section

Positive / negative + + ∙ +

§ Negative Section

Request − Remove evil § Request − Send evil to enemy § *continuation request − send evil to enemy

−

Requests Wishes

+ +

−

§ Positive Section

− Give good − Give good

Table 46. Structure of the plea of CTH 377 (ll. 50′–88′).

The first positive section consists solely of requests to give good. Two of these requests are repeated, with slight variations, at the beginning of the second positive section.843 In this way a strong contrast between the positive and negative sections is

840 841 842 843

On inclusio, see e.g., Guthrie 1994: 15. KUB 24.3+ iii 8′–9′. After CTH 377 75′. The sentence consists of a main clause that is preceded by six relative clauses. The ruling occurs in between two relative clauses, before the sixth and final one. CTH 377 80′–85′ repeats the requests from CTH 377 53′–55′ and 60′–61′, which have parallels in KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–20′, 26′–28′. The request to keep the king and his family alive (CTH 377 53′) and the following request in which Telipinu is requested to give ‘health’ (ḫaddulatar), ‘long years’ (MUKAM.ḪI.A GÍD.DA), and two more good things which are broken off (CTH 377 53′–55′) are combined in CTH 377 80′–82′ in a single request. In addition to ‘life’, ‘health’, and ‘long years’, also ‘vigour’ (innarawatar) and ‘happiness’ (dušgaratar) are requested here. In KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–20′ (CTH 376.II)

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

259

created. Both repetition and contrast are powerful rhetorical strategies. Due to the shift in thematic focus, from positive to negative and back to positive, both the positive as well as the negative elements are emphasised. This powerful contrast and the repetition of the requests to give good do not occur in Plea III of CTH 376.II. We have already seen that a direct address is often used to mark the beginning of a section in a prayer. It stands out in the text, particularly when it occurs with an epithet and it is not part of a different text unit, such as a request, description, or promise. This is the case for the direct address with epithet in CTH 377 52′, which does not have a parallel in CTH 376.II. It may, therefore, be understood as introducing the first positive section. The preceding requests are largely broken off, but they can be restored on the basis of KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′ (CTH 376.II). This section probably functioned as an introduction of the plea of CTH 377, as is suggested by the request for support in CTH 377 50′–51′.844 The parallel in CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′) does not introduce Plea III, but forms the beginning of the positive section. This introductory section in CTH 377 may have contained clauses that were not included in Plea III. Instead of the request to be ‘invoked’ (mugai-), which we find in KUB 24.3+ iii 12′f., the plea of CTH 377 probably started with a statement using the same verb. This is supported by a parallel in the myth about the disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna, KBo 31.76+ i 7′f. (see pp. 178, 264). In addition, the passage may, for instance, have included a passage similar to Plea I of CTH 376.II, in particular since CTH 377 also contains the elaborate prayer introduction and Plea I was considered a part thereof by the composer of the text (see Ch. 8.1). The plea of CTH 377 employs contrast (positive-negative-positive), a rhetorical strategy which is employed regularly in Hittite prayers. However, the parallel Plea III of CTH 376.II follows a linear structure instead, starting with a negative focus and proceeding to a positive one. This raises two questions: (1) Why do these structures differ? (2) Which text maintains the original structure and in which was it altered secondarily? The answer to the first question can be found in the different functions that Plea III and the plea of CTH 377 serve within the respective prayers. To answer the second question, we need to look at the relationship between CTH 376.II and CTH 377 and the textual history of Plea III.

844

the two requests are also combined. The good things requested from the Sun-goddess of Arinna in these lines are ‘life’ (TI-tar), ‘health’ (ḫaddulatar), ‘vigour’ (innarawatar) ‘brightness of the soul’ (ZIaš lalukkima-), and ‘long years’ (MUKAM GÍD.DA). CTH 377 82′–85′ consists of a more elaborate version of the request to give good in CTH 377 60′–61′ and the parallel KUB 24.3+ iii 26′–28′ (CTH 376.II). Here the addressed deity is asked to provide the growth (miyatar) of crops, livestock, and people. The crops and animals mentioned in the separate requests vary. CTH 377 60′–61′ lists ‘grain’ (ḫalki-), ‘vines’ (GIŠGEŠTIN), ‘cattle’ (GU4), ‘sheep’ (UDU), and ‘people’ (DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU). To these KUB 24.3+ iii 26′–28′ adds ‘horses’ (ANŠE.KUR.RA) and something else which is lost in the break. The repeated version in CTH 377 82′–85′ adds ‘fruit trees’ (GIŠšēšatar), ‘goats’ (UZ6), ‘pigs’ (ŠAḪ), ‘mules’ (ANŠE.GÌR.NUN.NA), and the ‘wild animals of the field’ (gimraš ḫuitar). In addition, ms. B lists ‘donkeys’ (ANŠE) instead of ‘horses’ which we find in ms. A. Compare for instance the request for support in Plea I, for which see Ch. 8.1.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

260

A Plea in Three Parts

(1) Why do the structures of Plea III and the plea of CTH 377 differ? In CTH 376.II, Plea III is the final part of a much longer plea. It does not mention any of the reasons for the composition and performance of the prayer; these can be found in Plea II. Except for its different structure, the entire plea of CTH 377 is parallel to Plea III. Again, there is no mention of a problem that initiated the prayer. Unlike other Hittite prayers, CTH 377 is not a response to a difficult situation. Rather, it seems to have been a precautionary measure to make a scribe perform this prayer daily so nothing bad would happen to the king or the land of Ḫatti. Moreover, by making a scribe recite the prayer on a daily basis, the king ensured his allegiance (cf. Ch. 4). The plea is the main part of any prayer. It usually begins with a statement, a rhetorical question, requests for attention, requests for support, or other text units that have an introductory function. The plea also employs other rhetorical strategies, such as explicit and implicit arguments, repetition, and contrast. The plea of CTH 377 has all these characteristics typical for the plea of a Hittite personal prayer, as one would expect, but this is not the case for Plea III of CTH 376.II. Since Plea III forms (merely) the end of a much longer plea, it does not need all these features. The introductory function is taken up by Plea I and the rhetorical question at the beginning of Plea II, and several rhetorical strategies are employed throughout Plea II. Therefore, Plea III does not necessarily need to use the contrast found in CTH 377. Nonetheless, the negative section at the beginning of Plea III was probably preceded by wishes for the prosperity of Ḫatti which formed the end of Plea II (3c).845 This would mean that it was contrasted by the surrounding positive requests and wishes if one looks at the text as a whole. Thematic continuity seems to have been the reason why Plea III begins with the negative section. Plea II ends with a section concerning problems with enemy lands, which are also mentioned in the negative section. As the overview in Table 47 shows, specific themes are concentrated in specific parts of the plea and do not recur. (2) Which text, CTH 377 or CTH 376.II (Plea III), maintains the original structure? The analysis in Ch. 7 has established that the elaborate prayer introduction of CTH 376.II and CTH 377 probably each derived independently from a third source.846 The same is probably valid for Plea III and the plea of CTH 377. The source text probably consisted only of the elaborate prayer introduction and a plea similar to Plea III and the plea of CTH 377 (see Ch. 9.3). This would mean that the precursor of Plea III was initially composed as the plea of a specific prayer, and not as a part of a longer plea. Its structure would, therefore, most likely be similar to that of the plea in CTH 377, because it has the typical traits of any plea of a Hittite personal prayer: it begins with an introductory section and it employs rhetorical strategies. Plea III of CTH 376.II does not show these characteristics.

845 846

These may be reconstructed on the basis of KUB 24.4+ rev. 16–17 (CTH 376.I) and KUB 30.13(+) 6‴– 7‴ (CTH 376.III). See Ch. 7.1.3, especially Figure 1 (p. 160), Ch. 7.4.2, especially Figure 2 (p. 221), and Ch. 9.3.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

261

The source text probably contained the repeated requests to give good and the contrasting structure (positive-negative-positive), which we find in CTH 377. The composer of CTH 376.II did not maintain the contrast or the repetition. Instead, he adjusted the structure of the text to make it fit seamlessly into its new context. His strategy was to create a thematically linear structure of the plea as a whole, in which first the plague, then the problems with enemies, and finally the well-being of the king and the prosperity of the Hittite state were addressed. This resulted in a sound and logically structured plea that has no peculiar transitions suggesting that multiple sources had been used to create it (see Table 47). CTH 377 did not only preserve the original structure of the plea, but also the beneficiaries (king, queen, and princes)847 and the horizontal rulings in the first positive and the negative section. Section Plea I Plea II

Plea III

Introduction 1 2 3 Negative Section Positive Section

Concerns Support and Attention Plague Enemies Enemies ‘Evils’ and Enemies Well-being of Muršili II and Prosperity of Ḫatti

Table 47. Overall structure of the plea of CTH 376.II.

8.3.2 Parallels within the Corpus of Hiite Prayers Not many parallels to Plea III occur in the corpus of Hittite prayers. Two clauses of Plea III have a parallel within CTH 376.II itself. The request to ‘have pity’ (genzu dā-) on Ḫatti, KUB 24.3+ iii 35′–37′, also occurs in Plea II.848 There it is not addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna but to the gods. The wish to let Ḫatti ‘thrive and prosper’ (mau šešdu), KUB 24.3+ iii 40′f. and CTH 377 88′, probably also occurs at the end of Plea II.849 These two clauses are also attested in several other prayers, see Ch. 8.2.5. The request to ‘keep’ the beneficiaries ‘alive’ (TI-an ḫark-),850 is also attested four times in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2)851 and once in the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381).852 Another parallel occurs in the prayer

847 848 849 850 851 852

See Ch. 8.3.3, cf. Ch. 4.1, Ch. 4.3. KUB 24.3+ ii 31. This request does not occur in CTH 377. It can be restored in CTH 376.II and CTH 376.I on the basis of KUB 30.13(+) obv. 6‴ (CTH 376.III). CTH 377 53′. The parallel in CTH 376.II does not contain this request, but compare KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–20′ where ‘life’ (TI-tar) is among the things that are requested. KUB 14.8 rev. 21′ (see p. 116), 37′, 45′, and C KUB 14.10+ iv 21′. KUB 6.45+ iii 42 (see p. 118), cf. the request to give life in KUB 21.27+ ii 21 (CTH 384) on p. 122.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

262

A Plea in Three Parts

fragment Privat 35 iii? 2′–3′, for which see Appendix VII. Similar requests already occur in Old Hittite rituals. Compare, for example, the following lines from the Old Hittite ritual for the royal couple (CTH 416). CTH 416, KBo 17.1+ iii 6–7: 6 dUTU-uš dIŠKUR-aš ma-a-an uk-tu-u-re-eš 7 LUGAL-uš MUNUS.LUGAL-aš-ša ⸢QA⸣-TAM-MA uk-tu-u-re-eš a-ša-an-tu As the Sun-god and the Storm-god are everlasting, so let the king and queen be everlasting! This is a relatively short and simple request for the well-being of the royal couple. A similar request occurs in the prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384). It recalls the requests to give good attested in Plea III and CTH 377 in which the addressee is also asked to give ‘long years’, i.e., a long life. CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ iii 34′–35′:853 34′ nu A-NA mḫa-at-tu-ši-l[i ARAD-K]A ⸢Ù A⸣-NA fpu-du-[ḫé-pa GÉME-KA] 35′ MUḪI.A ITIḪI.A UDḪI.A-ia [da-lu-g]a-e-eš pa-a-i To Ḫattušil[i, yo]ur [servant], and to Pudu[ḫepa, your servant], give [lon]g years, months, and days! Finally, we should also mention a wish to give good from the Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382). It is repeated, with some variation, at least four times throughout the prayer. Though it is not a parallel to any of the requests to give good in Plea III and CTH 377 it does seem to be comparable, since well-being and prosperity of the land are requested. CTH 382 and CTH 384 were both created later than the prayers of Muršili II. Therefore, the requests for well-being in these texts may have been loosely inspired on such requests in CTH 376.II or CTH 377. CTH 382, KBo 11.1 obv. 15:854 15 nu-kán ŠÀ KURTI a-aš-šu ták-šu-ul aš-šu-u[l mi-ia]-tar i-ia-tar 𒑱ta-ra-a-ú-i-ia[aš ki-ša-ru] May wealth, peace, well-being, growth, prosperity, and maturation855 [come about] in the land

853 854 855

Cf. in the same text KUB 21.27+ ii 22–24, for which see p. 122. Similar requests are repeated in KBo 11.1 obv. 17, 28, 31, and 44. The meaning of 𒑱tarawiya- is unknown, see Tischler HEG 3: 155f. The translation as ‘maturation’ follows Singer 2002a: 83, cf. ibid. 95, fn. 2.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

263

In the Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 380) we find the following request for support resembling KUB 24.3+ iii 15′–17′ and CTH 377 50′– 51′. Since the request occurs in a context describing a substitute ritual, its origins can probably be found in rituals that include such a rite. CTH 380, KBo 4.6 obv. 16′: 16′ A-NA DUMU.MUNUS.GAL-ma-kán an-da aš-šu-li nam-ma ne-eš-ḫu-ut → Turn in favour to the Great Daughter! A parallel to the request to send evil to the enemy, KUB 24.3+ iii 1′–11′ and CTH 377 67′–79′, seems to occur in the fragment Privat 35 iii? 4′–11′ (see Appendix VII). These lines resemble some of the relative clauses that introduce the request in Plea III and CTH 377. 8.3.3 Parallels in Rituals for a Disappearing Deity and eir Implications The few parallels to Plea III of CTH 376.II and the plea of CTH 377 attested in the corpus of Hittite prayers are all rather short, consisting only of a single clause. Therefore, they cannot be used to reconstruct the textual history of Plea III.856 Parallels of more significant length, which can shed some light on the origins of Plea III, occur in (mythologised) rituals concerning a disappearing deity. These rituals were performed to lure a deity back to his city and/or temple. Rituals of this kind were also used to compose the invocation (see Ch. 7.2.3). We find parallels to Plea III and the plea of CTH 377 in two evocation rituals from Kizzuwatna (CTH 484 and CTH 483), in the myth of the disappearance of the mother-goddess Ḫannaḫanna (CTH 334), in a ritual for the return of Ištar of Nineveh (CTH 716), and in a ritual for the Storm-god of Nerik (CTH 671). The considerable length of these parallels suggests a close relationship between the ritual compositions and the prayers. Since the rituals were all composed in the Middle Hittite period or earlier, it is possible that material from these texts ended up in Plea III. The parallel passages and their implications for the textual history of Plea III are presented below. First, we may look at the beginning of the positive section of Plea III, KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′. This passage was probably also included in CTH 377 as the introduction of the plea, though only the final request for support is preserved in CTH 377 50′–51′. An interesting parallel occurs in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna (CTH 334), KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′ (NS) with duplicates. This passage contains parallels to all the clauses from KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′. In addition, the first clause parallels the statement in the invocation of the elaborate prayer introduction (KUB 24.3+ i 3′f., CTH 377 13–14). The request to be satisfied and the references to the fine odour of certain offerings also echo the invocation (see Ch. 7.2.3). The passage as a whole, including the final

856

The parallels in Privat 35 are longer, but since they occur in a fragmentary context, it is difficult to establish how this prayer fragment relates to CTH 376.II and CTH 377.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

264

A Plea in Three Parts

request for support, is parallel to the beginning of Plea III, KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′ (CTH 376.II), and CTH 377 50′–51′. CTH 334, KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′:857 7′ 8′ 9′ 10′ 11′ 12′ 13′

[x x x?] ka-a-ša-at-ta IŠ-⸢TU⸣ NINDA.GUR4.RA iš-pa-an-du-uz-zi-it-ta858 [(mu-k)i-(i)]š-ga-u-e-ni nu ḫa-tu-ga-aš mi-i-e-eš [ša-a-a]n-za-ma me-mi ú-i-šu-ri-ia-an-za-⸢ma⸣ EGIR-pa [(ḫa-an-d)]a-aḫ-ḫu-ut nu-ut-ta ták-šu-li-an-du859 [kán-ga]-t[i-a]n-du ša-ni-iz-zi-i[š] ⸢ša⸣-ni-⸢iz?-zi⸣-[iš?] ⸢wa⸣-ar-šu-la-aš na-aš-ta LUGAL MUNUS.LUGAL DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL an-⸢da⸣ aš-šu-li na-iš-ḫu-ut […] With thick bread and libation we herewith [invo]ke you. O threatening one, be gentle! [O angr]y one, speak! O oppressed one, come back in order! May they be friendly to you and may they satisfy (you) – the fragrant odour [of the] fragrant things. Turn in favour to the king, the queen, and the princes!

In CTH 376.II the passage begins in KUB 24.3+ iii 12′f. with a request to ‘be invoked’ (mukeškiḫḫu[t], 2sg.imp.mp). This request is unique in the corpus of Hittite prayers. The parallel in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna begins with a statement that uses the same verb mugai- ‘to invoke’, as well as the adverb kāša ‘herewith’ (KBo 31.76+ i 7′f.).860 Since statements are common introductions for sections of prayers and the request to be ‘invoked’ is otherwise not attested, it seems probable that the plea of CTH 377 began with a statement similar to the one in KBo 31.76+ i 7′f., rather than the request to be invoked. The two following requests in KUB 24.3+ iii 13′–14′, ‘O angry one, speak! O oppressed one, come back in order!’, seem odd in the context of the prayer. The requests for pacification address the Sun-goddess of Arinna as being ‘angry’ and ‘oppressed’. Though the plague and other problems addressed in prayers were generally considered to have been brought about by one or more angry deities, there is no indication anywhere else in CTH 376.II that the Sun-goddess of Arinna is indeed angry or of-

857

858 859 860

KBo 31.76 + KUB 33.77 + KBo 31.131. Duplicates: KBo 52.9+ obv. 5′–8′ and KUB 51.30 (+) KUB 57.38 obv. 13′–15′. The restorations follow Rieken et al. 2009. See also Carruba 1966: 51f. and CHD L–N 244a (i 7′–10′). In the Konkordanz KBo 31.76+ is joined non-physically to several other fragments, but the online edition of Rieken et al. (2009), which is followed here, treats them as separate texts (CTH 334.2.1, CTH 334.2.2, CTH 335.7.1, CTH 334.9, CTH 335.3.2, and CTH 334.1.3). KBo 52.9+ obv. 5′: [iš-pa-a]n-du-zi-〈it〉-ta; KUB 51.30(+) obv. 13′: iš-pa-an-tu-uz-zi-it. A short instruction to recite the following words may have been written at the beginning of the line. KBo 52.9+ obv. 6′: ták-šu-le-ed-du. A similar statement occurs in KUB 24.3+ i 3′f. and CTH 377 13f., where it introduces Section II of the invocation of the elaborate prayer introduction, see p. 178.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

265

fended.861 In CTH 377, which probably contained the same requests, there is certainly no reason to assume that Telipinu was angry. These requests for pacification also occur in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna, KBo 31.76+ i 9′–10′,862 but there they do suit the context. All disappearing god myths follow the same outline. A deity, in this case Ḫannaḫanna, disappears, causing everything to come to a halt. Eventually a little bee finds the deity asleep. The bee stings the deity, who wakes up furiously. A ritual is performed to pacify the deity so he/she can return and things can go back to normal. KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′ addresses Ḫannaḫanna when she is angry from the bee’s sting. The requests for pacification are thus fitting. In KBo 31.76+ i 8′, 10′–12′ we find further requests for pacification, which do not occur in CTH 376.II. In the prayers CTH 376.II and CTH 377, and in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna (CTH 334), the passage ends with the same request for support using the verb phrase anda aššuli nai- ‘to turn in favour’.863 In KBo 31.76+ i 12′–13′ (CTH 334) Ḫannaḫanna is asked to turn in favour to the king, the queen, and the princes, none of whom are mentioned by name. In CTH 377 50′–51′ they were probably also not mentioned by name and the land of Ḫatti was added as a beneficiary. In CTH 376.II the beneficiaries of the request are Muršili II and the land of Ḫatti. The parallel in the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna, KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′, implies a relationship between this text and CTH 376.II. The disappearing god myths were traditional texts that may go back to the Old Hittite period or earlier. They predate Muršili II and the composition of his prayers. The same is true for the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna.864 Therefore, the beginning of the positive section in Plea III of CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′) and the largely lost introduction of the plea of CTH 377 may go back to this passage from the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna or a similar composition. This would explain the seemingly out of place requests for pacification in CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ iii 13′–14′). Since the passage is not specific to a particular deity, it would have been easy to incorporate it in other texts, no matter which deity it was addressed to. If KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′ indeed resembles the precursor of KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′, we can postulate the following changes:

861 862

863 864

The request to reveal a transgression (KUB 24.3+ ii 26–29) and blaming the gods for the plague (KUB 24.3+ ii 10) may imply that the gods were offended and angry. The same requests also occur in CTH 495, KBo 54.73 11′f. // KBo 17.32 + KBo 41.21 17′f. On the basis of KUB 24.3+ iii 13′f. and KBo 31.76+ i 9′f., one may restore KBo 54.73 11′f. as follows: nu ša-aan-za EGIR-pa [me-mi ú-e-šu-ri-ia-an-za-ma EGIR-pa] / ḫa-an-da-aḫ-ḫu-u[t …] (cf. Groddek 2010: 45f.). KUB 24.3+ iii 15′–17′ (CTH 376.II), CTH 377 50′–51′, and KBo 31.76+ i 12′–13′ (CTH 334). For more attestations of this request, see CHD L–N 357 and HW2 A 532f. Nonetheless, KBo 31.76+ must be dated NS by the late form of TAR (iv 12″), the form of UZ in i 7′ without Winkelhaken (HZL 340/5), and the few forms of ID without broken middle horizontal (i 7′ and 26′ (first ID)). The older form of ID with broken middle horizontal is nonetheless predominant (e.g., i 26′ (second ID), iv 13′, 17′ and 18′) and the old form of LI is used. The signs ŠA, GA, and TA are all written with the inscribed verticals reaching up to the upper horizontal.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

266

A Plea in Three Parts

-

-

-

In KUB 24.3+ iii 12′f. the statement was changed into a request and a direct address was added. In CTH 377 the statement might have been maintained. Most of the requests to appease the addressee were omitted in the prayers. The two that are preserved in KUB 24.3+ iii 13′f. seem out of place in their new context. In CTH 377 50′f. the anonymous king, queen, and princes were maintained as the beneficiaries of the request for support, but in KUB 24.3+ iii 15′–17′ they were replaced by Muršili II. In both prayers the land of Ḫatti was added as a beneficiary to the request for support.

The addition of the land of Ḫatti as a benificiary to the request for support occurs in both CTH 376.II and CTH 377. This suggests that it was done earlier than the replacement of the king, queen, and princes by Muršili II, which occurs only in CTH 376.II. This leads to two possible scenarios for the transmission from the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna (CTH 334), or a similar text, to the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) and the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II). Either the passage was adopted from the Disappearance of Ḫannaḫanna (or a similar text) into CTH 377 and the composer of CTH 376.II adopted the passage from CTH 377, or we need to postulate an intermediary text from which the passages in CTH 377 and CTH 376.II derived individually. We may refer to this hypothetical composition as Text X. The latter scenario is more plausible, because parallels between the elaborate prayer introductions of CTH 376.II and CTH 377 show that these two compositions cannot have derived from each other.865 The hypothetical Text X would already have included the land of Ḫatti as a beneficiary next to the king, the queen, and the princes in the request for support.866 The composer of CTH 376.II replaced the king, queen, and princes by Muršili II. The textual history of the passage is depicted in Figure 5. The request for support using anda aššuli nai- ‘to turn in favour’867 also occurs in the evocation ritual for the male Cedar-deities KUB 15.34+ i 49f. (CTH 483; see pp. 174f.). There the beneficiaries of the request are the anonymous king and queen. A more significant attestation of the same request occurs in the evocation ritual for the Mother-goddesses (DINGIR.MAḪ), the Fate-goddesses (GUL-šeš), Zukki, and Anzili, KUB 15.32+ i 54f. (CTH 484). This parallel is relevant because it is not confined to the single clause, but it extends to the following requests to give good. The relevant lines, KUB 15.32+ i 54–59, form the end of the only recitation in the ritual.868 It resembles KUB 24.3+ iii 15′–26′ and CTH 377 50′–59′, 80′–82′.

865 866 867 868

See Ch. 7.1.3, especially Figure 1 (p. 160), Ch. 7.4.2, especially Figure 2 (p. 221), and Ch. 9.3. There may have been more texts in intermediary stages of the transmission. KUB 24.3+ iii 15′–17′ (CTH 376.II), CTH 377 50′–51′, and KBo 31.76+ i 12′–13′ (CTH 334). The entire recitation is KUB 15.32+ i 39–59. The first part, i 39–45, is edited on pp. 175f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

267

CTH 334

(KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′) or a similar text

Text X (reconstructed)

CTH 376.II

CTH 377

(KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′)

([…], 50′–51′)

Figure 5. Textual history of KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′ and CTH 377 50′–51′.

CTH 484, KUB 15.32+ i 46–59:869 46 ⸢ki⸣-iš-ša-an-na me-ma-i ma-an-wa-za ša-⸢a⸣-an-te-eš na-aš-ma-wa-aš-maaš-kán870 47 ⸢ar⸣-ḫa ku-iš-ki ḫu-it-ti-ia-an tal-⸢li⸣-an871 mu-ga-a-an ḫar-zi 48 ⸢nu⸣-wa-aš-ma-aš a-pa-a-aš i-da-a-lu-uš ḫu-w[(a-a)]p-pa-aš ḫar-wa-ši-ia872 pé-di 49 mu-ki-iš-ki-it ki-nu-na-wa-aš-ma-aš k[(a)]-⸢a-ša⸣ an-za-a-aš 50 pa-ra-a ḫa-an-da-an-ni dUTU-i kat-ta-a[n] aš-šu-li ḫu-u-it-ti-ia-an-ni-eš-ki-uwa-ni 51 tal-le-eš-ki-u-wa-ni mu-ki-iš-ga-u-e-⸢ni⸣873 SÍSKUR-ia-wa-aš-ma-aš 52 ⸢ša⸣-ni-iz-zi pár-ku-i pé-eš-ga-u-e-ni nu-wa-kán874 a-pé-e-da-ni 53 i-da-a-la-u-i an-tu-uḫ-⸢ši⸣ a-wa-an ⸢ar⸣-ḫa ú-wa-at-tén nu-wa ⸢EGIR⸣-pa 54 ke-e-el ŠA EN.SÍSKUR É-⸢ri⸣ ú-wa-at-tén nu-uš-ši-iš-[ša-an] 55 an-da aš-šu-li ne-i[a]-tén erasure ti-ia-tén erasure875 nu-uš-ši pí-iš-t[én TI-tar] 56 ḫa-ad-du-la-a-tar in-na-ra-u-wa-⸢a⸣-tar876 MUḪI.A GÍD.DA DINGIRMEŠ-aš 57 du-uš-ga-ra-at-ta-an DINGIRMEŠ-aš ⸢mi-ú⸣-mar877 ZI-aš la-lu-uk-k[i-mar] 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876

Duplicate: KUB 15.31 i 43–57. For editions of the entire ritual, see Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 148–81 and Fuscagni 2016. KUB 15.31 i 44: na-aš-ma-wa-ra-aš-ma-aš-kán. KUB 15.31 i 46: tal-li-ia-an. KUB 15.31 i 46: ḫar-wa-a-ši-ia. KUB 15.31 i 49: mu-ki-iš-ki-u-e-ni. In KUB 15.31 i 50 KÁN seems to be erased. KUB 15.31 i 53: ne-ia-at-tén ti-ia-a[t-tén]. KUB 15.31 i 54: in-na-ra-a-wa-a-tar.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

268

A Plea in Three Parts

58 ⸢DUMU⸣MEŠ DUMU.MUNUSMEŠ ḫa-aš-šu-uš ḫa-an-z[(a-aš)-š]u-⸢uš-ša⸣878 pí-iš⸢kat⸣-t[én]879 59 [nu-u]š-ši nu-ú-un tu-u-um-ma-an-t[(i-ia-an)880 pí-iš-kat-tén] And he speaks as follows: ‘Whether you are angry, or (whether) someone has drawn, lured, (and) invoked you away and that bad (and) evil (person) constantly invoked you to a secret place of evil, now herewith we draw, lure, and invoke you in a good way to (come to) us for (your) divine providence alongside the Sun-god and we continuously bring you fine (and) pure offerings. Come away from that evil person! Come back to this house of the lord of the ritual!’ Turn to him in favour! Stand (by him)! Giv[e] him [life], health, vigour, long years, happiness of the gods, friendliness of the gods, bright[ness] of the soul, sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters give continuously! [Continuously give] them contentment (and) obedien[ce]! Comments i 46: At the end of the line KÁN is written diagonally in the intercolumnium. According to the copy of KUB 15.31 i 43, there is something written at the beginning of the line before kiššan=(y)a, but this is not visible on the photographs available through the Konkordanz. The first line is slightly indented and there seems to be a light horizontal impression of a stylus marking where the line should begin. Similar markings are visible in the following lines. i 50: -ki-u-wa-ni is written diagonally in the intercolumnium. i 55: ti-ia-tén was initially written with an additional AT as ti-ia-at-tén, but the scribe erased the final two signs (AT-TÉN) and replaced them by a simple TÉN. Haas and Wilhelm (1974: 155) translate tiyaen (2pl.imp.act) as ‘Enter!’, but I have interpreted it as a request for support ‘Stand (by him)!’, since that fits the context better. i 55–58: The use of two verb forms, pišten (2pl.imp.act) at the beginning of the sentence in i 55 and piškaen (2pl.impf.imp.act) at the end of the same sentence in i 58, is odd. Compare the doubling of the verb in CTH 377 4–5.

The beneficiary of the request for support in KUB 15.32+ i 54f. is the person for whom the ritual is performed (EN.SÍSKUR), who is referred to by the anaphoric pronoun =šši (dat.-loc.sg). Subsequently, we find another request for support using tiya- ‘to stand’, which does not have a parallel in CTH 376.II or CTH 377. In the following requests to give good the gods are asked to give (pai-) numerous good things, many of which also occur in KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–26′ and CTH 377 53′–59′, 80′–82′.

877 878 879 880

KUB 15.31 i 55: mi-i-nu-mar. KUB 15.31 i 56: ḫa-aš-ša-aš ḫa-an-za-aš-⸢ša⸣-a[š-. KUB 15.31 omits the following ruling. KUB 15.31 i 57: tu-u-ma-an-ti-⸢ia-an⸣[…].

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

269

Similar requests to give good are also attested in the evocation ritual for the male Cedar-deities (CTH 483). The passage presented below forms the end of a long recitation. KUB 15.34+ ii 7–10 and ii 17–25 resemble the requests in KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–31′ and CTH 377 53′–64′, 80′–85′. The male Cedar-deities are asked for many benefits that are also requested in Plea III. This includes the growth of crops, livestock, and people (KUB 15.34+ ii 20–24). Only one of the requests uses the verb pai- ‘to give’ (KUB 15.34+ ii 24). The others employ uda- ‘to bring’ (KUB 15.34+ ii 7), kaa tarna‘to let down upon’ (KUB 15.34+ ii 17) or āppa tarna- ‘to bestow’ (KUB 15.34+ ii 25). The beneficiaries are the land of Ḫatti (KUB 15.34+ ii 7–10, 20–25), or the anonymous king and queen, as well as men and women in general (KUB 15.34+ ii 17–19). CTH 483, KUB 15.34+ ii 6–25: 6 ⸢na-aš-ta⸣ an-da ⸢A-NA⸣ KUR URUḪA-AT-TI ḫa-an-ta-a-an-[ti par-ku-wa-i] 7 ⸢SIG5-an-ti mi-iš-ri-wa⸣-an-ti ú-wa-at-tén nu ú-ta-a[t-tén (x x x x)] 8 TI-tar ⸢ḫa-ad-du-la-a-tar MU⸣ḪI.A GÍD.DA ⸢DUMU-la-tar DUMU.NITA⸣MEŠ DU[MU.MUNUSMEŠ ḫa-aš-šu-uš] 9 ḫa-an-za-aš-⸢šu-uš DINGIRMEŠ⸣-aš a-aš-ši-ia-u-wa-ar DINGIRMEŠ-aš [mi-i-ú-mar] 10 ⸢tar⸣-ḫu-i-⸢la-a-tar⸣ nu-⸢ú⸣-un iš-ta-ma-aš-šu-wa-ar nu ⸢a⸣-a[š-šu-u IGIḪI.AŠU-NU la-a-ak-tén] 11 LI-IM ⸢la⸣-ap-li-⸢pu-uš⸣ kar-ap-tén ⸢na⸣-aš-ta LUGAL MU[NUS.LUGAL] 12 an-da aš-šu-li a-uš-tén 13 nu EGIR-pa šu-me-in-za-an Éka-ri-im-na-aš SIG5-an-d[a-aš] 14 ú-wa-at-tén nu-za-an EGIR-pa šu-me-in-za-an GIŠDAG-ti tab-ri-⸢ia⸣ [še-er e-eš-tén] 15 nu-za-an kat-ta šu-me-in-za-an pár-ku-wa-i SIG5-an-ti mi-iš-r[i-wa-an-ti] 16 GIŠŠÚ.A e-eš-te-en 17 nu ⸢kat-ta⸣ tar-na-at-tén A-NA LUGAL MUNUS.LUGAL TI-tar ⸢ḫa-ad-du-la-a⸣-tar M[UḪI.A G]ÍD.DA 18 DUMU-la-tar DUMU.NITAMEŠ DUMU.MUNUSMEŠ ḫa-a-aš-šu-uš ḫa-an-za-aš-šu-⸢uš⸣ LÚ-ni LÚ-na-tar 19 ⸢tar⸣-ḫ[u-i]-la-tar MUNUS-ni MUNUS-na-a-tar an-ni-tal-wa-a-tar 20 iš-tar-na-kán a-aš-ši-ia-u-wa-a[r a]l-šu-wa-ar ⸢DINGIR⸣MEŠ-aš a-aš-ši-i[a-wa-a]r 21 DINGIRMEŠ-aš mi-i-ú-mar DINGIRMEŠ-aš šar-⸢la⸣-mi-iš-ša an-tu-uḫ-ša-aš šar⸢la⸣-[mi-i]š-ša 22 tar-ḫu-i-la-a-tar pa-ra-a ne-ia-an-ta-an ⸢GIŠ⸣TUKUL KUR-ia-aš mi-ia-⸢a⸣-[tar] 23 ši-iš-du-wa-ar DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU-aš GU4ḪI.A-aš ⸢UDU⸣ḪI.A-aš ḫal-ki-ia-aš ⸢GEŠTIN⸣-aš 24 mi-ia-tar pí-iš-kat-tén nu-uš-ši ANŠE.KUR.RAḪ[I].⸢A⸣-aš ⸢ÉRIN⸣MEŠ-aš al-šu-wa-ar 25 ⸢iš⸣-ta-ma-aš-šu-wa-ar EGIR-an ta[r-n]a-at-tén Come into the true, [pure], good, splendid land of Ḫatti! Bri[ng] (with you) life, health, long years, offspring – sons, da[ughters, grandsons] (and)

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

270

A Plea in Three Parts

granddaughters – love of the gods, [friendliness] of the gods, valour, contentment, and obedience! [Turn your] g[ood eyes]! Lift the thousand eyelashes! Look at the king (and) the qu[een] in benevolence! Come back to your goo[d] temple! [Sit down upon] your throne and your chair! Sit down on your pure, good, splen[did] throne! Let life, health, [l]ong ye[ars], offspring, sons, daughters, grandsons (and) granddaughters (come) down on the king (and) the queen, on the man (let) masculinity (and) valour (come down), on the woman (let) femininity (and) motherhood (come down)! Within (the land) continuously give love, [l]oyalty, lo[ve] of the gods, friendliness of the gods, glory of the gods, and glory of men, valour, a battle-ready weapon, growth (and) prosperity of the land, growth of humans, cattle, sheep, grain (and) vines! Bestow on it (i.e., the land of Ḫatti) loyalty (and) obedience of the cavalry (and) the infantry! Comments ii 6: The restoration is, following CHD L–N 298, based on KUB 13.29+ i 13′. ii 6–10: Compare CHD L–N 476. Here tummantiya- seems to be replaced by ištamaššuwar. ii 7: For the possible meanings of mišriwant-, translated as ‘splendid’ here, see CHD L–N 297–99, cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 582. ii 9: The restoration is based on i 21, cf. CHD L–N 476a. Haas and Wilhelm (1974: 190) restore al-šu-wa-ar. ii 10: The restoration is based on KBo 7.28+ obv. 11′ (CTH 371), for which see Ch. 3.3.3. If the restoration is correct, the text probably continued on the edge. Haas and Wilhelm (1974: 190) read A-N[A …] at the end of the line. ii 19: The translation of annitalwatar as ‘motherhood’ follows Kloekhorst 2008: 285. ii 24: Haas and Wilhelm (1974: 193) interpret =šši in ii 24 as referring to the royal couple. However, since =šši is singular it probably refers to the land of Ḫatti. The land of Ḫatti is probably also qualified by ištarna in ii 20, though it is not written.

Another parallel to the requests to give good occurs in a ritual for Ištar of Nineveh (CTH 716). The purpose of the ritual is similar to that of the evocation rituals, to lure Ištar of Nineveh from wherever she may be to the land of Ḫatti. KUB 15.35+ i 47–52 (LNS), contains two requests to give good that resemble requests in Plea III of CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–32′) and the plea of CTH 377 (53′–64′, 80′–85′). CTH 716, KUB 15.35 + KBo 2.9 i 47–52:881 47 na-aš-ta ke-ez-za IŠ-TU KUR.KURḪI.A ar-ḫa e-ḫu na-aš-t[a ú-da?] 48 ŠA LUGAL MUNUS.LUGAL DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL TI-tar ḫa-ad-du-la-tar in-na-ra-⸢uwa-tar⸣

881

For an edition of the entire ritual, see Fuscagni 2012; for an English translation, see Collins 1997: 164f. Parts of the text have also been edited by Archi 1977. For this passage see also HW2 I 64a.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

271

49 MUḪI.A GÍD.DA nu-ú-un 𒑱tu-um-ma-an-ti-ia-an tar-ḫu-i-la-tar 50 A-NA KUR URUḪAT-TI-kán an-da ḫal-ki-aš!882 GIŠGEŠTIN-aš GU4-aš UDU-aš 51 DUMU.NAM.〈LÚ〉.U19.LU-aš mi-ia-tar šal-ḫi-it-ti-in ma-an-ni-it-ti-en 52 an-na-re-en-na ú-da Come out from these lands! For the king, the queen, and the princes883 [bring] life, health, vigour, long years, contentment, obedience (and) valour! To the land of Ḫatti bring growth of grain, vines, cattle, sheep, (and) humans, šalḫii-, mannii-, and virility! Comments i 51f.: The meanings of šalḫii-, mannii- and annari- are unclear, though in this context they should refer to desirable states, cf. CHD L–N 174f, CHD Š 92a, Kloekhorst 2008: 710, and HW2 A 79. The tentative translation of annari- as ‘virility’ is based on the meaning of the Cuneiform Luwian word ānnari-, for which see Kloekhorst 2008: 387.

The requests to give good in KUB 15.35+ i 47–52 (CTH 716) employ the verb uda- ‘to bring’.884 The use of uda- ‘to bring’ rather than pai- ‘to give’ both here and in KUB 15.34+ ii 6–10 (CTH 483) is probably due to the preceding request, in which the deity is summoned. Another parallel to the requests to give good in Plea III and CTH 377 occurs in the purification ritual for Muršili II’s accession to the throne (CTH 462). Unlike the rituals discussed above, this one does not concern a disappearing deity. The passage presented below, VSNF 12.7 iv 16–20, contains similar requests as KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–32′ (CTH 376.II) and CTH 377 53′–64′, 80′–86′. CTH 462, VSNF 12.7 iv 16–20:885 16 [… ]⸢d⸣UTU URUTÚL-na-ma DINGIRMEŠ LUGALTIM 17 [ki-nu-un A-N]A mmur-ši-DINGIRLIM LUGAL-i GIŠTUKUL NIR.GÁL 18 [… ]x tar-ḫu-i-la-tar ŠA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-ia 19 [mi-ia-tar pí-iš-té]n nu-uš-ši KUR URUḪA-AT-TI 20 [… ]⸢pé-ra⸣-an886 mi-e-eš-du […]. O Sun-goddess of Arinna, O Gods of kingship, [now, t]o Muršili, the king, [giv]e a terrifying weapon, […], valour, (and) [growth] of the land of Ḫatti! May the land of Ḫatti […] prosper for him! All the requests for well-being and prosperity in the recitations discussed above, show that the re was a certain freedom in how one could formulate such a request. 882 883 884 885 886

The text has UŠ. The ‘king, the queen, and the princes’ occur in the genitive case as is indicated by ŠA. In KUB 15.35+ i 47 the verb is restored. Editions of the ritual are published by Pecchioli Daddi 2000, Görke 2014, and Groddek 2002: 81–92. The restorations follow Görke 2014. Pecchioli Daddi (2000: 346) reads: [E]GIR(?)-an, but this is irreconcilable with the extant traces.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

272

A Plea in Three Parts

The number of good things requested and the order in which they occur differs. ‘Life’ (ḫuišnuwatar), ‘health’ (ḫaddulatar), ‘vigour’ (innarawatar), and ‘long years’ (MUḪI.A GÍD.DA) were usually requested. In most instances the verb pai- ‘to give’ is used, but other verbs could be employed depending on the context. The extent of the possibilities may be shown in the ritual for the Storm-god of Kuliwišna, KUB 33.62 ii 7′–10′ (CTH 330).887 The text concerns the disappearance of the Storm-god of Kuliwišna and is related to the evocation rituals and the disappearing god myths. KUB 33.62 ii 7′–10′ is part of a recitation. By using the verb waḫnu- ‘to turn’ and mentioning the good things in the dative-locative case, the request to give good seems to have become a request for support. It is nonetheless comparable to requests to give good in Plea III (KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–32′) and CTH 377 53′–64′, 80′–85′. KUB 33.62 is written in MS, as are several other manuscripts of the ritual. CTH 330, KUB 33.62 ii 7′–10′:888 7′ [nu-za?-kán?] an-da wa-aḫ-nu-ut dIŠKUR URUku-li-ú-iš-na 8′ ⸢A-NA⸣ [LÚBE]-EL ÉTIM MUNUSBE-EL-TI4 ÉTIM DUMU.NITAMEŠ DUMU.MUNUSMEŠ-aš 9′ aš-šu-li TI-an-ni in-na-ra-u-wa-an-ni ḫa-at-tu-la-an-ni 10′ MUḪI.A GÍD.DA EGIR.UDMI DINGIRMEŠ-aš a-aš-ši-u-ni-it DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš mi-⸢úum⸣-ni-it O Storm-god of Kuliwišna, turn to the lord of the house, the lady of the house, regarding sons, daughters, well-being, life, vigour, health, (and) long years for the future with the love of the gods and the friendliness of the gods. To other text units of Plea III of CTH 376.II and the plea of CTH 377 there are only a few parallels within the ritual corpus. A request to remove evil comparable to CTH 377 65′–66′889 is attested in the evocation ritual for the male Cedar-deities (CTH 483). CTH 483, KUB 15.34+ ii 46–48:890 46 ⸢na⸣-aš-⸢ta i⸣-da-a-lu i-⸢da⸣-a-lu-[(un GIG-an)] 47 ta!-p[(a-aš-š)a-an i-da-a-lu] ḫi-in-ga-an ⸢BURU5ḪI.A ḫu⸣-wa-a[(p-pa)]-⸢na⸣-[(tar)] 48 du-[(ud-du-m)i-li? … IŠ-T]U KUR URUḪA-⸢AT⸣-[T]I ⸢ar-ḫa⸣ ḫar-[(ni-ik-tén)] Remove [fro]m the land of Ḫatti quie[tly …] the evil, the evil illness, fever, evil plague (and) evilness!

887 888 889 890

The request is repeated in KUB 33.62 ii 17′–20′. For an edition of the entire text, which consists of numerous fragments, see Glocker (1997). The request is not preserved in KUB 24.3+, but it probably occurred at the beginning of Plea III. Duplicate: KBo 8.70 ii? 9′–10′. For this passage, cf. Goetze 1957: 111, Haas and Wilhelm 1974: 194f., and HW2 Ḫ 566f., 820a.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Plea III: A General Prayer for Well-Being and Prosperity

273

Comments ii 47: The signs at the beginning of the line look like GA-ME-x[…], but the duplicate KBo 8.70 9′ has ⸢ta⸣pa-aš-x. Instead of ⸢BURU5ḪI.A⸣ Haas and Wilhelm (1974: 194f.) read NAM⁉ḪI.A and translate ‘(ungünstiges) Geschick’. HW2 Ḫ 820a reads NAM〈.TAR〉⸢ḪI.A⸣. The signs are damaged, but comparison with CTH 377 65′– 66′ suggests that it is better to read NAM as BURU5 here, so also HW2 Ḫ 566f. At the end of the line Goetze (1957: 111) erroneously reads ḫu-wa-ap-pa-na-aš ut-tar, cf. HW2 Ḫ 820a. ii 48: The restoration at the beginning of the line follows HW2 Ḫ 566f. and Puhvel HED 3: 164. The translation of ḫarni(n)k- as ‘to wipe out’ follows Puhvel HED 3: 164.

Finally, KUB 36.89 (CTH 671), a ritual concerning the disappearance of the Storm-god of Nerik, should also be mentioned in this regard. The text consists of a short instruction to present offerings and a long recitation in which the Storm-god of Nerik is asked to return from the river.891 The recitation contains two passages comparable to the wish for rain in KUB 24.3+ iii 38′f. and CTH 377 86′. CTH 671, KUB 36.89 rev. 54′: 54′ d10-aš-wa-kán dUTU URUTÚL-na ne-pí-ša-za kat-ta mi-e-uš ḫé-e-uš tar-ni-eš-du May the Storm-god (and) the Sun-goddess of Arinna let mild rains down from heaven! CTH 671, KUB 36.89 rev. 60′–61′: 60′ e-ḫu URUne-ri-ik-ka4-aš d10-aš ne-pí-ši-za-kán GAM mi-e-uš ḫé-e-uš ú-da892 61′ ⸢A⸣-[N]A KUR.KURḪI.A URUḪAT-TI la-bar-na-ia LUGAL-i a-aš-šu e-eš-du Come, O Storm-god of Nerik, bring mild rains (come) down from heaven! And may it be good for the lands of Ḫatti and for Labarna, the king! An overview of the parallels to Plea III of CTH 376.II in rituals is presented in Table 48 below. Except for the purification ritual for Muršili II, all the treated passages occur in rituals that concern a disappearing deity and his return. These are all evocation rituals of some kind. They were probably all composed in the Middle Hittite period or earlier and, therefore, predate CTH 376.II and CTH 377. The parallels suggest that Plea III and the plea of CTH 377 have their roots in a group of rituals concerning disappearing deities.893 This explains why the anonymous king, queen, and princes are the beneficiaries of CTH 377. They were adopted from these rituals, most of which do not mention the beneficiaries by name. In two of the treated parallels we even find, as

891 892

893

For an edition of the text, see Haas 1970: 140–74 and Deighton 1982: 74–84. Deighton (1982: 80) and Haas (1970: 156) both read ú-it. However, both the copy and the photographs that are available in the Konkordanz clearly show the sign DA at the end of the line, partly written on the edge. The invocation, part of the elaborate prayer introduction, also has its origins in evocation rituals and disappearing god myths, see Ch. 7.2.3.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

iii 37′–41′ iii 41′–43′

Promise

iii 35′–37′

Request – Support

Wishes – Give good

iii 33′–35′

Wishes (fragmentary)

-

iii 17′–32′

Requests – Give good

Requests – Give good

-

iii 15′–17′

Request – Support

Direct Address + Epithet

iii 12′–14′

iii 1′–11′

[…]

Requests

Request – Send evil to enemy

Request – Remove evil

KUB 24.3+

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

cf. ii 7′–10′, 17′–20′

cf. ii 7′–10′, 17′–20′

KUB 33.62

CTH 330

CTH 334

i 12′–13′

i 7′–10′

KBo 31.76+

cf. iv 16–20

cf. iv 16–20

VSNF 12.7

CTH 462

CTH 483

cf. ii 6–25

cf. ii 6–25

i 49f.

ii 46–48

KUB 15.34+

CTH 484

cf. i 55–59

cf. i 55–59

i 54f.

KUB 15.32+

Table 48. Textual parallels to Plea III (CTH 376.II and CTH 377) in rituals.

-

86′–88′

80′–85′

-

-

53′–64′

52′

50′–51′

[…]

71′–79′

67′–71′

65′–66′

Structure Plea III CTH 376.II CTH 377

rev. 54′, 60′–61′

KUB 36.89

CTH 671

CTH 716

cf. i 47–52

cf. i 47–52

KUB 15.35+

274 A Plea in Three Parts

An Instruction to the Congregation

in CTH 377 50′, 53′, and 80′, the king, queen, and princes (LUGAL as the beneficiaries of the requests.894

275 MUNUS.LUGAL

DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL)

8.3.4 Findings The Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) is a general prayer for the well-being of Muršili II and his family, and for the prosperity of Ḫatti. Therefore, the plea of this prayer consists primarily of requests and wishes for well-being. The many parallels in older rituals concerning a deity who has disappeared from his temple and city suggest that texts of this type were used to create the plea of CTH 377 or, more likely, its precursor. This is supported by the fact that neither Muršili II, nor the queen or princes, are mentioned by name in the plea of CTH 377. In ritual compositions it is common not to mention the person for whom it is performed by name, because it makes them them reusable on multiple occasions. Plea III of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) probably derived independently from the same prayer as the plea of CTH 377. It is largely parallel to the plea of CTH 377, but has many variants and is structured differently. In CTH 377 the plea is structured to facilitate the rhetorical strategies of contrast and repetition. After an introductory section it begins with a positive section, followed by a negative one, and it ends with a second positive section echoing a part of the first. Plea III of CTH 376.II follows a linear structure instead. It starts with the negative section and ends with a positive one. The difference in structure can be explained by the different functions of these textual elements within each prayer. In CTH 376.II Plea III forms the end of a much longer plea, the main part of which is Plea II. But in CTH 377 we are dealing with the entire plea and, thus, with the most important part of the prayer. The necessity to create a rhetorically powerful structure is therefore much greater for the plea of CTH 377 than for Plea III. The precursor of Plea III probably had a plea with the same structure as the plea of CTH 377. The composer of CTH 376.II decided not to maintain this structure. Instead, he chose to begin Plea III with the negative section, thus creating a thematic continuity throughout the plea and making the transition from Plea II concerning plague and enemies to Plea III less abrupt.

8.4 AN INSTRUCTION TO THE CONGREGATION The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) both end with the instruction that the panku-, the ‘congregation’, should call out apāt ešdu ‘May that be!’.895 Here panku- refers to the

894 895

KBo 31.76+ i 12′f. (CTH 334) and KUB 15.35+ i 48 (CTH 716). KUB 24.3+ iii 43′–44′ (CTH 376.II), and CTH 377 89′. In ms. B of CTH 377 (KUB 24.2 rev. 18′–19′) apāt ‘that’ is omitted.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

276

A Plea in Three Parts

people who are present during the performance of the prayer.896 By pronouncing this performative statement they participate in the performance of the prayer. These people may have functioned primarily as an audience, but some of them might have been active in other aspects of the performance as well.897 The instruction itself, nu pankuš apāt ešdu ḫalzai ‘the congregation calls out “May that be!”’, need not have been pro-nounced fully during the performance of CTH 376.II or CTH 377. Possibly only the congregation called out apāt ešdu ‘May that be!’. Plea III and the plea of CTH 377, which precede the instruction, are largely parallel to each other and seem to derive from the same source.898 Therefore, it seems likely that the instruction was also adopted from that same source. This is supported by the fact that neither in CTH 376.II nor in CTH 377 the instruction is separated from the preceding plea by a horizontal ruling. Rituals often contain instructions to call out a specific word. Therefore, the instruction may have derived from such compositions, just as Plea III and the plea of CTH 377. The words to be called out in rituals are usually in a language other than Hittite and their meaning is often obscure. Examples are aḫa, keldi, and nū.899 The latter may have had the same meaning as apāt ešdu.900 The panku- ‘congregation’ is only rarely mentioned as the one calling out such words or phrases. I know of one other attestation in a purification ritual, KBo 13.119, where the panku- has to call out ‘miyauwa miyauwa’.901 The instruction to call out apāt ešdu ‘May that be!’ is rare as well. Besides in CTH 376.II and CTH 377, it only occurs in the Ritual of Ḫantitaššu (CTH 395), KUB 57.79 iv 31–33. CTH 395, KUB 57.79 iv 31–33 (LNS):902 31 k[e]-e-da-ni-⸢ia⸣ me-mi-ia-⸢an⸣-ni DINGIRMEŠ ḫu-u-⸢ma⸣-an-te-eš 32 [x]xx903 ⸢a⸣-pa-a-at ⸢e-eš⸣-du ḫal-zi-ia-an-du 33 [nu]-⸢ta MU⸣KAM.ḪI.A ⸢ITU⸣KAM.ḪI.A UDKAM.ḪI.A ta-lu-ka4-⸢e⸣-eš a-⸢ša⸣-an-d[u] For [t]his matter let all the gods … call ‘May that be!’, [and] may [for y]ou the years, months (and) days be long!904 896 897 898 899 900 901

902

903

On the term panku- and its interpretation in the present context, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ iii 43′ in Appendix IV. Already Houwink ten Cate (1969: 89) interpreted this phrase as indicating that an audience ‘obviously could be present … at the recitation of a royal prayer’. See Ch. 8.3. Both texts also contain the elaborate prayer introduction, for which see Ch. 7. See HW2 Ḫ 97–99. CHD L–N 477a. KBo 13.119 iv 12′: [… pa-a]n?-ku-⸢uš⸣ ḫal-za-a-i mi-ia-u-wa mi-ia-u-wa ‘[and the congr]egation calls out “miyauwa miyauwa”’, compare in the same text KBo 13.119 iv 6′: […] nu ḫal-za-a-i mi-ia-u-wa mi-ia-u-wa ‘He calls out “miyauwa miyauwa”’, cf. CHD L–N 238 and CHD P 91a. Note the very late forms of UN with inscribed vertical and BI with indented upper horizontal. We also find the late form of SÌLA. However, KI and DI do not have the additional first vertical. DA and ID are written with aligned horizontals and broken middle horizontal. CHD L–N 477a and HW2 Ḫ 99b restore [tuk], but since the top of a vertical wedge is visible, the word does not seem to end with UK.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

An Instruction to the Congregation

277

Performative statements suggesting that a group of people was involved in their recitation also occur in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2). There they are part of a confession formula, which occurs three times in the prayer (KUB 14.8 obv. 40′–41′, rev. 14′–15′ and rev. 29′). The prayer as a whole is formulated in the first person singular as if Muršili II recites the text himself.905 However, in two of the three confession formulas we find a verb form in the first person plural. This implies that a congregation was present and involved in reciting the formula. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 obv. 40′–41′: 40′ nu-za-kán k[(a?-a)-ša906 A-NA PA-NI dIŠKUR? wa-aš]-túl tar-na-aḫ-ḫu-un 41′ e-eš-zi-ia-at i-ia-u-e-en-n[a-at → I have he[rewith] confessed the [transgre]ssion [before the Storm-god of Ḫatti]. It is (so), we have done [it]. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 14′–15′:907 14′ na-at-za-kán ka-a-ša A-NA d10 URU⸢ḪA⸣-A[T-T]I EN-IA Ù908 ⸢A⸣[(N)]A DINGIRMEŠ BE-LUMEŠ-IA 15′ pé-ra-an ⸢tar⸣-na-an ⸢ḫar⸣-mi e-eš-zi-ia-at ⸢i⸣-[(i)]a-u-e-na-at → I have herewith confessed it to the Storm-god of Ḫatti, my lord, and to the gods, my lords. It is (so), we have done it. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 29′:909 29′ [a]m-mu-uk-za-kán ŠA A-BI-IA wa-aš-túl tar-n[a-aḫ-ḫu-un] a-ša-a-na-at i-ianu-na-at I have confe[ssed] the transgression of my father. It is (so), I have done it. The confession formula in CTH 378.2 consists of a statement, in which the supplicant states that he has confessed the offence, followed by the confirmative clause ‘It is (so), we have done it’ (ešzi=at iyawen=at). Only in KUB 14.8 rev. 29′ does the text read ‘It is (so), I have done it’ (ašan=at iyanun=at) instead. The use of iyawen (1pl.prt.act) indicates that this performative statement was pronounced by a group of people present during the performance of the prayer. They confirm that Muršili II has indeed confessed the offences described in the prayer. By reciting these statements, these people participated actively in the performance of the prayer, just like in CTH 376.II

904 905

906 907 908 909

Chrzanowska 2015, CHD L–N 477a, HW2 Ḫ 99b. Nonetheless, in the introduction of the prayer it is stated explicitly that Muršili II did not recite the prayer himself (see p. 157f.). The first lines of the plea are, moreover, written in direct speech (see p. 159 incl. fn. 523). B KUB 14.11+ ii 50: […]⸢ka?⸣-a[…]. Cf. pp. 134f. B KUB 14.11+ iii 33′ omits Ù. Cf. pp. 116f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

278

A Plea in Three Parts

and CTH 377. In CTH 378.2 they were given a role as witnesses to the confession. In CTH 376.II and CTH 377 they were witnesses to the presentation of the prayer. It is difficult to ascertain why the third confession formula in CTH 378.2 (KUB 14.8 rev. 29′) uses a different formulation than the earlier confessions. In particular, it remains unclear why the participle ašan is employed instead of the finite form ešzi. For the switch from the first person plural to the first person singular, one may consider the following possible explanations: 1. the first person singular form, iyanun, is a scribal error, possibly caused by confusion with the preceding statement, which is formulated in the first person singular; 2. the final confession was pronounced by the reciter of the prayer alone and, unlike the other confession formulas, not by the congregation; 3. the final confession using the first person singular is accurate and the first two confession formulas, using the first person plural, are erroneous. Since assuming a scribal error is a rather easy way out of a philological problem, I prefer the second solution. It may very well have been the deliberate intention of the composer to formulate the final confession differently, perhaps simply because it is the final confession in the prayer. Using a different formulation makes it stand out and gives it more emphasis. The participle may also have been used to give emphasis. However, it seems more probable that the first person singular is used to stress that it is Muršili II who confessed the transgressions. The explicit mentioning of ‘the offence of my father’, found only in the final confession, may serve the same purpose. It is remarkable that the performative statement apāt ešdu occurs in CTH 376.II and CTH 377 within an instruction and not simply as a statement within the prayer, as is the case in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2). This may be explained by the origin of the instruction in ritual compositions. The presence of a group of people during the performance of a personal prayer is only clear for the three prayers discussed: CTH 376.II, CTH 377, and CTH 378.2. They all date to the reign of Muršili II. By letting the congregation call out a performative statement, they were actively involved in the performance. There is, however, no reason to assume that the other personal prayers were not performed in front of an audience.910

8.5 FINDINGS The plea of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), has a complex textual history. It has been divided into three parts, Plea I–III, on the basis of formal criteria, content, and their origins. Plea I, KUB 24.3+ ii 4–9, which introduces

910

Concerning the possible communal performance of prayers compare the first part of the Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382), which is written in the first person plural, see Houwink ten Cate and Josephson 1967.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Findings

279

the plea, was composed together with the preceding elaborate prayer introduction. It goes back to the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), or a similar prayer, just as the preceding solar hymn. Plea II, KUB 24.3+ ii 10–66, is an almost verbatim adaptation of the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (CTH 376.I). Plea III and the following instruction have their roots in a group of ritual compositions in which a deity who has disappeared from his temple and city is appeased and lured back. The plea of the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377), which is largely parallel to Plea III, was based on the same source as Plea III. Occasionally clauses or larger passages from the plea of CTH 376.II seem to have been adopted in later prayers. In particular the so-called plague prayers of Muršili II have used material from Plea II of CTH 376.II. Individual passages can have their own complicated textual history, as is shown by the long textual history of the wishes to reveal an offence, KUB 24.3+ ii 26–29. These lines go back to a Mesopotamian prayer similar to the Sumerian ‘Utu the hero’ (H 150 with duplicates), entered the Hittite written corpus in the prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), to arrive through CTH 376.I into CTH 376.II. Subsequently, the clauses were incorporated into the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2). The plea of CTH 376.II has been carefully structured while bearing in mind its rhetorical function to persuade the addressee. The clear structure of the plea, in which transitions between sections are usually marked in some way, makes it a strong text and easy to follow for any recipient. The plea is introduced by requests for support and attention in Plea I. In Plea II the reasons for the composition and performance of the prayer are presented: the death of those involved in the preparation of offerings as a consequence of a plague, and the terrible behaviour of hostile enemy lands. Several rhetorical strategies are employed in Plea II including the use of figurative expressions, a clear and simple structure with marked (sub)sections, a combination of contrast, historical perspective, and repetition, and implicit arguments. Plea II and Plea III both end with requests and wishes for well-being and prosperity. Ending (a section of) a prayer in this way was probably also a rhetorical strategy. The prayer was concluded by everyone present calling out apāt ešdu ‘May that be!’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

9. THE COMPOSITION AND TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE PRAYER FOR MURŠILI II IN CONTEXT The Hittite independent or personal prayers were created as a means to overcome a certain problem on one specific occasion. They were not standardised formulaic liturgical prayers nor were they part of the regular cult. The single exception is the daily Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family (CTH 377). Other personal prayers were tailored to a specific event, mentioned the Hittite monarch by name, and usually referred to specific historical situations. As a result, these texts could not easily be reused at a later moment. The instances when older prayers were reused to create a new prayer are therefore of great interest. The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) is an example of a personal prayer that was created by combining two existing prayers. The text has a complex structure consisting of multiple components. The different textual elements have been analysed in Chs. 7 and 8 with a special focus on their function, composition, rhetoric, and textual history. The results will now be combined to present a complete textual history of CTH 376.II and related prayers (Ch. 9.3–9.4). First, the primary features of the structure of CTH 376.II and the employed rhetorical strategies are summarised (Ch. 9.1). All findings are compared with the evidence from the other prayers in the corpus (Chs. 9.2, 9.3.1, and 9.4.1).

9.1 STRUCTURE AND RHETORIC OF CTH 376.II The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) has a clear but complex structure. It consists of many textual elements, most of which can be subdivided into several sections and subsections on the basis of grammatical features and content. Each element and section serves a different rhetorical function, see Table 49. The text begins with the elaborate prayer introduction consisting of four components. The introduction (proper) introduces all the participants; the invocation summons the addressed deity to the place where the prayer is performed; the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage emphasises the good relationship between Ḫatti and the addressee; and the hymn praises the addressed deity. Plea I ends with the same requests for attention as the invocation and was probably considered as the end of the elaborate prayer introduction. Together the elaborate prayer introduction and Plea I introduce the remainder of the plea. They prepare the addressee, the Sun-goddess of Arinna, for Plea II and Plea III in order to ensure that she will grant the requests they contain. Plea II is the main part of the plea because this is where the reasons for the composition and performance of the prayer are presented. It is directed to the gods, unlike the rest of the prayer, which is addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Plea III

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

282

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

consists of requests and wishes for well-being and prosperity and forms the end of the plea. An instruction to the congregation ends the prayer. It includes the people who were present in the performance.

ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION

Textual elements and their (sub)sections INTRODUCTION INVOCATION ‘ONLY IN ḪATTI’ PASSAGE

HYMN

B obv. 1–3

I

summoning the addressee

B obv. 3–10, A i 2′–3′

II

requesting appeasement and attention

A i 3′–5′

I IIA IIB

emphasising the relationship between Ḫatti and the addressee

I

praise, general hymn

A i 29′–34′

II

praise, solar hymn

A i 34′–ii 3

requesting support and attention describing the consequences of the plague complaint, transition requesting support and revelation of offence describing the behaviour of enemies transition, making the problem personal for the addressee requesting the imposition of problems on enemies describing the behaviour of enemies transition, making the problem personal for the addressee requesting punishment of the guilty one, well-being and prosperity

A ii 4–9

1a 1b 1c 2a 2b PLEA II PLEA

2c 3a 3b 3c neg.

requesting well-being and prosperity

pos. INSTRUCTION

CTH 376.II

A KUB 24.3+ B KUB 36.80

introducing the participants

PLEA I

PLEA III

Function / Concerns

A i 6′–20′ A i 21′–23′ A i 23′–28′

A ii 10–24 A ii 24–26 A ii 26–31 A ii 32–37 A ii 38 A ii 39–44 A ii 45–57 A ii 58–60 A ii 61–66, […] […], A iii 1′– 11′ A iii 43′

confirming what has been said, involving the congregation in the performance Table 49. The function of the sections of CTH 376.II.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

A iii 43′–44′

Structure and Rhetoric of CTH 376.II

283

The different sections of CTH 376.II are in most cases separated from each other by a horizontal ruling. The beginning of a section or subsection is usually also explicitly marked in the text. In CTH 376.II sections are often introduced by a direct address and occasionally by a statement, a rhetorical question, or a temporal adverb. These rhetorical devices attract the attention of the addressee. Direct addresses achieve this by calling the deity by name.911 Table 50 shows the distribution of the markers indicating the beginning of a section in CTH 376.II. In the column ‘direct address’ it is indicated when a direct address occurs independently and is not incorporated in a clause, or when the addressee is only mentioned in the third person at the beginning of a section. The table shows that different markers can be combined. For instance, statements and rhetorical questions often also contain a direct address. Direct addresses are also employed elsewhere in the prayer. Particularly in the hymn we find abundant occurrences. By contrast, statements and rhetorical questions are only attested as the first clause of a new section. Occasionally the end of a section is marked as well. In CTH 376.II this is done by direct addresses at the end of Plea II Sections 1a, 1c, 3b, and the negative section of Plea III, by the requests for attention with direct address at the end of the invocation and Plea I, and by the promise at the end of Plea III. Mentioning the beneficiary explicitly by name probably also attracts the attention of the addressed deity, but no clear distribution pattern can be discerned in CTH 376.II. The beneficiary, Muršili II, is mentioned by name in the introduction, at the end of Section IIa of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, in all three requests of Plea I, and in the first request for support and the first request to give good in Plea III.912 Several rhetorical strategies are employed throughout CTH 376.II. On a structural level we find a clear structure with marked (sub)sections, the elaborate prayer introduction, repetition, contrast, and historical contrast. Other strategies include using a rhetorical question and figurative expressions in Plea II and the hymn.913 Contrast is employed in Section I of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage and around the negative section of Plea III. In Plea II Section 3a contrast is combined with historical contrast and repetition. Repetition is also used in other parts of the prayer. Most noteworthy are the requests for attention at the end of the invocation, which are repeated at the end of Plea I, and the direct address with epithet at the beginning of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, which is repeated at the beginning of the hymn. These are deliberate repetitions created to make the elaborate prayer introduction and Plea I into a coherent

911

912 913

When many deities are addressed simultaneously, they are usually addressed as ‘gods’ (DINGIRMEŠ). Occasionally an address to a single deity as ‘god’ or ‘goddess’ (DINGIR) is attested, but these appear to be remnants of a prayer directed to a different deity from which the passage was adopted, see p. 169. KUB 36.80 obv. 1, KUB 24.3+ i 22′, ii 4, ii 5, ii 7, iii 15′, and iii 17′. Note for instance from the solar hymn, KUB 24.3+ i 46′: nu-za KUR-e-aš ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš at-ta-aš an-na-aš z[i-i]k ‘and to all the lands you are father (and) mother’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

284

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION

Textual elements and their (sub)sections

‘ONLY IN ḪATTI’ PASSAGE

HYMN

(independent)

I

✓

I

kāša

✓ + epithet (independent)

IIA

✓

IIB

✓

I

✓ ✓

II

✓ + epithet (independent)

II PLEA I

PLEA II

kinuna

(✓)914 1a 1b 1c 2a915

PLEA

Adverb

✓

INTRODUCTION INVOCATION

Beginning marked by: Rhetorical Direct address Statement question

2b

✓

✓

✓ addressee mentioned in 3rd person

2c 3a 3b

PLEA III

3c neg. pos.

namma addressee mentioned in 3rd person

(✓)916 [?]

[?]

[?]

[?]

✓

INSTRUCTION Table 50. Markers indicating the beginning of a (sub)section in CTH 376.II.

914 915 916

A direct address occurs in all three clauses of Plea I. Therefore, it does not mark the beginning of a new section but rather of the section as a whole. The beginning of Plea II Section 2 is marked by an introductory clause that refers to plague (the subject of Section 1) and enemies (the subject of Sections 2 and 3). A direct address occurs in the first three clauses of Plea II Section 3c. It is therefore not a true marker indicating the beginning of a new section.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Structuring mechanisms and Rhetorical Strategies in Hittite Prayers

285

text. We may also note the list of evils demarcating the beginning and end of the negative section of Plea III.917 Arguments why the gods should help Muršili II are primarily employed in Plea II. They include blaming the gods for the plague that is tormenting Ḫatti, asserting Ḫatti’s innocence, and emphasising the negative consequences of the plague for the addressee and the hostilities of the enemy lands. The absence of confessions and references to compensation is remarkable, especially when one compares CTH 376.II with the plague prayers of Muršili II. These concern the same plague and the main strategy to persuade the addressed deities seems to consist in describing and confessing specific transgressions of previous rulers.918

9.2 STRUCTURING MECHANISMS AND RHETORICAL STRATEGIES IN HITTITE PRAYERS Many of the rhetorical strategies employed in CTH 376.II and related prayers are also used in other Hittite prayers. A survey of the twenty-four prayers in the corpus919 shows that they all have a clear structure consisting of several sections and subsections, which are often marked in the text. Repetition and contrast are employed in many prayers. Three prayers have particularly repetitive structures. These are the Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle (CTH 371), the Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382), and the Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 383). Every Hittite prayer consists of an introduction and a plea. In most cases the introduction is rather short and simple. Occasionally it is extended with a hymn920 or, as in CTH 376.II, with an invocation, ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, and a hymn. Such an elaborate prayer introduction is only attested in three prayers dating to the reign of Muršili II: CTH 376.II, CTH 377, and CTH 376.4 (see Ch. 7). The plea is the the longest and most important part of the text. In each prayer the plea can be subdivided into several sections on the basis of formal criteria and content (cf. Ch. 3.4). The structure of every plea differs, but some tendencies can be observed.921 Requests for attention

917 918

919

920 921

The beginning of the negative section of Plea III of CTH 376.II is lost in a lacuna, but it may be restored on the basis of CTH 377 65′f. This is the case for the “First” and “Second” plague prayers (CTH 378.1 and CTH 378.2). The “Third” and “Fourth” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.3 and CTH 378.4) are too fragmentary to establish whether or not confessions also had a primary position in these texts. For fragmentary prayers it is difficult to ascertain what kind of rhetorical strategies they use. Next to the use of figurative expressions such as simile and metaphors, direct speech is also used in several prayers as a rhetorical strategy (i.e., in CTH 381, CTH 375, CTH 378.2, CTH 378.3. CTH 70, CTH 72, CTH 383, and CTH 384). On the use of explicit and implicit arguments, see Ch. 3.6 incl. Table 11 (p. 90). CTH 372–74, CTH 383, and CTH 384, cf. Ch. 3.4. Contra Daues and Rieken (2018: 123) who argue that there was a fixed structure, cf. p. 12.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

286

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

and support usually occur at the beginning of the plea or one of its sections, whereas promises usually occur towards the end. On the micro-level of the text unit, some prayer sections do follow a fixed structure. An example can be found in Plea II of CTH 376.II. The three sections of Plea II are all structured in the same way: first a description, then one or two transitional clauses, and finally requests and/or wishes. Other examples are the similar structures of the passages in which a proverb is cited (Ch. 5), the parallel addresses to the different deities in CTH 371 (Ch. 3.3.3), and the parallel structures of the intercessory prayers to Zintuḫi, Mezzulla, and the Stormgod of Zippalanda in CTH 384 (p. 169). The modern subdivision of the prayers into sections and subsections according to formal criteria and content coincides to some extent with the division into paragraphs made by the ancient scribes. Sections are often separated from each other by horizontal rulings, though rulings can also occur within a section. By far the largest number of such additional rulings occur in the MH personal prayers CTH 373, CTH 374, CTH 375, and CTH 376.I. These texts all consist of numerous short paragraphs between two and five lines in length. Their paragraph divisions do not seem to reflect the structure of the text. Instead, there seems to have been a preference for such short paragraphs in the Middle Hittite period (see p. 75). In later prayers most horizontal rulings can be explained by the structure of the text. Prayers that reuse (large parts of) MH prayers such as CTH 376.II, occasionally preserve some rulings from their precursor. There is one clear instance of erroneously placed rulings in KUB 14.8, ms. A of the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2).922 In the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) a ruling seems to replace a spoken clause.923 Direct addresses, statements, temporal adverbs, and rhetorical questions have been identified as textual indicators that mark the beginning of a section or subsection in CTH 376.II. These markers are also attested in the rest of the corpus. In addition, we find two more textual indicators with the same function: the exclamation duwaddu ‘mercy’924 with a direct address, and a clause referred to as the ‘you know’ formula in the present study. Two of the prayers within rituals (CTH 371 and CTH 385.10) use the interjection duwaddu ‘mercy’ with a direct address to introduce

922

923 924

The rulings after KUB 14.8 obv. 24′ and obv. 34′ are placed incorrectly. This is clear from a comparison with the duplicates KUB 14.11+ (B) and KUB 14.10+ (C). In B and C the two rulings are both placed a little further on in the text, which correspond to KUB 14.8 obv. 28′ and 38′, respectively, where no rulings occur. The position of the rulings in B and C makes more sense in relation to the structure of the text. In KUB 14.8 obv. 29′ a new part of the historical anecdote, introduced by māḫḫan, begins, and in KUB 14.8 rev. 38′ we find a clause that looks like a statement. In particular the ruling after KUB 14.8 obv. 34′ seems incorrect because it occurs in between two subordinate clauses. Possibly the ruling after KUB 14.8 rev. 40′ is also incorrect, for there is no ruling after the corresponding lines in B and C. Compare the variants in the placement of paragraph lines in the two main manuscripts of CTH 381, for which see Singer 1996: 139f. A ruling occurs before the proverb where one expects a verbal introduction, see p. 127. The interjection duwaddu is an emphatic 2sg.imp.act from the verb duddu- ‘to have mercy, to be merciful’, see HEG 3: 475–79, 497, HW 230.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Structuring mechanisms and Rhetorical Strategies in Hittite Prayers

287

new sections of the prayer.925 In the Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal (CTH 375) the ‘you know’ formula is used once to mark the beginning and twice to mark the end of a section. In all three attestations the clause contains a direct address. The ‘you know’ formula emphasises at the beginning or end of a section that the addressees ought to be aware of the matters discussed. This implies that they could have acted already and that they are personally involved in the matter at hand.926 The formula consists of two clauses. In the main clause we find the verb form šekteni, 2pl.prs.act of šek-/šak- ‘to know’, after which the formula is named. Twice we find the instrumental DINGIRMEŠ-aš ištanzanit ‘with (your) divine spirit’927 in the same clause. The other clause describes what the addressed gods already know. Only when the formula concludes a section is this a preceding subordinate clause that uses māḫḫan ‘how’, see KBo 51.17(+) ii 3–5 and KBo 53.10(+) ii 12–13 below. As an introductory formula it consists of two main clauses, the first of which is the ‘you know’ clause, see KUB 17.21+ i 10′–12′. CTH 375, KUB 17.21+ i 10′–12′ = beginning Section C:928 10′ nu šu-me-eš-pát DINGIRMEŠ929 DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-ta-an-z[a]-⸢ni-it⸣ še-ek-te-⸢ni⸣ 11′ ⸢ka-ru-ú⸣-za šu-me-en-za-an É.DINGIRMEŠ-K[U-N]U EGIR-an an-ze-el 12′ [i-wa-a]r Ú-[U]L ku-iš-ki kap-pu-u-⸢wa⸣-an ḫar-ta Only you, O Gods, know with (your) divine spirit, (that) previously no one had taken care of your temples [lik]e we (do). CTH 375, KBo 51.17(+) ii 3–5 = end Section D:930 3 […]x-x-⸢a?⸣ NINDA.GUR4.RAḪI.A-uš931 4 [(iš-pa-an-du-zi-ta)?932 l]e?-e933 pé-eš-kir nu šu-me-eš-pát 5 [DINGIRMEŠ-aš Z(I-i)]t še-ek-te-ni

925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933

For an edition of CTH 371, see Ch. 3.3.3. Personal involvement of the addressed deities is also apparent in the wishes for revenge in Plea II Sections 2b and 3b, KUB 24.3+ ii 38 and ii 58–60, which have a transitional function. On ištanza(n)- (ZI), see Kammenhuber 1964 and the comments on Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 16′ (p. 201 with further references). See also p. 198. Duplicate: Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 16′–18′, for which see p. 194. Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 16′: [DINGIRM]EŠ-eš. Duplicate KBo 53.10(+) i 12′–13′ (CTH 375.1.B). B KBo 53.10(+) i 12′ omits -uš. B KBo 53.10(+) i 12′: iš-pa-an-du-zi-ta. Gerček (2012: 295) restores [k]u-e, but a negation seems to be expected considering the context: a section that primarily deals with negative descriptions of the bad behaviour of the enemies in the third person plural.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

288

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

[How] they did [n]ot continuously give [you …] thick [br]ead (and) libation, only you, know with (your) [divine s]pirit. CTH 375, KBo 53.10(+) ii 12–13 = end section E: 12 nu-uš-ma-aš-kán ḫu-u-ma-an-da-az ma-aḫ-ḫa-an […] 13 nu a-pa-a-at-ta DINGIRMEŠ-eš-pát še-ek-te-ni And how [we …] from everything for you, only you, O Gods, know that too. In the Prayer of Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 384) a ‘you know’ formula also seems to indicate the beginning of a new section of the text. In KUB 21.27+ i 16–18 a descriptive passage begins focusing on past events. Here the introductory ‘you know’ formula is combined with a subordinate clause using māḫḫan ‘how’. CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ i 16–18:934 16 [ḫ]a-an-te-ez-zi-uš-ma-at LUGALMEŠ ma-⸢aḫ⸣-ḫa-an 17 [a]r-ḫa pí-it-ta-la-a-er na-at dUTU URUTÚL-na GAŠAN-IA 18 [š]a-ak-ti → How the former kings neglected it (i.e., the city of Nerik),935 you, O Sungoddess of Arinna, my lady, know it. We may also consider KBo 4.8+ iii 3–4, which concludes a paragraph and a section in the Prayer of Muršili II concerning the misdeeds and the ousting of Tawannanna (CTH 70). If the suggested restorations are correct, we seem to be dealing with a rhetorical question that employs the verb šek-/šak- ‘to know’ in a similar way as the ‘you know’ formula. Therefore, we may consider the clauses in KBo 4.8+ iii 3–4 to mark the end of a section.936 CTH 70, KBo 4.8 + İzmir 1277 iii 3–4: 3 nu DINGIRMEŠ Ú-UL 4 [še-ek-te-e-ni k]u-e-el-⸢la⸣-aš dam-meš-ḫa-aš937 O Gods, don’t [you know] whose is the punishment?

934 935

936 937

Cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 428 (§30.72). The anaphoric pronoun =at in KUB 21.27+ i 16 refers back to KUB 21.27+ i 14–15: tu-el / ⸢a⸣-aš-šiia-an-ta-aš DUMU-aš ŠA dIŠKUR URUne-ri-ik AŠ-RU ‘the place of your beloved son, the Storm-god of Nerik’, i.e., the city of Nerik. For other attestations of the ‘you know’ formula in prayers, see Ch. 9.4.2. The restoration follows Miller 2014: 531.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Reusing Older Prayers: the Textual History of CTH 376.II

289

Another rhetorical question employing the ‘you know’ formula occurs in a prayerrecitation within a ritual for Ištar of Nineveh (CTH 716). It is combined with a subordinate clause using māḫḫan ‘how’. CTH 716, KUB 15.35 + KBo 2.9 i 66–67: 66 zi-ik dIŠTAR URUne-nu-wa GAŠAN-ni Ú-UL ša-ak-ti 67 KUR URUḪAT-TI GIM-an dam-me-eš-ḫa-an → Don’t you, O Ištar of Nineveh, our lady, know how the land of Ḫatti is oppressed?938

9.3 REUSING OLDER PRAYERS: THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF CTH 376.II The different textual elements of CTH 376.II are not only distinguished by their form, content, and function within the prayer, but also by their textual history. Their different origins make the textual history of CTH 376.II as a whole rather complex. Assembling the results from the analyses in Chs. 7 and 8, which focus on each textual element individually, leads to the textual history of CTH 376.II and its related prayers as described below and depicted in Figure 6. In the figure each rectangle stands for a certain composition. The dotted circle refers to a group of related texts. An arrow connecting two texts indicates that (a part of) one text derived from the other. An arrow with a dotted line is used when significant changes were made to the adopted text. The connections need not be direct; there may have been intermediary stages in the transmission. A dotted rectangle is a hypothetical reconstructed text which is not attested, but for which it can be argued that it existed. EPI stands for ‘elaborate prayer introduction’.939 The composer of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) combined material from two separate prayers: the MH Prayer concerning plague and enemies (CTH 376.I), and the hypothetical Text X. The plea of CTH 376.I or a similar prayer was incorporated into CTH 376.II as Plea II and it was used as a model for the plea of now fragmentary CTH 376.III. The date of composition of the latter is unclear. The reconstructed Text X would have been a prayer similar to the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) but addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna or perhaps the male Sun-god. In the introduction of Text X a king was probably mentioned as the single beneficiary of the prayer, see the reconstruction in Ch. 7.1.3. In the plea the beneficiaries were a king, who was not mentioned by name, together with the queen and princes, and the land of Ḫatti. Its date is either Middle Hittite or very early New Hittite. From Text X the composer of CTH 376.II adopted the elaborate prayer introduction, Plea I,

938 939

Cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 428 (§30.72). Other scenarios than the one presented in Figure 6 are theoretically possible, but they are more complex, containing more reconstructed texts of which we have no evidence that they ever existed.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

290

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

Plea III (altering its structure), and the instruction. The Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) is an adaptation of Text X. Only the solar hymn and possibly also Plea I were not taken over. Throughout the text the name of the addressee was altered to Telipinu or DINGIR ‘god’. Text X was also created by combining textual material from multiple prayers. The solar hymn and Plea I derive from the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) or a similar MH prayer,940 which in turn goes back to a Mesopotamian precursor.941 A possible forerunner of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage occurs in the Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška (CTH 375). The invocation and Plea III derive from prayer-recitations in a group of rituals concerning a deity who has disappeared and needs to be lured back. The parallels to CTH 376.II and CTH 377 attested in these rituals suggest that passages from several rituals were adopted and altered freely before they were combined and included in the invocation and Plea III. The loose adaptations from the rituals concerning a disappearing deity and CTH 375, might be due to oral transmission or working from memory rather than from a written text. The composer of Text X added some new material to the introduction proper, the first part of the hymn, and possibly also to Plea III. The elaborate prayer introduction was probably first created for Text X. The composer wrote a new beginning for the hymn, which he placed before the solar hymn. The qualities described there are not specific to a certain god but could apply to any deity. It is introduced by a direct address with epithet. The composer placed the same direct address with epithet at the beginning of the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. Furthermore, he placed the requests for attention from the end of Plea I, which originate from CTH 373 or a similar text, also at the end of the invocation. These alterations connect the separate elements of the elaborate prayer introduction and Plea I, and make it a coherent unity. Plea II of CTH 376.II was adopted from the Middle Hittite prayer CTH 376.I. It contains a passage consisting of the wishes to reveal an offence through divination, which goes back to the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), the same prayer from which the solar hymn and Plea I derive. Whereas the solar hymn and Plea I found their way into CTH 376.II through the hypothetical Text X, the wishes to reveal an offence did so via CTH 376.I. These wishes were taken from a different part of CTH 373 than the solar hymn and Plea I. We thus seem to be dealing with two separate borrowings from CTH 373 (or a similar prayer), one into CTH 376.I and another into Text X, which were later reunited in CTH 376.II. However, in the literature it is often implied that CTH 376.I began with the same solar hymn or even the full elaborate prayer introduction as we find in CTH 376.II.942

940 941 942

The solar hymn and the lines parallel to Plea I of CTH 376.II are not preserved in CTH 373, but they can be restored on the basis of the parallel Prayer to a mortal (CTH 372). Cf. pp. 52, 220f., 249f. Especially editions which do not distinguish CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II from each other give this impression, e.g., Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.1, Lebrun 1980: 155–79, García Trabazo 2002: 289–303.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

291

Reusing Older Prayers: the Textual History of CTH 376.II

Non-Hittite / ‘foreign’

Mesopotamian precursor

Middle Hittite

CTH 373

Rituals concerning a disappearing deity

CTH 375

(or a similar text)

‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage Wishes to reveal offence

Invocation, Plea III, Instruction

Solar hymn, Plea I

Text X

CTH 376.I

(reconstructed)

New Hittite

Plea II

EPI (not the solar hymn), Plea III, Instruction

Plea II EPI, Plea I, Plea III, Instruction

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II

CTH 377

Figure 6. Textual history of CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377.

This would imply that the solar hymn and Plea I were adopted simultaneously with the wishes to reveal an offence from CTH 373 into CTH 376.I, but this is highly unlikely. It is clear that the solar hymn and Plea I were part of Text X. The possible scenarios for when they also would have been part of CTH 376.I are very complex and, therefore, questionable. Further evidence suggesting that CTH 376.I did not start with the solar hymn or the elaborate prayer introduction is provided by the prayer fragment KBo 46.5. This fragment seems to present the beginning of CTH 376.I and/or

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

292

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

CTH 376.III.943 Since it begins with a short and simple introduction of two lines, it shows that neither CTH 376.I nor CTH 376.III contained the solar hymn. KBo 46.5, obverse Introduction 1 [… BE?-EL?-T]I-IA […] 2 […]x A-NA […] Plea

3 [ki-i DINGIRMEŠ(?) ku-i]t i-ia-[at-tén nu ḫi-in-kán tar-na-at-tén] 4 [nu KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI(?) ḫu]-⸢u?⸣-ma-an-pát BA.ÚŠ [na]m-[ma A-NA DINGIRMEŠ NINDAḫar-ši-in DUGiš-pa-an-du-zi-ia(?)] 5 [Ú-UL ku-iš-ki i]-⸢e?⸣-[e]z-z[i] 6 [… k]u-i-e-eš […] 7 […]x[…] (text breaks) [O Sun-goddess of Arinna,] my [lad]y, […] to […]. [O Gods, w]hat [is this you] have do[ne? You have allowed a plague. The en]tire [land of Ḫatti is dying. Subsequently, nobody pre]pare[s the thick bread and the libation for the gods]. [… w]ho […]…[…].

Comments Obv. 3–5: The restorations follow KUB 30.13(+) 1′–2′ (CTH 376.III, see Appendix III) and KUB 24.3+ ii 10– 13 (CTH 376.II, see Appendix IV), so also Groddek 2015: 3. Obv. 6: On the basis of KBo 60.16 obv. 1′–2′ (CTH 376.I E; see Appendix II), KUB 30.13(+) 3′–4′ (CTH 376.III; see Appendix III), and KUB 24.3+ 13–15 (CTH 376.II; see Appendix IV) one may restore: [LÚ.MEŠ?APIN.LÁ? A.ŠÀA.GÀRḪI.A DINGIRLIM k]u-i-e-eš [an-né-eš-kir na-at a-ke-er nu nam-ma A.ŠÀA.GÀRḪI.A DINGIRLIM a-ni-ia-az-zi? wa-ar-aš-zi? na-at-ta ku-iš-ki] ‘[The ploughmen w]ho [always worked the fields of the god have died. Subsequently, nobody works (or) harvests the fields of the god]’, cf. Groddek 2015: 4.

Two more prayers should be mentioned here: the Fragmentary prayer to the Sungoddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 376.4) and the prayer fragment KBo 22.78. The former begins with the elaborate prayer introduction and the latter is parallel to a part of Plea II. It is unclear where these two prayers should be placed in the textual history depicted in Figure 6.944 The complex textual history of CTH 376.II and its related prayers shows that older prayers were reused, either partly or entirely, on multiple occasions. Due to the many 943

944

KBo 46.5, listed in the Konkordanz as CTH 376.3, may belong to a duplicate of CTH 376.I or CTH 376.III, or it might even join mss. B, C, or D of CTH 376.I. It cannot join KUB 30.13(+) (CTH 376.III). KBo 46.5 has previously been edited by Groddek 2015: 3f. and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.3. See Ch. 7.3.3, pp. 248f., 253, and Appendix VI.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Reusing Older Prayers: the Textual History of CTH 376.II

293

close parallels this was probably done by using written texts. Oral transmission or memory may have played a part in the transmission of the invocation, the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, and Plea III. 9.3.1 Similar Methods: the Composition of CTH 374 and CTH 372 The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II), was composed by combining two older prayers, CTH 376.I and the hypothetical Text X, with some adjustments. In this way a new text was created. The prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) and the fragmentary prayer CTH 376.III were created by reusing one specific prayer. CTH 377 was based on the hypothetical Text X and CTH 376.III on the Middle Hittite CTH 376.I. This composition technique of reusing one or more complete prayers to create a new one, does not seem to have been a common practice for prayers. It was used only for the prayers mentioned above and for the Prayer of a king (CTH 374) and the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372). CTH 372 and CTH 374 each derive individually from the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), which in turn is a Hittite adaptation of a Mesopotamian precursor.945 The three prayers, CTH 372–74, are very similar to each other.946 They are intercessory prayers against illness addressed to the male Sun-god. He is asked to transmit a prayer to the deity who has caused the disease or allowed it to happen. The entire wording of the prayer to be transmitted is included in the text. It is addressed to a deity referred to as ‘my god’ (DINGIR-IA). Therefore, he is often considered to be the personal god of the beneficiary. However, the identity of the deity might have been unknown, for there are no other indications in the text that we are dealing with one’s personal god and the address as ‘my god’ is a remnant of the Mesopotamian precursor.947 The beneficiary of CTH 373 is a certain Kantuzili.948 In CTH 372 and CTH 374 the beneficiaries are not mentioned by name, but as ‘mortal’ (DUMU NAM.LÚ.U19.LU) in CTH 372 and ‘king’ (LUGAL) in CTH 374. The Prayer of Kantuzili and the Prayer of a king are both of a Middle Hittite date. The Prayer of a mortal has only come down to us in tablets written in New Script. It cannot be ascertained whether it was created in the New Hittite period or already existed in Middle Hittite times. The main manuscript of the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) is KUB 30.10.949 Wilhelm has argued that this tablet contains not one but two prayers, one written on

945 946 947

948 949

Metcalf 2011, cf. Figure 6 (p. 291). The discussion of CTH 372–74 offered here is largely based on the recent editions of these prayers by Schwemer (2015). In Mesopotamia the personal god and goddess were of great importance to any individual. When one offends the personal god, the deity will no longer provide protection. In prayers one’s personal god is generally addressed as ‘my god’. Compare for instance the dingiršadibba prayers, for which see Lambert 1974 and Jaques 2015. Passages from these prayers resemble passages in CTH 372–74 (Güterbock 1974) and their Sumerian and Akkadian predecessors (cf. pp. 52, 220f., 249f.). On the identity of Kantuzili, see p. 52. Its only duplicate is the small fragment KBo 25.111.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

294

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

the obverse and one on the reverse.950 He bases his argument on the repetitive structure of the text and how the text is distributed over the tablet. The top of the obverse of KUB 30.10 is broken off but it almost certainly contained the same long hymn to the Sun-god as we find at the beginning of CTH 372 and CTH 374.951 The hymn is interrupted twice, first by a statement which introduces the beneficiary of the prayer, and further on by a short plea that is partly parallel to Plea I of CTH 376.II (see Ch. 8.1.1). The first preserved lines, KUB 30.10 obv. 1′–5′, belong to the short intercessory prayer in which the Sun-god is asked to transmit the following prayer to ‘my god’ (KUB 30.10 obv. 6′–29′). The prayer to ‘my god’ fills the remainder of the obverse. At the top of the reverse the Sun-god is once again addressed in a short hymn (KUB 30.10 rev. 1f.), followed by what seems to be another intercessory prayer (KUB 30.10 rev. 2–10), and another prayer to ‘my god’ (KUB 30.10 rev. 11–27).952 KUB 30.10

Textual elements INTRODUCTION

obverse

PLEA INTRODUCTION

reverse

PLEA

[Hymn] Plea – Intercession Prayer to ‘my god’ Hymn (short) Plea – Intercession Prayer to ‘my god’

Beneficiary (Kantuzili) referred to in [–] 3rd person singular 1st person singular – 1st person singular 1st person singular

Table 51. Structure of CTH 373 with distribution of references to the beneficiary.

Wilhelm saw the repetition of a hymn to the Sun-god, followed by an intercessory plea and a prayer to ‘my god’, and its distribution over the obverse and reverse of KUB 30.10, as significant indications that we may be dealing with two prayers. His hypothesis is supported by the distribution of the references to Kantuzili in the third and first person. In the two prayers to ‘my god’ Kantuzili is referred to in the first person singular, as if the words were uttered Kantuzili himself. It becomes interesting when we look at the parts of the text addressed to the Sun-god. On the obverse Kantuzili is referred to in the third person, but on the reverse the first person is used, see Table 51. This suggests that KUB 30.10 indeed consists of two separate prayers, recited by two different persons. The one on the reverse seems to have been recited by Kantuzili, whereas someone else recited the one written on the obverse. Perhaps

950 951 952

Wilhelm 2010, cf. Schwemer 2015: 352. The hymn is best preserved in KUB 31.127+ i 1–ii 5 (CTH 372). Parts are edited in Ch. 7.4.1 and Ch. 8.1.1. The end of the prayer to ‘my god’ may be restored on the basis of KUB 31.127+ iii 40–iv 28 (CTH 372) and the parallel in CTH 374, for which see the editions of Schwemer (2015: 361–374).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Reusing Older Prayers: the Textual History of CTH 376.II

295

the two prayers were written on one tablet because of their close similarities, or because they were performed on the same occasion.953 The same repetitive structure occurs in the Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372). The text is almost identical to the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), from which it clearly derived. Even the references to the beneficiary in the first and third person show the same distribution as in CTH 373, see Table 52. The most significant alteration in the text is the replacement of the name of Kantuzili by the anonymous ‘mortal’ (DUMU NAM.LÚ.U19.LU). KUB 31.127+ is the only well-preserved manuscript of the Prayer of a mortal.954 The scribe who wrote this tablet did not realise that the text consisted of two separate prayers, for he did not separate them in any way.955 The ‘first’ prayer ends in the same line as the ‘second’ prayer begins, KUB 31.127+ ii 60. Textual elements

INTRODUCTION

PLEA INTRODUCTION PLEA

Hymn Interlude: Statement Hymn (continuation) Interlude: Plea I Hymn (continuation) Plea – Intercession Prayer to ‘my god’ Hymn (short) Plea – Intercession Prayer to ‘my god’

Beneficiary (mortal) referred to in: – 3rd person singular – 3rd person singular – 3rd person singular 1st person singular – 1st person singular 1st person singular

Table 52. Structure of CTH 372 with distribution of references to the beneficiary.

The Prayer of a king (CTH 374) also derived from the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373), but it has a different relationship to this text than CTH 372. Unlike CTH 372 and CTH 373, it does not have a repetitive structure. It begins with the same long hymn to the Sun-god that we find at the beginning of CTH 372. This is followed by a short plea for intercession and a prayer to ‘my god’. The plea for intercession resembles that of the first prayer of CTH 372 and CTH 373, but the prayer to ‘my god’ is parallel to that of the second prayer of CTH 372 and CTH 373, see Table 53. Throughout the entire text the beneficiary is referred to in the first person singular.

953

954 955

Cf. Wilhelm (2010: 37) who considers KUB 30.10 either to constitute a Sammeltafel, or to contain two prayers that were to be performed successively, possibly on separate days. This is contra Daues and Rieken 2018: 119. The duplicate fragments are listed in Appendix I, No. 7. Wilhelm 2010: 38.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

296

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

PLEA

INTR.

PLEA

INTRODUCTION

Prayer of a Mortal CTH 372 Hymn Interlude: Statement Hymn (continuation) Interlude: Plea I Hymn (continuation)

Prayer of Kantuzili CTH 373

[Broken]

Prayer of a King CTH 374 [Broken] Interlude: Statement Hymn (continuation) Interlude: Plea I Hymn (continuation)

Plea – Intercession

Plea – Intercession

Plea – Intercession

Prayer to ‘my god’

Prayer to ‘my god’

-

Hymn (short)

Hymn (short)

-

Plea – Intercession

Plea – Intercession

-

Prayer to ‘my god’

Prayer to ‘my god’

Prayer to ‘my god’

Table 53. Comparison of the structures of CTH 372, CTH 373, and CTH 374.

The prayer of a king was created by combining the long solar hymn and the intercessory plea of the first prayer in CTH 373 with the prayer to ‘my god’ from the second prayer in this text. Other alterations to the text include the replacement of the name of the beneficiary by LUGAL ‘king’ and the reformulation of the first part of the prayer so it is written as if the beneficiary is the one speaking these words. The relationships between the Prayer of a mortal, the Prayer of Kantuzili, and the Prayer of a king are depicted in Figure 7. Combining textual material from two separate prayers to create a new one was not invented for the composition of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II). Already in the Middle Hittite period the technique had been employed to compose the Prayer of a king (CTH 374). The Prayer of a mortal (CTH 372) was created by recycling an existing prayer, while slightly adjusting the text, as were CTH 376.III and CTH 377. In a similar way the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 374) may have been composed on the basis of a Mesopotamian prayer.956

956

KBo 22.78, (see Appendix VI) belonged to a prayer that was also largely based on older prayers.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Reusing Older Prayers: the Textual History of CTH 376.II

297

CTH 373 (MH)

Hymn and Plea for Intercession to the Sun-god from ‘first’ prayer

Prayer to ‘my god’ from ‘second’ prayer

CTH 374 (MH)

CTH 372 (NH?)

Figure 7. Relationships between CTH 372, CTH 373, and CTH 374.

9.3.2 e End of Reusing Entire Prayers and the Rise of the Confession The personal prayers that were created by reusing older prayers in their entirety or large parts thereof were, with two possible exceptions, all composed during the reign of Muršili II or earlier.957 From later times we do not have any personal prayers that were composed with these techniques.958 This is probably due to the fact that during the reign of Muršili II prayers start containing confessions. Confessions even seem to be an obligatory element in prayers since this time (see Ch. 3.6). There are only two exceptions: the Prayer to Lelwani for Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 380), and the Prayer of Puduḫepa (CTH 384). No confessions are preserved in these texts and it is probable that they did not contain any. The lack of confessions in CTH 380 may be because of its close relationship to prayers within a ritual (see p. 42). CTH 384 may have been written as a precautionary measure in response to a threat of slander.959 If so, there was no reason to include a confession in the prayer. Confessions include elaborate descriptions of the admitted offence, which make up a large part of the text. The plea seems to be constructed around the confessions and the descriptions of transgressions committed by previous rulers. Moreover, one 957 958 959

CTH 374 is a MH prayer. CTH 376.II and CTH 377 were composed during the reign of Muršili II. CTH 376.III and CTH 372 are preserved in NS tablets but their date of composition is uncertain. The similarities between the largely parallel prayers for intercession in CTH 384 are probably not based on reuse but on using a fixed structure for the separate prayers, cf. p. 286. Van de Peut 2019: 785–88.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

298

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

needed to confess the transgression that was determined through divination as the cause of the problem at hand.960 This means that they could not be reused in other prayers concerning different problems. The rise of the confession thus meant the end of recycling older prayers to create new ones.

9.4 THE ‘AFTERLIFE’ OF CTH 376.II The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) seems to have been consulted by the composers of later prayers, but the text was never reused in its entirety. Occasionally passages or single clauses were adopted into new contexts. Several parallels between CTH 376.II and other prayers of Muršili II, as well as later prayers dating to the reigns of Muwatalli II and Ḫattušili III, have been treated in Chs. 7 and 8. The large majority occur in the plague prayers of Muršili II (CTH 378.1– 4). Since these texts concern the same plague as CTH 376.II, it is not surprising that the section concerning plague was used as a source of inspiration. The parallels suggest that the plague prayers were created later than CTH 376.II, though the time between their composition need not have been long. Not only the similar topic may explain the large number of parallels between the plague prayers and CTH 376.II, but also the possibility that the same group of scribes composed these prayers. It is therefore possible that, next to CTH 376.II, they also consulted CTH 376.I. Of particular interest are those instances when the position of adopted clauses or passages, and hence, their rhetorical function, is maintained in the new text. Here we note the rhetorical question at the beginning of the plea in CTH 378.2 and CTH 378.3,961 the wishes to give good at the end of CTH 378.3,962 and the introduction proper at the beginning of CTH 378.2.963 9.4.1 Reuse of Textual Material from CTH 376.II in Later Prayers The two prayers of Muwatalli II that have come down to us both contain parallels to CTH 376.II. The Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) contains a short solar hymn, directed to the Sun-god of Heaven, that is based on clauses from the hymn of CTH 376.II.964 A request asking the Sun-god of Heaven to summon the gods from six localities resembles a wish in the invocation.965 In addition, the text refers to an ‘only

960

961 962 963 964 965

To uncover the nature of the offences that needed to be confessed texts, people, and the gods could be consulted as is clear from passages in the prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382) KBo 11.1 obv. 18–28. Compare also the two old tablets on which Muršili II discovered past transgressions mentioned in his “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.2). KUB 14.10+ i 5–7 (CTH 378.2) and KUB 14.12 obv. 1–2 (CTH 378.3), see p. 247. KUB 14.12 rev. 14′, see p. 258. KUB 14.10+ i 1–5, see Ch. 7.1. KUB 6.45+ iii 13–17, see p. 222. KUB 6.45+ iii 23–24, see Ch. 7.2.4.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

The ‘Afterlife’ of CTH 376.II

299

in Ḫatti’ passage, though it does not contain one.966 In the Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382) we find parallels to the request to punish only the guilty one967 and to look upon the king with favourable eyes in Plea II Section 3c.968 It also contains wishes resembling requests to give good in Plea III.969 A similar request occurs in the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384).970 Finally, a parallel to the request for support in Plea III occurs in the Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (CTH 380),971 which might date to the reign of Ḫattušili III (see p. 55). These parallels suggest that though personal prayers were no longer reused in their entirety during the reigns of Muwatalli II and Ḫattušili III, older prayers were still consulted when a new one was composed. 9.4.2 Reusing Textual Material from Other Prayers Not only the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and its closely related prayers were consulted when a new prayer had to be created. Below examples of clauses adopted from other prayers into the prayers of Muwatalli II, Ḫattušili III, and Puduḫepa are treated. The “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2) was consulted by the composers of the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381). In particular the paragraph that contains the proverb ‘the bird retreats into the cage, and the cage keeps him alive’ was used as a source of inspiration. One of the explanations of the proverb in CTH 378.2 seems to have been used as a model for the description of the function of CTH 381.972 Furthermore, the proverb itself together with the related request to keep the supplicant alive was adopted.973 The structure of the entire paragraph may also have been taken over. The structure of KUB 6.45+ iii 32–44 (CTH 381) resembles that of KUB 14.8 rev. 20′–36′ (CTH 378.2), but the same structure is used in other prayer passages citing a proverb or containing a proverbial allusion. This includes two passages in the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384). Either the structures of these passages in CTH 381 and CTH 384 derive from CTH 378.2, or this was simply the way one incorporated a proverb into a prayer (see Ch. 5). From the Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška (CTH 375) the ‘you know’ formula (see Ch. 9.2) found its way into the Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god (CTH 382), the Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa (CTH 383), and the Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384). Unlike in CTH 375, the formula does not introduce or conclude a section of the plea in these

966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973

KUB 6.45+ i 21–24, see Ch. 7.3.5. KBo 11.1 obv. 37–38, see p. 253. The request occurs seven times in CTH 382: KBo 11.1 obv. 11, 15, 17, 28, 30, 39, rev. 18, see p. 253. Such requests occur five times in CTH 382: KBo 11.1 obv. 15, 17, 28, 31, and 44, see p. 262. KUB 21.27+ iii 34′–35′, see p. 262. KBo 4.6 obv. 16′, see p. 262. KUB 6.45+ i 2–4 (CTH 381) resembles KUB 14.8 rev. 23′–25′ (CTH 378.2), see p. 110. KUB 14.8 rev. 21′, 22′ (CTH 378.2) has been adopted in KUB 6.45+ iii 40, 42 (CTH 381), see Ch. 5.2.2.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

300

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

prayers, with one exception in CTH 384.974 Nonetheless, in CTH 383 and KUB 21.27+ i 42′–43′ (CTH 384) the formula does seem to have a specific position within the section in which it occurs. The attested ‘you know’ formulas in CTH 382, CTH 383, and CTH 384 are presented and discussed below. CTH 382, KBo 11.1 obv. 22f.: 22 nu-kán Š[A DINGIR]MEŠ [ku-it š]a-ak-la-a-ia-aš pa-ra-[a Ú-UL] ar-nu-an ḫar-mi 23 d10-[a]t EN-IA ša-ak-ti → [Whatever] I have [not] caused to meet the requirements of [the gods], you, O Storm-god, my lord, know it.975 A remarkable feature of two of the ‘you know’ formulas in CTH 375 is the instrumental DINGIRMEŠ-aš ištanzanit ‘with (your) divine spirit’. Its absence in KBo 11.1 obv. 22f. (CTH 382) is remarkable. Particularly when one compares them with the ‘you know’ formulas attested in CTH 383 which do contain ištanza(n)- ‘soul, spirit, mind, wish’, albeit in the dative-locative case. The use of ištanza(n)- in CTH 383 suggests that the composers of this text adopted the clause from the MH Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal, rather than from Muwatalli II’s prayer. CTH 383, KUB 21.19+ i 20–26: 20 ma-a-an-ma-ká[n Š]À ⸢É⸣.[LU]G[AL] 21 DI-NU ŠA fta-wa-an-na-an-na GÉM[E]-KU-NU ki-⸢ša⸣-[at] 22 A-BU-IA GIM-an fta-wa-an-na-an-[na]-an MUNUS.LUGAL te-ep-nu-ut 23 a-pa-a-aš-ma GÉME DINGIRLIM ku-it e-eš-[t]a 24 [na-at tu-el A-NA Z]I976 DINGIRLIM GAŠAN-IA ⸢an⸣-d[a k]u-iš ša-ak-ta 25 [ŠA MUNUS.LUGAL te-ep-n]u-ma[r ma-a-an Z]I-an-za ⸢e⸣-eš-ta 26 [ma-a-an-ši-ia-aš Ú-UL ZI-an-z]a e-eš-ta977 When the case against Tawannanna, your servant, took place in the palace, how my father curtailed (the power of) Tawannanna, the queen, though she was the servant of the deity, you, O Goddess, my lady, were the one [w]ho knew it [in your mi]nd, [whether the curt]ai[ling (power) of the queen] was (your) [w]ish [or whether] it was not [your wish]. CTH 383, KUB 21.19+ i 4′–6′: 4′ [ma]-⸢a⸣-an ZI-an-za [e-eš-ta ma-a-an-ši-ia-aš Ú-UL]978 5′ [Z]I-an-za e-eš-t[a na-at tu-el A-NA ZI DINGIRLIM GAŠAN-IA]979 6′ ku-iš an-da ša-ak-t[a …]

974 975 976 977 978 979

KUB 21.27+ i 16–18, for which see p. 288. Cf. CHD Š 44f. The restoration follows Sürenhagen 1981: 88, cf. KUB 21.19+ ii 2. Restored in accordance with KUB 21.19+ ii 1, cf. KUB 21.19+ i 4′, ii 28. Restored in accordance with KUB 21.19+ ii 1, cf. KUB 21.19+ i 24. Restoration follows Sürenhagen 1981: 90, cf. KUB 21.19+ i 24, ii 28.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

The ‘Afterlife’ of CTH 376.II

301

[Whe]ther [it was] (your) wish [or whether] it was [not] (your) [w]ish, you, [O Goddess, my lady,] are the one who knew [it in your mind]. In CTH 383 we also find a negated variant of the ‘you know’ formula which states that ‘nobody knew’ what the addressed deity, the Sun-goddess of Arinna, wanted (KUB 21.19+ i 21′–ii 3). The entire passage in which it occurs is presented below to show its similarities to KUB 21.19+ i 20–26. CTH 383, KUB 21.19+ i 16′–ii 3: i 16′ i 17′ i 18′ i 19′ i 20′ i 21′ ii 1 ii 2 ii 3

ma-a-an-ma-kán ú-it ŠÀ ⸢É⸣.LUGAL DI-NU ŠA fda-n[u-ḫé-pa] ŠA MUNUS⸢AMA⸣.DINGIRLIM-KA ki-ša-at fda-nu-ḫé-pa-an G[IM?-an te-ep-nu-ut]980 QA-DU DUMUMEŠ-ŠÚ UNMEŠ-tar-ra ḫu-u-ma-an BE-LUMEŠ-[ia] EGIR-ez-zi-uš-ša UNMEŠ-tar ku-wa-pí ḫar-ak-ta ŠA fda-nu-ḫé-pa-ma ḫar-ga-aš A-NA dUTU URUTÚL-n[a GAŠAN-IA] ⸢ma-a-an⸣ ZI-an-z[a]e-eš-ta ma-a-an-ši-ia-aš Ú-UL ZI-an-za e-eš-ta nu-kán a-pád-da-ia A-NA ZI DINGIRLIM GAŠAN-IA an-da Ú-UL ku-iš-ki ša-ak-ta → When (it came to pass that) the case against Dan[uḫepa,] your priestess, took place in the palace, [how he curtailed (the power of)] Danuḫepa, until [she] was ruined together with her sons and all her men, lords and subordinates. Whether it was (your) wish or whether it was not your wish, that (which was) in the mind of the goddess, my lady, nobody knew.

In CTH 384 we find the ‘you know’ formula at the beginning of an historical description, KUB 21.27+ i 16–18 (see p. 288). The formula recurs further on in KUB 21.27+ i 42′–43′. Here it is part of a passage that as a whole resembles KUB 21.19+ i 20–26 and i 20′–ii 3 (CTH 383) presented above. The parallel formulations and structure of these three passages are striking and it is likely that they were adopted either from CTH 383 into CTH 384 or vice versa. It is unclear which of the two prayers was composed first. Since the dates of their composition may not have been far apart, it is possible that they were composed by the same people. CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ i 38′–43′: 38′ 39′ 40′ 41′ 42′ 43′

980

ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma-za mmu-u-wa-ta-al-li-i[š a-pé-e]-⸢el⸣ [ŠEŠ-ŠU] DINGIRLIM-iš ki-ša-at múr-ḫi-dIŠKUR-up-an [DUMU-a]n Š[EŠ-ŠU] [d]a-at-ta na-an LUGAL-u-iz-na-an-ni ti-i[t-ta-nu-ut] [n]u-kán mḫa-at-tu-ši-li-in ARAD-KA ⸢A⸣-NA URUne-ri-ik-ka4 ma-aḫ-ḫa-an an-d[a …] na-at dUTU URUTÚL-na GAŠAN-IA ša-ak-ti […?]

Sürenhagen (1981: 90) also restores nu at the end of the line.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

302

The Composition and Textual History of the Prayer for Muršili II in Context

When Muwatalli, [his brother,] became a god (i.e., died), he took UrḫiTeššup [the son of his brother] and [he] ins[talled] him to kingship. How Ḫattušili, your servant, […] to Nerik, you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, know it. Comments i 38′: The restoration follows Sürenhagen 1981: 110, Archi 1971: 191, and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 384.1. Lebrun (1980: 331), followed by García Trabazo (2002: 360), restores: [tu]-el [ARAD-KA]. i 39′: The restoration follows Sürenhagen 1981: 110 and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 384.1. Lebrun (1980: 331) restores [DUMU ŠE]Š-I[A]; García Trabazo (2002: 360) follows Güterbock (1988: 116) in restoring [DUMU-Š]Ú š[a-ra-a]; Archi (1971: 191) reads [DUM]U Š[EŠ-ŠU]. i 40′: On the preference of a third person over a second person singular for da-at-ta-a, see Singer 2002a: 110, fn. 18. i 41′: At the end of the line Lebrun (1980: 331) restores ú-i-ya-at?. i 42′: It is uncertain which verb needs to be restored at the end of the line. Previous editors of the text do not seem to agree. Sürenhagen (1981: 110–11) suggests to restore u-i-ja-at? from uiya- ‘to send’; García Trabazo (2002: 360) follows Güterbock (1988: 116) and restores pár-aḫ-ta? from parḫ- ‘to pursue’; Archi (1971: 192) restores [ši-ja-it?] from šai- ‘to impress’; Lebrun (1980: 331) believes that the missing verb should be a 3sg.prt meaning ‘to confine’ (‘enfermer’). Compare also the translation of Singer (2002a: 102): ‘How he [oppressed(?)/limited(?)] Hattusili, your servant, in/to Nerik’.

In Puduḫepa’s prayer we also find a parallel to the Prayer of Muršili II concerning the misdeeds and ousting of Tawannanna (CTH 70), Bo 7785 9′–11′. The figurative expression in CTH 70 is given in direct speech as the words of a priest who addresses the gods. In KUB 21.27+ i 8 (CTH 384) it describes Puduḫepa’s relationship to the Sun-goddess of Arinna to whom she directs her words. CTH 384, KUB 21.27+ i 8:981 8 ŠA É.GU4-du-za AMAR-uš ša-ma-na-aš-ma-ad-du-za ⸢NA4⸣-aš I am a calf of your stable, I am a stone of your foundation(s). CTH 70, Bo 7785 9′–11′ (non vidi):982 9′ [… ŠA É.GU4-wa-aš-ma-aš-za?] 10′ AMAR-uš ša-am-ma-na-aš-ma-wa-š[a?-ma-aš-za?] 11′ [N]A4?-iš → [‘I am] a calf [of your stable, I am a st]one of [your] foundation(s).’ Finally, we may refer once again to KUB 21.27+ iv 35′–44′ (CTH 384), for which see pp. 124f. This passage in Puduḫepa’s address to the Storm-god of Zippalanda seems to have been adopted from a prayer addressed to a different deity, but it does not seem

981 982

See CHD Š 116. I was unable to see the fragment Bo 7785. The transliteration offered here follows Miller 2014: 539. The restorations are based on KUB 21.27+ i 8 (CTH 384) and Miller 2014: 539 incl. fn. 97.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

The ‘Afterlife’ of CTH 376.II

303

to derive from an older prayer. Possibly it was loosely based on the first part of CTH 384 addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (see p. 169). 9.4.3 Findings The parallels to earlier prayers in the prayers of Muwatalli II, Ḫattušili III, and Puduḫepa suggest that their composers either consulted older prayers in the tablet collections or were able to recall clauses from memory. Since the adopted clauses are often not identical to the earlier versions, they appear to be rather free adaptations. The brevity and scarcity of these parallels may be due to the prominent position of confessions and descriptions of past transgressions. In particular the descriptions of offences occupy large parts in the prayers. For these one could usually not reuse material from older prayers, because on each occasion different offences needed to be admitted (Ch. 9.3.2). The Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) does not contain any confessions and its composers were therefore able to reuse more material from previous prayers. It was relatively easy to reuse material from a prayer that dealt with the same subject matter. This explains the many parallels between CTH 376.II and the plague prayers. They all concern the same epidemic that decimated the Hittite population. Prayers that were composed around the same time, such as the prayers of Muršili II concerning plague (CTH 376.II and CTH 378.1–4) or the prayers from the reign of Ḫattušili III (CTH 383 and CTH 384), may even have been created by the same (group of) people. This could explain the parallels between these prayers. The composers knew their other compositions, possibly even by heart, so they could easily use similar wording in a new text.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

10. CONCLUSIONS The Hittite independent or personal prayers are rhetorical speeches that communicate petitions to deities. They were usually created and performed in response to a problem that affected the king, his family, and/or the entire Hittite empire. The texts were tailored to one specific event, thus making it difficult to reuse them at a later moment. This is one of the features that distinguishes the personal prayers from those prayers that are part of a ritual, for rituals were not bound to a single occasion and could be performed whenever it was deemed necessary. Personal prayers are not liturgical prayers to be performed on a regular basis as a standard part of the daily or regular cult. The prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377) is an exception and has a unique position within the corpus. It is the only prayer of a scribe for the well-being of the king and his family that was to be performed daily. As such it is not a reaction to a problem and one could consider it a liturgical prayer, though it remains unclear if and how it fits in with the regular cult. Scribes, and possibly also other subordinates of the king, apparently had an obligation to pray to the gods daily for the wellbeing of the royal family. The personal prayers were part of a larger system to counteract problematic situations that also included oracular inquiries and the performance of various rituals. The gods were contacted through oracular inquiry to find out which deity had caused the troubles, which transgression had offended that deity, and what needed to be done to appease the deity and resolve the problem. Prayers were commissioned either as a precaution additional to the performance of the rituals determined by divination or when the oracular inquiries were inconclusive. Not much is known about the performance of these personal prayers. They were recited either by the supplicant himself, in most cases the Hittite king, or by a third party on behalf of the supplicant. There are indications that a group of people was present during the performance of a prayer. These people participated occasionally by pronouncing a specific phrase. Their identities and professions are unknown, but it is probable that they belonged to the higher echelons of the Hittite temple and state institutions. Priests were probably present to bring offerings to the gods and possibly also to perform other verbal and non-verbal aspects of the performance. Many prayers are written as if the words are spoken by the Hittite king himself. Presenting in front of an audience, he needed to present himself as the strong king of Ḫatti. This could explain why the offences confessed in these texts were usually not committed by the king himself, but by his predecesors. Through prayer the king could address the gods directly to ask them to resolve a current problem. Ensuring that these central requests would be granted was the primary goal. The personal prayers would not necessarily have the desired outcome provided they were executed properly. The gods had to be persuaded by the words of

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

306

Conclusions

the prayer. Therefore, the king needed to argue his case to the best of his ability. To ensure the prayers had a powerful rhetoric, they were carefully composed. The present study demonstrates that in addition to the use of stylistic devices and explicit and implicit arguments, also the separate textual elements and their internal organisation are rhetorically significant. Most personal prayers have their own individual style and structure. They are not simply a combination of standard formulas, nor do they follow a prescribed structure. Rather, each personal prayer is an individual and relatively free composition tailored to a specific event. The personal prayers are rather long and complex compositions. Though there seem to have been no explicit rules for their composition, there are some principles on which they were structured. These principles are best explained in light of the rhetorical function of the texts. On the macro-level the prayers do have a fixed structure consisting of two textual elements: an introduction followed by a plea. The plea contains the central requests, the descriptions of the problem needing to be resolved, and the arguments why the requests should be granted. It is therefore the most important part of the prayer. It is also the longest part of the text. Most prayers begin with a short and simple introduction that introduces the participants of the prayer: addressee, beneficiary, and reciter. Some prayers contain, next to this introduction proper, a hymn praising the qualities of the addressed deity. Three prayers from the reign of Muršili II begin with the elaborate prayer introduction which consists of an introduction proper, an invocation, an ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, and a hymn. These additional introductory elements prepare the addressee for the plea by ensuring the deity is present (invocation) and in a good mood (‘only in Ḫatti’ passage and hymn). In addition, in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage the deity is reminded of his or her dependency on the care provided for the gods by the Hittites. Further structuring principles can be observed on the meso-level of analysis, i.e., that of the section. On the basis of formal criteria and content the plea, as well as the invocation and the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage, can be subdivided into multiple sections and subsections. These subdivisions concur to a large extent with the composer’s division of the text into paragraphs. In any case they never contradict each other. A chronological development is visible in the use of horizontal rulings. The Middle Hittite prayers were usually divided into numerous small paragraphs consisting of approximately 2–5 lines. Perhaps this was done because it was easier to read aloud from the tablet when the text was divided into shorter passages. In later prayers the paragraphs are longer and seem to have been determined by the content of the text rather than by a maximum length. The beginning of a section or subsection is usually explicitly marked in the text. Temporal adverbs, direct addresses, rhetorical questions, performative statements (e.g., ‘herewith I perform a prayer …’), and specific clauses are used as textual indicators marking the beginning of a section. Such indicators made the structure of the text clear to its audience, both human and divine, and to the person who had to recite it. Perhaps they even indicated to the reciter when he needed to raise his voice or insert a pause in his speech. These textual markers moreover attract the attention of the audience. In particular calling the addressed deity by name is a good way to keep the

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Conclusions

307

addressee alert. The Hittite personal prayers thus have a clear structure with marked subsections. Several structural mechanisms or strategies are used in the prayers, both on the meso-level of the section and on the micro-level of the clause or text unit. These strategies have a rhetorical function because they give emphasis to specific sections or clauses of the text. They are usually employed in the plea of the prayer, though contrast is also used in the ‘only in Ḫatti’ passage. The three principal strategies – repetition, contrast, and historical contrast – are described below. Of these structuring strategies, repetition is the one that is most commonly attested in the corpus, followed closely by contrast. Repetition

repetition either in formulation, structure, or content. It can be applied on the meso-level of the section, by repeating entire sections, as well as on the micro-level of the text unit, in which certain clauses are repeated. The similarities between the repeated sections or clauses need to be clear, but the formulations do not need to be identical.

Contrast

contrasting positive elements with negative ones and vice versa. It can be applied on a meso-level in which positive and negative sections alternate, as well as on a micro-level within a single clause.

Historical contrast

contrasting past situations with the present and/or future situations. It can be applied on a meso-scale in which related sections concerning past and present events follow each other, as well as on a micro-scale within a section.

Other structuring principles visible on the micro-level of analysis include the positioning of specific text units and the occasional use of a fixed predetermined structure within a section. Requests for attention and support are generally placed close to the beginning of the plea or a section thereof, whereas a promise usually occurs at the end. In light of the rhetorical function of the prayer these structuring principles are logical. It is sensible to ensure that the gods are listening and favourably inclined towards the supplicant or beneficiary before the central requests are presented. The addressee will only receive the promised offerings, ritual acts, etc. after the central requests have been granted, which is why they are mentioned after the requests. Such promises function as additional arguments to persuade the addressee to grant the presented requests. Occasionally a section was formed according to a fixed or semi-fixed structure. Clear examples are the sections in which a proverb is cited. Those sections featuring the proverb as an explicit argument all begin with (1) a statement, followed by (2) requests, (3) the proverbial section, and (4) further requests and wishes; in one instance (5) a promise concludes the section. When the proverb supports a confession, the structure differs slightly. Another example of a semi-fixed structure can be found in Plea II of CTH 376.II and the parallel plea of CTH 376.I, where each section follows

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

308

Conclusions

the same structure: (a) description, (b) transition, and (c) requests and wishes. Compare also the similar structures of the separate sections of CTH 382 and CTH 383 and the intercessory prayers of CTH 384. The king probably instructed a scholar or a group of scholars to compose a new personal prayer. The composer may have been given directions concerning the divine addressees of the prayer and some of the topics that were to be addressed. Before starting to write, the composer would consult older prayers, and possibly also texts of other genres, kept in the tablet collections. Until the reign of Muršili II prayers could be created by recycling one or two older prayers in their entirety or large parts thereof. During the reign of Muršili II confessions became an integral part of the prayer and as a consequence the practice of reusing entire prayers was abandoned. Older prayers were nonetheless still consulted. One or more drafts may have been written before the composition was finalised. The aim of the composer was to create a powerful rhetorical speech that would persuade the addressed deities to help the beneficiary of the prayer. Since the Hittite personal prayers are neither liturgical nor very formulaic, these texts do not seem to belong to an oral tradition. They have the appearance more of a rhetorical speech than of a prayer. The clear structure with marked subsections, the lack of rhyme or metre, and the consultation of older prayers for the composition of new ones suggest that the Hittite personal prayers were composed as written texts. Orality does not seem to have played a part. This is particularly evident for those prayers that were created by recycling older prayers in their entirety. Already the earliest Hittite personal prayers – the Prayer of Kantuzili (CTH 373) and the Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal (CTH 375) – seem to have been created as written compositions without having any clear oral background. For the Prayer of Kantuzili this is particularly evident since it was based on a foreign, presumably Akkadian, prayer which the composer had combined with some new textual material of his own. The text already shows the clear structure with marked subsections that we find in later prayers. The Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška also has a clear structure with marked subsections. In addition, it employs repetition, contrast (positive-negative), and historical contrast (past-present) as structural rhetorical strategies. The Hittite personal prayers form a textual genre that did not originate from an oral tradition. The compositions were created by learned scholars who had studied various texts. They employed arguments, stylistic devices, and various structural strategies to enhance the rhetoric of these texts. This resulted in beautiful examples of practical rhetorical speech, circa one millennium before rhetoric was taught in the academies of ancient Greece.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

APPENDICES

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

I. CATALOGUE OF HITTITE PRAYERS This catalogue lists 24 Hittite prayers, numbered 1–24. For each prayer the separate text witnesses are listed with their dates and find spots, and editions of the text are given. Recent translations of all the listed texts can be found in Singer 2002a.983 The prayers within rituals (Nos. 1–4) precede the independent or personal prayers (Nos. 5–24). Within these two categories the texts are listed more or less in chronological order. However, closely related prayers have been grouped together. For example, the prayers of Kantuzili (CTH 373), a king (CTH 374), and a mortal (CTH 372) are listed as Nos. 5, 6, and 7, respectively, even though the following prayer, the MH Prayer of Arnuwada I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška (CTH 375, No. 8) predates the NH Prayer of a mortal (No. 7). At the end of the catalogue there is a list of all 24 prayers according to their catalogue number (I.3) and one arranged by CTH number (I.4). The catalogue of Hittite prayers presented here is not exhaustive. Most fragmentary prayers and other prayer fragments are not included. For the prayers within a ritual only the so-called early invocations (CTH 371, CTH 385.10, and CTH 389.2) and the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381) are listed, though one can consider other prayer-recitations from rituals, such as those presented in Ch. 7.2.3 and Ch. 8.3.3, as belonging to this category as well.

I.1 PRAYERS WITHIN A RITUAL (NOS. 1–4) No. 1 CTH 371 Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle against slander Text witness Date Find spot KBo 7.28 + KBo 8.92 MS Büyükkale A Editions: pp. 62–70; Friedrich 1957 (only KBo 7.28); Lebrun 1980: 83–91; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 371.1; Mouton 2016: 529–37.

No. 2 CTH 385.10 Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-god(dess) for the royal couple Text witnesses Date A KUB 57.63 NS B KBo 58.9 + KBo 60.266 NS

983

Find spot – Temple I

Some translations could be updated due to new joins. Note that the numbering of the prayers by Singer (2002a) differs from that of this catalogue.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

312

Catalogue of Hittite Prayers

C D E

KUB 57.60 IBoT 3.113 KBo 54.243

NS NS NS

– – Temple I

Editions: Lebrun 1980: 355 (IBoT 3.113); Archi 1988: 5–31; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 385.10; Mouton 2016: 538–49 (A, B).

No. 3 CTH 385.10 Prayer within a ritual to the Sun-god and the Storm-god against slander Text witnesses Date Find spot A KUB 36.91 + KUB 43.68 + KUB 43.71 NS – B KUB 60.156 NS – C KBo 59.5 NS Temple I D KBo 55.27 NS Temple I E VBoT 40 NS – Editions: Otten and Rüster 1975: 243–44 (KUB 36.91 (+) KUB 43.68); Lebrun 1980: 392–96 (A without KUB 43.71); Steitler 2015a: 203–13; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 389.2.

No. 4 CTH 381 Model prayer of Muwatalli II (within a ritual) Text witnesses A KUB 6.45 + KUB 30.14 + KBo 57.18 + Fragment B KUB 6.46 C KUB 12.35 D KBo 53.12 E KBo 54.281 F KBo 51.21

Date NS NS NS NS NS NS

Find spot Temple I – – Temple I Temple I Temple I

Editions: Böhl 1916: 306–26; Witzel 1924: 86–98 (KUB 6.45 (A) and B); Lebrun 1980: 256–93 (A without Fragment, B, and C); Singer 1996: 7–72 (A–D); García Trabazo 2002: 331–51 (A–C); Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 381; Mouton 2016: 608–65 (A–E).

I.2 INDEPENDENT OR PERSONAL PRAYERS (NOS. 5–24) No. 5 CTH 373 Prayer of Kantuzili Text witnesses A KUB 30.10 B KBo 25.111

Date MS MS984

Find spot Büyükkale A Büyükkale D

Editions: Grobe 1953: 10–39 (A); Lebrun 1980: 111–20 (A); Görke 2000: 39–54; García Trabazo 2002: 273– 87 (A); Schwemer 2015: 351–61; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 373; Mouton 2016: 551–61.

984

In the Konkordanz the fragment is dated as ‘ah.?’ and also Schwemer (2015: 351f.) considers that it ‘could represent an Old Script manuscript’ of an older text that was used as a model for KUB 30.10.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

313

Independent or Personal Prayers (Nos. 5–24)

No. 6 CTH 374 Prayer of a king Text witnesses A KUB 30.11 + KUB 31.135 + KBo 34.22 (+) KUB 31.130 (+) KBo 38.203 B KUB 31.134 (+) KUB 31.129 C KUB 36.75 + Bo 4696 +Bo 9628 + Bo 9659 + KBo 52.13 (+) KBo 51.15 D KBo 53.8 (+) KBo 22.75 E KBo 54.301

Date MS

Find spot Büyükkale A

MS MS

Büyükkale A Temple I

NS –

Temple I Temple I

Editions: Grobe 1953: 40–51 (KUB 30.11 + KUB 31.135), 52–137 (KUB 31.130 [text C3], KUB 31.134 [text C5]), 138–53 (KUB 36.75); Güterbock 1958: 239–41 (ll. 1′–50′); Marazzi and Nowicki 1978 (excerpts); Güterbock 1980: 42–49 (ll. 1′–42′); Lebrun 1980: 121–31; Görke 2000: 58–74, 186–94; Schwemer 2015: 361– 74 (A–D without Bo 9628 and KBo 38.203); Steitler 2015b (KBo 38.203 (+) KUB 31.135); Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 374 (without Bo 9628).

No. 7 CTH 372 Prayer of a mortal Text witnesses985 A KUB 31.127 + KUB 31.131 + KUB 31.132 + KUB 36.79 + KUB 36.79a + KBo 38.165 + ABoT 1.44 + ABoT 1.44a + ABoT 1.44b + FHG 1 B KUB 31.128 D KUB 31.133 F KBo 14.74 G KUB 43.67

Date NS

Find spot Büyükkale A

NS NS NS NS

Büyükkale A Büyükkale A Büyükkale A –

Editions: Grobe 1953: 52–137; Güterbock 1958: 239–41 (ll. 1–68); Marazzi and Nowicki 1978 (excerpts); Lebrun 1980: 93–111; Güterbock 1980: 42–49 (ll. 1–51); Görke 2000: 8–34; Schwemer 2015: 374–93; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 372.

No. 8 CTH 375 Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška Text witnesses986 Date 1.A KUB 17.21 + KBo 52.14 + KBo 51.16 + KBo 55.32 MS

985

986

Find spot Temple I

The numbering of the witnesses follows previous editions, see e.g., Schwemer 2015: 375f. It is possible that manuscripts B (KUB 31.128) and D (KUB 31.133) belonged to the same tablet (Schwemer 2015: 374); in the Konkordanz they are listed as such. The numbering follows the Konkordanz (August 2020), to which 1.F? and 1.G are added. Many more fragments are listed in the Konkordanz under CTH 375, but due to their fragmentary state of preservation it is difficult to establish how they relate to each other and to the prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal. The colophons of KUB 31.123+ (2.A) and KUB 48.110+ (1.F?), for which see p. 84, suggest that the text may have been written on two tablets (Gerçek 2012: 280). Nonetheless, Gerçek (2012: 281) interprets 2.A and 2.B as duplicates of 1.A–F, though she also considers it possible that 1 and 2 were parallel versions rather than duplicates.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

314

Catalogue of Hittite Prayers

1.B KBo 53.10 (+) KUB 31.124 + KUB 48.28 + Bo 8617 1.C KBo 51.17 (+) KBo 55.18 (+) KUB 23.115 + KUB 31.117 + KUB 23.17 1.D KUB 48.108 1.E Bo 10088 1.F? KUB 48.107 (+) KUB 48.110 + KUB 31.71 1.G Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311987 2.A KUB 31.123 + FHL 3 2.B KBo 60.17

MS NS

Temple I Temple I

NS NS NS NS MS?988 –

– – – Temple I – Temple I

Editions: pp. 194–97 (1.G); pp. 196–200 (1.A 1′–27′); von Schuler 1965: 152–67; Lebrun 1980: 132–54; Gerçek 2012: 280–340; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 375.1, CTH 375.2, CTH 375.3 (1.F?), CTH 375.4 (KBo 55.18), CTH 375.5 (KUB 31.117 + KUB 23.17 + KUB 23.115), CTH 375.13 (1.G); Mouton 2016: 562–89.

No. 9 CTH 376.I989 Prayer against plague and enemies Text witnesses990 A KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 B KBo 53.9 (+) KBo 58.6 (+) KBo 58.7 C KBo 55.22 D KBo 57.20 (+) KBo 7.63 E KBo 60.18 F? KBo 58.328

Date MS MS MS?991 NS NS NS?

Find spot – Temple I Temple I Temple I Temple I Temple I

Editions: Appendix II; Gurney 1940: 16–119 (text D); Lebrun 1980: 155–79 (text C) with Nos. 10 and 11; García Trabazo 2002: 289–303 (text C) with Nos. 10 and 11; Czyzewska 2012: I 145–55; Groddek 2012: 204 (F); Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.1 with No. 11.

987 988 989

990 991

This fragment is listed in the Konkordanz as CTH 375.13. Not enough diagnostic signs are preserved for a secure dating of the fragment. Note the spelling of ma-aḫ-ḫa-an (rev. 1′) without the typical MS orthography with plene spelling. This prayer is currently (August 2020) listed in the Konkordanz as CTH 376.1 together with the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (No. 11), which is referred to as CTH 376.II in the present study. The Konkordanz appears to follow the numbering of the fragments in the edition of Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1), in which no distinction is made between the two prayers, as if they are one and the same text. This is rather confusing, since we are dealing with two separate compositions. Because it is important to distinguish between the two prayers, the older numbering of the Konkordanz using Roman numerals is maintained in the present study. CTH 376.I refers to the MH Prayer against plague and enemies (No. 9), i.e., KUB 24.4+ (in Konkordanz as CTH 376.1.E), and its duplicates, and CTH 376.II refers to the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (No. 11), i.e., KUB 24.3+ (in Konkordanz as CTH 376.1.A), and its duplicates. To avoid further confusion KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121 (No. 10) is referred to as CTH 376.III, rather than CTH 376.2 as which it is currently listed in the Konkordanz. For the assignment of duplicate fragments to CTH 376.I, see pp. 321f. and Czyzewska 2012: I 142. See p. 322, fn. 1004.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

315

Independent or Personal Prayers (Nos. 5–24)

No. 10 CTH 376.III992 Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies Text witness KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121

Date NS

Find spot Haus am Hang

Editions: Appendix III; Lebrun 1980: 155–79 (text B and D; with Nos. 9 and 11); García Trabazo 2002: 289– 303 (text B and D; with Nos. 9 and 11); Torri 2010: 363–66; Czyzewska 2012: II 139–42; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.2.

No. 11 CTH 376.II993 Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna Text witnesses A KUB 24.3 + KBo 51.18a + KBo 51.18b + KUB 31.144 + KBo 71.20 B KUB 36.80994 C KBo 52.16 + ABoT 2.21 + Bo 4328 D KBo 53.13 (+) KBo 66.191

Date NS

Find spot Temple I

NS NS NS

– Temple I Temple I

Editions: Appendix IV; Gurney 1940: 16–119 (text C); Lebrun 1980: 155–79 (text A and E; with Nos. 9 and 10); García Trabazo 2002: 289–303 (text A; with Nos. 9 and 10); Czyzewska 2012: I 156–95; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.1 (with No. 9).

No. 12 CTH 377 Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family Text witnesses Date Find spot A KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 LNS Temple I B KUB 24.2 NS Temple I C Bo 8072 – – Editions: Appendix V; Gurney 1940: 16–119 (text A and B); Lebrun 1980: 180–91; Kassian and Yakubovich 2007; Czyzewska 2012: I 248–59; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 377.

992 993

994

The text is listed in the Konkordanz as CTH 376.2, but it is referred to as CTH 376.III in the present study to avoid confusion with CTH 376.II (No. 11), see p. 314, fn. 989. The main text witness of this prayer, KUB 24.3+, is currently (August 2020) listed in the Konkordanz as CTH 376.1.A. Throughout the present study the composition is referred to as CTH 376.II to avoid confusion with CTH 376.I (No. 9), see p. 314, fn. 989 above. Some of the fragments presented in the Konkordanz as CTH 376.1.B-N are listed here as duplicates of KUB 24.3+, whereas others are considered duplicates of the MH prayer CTH 376.I (No. 9). The distribution of the fragments over CTH 376.I (No. 9) and CTH 376.II (No. 11) follows Czyzewska 2012: I 142f. The fragment KUB 36.80 is generally interpreted as a duplicate of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II A) and is also treated as such in the present study. This assignment is, however, not certain, see p. 347.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

316

Catalogue of Hittite Prayers

No. 13 CTH 378.1 “First” plague prayer of Muršili II Text witnesses Date A KUB 14.14 + KUB 19.1 + KUB 19.2 + KBo 58.8 NS + KBo 54.6 + KBo 53.303 + KBo 50.184 + KBo 3.47 + Bo 4229 + Bo 9433 + KBo 66.276 B KBo 55.24 + KBo 51.19 (+) KUB 23.3995 (+) NS Bo 6481

Find spot Temple I Temple I

Editions: Götze 1929: 164–204; Lebrun 1980: 193–203; García Trabazo 2002: 289–303; Czyzewska 2012a: 197–216; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 378.1; Mouton 2016: 591–607.

No. 14 CTH 378.2 “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II Text witnesses A KUB 14.8 B KUB 14.11 + KBo 55.25 C KUB 14.10 + ABoT 2.22 + KUB 26.82 D KBo 57.21

Date NS LNS NS NS

Find spot – Temple I – Temple I

Editions: Götze 1929: 204–35; Lebrun 1980: 203–16; García Trabazo 2002: 305–29; Czyzewska 2012: I 217– 47; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 378.2.

No. 15 CTH 378.3 “Third” plague prayer of Muršili II Text witness KUB 14.12

Date NS

Find spot –

Editions: Götze 1929: 236–41; Lebrun 1980: 216–19; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 378.3.

No. 16 CTH 378.4 “Fourth” plague prayer of Muršili II Text witnesses A KUB 14.13 + KUB 23.124 + Bo 7019 B KBo 22.71

Date LNS NS

Find spot – Temple I

Editions: Götze 1929: 242–51; Lebrun 1980: 220–29; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 378.4.

No. 17 CTH 376.4 Fragmentary prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (I?) Text witness Date Find spot KUB 36.81 MS?996 – 995 996

Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 378.1) treat KUB 23.3 as belonging to a separate tablet (C). KUB 36.81 is generally dated NS and considered to be a prayer of Muršili II. However, the palaeography of the fragment suggests an older date. DA, ID, URU, E, AG, BI, and AḪ are all consistently written in the old sign-form. The forms of TA (with the inscribed verticals reaching the upper horizontal) and ŠA (with the inscribed vertical reaching just above the upper horizontal) may suggest a late MS or early NS date. If it is indeed an MS fragment, it would predate Muršili II.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Independent or Personal Prayers (Nos. 5–24)

317

Editions: Lebrun 1980: 155–79 (text F); Tischler 1981: 45–54; Czyzewska 2012b: 136–38; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.4.

No. 18 CTH 70 Prayer of Muršili II concerning the misdeeds and the ousting of Tawannanna997 Text witnesses Date Find spot 1.A KUB 14.4998 NS – 1?.B KBo 19.84 (+) KBo 19.85 NS Temple I 1?.C KBo 50.46 NS Temple I 2.A KBo 4.8 + İzmir 1277 NS – 2.B KBo 50.43 + KBo 50.44 + Bo 7256 NS Temple I 2.C ABoT 2.3 NS – 2.D Bo 4222999 + KUB 40.94 + KBo 57.191000 LNS Temple I 2.E KBo 57.24 NS Temple I 2.F KBo 22.152 NS Temple I ? Bo 7785 NS – ? KBo 22.30 NS Temple I Editions: Cornelius 1975 (KUB 14.4, KBo 4.8); Hoffner 1983 (KBo 4.8 + İzmir 1277); De Martino 1998 (KUB 14.4); Groddek 2007: 38–41 (2.A and 2.B without Bo 7256); Miller 2014: 516–40 (not Bo 7256).

No. 19 CTH 72 Prayer to the divine assembly concerning trouble with Egypt about Syria Text witness Date Find spot KUB 19.15 + KBo 50.24 + KBo 57.240 + KBo 57.24 NS Temple I + KBo 66.256 + KUB 48.111 + KUB 31.121 + KUB 31.121a1001

997 Following Miller (2014), the tablets listed by Laroche (1971) as CTH 70 and CTH 71 are now considered to belong to one text written on two tablets, with former CTH 71 as tablet 2 of CTH 70. The main ms. of tablet 1 is KUB 14.4 and the main ms. of tablet 2 is KBo 4.8 + İzmir 1277. Large parts of the text are missing and no colophons are preserved. This makes it difficult to ascertain whether the two tablets indeed belong to a single composition. The most convincing arguments for the union of CTH 70 and CTH 71 is that the sequence of the events described is chronological, that both tab-lets were written in the same time frame (Miller 2014: 543f., cf. Groddek 2007: 54, fn. 10), and all the preserved text is directed to ‘the gods’ (Miller 2014: 243). In addition, Miller (2014: 517, fn. 4, 244; KBo 57 p. V s.v. No. 19) suggests that the two main witnesses, KUB 14.4 (1.A) and KBo 4.8+ (2.A), appear to have been written by the same scribe. 998 In the Konkordanz, KBo 19.84 (+) KBo 19.85 (1?.B) and KBo 50.46 (1?.C) are non-physically joined to KUB 14.4 (1.A). Listing these fragments as separate manuscripts follows Miller 2014. 999 The fragment Bo 4222 is published together with the fragments Bo 2057 + Bo 2925 as KUB 21.19, but it does not belong to the same tablet. For Bo 2057 + Bo 2925, see CTH 383 (No. 22) below. 1000 The incorporation of these fragments under CTH 70 follows Miller 2014: 544f. In the Konkordanz they are listed as CTH 383.2 as if they duplicate the prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa (No. 22). According to Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 383.2) the fragments belong to a prayer of either Muršili II or Ḫattušili III.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

318

Catalogue of Hittite Prayers

Editions: Stefanini 1962: 11–19 (KUB 19.15); Miller 2008: 533–39 (KUB 19.15 + KBo 50.24; obv. and rev. switched); Güterbock 1960: 58–61 (KUB 48.111 + KUB 31.121 + KUB 31.121a, partly); Lebrun 1980: 240–47 (KUB 48.111 + KUB 31.121 + KUB 31.121a); Sürenhagen 1985: 3–16 (KUB 48.111 + KUB 31.121 + KUB 31.121a); Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 379 (KUB 48.111 + KUB 31.121 + KUB 31.121a); Groddek 2011: 15 (KBo 57.24, transliteration), ibid.: CTH 389.45 (KBo 57.24).

No. 20 CTH 382 Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god Text witness KBo 11.1

Date NS

Find spot Büyükkale K

Editions: Houwink ten Cate and Josephson 1967; Lebrun 1980: 294–308; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 382.

No. 21 CTH 380 Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (II?) Text witnesses Date A KBo 4.6 NS B KBo 31.80 NS C KBo 55.21 NS D KBo 53.11 NS E KBo 55.23 NS

Find spot – – Temple I Temple I Temple I

Editions: Lebrun 1980: 248–55 (KBo 4.6); Tischler 1981: 11–45 (KBo 4.6, KBo 55.21 and KBo 55.23); Daues and Rieken 2015: 33–38; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 380.1.

No. 22 CTH 383 Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna Text witnesses Date Find spot KUB 21.19 + KUB 14.7 + KBo 52.17 + KBo 71.13 LNS Temple I Editions: Lebrun 1980: 309–28; Sürenhagen 1981: 88–108; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 383.1.

No. 23 CTH 384 Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III Text witnesses Date A KUB 21.27 + KBo 51.26 + KBo 71.14 + KBo 71.15 NS B IBoT 4.225 NS

Find spot Temple I –

Editions: Lebrun 1980: 329–47; Sürenhagen 1981: 108–22; García Trabazo 2002: 353–77; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 384.1.

1001 KUB 48.111 + KUB 31.121 + KUB 31.121a was previously considered to constitute a possible “fifth” plague prayer of Muršili II (*CTH 379), see e.g., Singer 2002a: 66–68. Singer (2013: 198, fn. 122) first suggested that these fragments may belong to one composition; Miller recently confirmed the join.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

319

Hittite Prayers Arranged by Catalogue Number

No. 24 CTH 385.9 Fragmentary prayer of Tudḫaliya IV Text witness KBo 12.58 + KBo 13.162

Date NS

Find spot Haus am Hang

Editions: Lebrun 1980: 357–61; Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 385.9.

I.3 HITTITE PRAYERS ARRANGED BY CATALOGUE NUMBER No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

CTH 371

Description (Modern Title) Prayer within a Ritual to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle against slander 385.10 Prayer within a Ritual to the Sun-god(dess) for the Royal Couple 389.2 Prayer within a Ritual to the Sun-god and the Storm-god against slander 381 Model prayer of Muwatalli II (within a Ritual) 373 Prayer of Kantuzili 374 Prayer of a king 372 Prayer of a mortal 375 Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška 376.I Prayer against plague and enemies 376.III Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies 376.II Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna 377 Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family 378.1 “First” plague prayer of Muršili II 378.2 “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II 378.3 “Third” plague prayer of Muršili II 378.4 “Fourth” plague prayer of Muršili II 376.4 Fragmentary prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (I?) 70 Prayer of Muršili II concerning the misdeeds and the ousting of Tawannanna 72 Prayer to the divine assembly concerning trouble with Egypt about Syria 382 Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god 380 Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (II?) 383 Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna 384 Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III 385.9 Fragmentary prayer of Tudḫaliya IV

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

320

Catalogue of Hittite Prayers

I.4 HITTITE PRAYERS ARRANGED BY CTH NUMBER CTH 70

No. 18

72

19

371

1

372 373 374 375 376.I 376.II 376.III 376.4

7 5 6 8 9 11 10 17

377

12

378.1 378.2 378.3 378.4 380 381 382 383 384 385.9 385.10 389.2

13 14 15 16 21 4 20 22 23 24 2 3

Description (Modern Title) Prayer of Muršili II concerning the misdeeds and the ousting of Tawannanna Prayer to the divine assembly concerning trouble with Egypt about Syria Prayer within a Ritual to the Sun-goddess of the Earth and her circle against slander Prayer of a mortal Prayer of Kantuzili Prayer of a king Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal concerning the Kaška Prayer against plague and enemies Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna Fragmentary prayer against plague and enemies Fragmentary prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna concerning Gaššuliyawiya (I?) Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II and his family “First” plague prayer of Muršili II “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II “Third” plague prayer of Muršili II “Fourth” plague prayer of Muršili II Prayer to Lelwani for the Great Princess and Gaššuliyawiya (II?) Model prayer of Muwatalli II (within a Ritual) Prayer of Muwatalli II to appease the Storm-god Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III Fragmentary prayer of Tudḫaliya IV Prayer within a Ritual to the Sun-god(dess) for the Royal Couple Prayer within a Ritual to the Sun-god and the Storm-god against slander

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

II. A MIDDLE HITTITE PRAYER CONCERNING PLAGUE AND ENEMIES (CTH 376.I) CTH 376.I (here prayer No. 9) is one of the few Middle Hittite prayers that have come down to us. The name of the supplicant is not preserved, nor is there any other reference to a Hittite ruler or other person in the text. One would expect a Hittite king to be mentioned in the introduction of the prayer, which is now lost. What is preserved, is a substantial part of the plea including the end of the prayer and a fragmentary colophon. The beneficiary of the preserved requests and wishes is the land of Ḫatti. The prayer is directed to the gods, though two lines, KUB 24.4+ rev. 8–9, address the Sungoddess of Arinna. It concerns an epidemic and problems with enemies. Since the “Fourth” plague prayer (CTH 378.4) mentions such problems to have occurred during the reign of Tudḫaliya II/III, CTH 376.I may have been composed for this Hittite king (see p. 147 incl. fn. 483). Its best preserved and thus main text witness is KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 (A). It is a single column tablet written in Middle Script (see p. 148). Its find spot within Ḫattuša is unknown. The lower part of the obverse and the upper part of the reverse are preserved. The lost part of the reverse was probably blank except for one or more lines of the colophon. The preserved text is parallel to Plea II of Muršili II’s prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the gods, KUB 24.3+ ii 16–66 (CTH 376.II), an edition of which can be found in Appendix IV. This text is used to restore lacunae in the text. The first lines of the plea may be restored on the basis of KUB 24.3+ ii 10–15. CTH 376.I also shares parallels with the fragmentary KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121 (CTH 376.III) edited in Appendix III, and KBo 22.78 edited in Appendix VI. For these and other parallels, see the discussions in Ch. 8.2. Due to the close parallels between KUB 24.4+ and KUB 24.3+ ii 16–66 (CTH 376.II) it is difficult to assign small fragments duplicating text in both prayers to either one of them with certainty. The variants between these two texts are almost all of an orthographic or linguistic nature, see Table 54 below, and cannot be used as criteria to assign tablets to the one or the other. Instead, the paragraph division, which differs significantly between the two texts, has been used to assign the fragments listed below to CTH 376.I.1002 The Middle Hittite KUB 24.4+ has been divided into many more paragraphs than the later KUB 24.3+. Furthermore, some fragments have additional features that warrant their attribution to CTH 376.I over CTH 376.II. These are

1002 Cf. Czyzewska 2012: I 141f., 145f. One cannot exclude the possibility that some of the small fragments assigned to CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II may have belonged to other largely parallel prayers.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

322

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

the Middle Script date of B1003 and possibly C,1004 the double ruling indicating the end of the prayer in B,1005 and the mention of the ‘land of the Hurrians’ in D,1006 which does not occur in CTH 376.II. The assignment of KBo 58.328 (F) to this text remains uncertain. All duplicate fragments have been found in Temple I.1007 E is a small fragment that, according to Miller, may belong to the same tablet as D.1008 It preserves the ends of two lines that precede A. The fragment is not very thick, indicating that it was close to the upper edge and that only few lines are missing from the beginning of the text. The prayer probably began with a simple introduction after which it ran parallel to KUB 24.3+ ii 10ff. (CTH 376.II). This is supported by KBo 46.5, which seems to give the beginning of the prayer, see p. 292. A full edition of CTH 376.I is presented below with transliteration, translation and commentary.1009 The transliteration follows the main text witness A (KUB 24.4+). Restorations on the basis of duplicates are given in round brackets. Variants in duplicate fragments are indicated in footnotes. The text is divided into different sections to show the structure of the text in accordance to Table 42 (p. 236). The tablet format of KUB 24.4+ is described in Appendix II.2 below. All observations are based on previous publications and the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv available through the Konkordanz. Text Witness A KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 B1 KBo 58.7 (+) B2 KBo 53.9 (+) B3 KBo 58.6 C KBo 55.221010

Date MS MS

Find spot Temple I

MS?

Temple I

Duplicates A obv. 1′–7′ A rev. 1–6 A rev. 12–17 A obv. 25′–rev. 2

1003 Note the older sign-forms of LI (KBo 58.7 3′ and KBo 53.9 2′), NI (KBo 53.9 2′), KI (KBo 53.9 6′), KÙ (KBo 53.9 7′), ḪA (KBo 58.6 3′), and URU (KBo 53.9 5′, KBo 58.6 3′, 6′). 1004 The fragment uses the old forms of UG, without the subscript, and SÌLA, as well as URU and E with the first vertical reaching the upper horizontal, a form which first appears in MS (IIb). Note also the lack of a broken horizontal in TIM. However, due to its fragmentary state of preservation, a secure dating of KBo 55.22 is difficult. Torri (2010: 369) and Košak (Konkordanz) date it as New Script. 1005 CTH 376.II is a longer text that contains many more lines before the prayer ends. 1006 KBo 57.20 (+) KBo 7.63: 11′ // KUB 24.4+ obv. 17. 1007 KBo 58.6 and KBo 58.7 (B) were found in 1964 in the same area: ‘L/19, vor Magazin 12 an Strassenseite, oberster Schutt’ (KBo 58 p. XV, cf. Konkordanz), whereas KBo 53.9 (B) was found two years earlier in the dump of L/19 (KBo 53 p. XIII, Konkordanz). KBo 55.22 (C) and KBo 57.20 (D) were also found in the dump of L/19. KBo 7.63 (D) is found in room 10 of Temple I (Konkordanz). KBo 58.328 was found in the ‘Oststrasse, Schutthalde’ (KBo 58 p. XXI, Konkordanz). 1008 KBo 60 p. V. 1009 For previous editions, see p. 314. This prayer is generally not translated (or edited) separately from CTH 376.II. Such editions incorrectly give the impression that CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II are duplicates, rather than separate texts (cf. p. 314, fn. 989). 1010 In the copy the obverse and reverse are switched and the line after rev. 4 is not numbered, even though it must have contained the verb form araweššer, cf. KUB 24.4+ obv. 28′.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

323

Text Witness D1 KBo 57.20 (+) D2 KBo 7.63 E KBo 60.18

Date Find spot NS1011 Temple I

Duplicates A obv. 6′–18′

NS1012 Temple I

F

NS?

1′–2′ precede A; 3′–6′ = A obv. 1′–3′ A obv. 3′–7′.

KBo 58.328

Temple I

1011 Note the late forms of RU (l. 9′) and GAD (l. 4′), the use of ÚŠ for ḫinkan (l. 8′), and the spelling kuru-ra-an-za (l. 4′) instead of KUB 24.4+ obv. 16′ ku-u-r[u-r]a-an-za. URU occurs in a late form with the first vertical reaching the upper horizontal. TA is written with the two small verticals reaching the upper horizontal. 1012 The Konkordanz dates the fragment as “jh.”, even though too few signs are preserved to determine its date with certainty. It contains an old form of LI, but the later orthography a-kir instead of e-kir. KU is written with an extended upper horizontal just as in KBo 7.63 4′ (D2).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

324

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

II.1 TEXT EDITION Transliteration E KBo 60.18, obverse (beginning lost) PLEA (II) Description Problem (Plague) [1a] 1′ [LÚ.MEŠAPIN.LÁ? A.ŠÀA.GÀRḪI.A DINGIRLIM ku-i-e-eš an-né-eš-kir na-a]t? a-kir 2′ [nu nam-ma A.ŠÀA.GÀRḪI.A DINGIRLIM a-ni-ia-az-zi? wa-ar-aš-zi? na-at-ta] ku-iš-ki A KUB 24.4+, obverse 1′ [MUNUSMEŠ NA₄ARA5 ŠA DINGIR]⸢MEŠ⸣ N[INDA.GUR4.RA RAḪI.A ku-i-e-eš ma-al-(leeš-kir)]1013 2′ [na-at a-ke-er nu n]am-ma ⸢NINDA.GUR4⸣.R[A (Ú-UL ku-iš)-ki1014 ma-al-z(i)]1015 3′ [UDUa-ú-li-ú-u]š-kán GU4ḪI.A UDUḪI.A ḫa-⸢a⸣-l[(i-ia-az a-ša-a-ú)-na-az1016 ku-eez-za-aš kar-aš-ke-er] 4′ [nu LÚ.MEŠSIPA.G(U4 LÚ)].MEŠSIPA.UDU1017 a-ke-er1018 ḫa-a-li-i[a a-ša-a-u-wa-ar kar-ša-an-da-ri?]1019 5′ [nu ú-iz-zi A-N]A DINGIRMEŠ NINDA.GUR4.RAḪI.A DUGiš-pa-an-d[(u-uz-zi)1020 UDUaú-li-uš-ša]1021 6′ [kar-ša-an-da-ri] nu-un-na-aš ú-wa-a-at-te-ni1022 DINGIRME[Š a-pé-e-da-ni (ud-da-ni-i)]1023 7′ [wa-aš-(du-l)]i ḫar-te-ni1024

1013 E 3′. The traces in B1 1′ might be read as […-e]š? ⸢ma?⸣-a[l?-…] or as […]x? ⸢na?⸣-a[t? …]. 1014 B1 2′: […]⸢Ú⸣-UL ⸢ku⸣-iš-[…]. 1015 E 4′: […-z]i?. In E there appears to be no ruling after this line. A ruling is neither indicated in the copy, nor visible on the photograph available in the Konkordanz. However, since the other rulings on this fragment are not deeply impressed in the clay, a ruling might be present, yet difficult to see. 1016 B1 3′: [… ḫ]a-a-li-ia-az a-ša-⸢a-ú⸣-[…]. 1017 Restoration B1 4′. 1018 F 2′: […]⸢a⸣-kir. 1019 F 3′: […-B]AT?. 1020 B1 5′: […-p]a?-⸢an-du-uz-zi⸣ […]; F 4′: […]x-zi. 1021 E 6″ shows the trace of a sign, perhaps ⸢kir?⸣, and then the fragment breaks off. 1022 B1 6′: […-n]a-aš ú-wa-at-⸢te⸣-n[i …]; F 5′: […] ú-wa-at-t[e-ni]. 1023 D1 1′: […]⸢ud-da-ni-i⸣ […]. 1024 B1 7′: […]-⸢du-li ḫar⸣-[…]; F 6′: […-t]e?-e-ni. B1 breaks.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

325

Translation E KBo 60.18, obverse (beginning lost) PLEA (II) Description Problem (Plague) [1a] 1′ [The ploughmen who always worked the fields of the god] have died. 2′ [As a consequence, no]body [works (or) harvests the fields of the god]. A KUB 24.4+ obverse 1′ [The women of the grinding stone who always ground (the flour for) the thick breads of the gods] 2′ [have died.] As a consequence, [nobody grinds (the flour for)] the thick bread. 3′ [From] the cor[ral(s) (and) pen(s) from which they always separated (i.e., selected) the sacrificial animal]s – cattle (and) sheep – 4′ [the cowherds] (and) shepherds have died. The corra[l(s) and the pen(s) are neglected]. 5′ [So it came to pass that] the thick bread, the libati[on, and the animal sacrifices for] the gods 6′ [are neglected]. And you, O Gods, 7′ proceed to hold us [accountable in that matter].

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

326

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

Complaint [1b] 8′ n[a-aš]-ta A-NA ⸢DUMU⸣.LÚ.U19.LU ḫa-at-ta-ta-šum-mi-it erasure [ḫar-ak-ta] 9′ nu ⸢ku⸣-un-na-an ku-it i-ia-e-ni1025 na-at NU.G[ÁL] Request + Wishes [1c] 10′ nu DINGIRMEŠ ku-it wa-aš-du-ul uš-ka-at-te-ni1026 nu na-aš-š[u DINGIRMEŠ-niia-an-za ú-id-du] 11′ na-at me-e-ma-a-ú na-aš-ma-at MUNUS.MEŠŠU.GI LÚ.MEŠAZ[U LÚ.MEŠMUŠEN.DÙ memi-ia-an-du na-aš-ma-at] 12′ za-aš-ḫé-az DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU ú-wa-an-du1027 13′ na-aš-ta URUDUše-pí-ik-ku-uš-ta-aš GIŠšar-pa-az ku-un-⸢ku⸣-[u-e-en] 14′ nu DINGIR⸢MEŠ⸣ A-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI ge-en-zu nam-ma d[a-at-tén] Description Problem (Plague & Enemies) [2a] 15′ ke-e-[(e)]z-za-at ḫi-in-ka-na-an-za1028 ta-ma-a-aš-ta ke-e-e[z-za-ma-at] 16′ ku-u-r[u-r]a-an-za1029 ta-ma-aš-ta nu ku-ri-wa-na-aš KUR.KURTIM ⸢ku-e⸣ a-raaḫ-za-an-d[a] 17′ ḫur-la-aš1030 KUR-e KUR URUki-iz-zu-wa-at-ni KUR URUar-za-u-wa nu ⸢ḫu⸣-uma-an-za šu-ul-l[e-e-et] 18′ [n]u-za-an DINGIRMEŠ ša-ra-a Ú-UL ⸢i⸣-en-zi na-aš-ta1031 NI-IŠ D[INGI]RMEŠ ⸢šar⸣ra-an-ta-ti 19′ [n]u KUR URUḪA-AT-TI i-da-a-la-u-wa-an-ni ⸢ša-an⸣-ḫi-iš-[ká]n-zi É.DINGIRMEŠma l[a-u-wa-ar-ru-na] 20′ [š]a-an-ḫi-⸢iš⸣-kán-zi → Wish – Revenge [2b] 20′ na-at DINGIRMEŠ-aš kat-⸢ta-wa-tar⸣ n[am-m]a ki-i-ša-ru Requests [2c] 21′ [nu-u]š-ša-⸢an⸣ ḫi-in-kán ku-u-ru-ur ka-⸢a⸣-aš-ta-an A-NA ⸢KUR URUmi⸣-it-taan-ni 22′ [A-NA] KUR ⸢URUki⸣-iz-zu-wa-at-ni Ù A-NA KUR URUar-za-u-wa tar-na-at-te-en

1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031

D1 3′: i-ia-u-⸢e⸣-[ni]. D1 4′: uš-kat-⸢te⸣-n[i]. D1 breaks after the paragraph line. D2 9′: ÚŠ-a[n-…]. D2 10′: ku-ru-ra-an-⸢za⸣. D2 11′: ḫur-la-an. D2 breaks.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

327

Complaint [1b] 8′ To mankind our wisdom [has got lost]. 9′ What right we do, it does not ex[ist]. Request + Wishes [1c] 10′ O Gods, the offence which you perceive, may eith[er a Man of God come] 11′ and say it, or may the old women, the divin[ers (or) the augurs say] it, [or] 12′ may a person see [it] through a dream! 13′ [We have been] dangl[ing] from the point of a needle. 14′ O Gods, t[ake] pity on Ḫatti again! Description Problem (Plague & Enemies) [2a] 15′ On the one hand plague has oppressed it (i.e., Ḫatti), on the oth[er hand] 16′ enmity has oppressed [it]. The kuriwana lands which are aroun[d] 17′ – the land of the Hurrians, the land of Kizzuwatna, (and) the land of Arzawa – each bec[ame] disrespectful. 18′ They do not worship the gods. They violated the oath of the g[o]ds. 19′ They continually seek Ḫatti in an evil way. And they continually 20′ seek [to] d[espoil] the temples. Wish – Revenge [2b] 20′ May it become (a reason for) vengeance for the gods a[gai]n! Requests [2c] 21′ Leave the plague, enmity, (and) famine to the land of Mittanni, 22′ [to] the land of Kizzuwatna, and to the land of Arzawa!

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

328

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

23′ [wa-a]r-ši-ia-⸢an-da⸣ šu-ul-la-an-da KUR.KURTIM KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-ma ta-re-ea[n KUR-e] 24′ [n]u ta-[ri-ia-a]n-da-an la-a-at-te-en wa-ar-ši-ia-an-da-⸢na⸣ tu-r[i-ia-at-te-en] Description Problem (Enemies) [3a] 25′ [ke-e-m]a nam-[ma ŠA KUR UR]UḪA-AT-TI-pát KUR.KURTIM KUR URUka-a-aš-ka1032 26′ [na-at L]Ú.M[EŠSIPA.ŠA]Ḫ e-še-er Ù LÚ.MEŠE-PÍ-IŠ GADAḪI.A e-še-er1033 27′ [Ù KUR U]R[ua-ra-u-wa-an-na KUR UR]U[k]a-la-a-aš-ma! KUR URUlu-ug-ga-a1034 KUR URUpí-i-t[a-aš-ša] 28′ [na-aš-ta ke-e-ia K(UR.KURTI)]M A-NA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na a-ra-a-u-e-⸢eš⸣-še-e[r] Randleiste, end obverse Reverse Randleiste 1 [nu ar-ga-mu-u]š ar-ḫa1035 pé-e-eš-še-i-e-er nu a-ap-pa1036 KUR URUḪA-A[T-TI]1037 2 [GUL-ḫa-an-ni-ia-u-wa-an ti?]-⸢an?⸣-zi1038 nu ka-ru-ú KUR URUḪA-AT-TI URUa⸢ri⸣-in-n[a-aš?] 3 [dUTU-it za-a]ḫ-ḫa-it a-ra-aḫ-zé-na KUR-e UR.MAḪ ma-a-an a-a[r-aš?-ki?-it?] 4 [nu pa-ra-(a URUḫal-pa-a)]n1039 ku-i-⸢uš⸣ URUKÁ.DINGIR.RA ku-i-uš ḫar-ni-in-kiiš-ki-i[(t)]1040 5 [nu KUR-e-aš ḫ]u-u-ma-an-da-a-aš a-aš-šu-〈uš〉-mi-it KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI DINGIRMEŠ da-a[š?] 6 [na-at PA-NI] ⸢d⸣UTU URUa-ri-in-⸢na⸣ zi-ik-ki-i-it1041 7 [k]i-n[u-na a-ra-aḫ-z]é-ni-e-eš ud-⸢ne⸣-e-an-te!-eš [ḫ]u-u-ma-an-te-eš KUR.KURMEŠ KUR URU⸢ḪA⸣-[AT-TI] 8 [w]a-⸢al⸣-ḫ[a-a]n-ni-u-wa-an da-a-i-ir → Wish – Revenge + Request – Reputation [3b] 8 na-at A-NA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na kat-ta-w[a-tar] 9 nam-ma ki-i-ša-ru nu-za tu-el 〈le〉-e ŠUM-KA te-ep-n[u-u]š-ki-ši

1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041

C begins. C rev. 1: […] KUR ⸢URUka-aš⸣-k[a]. C rev. 2: e-šir. C rev. 3: ⸢KUR URU⸣lu-uk-ka4-a. B2 begins. C rev. 6: […-e]š-ši-e-er nu E[GIR-pa …]. B2 2′: [… LÚKÚ]R?-ni-l[i …]. C rev. 7: […-a]n ⸢da?-an?-zi?⸣[…], cf. Czyzewska 2012: I 151. C breaks. B2 5′. B2 6′. B2 breaks.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

329

23′ [Res]ted are the disrespectful lands, but the land of Ḫatti is a tired [land]. 24′ Untie the ti[re]d one and har[ness] the rested one! Description Problem (Enemies) [3a] 25′f. Further[more, to the land of] Ḫatti belong(ed) [these] lands: the land of Kaška – they were [swineherd]s and they were weavers – 27′ [the land of Arauwanna, the land] of Kalašma, the land of Lukka, and the land of Pit[tašša]. 28′ [Also these] lands became free from the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Randleiste, end obverse Reverse Randleiste 1 They have repudiated [the tributes] and they again 2 [beg]in [to attack] the land of Ḫatti. Before, the land of Ḫatti [together with the Sun-goddess of] Arinna 3 [used to] i[nvade] the surrounding land(s) like a lion. 4 [Furthermore], it used to destroy on the one hand [Aleppo] (and) on the other hand Babylon. 5 It t[ook] the goods – silver, gold, (and) gods – [of] all [the lands] 6 [and] placed [them before] the Sun-goddess of Arinna. 7 [Now], the [surrou]nding lands, all the lands, 8 began to attack the land of Ḫa[tti]. Wish – Revenge + Request – Reputation [3b] 8 May it become (a reason for) veng[eance] for the Sun-goddess of Arinna 9 again! Do not keep degrading your name!

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

330

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

Requests + Wishes [3c] 10 nu ma-a-an DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš kar-di-〈〈ti[m]〉〉-⸢mi-ia-az ku-iš⸣ k[u-i]š DINGIRMEŠ Ú-UL na-aḫ-ḫ[a-an-za] 11 na-pa le-e a-aš-ša-a-u-e-eš ⸢i?⸣-[d]a-[a-la-u-w]a-[aš an-da] ḫar-kán-zi na-aš ma-a-a[n] 12 1EN URULUM na-aš-ma-at ⸢1⸣[EN ÉTUM1042 na-aš-ma] ⸢1⸣EN LÚ1043 nu DINGIRMEŠ 13 a-pu-u-un-pát 1EN ḫ[ar-ni-ik-te-en?] 14 KUR URUḪA-⸢AT⸣-TI-ma-aš-ta DINGIR[MEŠ an-da SIG5-u-i]t IGIḪI.A-it ⸢a-uš⸣-te-e[n1044] 15 i-da-a-⸢lu⸣-ma ḫi-in-kán [xxx i-da-la-u-aš?] ud-ne-⸢ia⸣-[aš?1045 p]í?-⸢iš⸣-〈te〉-en 16 I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-ma [ma-a-ú še-eš-du x x x]x […] 17 nu KUR URUḪA-AT-TI ⸢a⸣-[ap-pa1046 ka-ru-ú-i-li-at-ta ki-ša-ru]1047 (Blank) COLOPHON 18 ma-a-an erasure KUR-e a[n-da …] 19 [n]u-mu dUTUŠI x-wa-[…] 20 [n]u pa-a-un DINGIRMEŠ x[…] 21 [UR]Ua-ri-in-ni URUz[i-ip-pa-la-an-da …] 22 [x (x) k]i-i ud-da-a-a[r …] (Blank) 23 [ … ]⸢zu⸣-u-w[a?-…] 24 [ … ]x[…] (text breaks off) Comments Unless otherwise indicated, all restorations are based on KUB 24.3+ ii 13–66 with duplicates (CTH 376.II), for which see Appendix IV. See also the discussion in Ch. 8.2. The variants between KUB 24.4+ obv. 1′– rev. 14 and KUB 24.3+ ii 16–66 are listed in Table 54 (pp. 333–35). E obv. 1′f.: Compare the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 14f. in Appendix IV. E obv. 2′: The singular forms a-ni-ia-az-zi? and wa-ar-aš-zi? are restored because of kuiški (nom.sg.c) at the end of the line. The negation na-at-ta is restored on the basis of KUB 30.13(+) 4′ (see Appendix III). KUB 24.3+ ii 15 has Ú-UL instead. A obv. 2′: a-ke-er is restored in analogy with KUB 24.4+ obv. 4′, instead of e-kir which we find in the parallel in KUB 24.3+ ii 17.

1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047

B3 begins here. B3 1′: […]⸢1? É?⸣T[UM?…]. B3 2′: ⸢na-aš-ma-aš 1⸣ L[Ú…]. B3 4′: a-uš-tén. B3 5′: A-NA KUR.KURTI[M…]. B3 7′: EGIR-pa x[…]. In B3 a double ruling follows and then the fragment breaks off.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

331

Requests + Wishes [3c] 10 And if any[one] is (a cause of) anger for the gods (and) is not respect[ful] of the gods, 11 do not consider the good ones [among the evil ones]! Whether it is 12 a single city or it is a single [house or] a single person, O Gods, 13 d[estroy?] only that single one! 14 O God[s], look at the land of Ḫatti with [favourable] eyes! 15 Give the evil plague [to the evil] lands! 16 [May (it) thrive and prosper] in the land of Ḫatti! […] 17 [May] the land of Ḫatti [become again as it was before]! (Blank) COLOPHON 18 When i[n] the land […] 19 His Majesty to me …[…]. 20 I went to […]. The gods […] 21 in Arinna, [in] the city of Z[ippalanda …] 22 these words […]. (Blank) 23 [The hand of] Zuw[a …] 24 […] (text breaks off) A obv. 3′: For UDUauli-, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 18 in Appendix IV. A obv. 4′: The restoration follows Gurney 1940: 26, but in the fragmentary ms. F the verb form might be [IṢ-B]AT instead, cf. Groddek 2012: 204, fn. 777. A obv. 6′–7′: waštuli is a dative-locative of purpose or result. Compare in the “Third” plague prayer (CTH 378.3) KUB 14.12 rev. 10′–11′: nu-mu ú-wa-at-te-e-ni DIN[GIRMEŠ ENMEŠ-IA a-pé-e-da-ni? ud-da-ni-i?] / wa-aštúl ḫar-te-e-ni ‘and you, O Go[ds, my lords,] proceed to hold me accountable [in that matter]’, for which see also p. 242. CTH 378.3 has waštul instead of waštuli that we find in our text and in the parallel in KUB 24.3+ ii 22–24 (CTH 376.II). A obv. 8′: The loss of final r in ḫaatar is an older linguistic phenomenon (Carruba 1983: 5). Compare the parallels in KUB 24.3+ ii 25 (CTH 376.II) and KUB 30.13(+) 10′ (CTH 376.III) where the final r is preserved. On ḫaatar=šummit, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 25 in Appendix IV. A obv. 10′–12′: See also the discussion in Ch. 8.2.3. A obv. 12′: Czyzewska (2012: I 182) argues that the plural form uwandu (3pl.imp.act) is a scribal error which was corrected to a singular form by the scribe who wrote KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II). In KUB 24.3+ ii 29 it is replaced by aušdu (3sg.imp.act). The same form is used in the “Second” plague prayer (CTH 378.2) KUB 14.10+ iv 17′: na-at-za-kán a-pí-ia / ku-iš-ki te-eš-ḫi-it a-uš-du ‘Let someone see it in a dream!’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

332

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

A obv. 13′: The restoration is based on KUB 24.3+ ii 30, but compare KUB 14.10+ iv 19′–20′ (CTH 378.2) and KBo 22.78 6′–7′ (Appendix VI) which use a present, kunkuweni, instead of the preterite, kunkuen, that we find in KUB 24.3+. A obv. 16′: On kuriwana-, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 33 in Appendix IV. A obv. 18′: The particle =an is rarely used in Hittite. It usually occurs in OH compositions (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 377f. [§28.96–99]). In KUB 24.3+ ii 35 it has been replaced by =kan. A obv. 19′: idālawanni (dat-loc.sg from idālawatar/idālawann-) is translated by Kloekhorst (2008: 420) as ‘badness, evil disposition’. The translation ‘in an evil way’ offered here is based on the context. Note that the clause ‘they seek the land of Ḫatti in an evil way’ is omitted in KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II). The same form idālawanni also occurs in Puduḫepa’s prayer for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384), KUB 21.27+ iii 20′ and 21′. There it is used with possible evils that may affect Ḫattušili III, see van de Peut 2019: 785–88. A obv. 24′: On this figurative expression, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 43f. in Appendix IV. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) read wa-ar-ši-ya-an-da-a[n-m]a, which we also find in the parallel KUB 24.3+ ii 43. However, the traces at the end of the word look more like NA (wa-ar-ši-ia-an-da-⸢na⸣) and there does not seem to be enough space to fit two signs. A obv. 25′: The sign PÁT after [UR]UḪA-AT-TI is written diagonally and higher than the other signs, as if the scribe had forgotten to write the sign and realised it only after he had already written the following ones. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) do not read PÁT here. A obv. 27′: Judging by the photograph, the final sign MA of the land Kalašma is written over a not fully erased PA. Thus, contra Del Monte and Tischler (1978: 163) and Del Monte (1992: 60) Kalašma is not written with PA, but the sign does look like a mixture of MA and PA. A obv. 28′: KUR.KURTIM (without ḪI.A) is restored in analogy with obv. 25′ in the present text. KUB 24.3+ ii 48 has KUR.KURḪI.A-TIM instead. A rev. 1: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) incorrectly read ŠI instead of ŠE in pé-e-eš-še-i-e-er. A rev. 3: The restoration a-a[r-aš?-ki?-it?] follows Gurney 1940: 30, fn. 7, 105f. The translation of zaḫḫait ār- ‘to come/arrive with battle/war’ as ‘to invade’ follows CHD Š 252a. A rev. 4: Compare the comments on KUB 24.3+ ii 53 in Appendix IV. A rev. 5: At the end of the line Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) read da-x-[x]-x[…]. A rev. 8f.: Compare obv. 20′. A rev. 9: The omission of LE in the negation le-e can be considered as a scribal error. Note that there is no space between the sign E and the preceding tu-el which implies that E was written as if it belongs to tuel. Tischler (HEG 3: 310) interprets the spelling tu-el-e as a mistake for tu-e-el and assumes a second mistake in the omission of the negation.. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) follow the parallel in KUB 24.3+ ii 59–60 (nu-za DINGIRLUM tu-el ŠUM-KA / le-e te-ep-ša-nu-ši, for which see Appendix IV), more closely. They understand E after tu-el as a scribal error that should be omitted and insert le-e immediately before the verb. A rev. 9: The parallel KUB 24.3+ ii 60 uses the verb tepšanu- instead of tepnu-, which we find in the present text. Both verbs are causatives, but they derive from different nouns. Tepšanu- is derived from tepšu-, which, as Kloekhorst (2008: 866–69) has pointed out, seems to refer to a small grain product that cannot be used to grow new plants nor can one eat it. Thus, it is something small, infertile, and useless. The concept of being small and useless is also reflected in the verb tepšanu- which may be translated as ‘to become tepšu-’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 866), that is, ‘to become small/useless/infertile’ (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 866, Tischler HEG 3: 309 and HW 221). The verb tepnu- is derived from tepu- ‘few, little’ (HW 221b, Kloekhorst 2008: 869, Tischler HEG 3: 311). The verb, therefore, refers to ‘becoming few(er), small(er)’. Like tepšanuit refers to becoming small and, metaphorically, also to becoming useless. Here it is used metaphorically to mean ‘to degrade a name’, i.e., to make a name small and useless. The two verbs tepšanu- and tepšuthus convey the same message: to become small and/or useless.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

333

Text Edition

A rev. 10: The restoration follows Czyzewska (2012: I 152). Instead, Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) read ⸢ku⸣-[i]š ⸢A⸣-[N]A DINGIRMEŠ, cf. the parallel KUB 24.3+ ii 61–62 in Appendix IV. A rev. 11: The linguistically older =apa that we find here is replaced by =ašta in KUB 24.3+ ii 62. A rev. 13: The restoration of ḫ[ar-ni-ik-te-en?] (2pl.imp.act) follows Czyzewska (2012: I 152). Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) restore a 3pl.imp.act of the same verb: ḫa[r-ni-in-kán-du]. García Trabazo (2002: 302) also restores a 2pl.imp.act, but from the verb ḫarp- ‘to associate (someone) with’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 311) or ‘sich (helfend) stellen zu, beistehen, sich zuwenden’ (HW2 Ḫ 331): ⸢ḫar⸣-[pí-ia-at-tén]. García Trabazo (2002: 303) tentatively translated it as ‘pe[rdonad]’, i.e., ‘to forgive’. A rev. 15: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) read ut-n[e]-⸢e⸣-[aš], but the visible traces correspond better to IA than E. Therefore, the reading ud-ne-⸢ia⸣-[aš] is proposed here (so also Czyzewska 2012: I 152; García Trabazo 2002: 302; cf. Lebrun 1980: 163, who reads ud-ne-ia, without any indication of a break). A rev. 16–17: The restorations are based on KUB 30.13(+) 6‴–7‴ (CTH 376.III), for which see Appendix III. A rev. 18–22: Czyzewska (2012: I 153, 155) reads the first part of the colophon as follows: ma-a-an erasure KUR-e a[n-da ak-ki-iš-ki-it-ta-ri] / nu-mu dUTUŠI ⸢A⸣-WA-[TEMEŠ x x x x x x x (x)] / [n]u pa-a-un DINGIRMEŠ m[u-ki-iš-ki-nu-un URUḪa-at-tu-ši(?)] / [URU]A-ri-in-ni URUZ[i-ip-pa-la-an-di …] / [nu k]i-i ud-da-a-a[r an-da me-mi-iš-ki-nu-un] ‘When [there is a continual dying] in the land. His Majesty [entrusted] the word[s] to me. I went and i[nvoked] the gods [in Ḫattuša], in Arinna, in Z[ippalanda …, and I spoke] these words.’ A rev. 23: Already Gurney (1940: 119) suggested that the name of the scribe who wrote this tablet was written here, either mzuwa or mzuw[anni]. A scribe named Zuwa is mentioned in the colophon of KBo 23.97 (NS), and a scribe named Zuwanni occurs in the colophon of KUB 10.96 (NS) (Neu and Rüster 1975: 4). Since both of these tablets are written in NS, Neu and Rüster (1975: 4) question the interpretation of KUB 24.4+ rev. 23 as the name of a scribe. Instead, they suggest a reading [Kiz]zuw[atna], while noting that they do not know any attestation of Kizzuwatna spelled with -zu-u-wa-. Neu and Rüster rightfully argue that a scribe from the 13th century could not have written this MS tablet. However, there could have been earlier scribes with these or similar names, even if they are not attested elsewhere. The restored translation at the beginning of the line follows Singer 2002a: 45, cf. Waal 2015: 285 incl. fn. 818. Table 54 below lists the variants between the plea of CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II Plea I.

KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 obv. 1′– rev. 14

KUB 24.3+ ii 16–66

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

obv. 4′

a-ke-er

ii 20

e-kir

obv. 6′

ú-wa-a-at-te-ni

ii 23

ú-wa-at-te-ni

obv. 8′

ḫa-at-ta-ta-šum-mi-it

ii 25

ḫa-at-ta-tar-šum-mi-it

obv. 9′

ku-un-na-an

ii 25

ZAG-an

obv. 10′

wa-aš-du-ul

ii 26

wa-aš-túl

obv. 10′

uš-ka-at-te-ni

ii 26

uš-kat-te-ni

obv. 11′

me-e-ma-a-ú

ii 27

me-⸢ma⸣-ú

obv. 12′

za-aš-ḫé-az

ii 29

za-aš-ḫi-ia-az

obv. 12′

ú-wa-an-du

ii 29

a-uš-du

obv. 13′

URUDU

ii 30

URUDUZI

obv. 14′

URUḪA

-AT-TI

ii 31

URUKÙ

obv. 14′

d[a-at-tén]

ii 31

ta-at-tén

obv. 15′

ḫi-in-ka-na-an-za

ii 32

ḫi-in-ga-na-an-za

obv. 16′

ku-u-r[u-r]a-an-za

ii 33

⸢ku⸣-ru-ra-an-za

obv. 16′

KUR.KURTIM

ii 33

KUR.KURMEŠ

še-pí-ik-ku-uš-ta-aš

.KIN.BAR-aš

.BABBARTI

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

334

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 obv. 1′– rev. 14

KUB 24.3+ ii 16–66

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

obv. 16′

a-ra-aḫ-za-an-d[a]

ii 34

a-ra-aḫ-za!(ḪA)-an-da

obv. 17′

ḫur-la-aš KUR-e

ii 34

KUR URUmi-it-ta-an-ni

obv. 17′

KUR URUki-iz-zu-wa-at-ni

obv. 18′

[n]u-za-an

ii 35

nu-za-kán

obv. 18′

⸢i⸣-en-zi

ii 36

i-ia-an-⸢zi⸣

obv. 18′

NI-IŠ D[INGI]RMEŠ

ii 36

NI-EŠ DINGIRMEŠ

obv. 18′

⸢šar⸣-ra-an-ta-ti

ii 36

šar-⸢re⸣-eš-kán-⸢zi⸣

obv. 19′

[n]u KUR ḫa-at-ti i-da-a-la-u-wa-anni ⸢ša-an⸣-ḫi-iš-[ká]n-zi

obv. 19′

É.DINGIRMEŠ-ma

ii 37

⸢É?ḪI.A⸣.DINGIRMEŠ-ma

obv. 20′

DINGIRMEŠ-aš

ii 38

A-NA DINGIRMEŠ

obv. 20′

kat-⸢ta-wa-tar⸣

ii 38

kat-ta-wa-a-tar

obv. 20′

ki-i-ša-ru

ii 38

ki-ša-ru

obv. 21′

ku-u-ru-ur

ii 39

ku-ru-ur

obv. 21′

ka-⸢a⸣-aš-ta-an

ii 39

ga-aš-ta-an

—

ii 39f.

i-da-a-lu-un ta-pa-aš-ša-an

—

URU

—

obv. 22′

[A-NA] KUR ⸢URUki⸣-iz-zu-wa-at-ni

obv. 22′

A-NA KUR URUar-za-u-wa

ii 40

— A-NA KUR URUar-za-wa

obv. 22′

tar-na-at-te-en

ii 41

tar-na-at-tén

obv. 23′

[wa-a]r-ši-ia-⸢an-da⸣

ii 41

wa-ar-ša-an-da

obv. 23′

KUR.KURTIM

ii 41

KUR.KURḪI.A

obv. 23′

KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-ma

ii 42

〈〈A-NA〉〉 KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-ma

obv. 23′

ta-re-e-a[n]

ii 42

ta-ri-ia-an

obv. 24′

la-a-at-te-en

ii 43

la-a-at-tén

obv. 24′

wa-ar-ši-ia-an-da-⸢na⸣

ii 43

wa-ar-ši-ia-an-da-an-ma

obv. 24′

tu-r[i-ia-at-te-en]

ii 44

tu-u-ri-ia-at-tén

obv. 25′

KUR.KURTIM

ii 45

KUR-KURḪI.A-TIM

ka-a-aš-ka

ii 45

KUR URU⸢ga⸣-aš-ga

-PÍ-IŠ GADAḪI.A

ii 46

LÚ.MEŠE

obv. 25′

KUR

obv. 26′

e-še-er

obv. 26′

LÚ.MEŠE

obv. 26′

e-še-er

ii 46

e-eš-šir

obv. 27′

[KUR UR]U[k]a-la-a-aš-ma!

ii 47

KUR URUka-la-aš-ma

lu-ug-ga-a

ii 47

KUR URUlu-uk-ka4

URU

— -PIŠ GADA

obv. 27′

KUR

obv. 27′

KUR URUpí-i-t[a-aš-ša]

ii 48

KUR [UR(Up)]í-⸢ta⸣-aš-ša

obv. 28′

a-ra-a-u-e-⸢eš⸣-še-e[r]

ii 49

a-ra-u-e-eš-ta

rev. 1

pé-e-eš-še-i-e-er

ii 50

[pé-e-eš-š]ir

rev. 1

a-ap-pa

ii 50

EGIR-pa

rev. 2

[ti?]-⸢an?⸣-zi

ii 50

d[a-(a)]-⸢er?⸣

rev. 2

nu ka-ru-ú

ii 51

ka-ru-ú-⸢ia?⸣

ii 51

[KUR U]RU KÙ.BABBARTI

rev. 2

KUR

URU

URUḪA

-AT-TI

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Tablet Format of KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 (A)

KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 obv. 1′– rev. 14

335

KUB 24.3+ ii 16–66

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

rev. 2f.

URU

a-⸢ri⸣-in-n[a-aš?] / [dUTU-it]

ii 51

IŠ-TU DUTU URUa-ri-in-na

rev. 3

[za-a]ḫ-ḫa-it … a-a[r-aš?-ki?-it?]

ii 52

šar-ḫi-iš-ki-it

rev. 3

a-ra-aḫ-zé-na

ii 52

a-ra-aḫ-zé-na-aš

rev. 3

KUR-e

ii 52

⸢A⸣-[N]A KUR.KURḪI.A-TIM

rev. 4

ku-i-⸢uš⸣

ii 53

⸢URUKÁ.DINGIR.RA⸣-an ku-i-uš

rev. 5

[ḫ]u-u-ma-an-da-a-aš

ii 54

ḫu-u-ma-an-da-a[š]

rev. 5

a-aš-šu-〈uš-〉mi-it

ii 54

[a-aš-š]u

rev. 5

DINGIRMEŠ

ii 54

DINGIRMEŠ-ia

rev. 5

da-a[š?]

rev. 6

zi-ik-ki-i-it

ii 55

[zi-ik-k]i-ir

rev. 7

[a-ra-aḫ-z]é-ni-e-eš

ii 56

a-ra-aḫ-zé-na-an-te-⸢eš⸣

rev. 7

KUR.

rev. 7

KUR URU⸢ḪA⸣-[AT-TI]

ii 57

KUR URU⸢KÙ⸣.BABBARTI

rev. 8

[w]a-⸢al⸣-ḫ[a-a]n-ni-u-wa-an

ii 57

[wa-al-ḫ]a-⸢an⸣-né-eš-ki-u-wa-an

rev. 8

da-a-i-ir

ii 57

da-a-ir

rev. 9

ki-i-ša-ru

ii 59

ki-ša-a!-ru

—

ii 59

DINGIRLUM

rev. 9

〈le〉-e ŠUM-KA

ii 59f.

ŠUM-KA

rev. 9

te-ep-n[u-u]š-ki-ši

ii 60

te-ep-ša-nu-ši

rev. 10

nu ma-a-an DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš kar-di〈〈ti[m]〉〉-⸢mi-ia-az ku-iš⸣ x[x?]x DINGIRMEŠ Ú-UL na-aḫ-ḫ[a-an-za]

ii 61f.

nu A-NA DINGIRMEŠ ku-iš kar-pí-iš kartim-mi-ia-az ku-iš DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš Ú-UL na-aḫ-ḫa-an-za

rev. 11

na-pa

ii 62

na-aš-ta

rev. 11

a-aš-ša-a-u-e-eš

ii 63

a-aš-ša-u-e-eš

rev. 12

URULUM

ii 64

URUKI

rev. 13

1EN

ii 66

1-an

ii 66

⸢KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI⸣[…]

rev. 14

KUR

URUKÁ

.DINGIR.RA ku-i-uš

—

—

KURMEŠ

URUḪA

-⸢AT⸣-TI-ma-aš-ta

le-e

Table 54. Variants between the plea of CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II Plea I.

II.2 TABLET FORMAT OF KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 (A) KUB 24.4+ is a single column tablet in portrait orientation of which only the lower part of the obverse and the upper part of the reverse are preserved. The lower edge is not inscribed. On the reverse we find the colophon in a fragmentary state of preservation and separated from the preceding prayer-text by a single horizontal ruling and a blank space.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

336

A Middle Hittite Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.I)

Figure 8. Lower part of the obverse KUB 24.4+ with ruling and Randleiste. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: fotarch BoFN00465.

Figure 9. Beginning of the paragraph lines after KUB 24.4+ rev. 13, 15, 17. The wedge head within the ruling after rev. 15 is encircled. Photo: Mainzer Foto-archiv hethiter.net/: fotarch BoFN00466.

The tablet has a Randleiste at the bottom of the obverse and at the top of the reverse. On the reverse there is a small blank space above the Randleiste. There is a blank space in between the Randleiste on the obverse and the horizontal ruling above it (see Figure 8). The text is divided into numerous small paragraphs varying in size between two and five lines. Even the 6 lines of the colophon are divided into two paragraphs. The 28 lines on the obverse are divided into 13 paragraphs and the 17 lines on the reverse that still belong to the prayer proper, i.e., excluding the colophon, are divided into 6 paragraphs. The paragraph lines are nicely drawn. Some lines show minor undulations which might be the result of an uneven surface of the clay tablet. The horizontal rulings all begin with a small cuneiform wedge (Figure 9) that was impressed either before or after the line had been drawn. The final ruling on the obverse, after obv. 28′, seems to be partly erased (Figure 8). The following Randleiste at the bottom of the obverse is not as nicely drawn as the paragraph dividers. The two Randleisten, on the obverse and on the reverse, are impressed somewhat deeper into the clay than the paragraph lines. The rulings were probably made with a stylus since occasionally small wedgeheads are visible within the paragraph lines, e.g., in the rulings after rev. 9 and 15 (Figure 9).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

III. A FRAGMENTARY PRAYER AGAINST PLAGUE AND ENEMIES (CTH 376.III) The fragments KUB 30.13, KBo 12.132, and VBoT 121 have been non-physically joined by Torri (2010). The text is currently listed in the Konkordanz as CTH 376.2, but it is referred to as CTH 376.III in the present study to avoid confusion with CTH 376.II (see p. 314, fn. 989). In Appendix I it is listed as No. 10. KUB 30.13 and KBo 12.132 were found in the Haus am Hang.1048 The find spot of VBoT 121 is unknown.1049 The three fragments preserve parts of the plea of a prayer concerning plague and enemies similar to CTH 376.I and Plea II of CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ ii 10–66), see Ch. 8.2.1. These two prayers, which are edited in Appendices II and IV, have been used to restore many lines of CTH 376.III. Gurney (1940) had already recognised KUB 30.13 as a parallel to these texts.1050 The prayer consisted of approximately 50 lines written on the obverse of a single column tablet. The text was based on CTH 376.I or a similar Middle Hittite prayer. Some passages have been altered, whereas others have been added (see Ch. 6.4 and Ch. 8.2.1). Where the text runs parallel to CTH 376.I, we find the same paragraph division as in KUB 24.4+.1051 A passage has been inserted on the reverse of the tablet, ll. 3a″–3c″, to be read after obv. 3″ and before obv. 4″ (see Appendix III.2). The prayer seems to end in obv. 7‴, which is parallel to the end of CTH 376.I, KUB 24.4+ rev. 17. An additional paragraph follows in obv. 8‴–11‴. It appears to represent the outcome of a KIN oracle concerning whether or not the king should perform the prayer in Arinna.1052 This oracle report, which may be part of the colophon, is unique within the Hittite prayer corpus. A full edition of KUB 30.13(+)is presented below.1053 Subsequently, the layout and format of the tablet are discussed in Appendix III.2. All observations are based on previous publications and the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

1048 KUB 30.13 was found in room 14 and KBo 12.132 in square L/18 b/5, in a post-Hittite layer. 1049 Its assignment to this tablet is less certain (Torri 2010: 362). 1050 More recently Singer (2002a) treated KUB 30.13 as a duplicate of CTH 376.II, VBoT 121 as a duplicate of CTH 376.I, and KBo 12.132 as a version of CTH 375. The Konkordanz and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) rightfully consider it a separate text. 1051 Torri 2010: 363, 367, see also Appendix III.2 below. Exceptions are the horizontal ruling after CTH 376.I E KBo 60.18 obv. 2′ and the ruling after KUB 24.4+ obv. 28′, at the bottom of the obverse but before the Randleiste. In the parallel in KUB 30.13(+) obv. 4′ and 8″ the text continues in the same line in both instances. 1052 Torri 2010: 363, Berman 1983: 7f. 1053 For previous editions, see p. 315.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

338

A Fragmentary Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.III)

Text Witness KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121

Date NS1054

Find spot Haus am Hang

III.1 TEXT EDITION Transliteration KUB 30.13(+), obverse (beginning lost) PLEA (II) Rhetorical Question with Answer – Problem (Plague) 1′ [ki-i DINGIRMEŠ ku-it i-ia-at-tén nu ḫi-in-kán] tar-na-at-tén → Description Problem (Plague) [1a] 1′ nu K[UR URUKÙ.BABBARTI] 2′ [ḫu-u-ma-an-pát BA.ÚŠ nam-ma A-NA DINGIRMEŠ NINDAḫar-ši-in] DUGiš-pa-an-tuz[i-ia Ú-UL ku-iš-ki i-ia-zi] 3′ [LÚ.MEŠ?APIN.LÁ? A.ŠÀA.GÀRḪI.A DINGIRLIM k]u-i-e-eš an-né-eš-kir na-a[t a-ke-er nu nam-ma A.ŠÀA.GÀRḪI.A DINGIRLIM] 4′ [a-ni-ia-az-zi? wa-ar-aš-zi? na-at-t]a ku-iš-ki MUNUSMEŠ NA₄AR[A5 ŠA DINGIRMEŠ NINDA.GUR4.RAḪI.A ku-i-e-eš] 5′ [ma-al-le-eš-ke-er na-at a-ke-er nu nam-ma Š]A DINGIRMEŠ NINDA.GUR4.RAḪI.A Ú-UL [ku-iš-ki ma-al-zi] 6′ [UDUa-ú-li-ú-uš-k]án GU4ḪI.A UDUḪI.A ḫa-a-li-ia-az a-[ša-a-u-na-az ku-e-ez-zaaš kar-aš-ke-er] 7′ [nu LÚ.MEŠSIPA.GU4 LÚ.MEŠSIPA.UDU a-k]e-er ḫa-a-li-ia a-ša-a-u-w[a-ar kar-ša-anda-ri?] 8′ [nu ú-iz-zi A-NA DINGIRMEŠ NINDA.GU]R4.⸢RA⸣ḪI.A DUGiš-pa-an-tu-uz-zi [UDUa-úli-uš-ša] 9′ [kar-ša-an-da-ri nu-un-na-aš ú-wa-a-at-te-ni DINGI]RMEŠ a-pé-e-da-ni-ia ud[da-a-ni-i wa-aš-du-li ḫar-te-ni] Complaint [1b] 10′ [na-aš-ta A-NA DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU ḫa-at-ta-t]ar-šum-mi-it ḫar-ak-ta [nu ZAG-an ku-it] 11′ [i-ia-e-ni na-at NU.GÁL]

1054 See p. 150 and Appendix VIII, cf. Torri 2010: 366, van den Hout 2007: 405 (KBo 12.132), 406 (KUB 30.13), and Klinger and Neu 1990: 149f. (KUB 30.13 joined to KBo 7.63).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

339

Translation KUB 30.13(+), obverse (beginning lost) PLEA (II) Rhetorical Question with Answer – Problem (Plague) 1′ [O Gods, what is this you have done?] You have allowed [a plague]. Description Problem (Plague) [1a] 1′ [The entire] la[nd of Ḫatti] 2′ [is dying. Subsequently, nobody prepares the thick bread and] the libati[on for the gods]. 3′ [The ploughmen] who always worked [the fields of the god have died. Subsequently], [no]body [works (or) harvests the fields of the god]. 4′ The women of the grind[ing stone who always ground (the flour for) the thick breads of the gods] 5′ [have died. Subsequently], no[body grinds (the flour for)] the thick bread of the gods. 6′ From the corral(s) (and) [pen(s) from which they always selected the sacrificial animals] – cattle (and) sheep – 7′ [the cowherds (and) shepherds have d]ied. The corral(s) (and) the pe[n(s) are neglected]. 8′ [So it came to pass that the thi]ck [bread], the libation, [and the animal sacrifices for the gods 9′ [are neglected]. And you, O Go]ds, [proceed to hold us accountable] in that ma[tter]. Complaint [1b] 10′ [To mankind] our [wisd]om has got lost. [What right] 11′ [we do, it does not exist].

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

340

A Fragmentary Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.III)

Fragmentary 12′ […]x x[…] (Broken) […] […] […] […] Description Problem (Enemies) [≈ 2a] 1″ [ … 2″ [ … 3″ [ … 3a″ É.DINGIRMEŠ-ia ša-ar-wa!-er URUḪI.A-m[a …] 3b″ ŠA dtu!-wa-ša-i[l … la-u-wa-ar-ru-na?] 3c″ ša-an-ḫe-eš-kán-zi

-z]i ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ-ma -l]a-aš-ma ]x.RAḪI.A pí-ip-pé-er

Request [≈ 2c] 4″ [ … wa-ar-ši-ia-an-da šu-ul-l]a-an-da KUR.KURMEŠ-TIM URU TI 5″ [KUR KÙ.BABBAR -ma ta-ri-ia-an KUR-e nu ta-ri-ia-an-da-an la-a-at-tén wa-ar-ši-i]a-an-ta-ma 6″ [tu-u-ri-ia-at-tén] → Description Problem (Enemies) [≈ 3a] 6″ [ … ]x LÚ.MEŠSIPA.UDU erasure LÚ.〈MEŠSIPA〉.ŠAḪ-ia 7″ [ … ar]-kam-ma-an píd-da-a-er 8″ [na-aš-ta ke-e-ia KUR.KURMEŠ-TIM A-NA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na a-ra-a-u-e-eš-še-er nu a]r-kam-ma-an ar-⸢ḫa⸣ 9″ [pé-e-eš-še-i-e-er nu a-ap-pa KUR URUḪA-AT-TI GUL-ḫa-an-ni-ia-u-wa-an ti-anzi? nu? ka-r]u-ú KUR URUḪA-A[T-TI] 10″ [IŠ-TU dUTU URUa-ri-in-na za-aḫ-ḫa-it a-ra-aḫ-zé-na-aš A-NA KUR.KURMEŠ-TIM UR.MA]Ḫ ma-a-an [šar-ḫi-iš-ki-it?] 11″ […]x x[…] (Broken) Request + Wishes [3c] 1‴ […]x x x[…] 2‴ [a-aš-ša-a-u-e-eš] ⸢i-da⸣-la-u-aš ḫar-x[… na-aš ma-a-an 1EN URULUM] 3‴ [na-aš-ma-at 1E]N ÉTUM na-aš-ma 1⸢EN⸣ [LÚ nu DINGIRMEŠ a-pu-u-un-pát 1EN ḫarni-ik-te-en?] 4‴ [KUR URUKÙ.BABBAR?-T]I-ma-kán DINGIRMEŠ! an-da SI[G5-u-it IGIḪI.A-it a-uš-te-en i-da-a-lu-ma ḫi-in-kán]

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

341

Fragmentary 12′ […] (Broken) […] […] […] […] Description Problem (Enemies) [≈ 2a] 1″ [… the]y […], but the temples 2″ […]… 3″ […] they overthrew [the …]s. 3a″ And they plundered the temples and the cities […] 3b″ of Tuwašail […] 3c″ they seek [to despoil] Request [≈ 2c] 4″ [… Rested are the disresp]ectful lands, 5″f. [but the land of Ḫatti is a tired land. Untie the tired one and harness the rest]ed one! Description Problem (Enemies) [≈ 3a] 6″ […] shepherds and swineherds 7″ […] they paid [tr]ibute. 8″ [Also these lands came free from the Sun-goddess of Arinna. They have repudiated] the tributes 9″ [and they again began to attack the land of Ḫatti. Be]fore, the land of Ḫa[tti] 10″ [together with the Sun-goddess of Arinna in battle always raged against the surrounding lands] like [a lio]n. 11″ […] (Broken) Request + Wishes [3c] 1‴ […] … [… Do not] 2‴ co[nsider the good ones among] the evil ones! [Whether it is a single city] 3‴ [or it is a singl]e house or a single [person, O Gods, destroy only that single one]. 4‴ O Gods, [look at the land of Ḫatt]i with favou[rable eyes!] Give [the evil plague]

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

342

A Fragmentary Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.III)

5‴ […]-aš i-da-la-u-aš KUR-e-aš pé-eš-t[én] 6‴ [I-NA KUR URUK]Ù.BABBARTI-ma ma-a-ú ši-eš-du […? nu KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI] 7‴ [a-ap-pa k]a-ru-ú-i-li-at-ta ki-š[a-ru] KIN ORACLE

8‴ [ma-a-an] LUGAL-uš-ma I-NA URUTÚL-na ar-ku-wa-ar i-i[a-zi KIN SIG5-ru] 9‴ [x x]x da-a-aš nu-kán an-da SIG5-u-i I-NA x[… pa-a-iš?] 10‴ [nu? ar-ku-w]a-ar ti-ia-u-wa-ar ME-aš na-⸢at⸣ A-N[A … pa-a-iš] 11‴ [ZAG?-tar?] NINDA.GUR4.RA A-DAM-MA-ia ME-aš na-at p[a-an-ga-u-i pa-a-iš] (Blank) (text breaks off, reverse blank except for ll. 3a″–3c″) Comments See also the discussion in Ch. 8.2. obv.1′–11′: The restorations are based on KUB 24.3+ ii 10–26 (CTH 376.II) and KUB 24.4+ 1′–9′ (CTH 376.I), for which see Appendices II and IV. obv. 4′: Compare the comments on CTH 376.I E KBo 60.18 obv. 2′ in Appendix II. The parallel in CTH 376.I E KBo 60.18 obv. 2′ has a horizontal ruling after kuiški. This ruling is omitted in KUB 30.13(+). obv. 5′: [Š]A DINGIRMEŠ does not occur in the parallels in CTH 376.I (KUB 24.4+ obv. 2′) or CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ ii 17). For the restoration of a-ke-er, compare obv. 7′ and the comments on KUB 24.4+ obv. 2′ in Appendix II. obv. 11′: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) read […] n[a-at …], but the visible scratch does not seem to belong to a cuneiform sign. obv. 12′: The traces are illegible. Czyzewska (2012: II 140) reads: […]⸢uš-ka⸣-[at-te-ni …]. The following lacuna might be (partly) reconstructed on the basis of KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′ff. (CTH 376.I), see Appendix IV. obv. 1″: Compare KUB 24.4+ obv. 19 (CTH 376.I) and KUB 24.3+ ii 37 (CTH 376.II) in Appendices II and IV. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) restore [… ša-an-ḫi-iš-kán-z]i before ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ-ma. The ruling preceding this line appears to be a double ruling (so Czyzewska 2012: II 140; Torri 2010: 364; van den Hout 2007: 404), but this is probably only due to the careless drawing of the line (cf. Torri 2010: 367). Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) do not indicate any rulings preceding obv. 1″. The two paragraphs preceding obv. 1″ probably did contain text, contra Czyzewska (2012: II 140), Torri (2010: 367), and van den Hout (2007: 403, 404). obv. 2″: Perhaps [URUka-l]a-aš-ma could be restored on the end of the line (so van den Hout 2007: 403 and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.2). It would explain the mention of cities (URUḪI.A) in l. 3a″. The city is mentioned in KUB 24.4+ obv. 27′ (CTH 376.I) and KUB 24.3+ ii 47 (CTH 376.II). obv. 3″: Torri (2010: 364) reads [ZA.GA]R.RAḪI.A, but she probably means ZAG.GAR.RAḪI.A since she translates ‘altars’ (ibid. 366). Similarly, van den Hout (2007: 403) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) read [GIŠZAG.GA]R?.RAḪI.A. ll. 3a″–3c″: obv. 3″ continues over the edge of the tablet on to the reverse. Following Torri (2010), the continuation of this line is numbered 3a″. Two additional lines are written on the reverse below l. 3a″. Fol-

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

343

5‴ to the […] evil lands! 6‴ May it thrive and prosper [in the land of Ḫ]atti! [… May the land of Ḫatti] 7‴ beco[me again] as it was before! KIN ORACLE

8‴ [If] the king [should] mak[e] an arkuwar in Arinna, [let the KIN (oracle) be favourable.] 9‴ He took [the …] and [gave] (it) to the GOOD in the […]. 10‴ He took the PRESENTATION OF [THE ARKUW]AR and [gave] it t[o the …]. 11‴ He took [the RIGHT SIDE?], the THICK BREAD, (and) the BLOOD and [gave] it [to] the MU[LTITUDE]. (Blank) (text breaks off, reverse blank except for ll. 3a″–3c″) lowing Torri (2010), these are numbered 3b″ and 3c″. How many signs are lost at the end of each of these lines is unclear. The lines (3a″–3c″) were thus written on the reverse of the tablet but are part of the text on the obverse. Apparently, the scribe had forgotten to write these clauses and inserted them in this way, possibly when the clay had already started to dry (Torri 2010: 367, van den Hout 2007: 404). Alternatively, it could also be an indication that the rulings had already been drawn before the text was written and the text did not fit the size of the paragraph. This would also explain the small size of the signs in obv. 3′. The remainder of the reverse is, as far as preserved, blank. l. 3b″: For the reading of the deity as Tuwašail, see Steitler 2017: p. 256, fn. 813. This is contra Van Gessel (1998: 332) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) who read dne?-wa-ša-i[l], and van den Hout (2007: 403) and Czyzewska (2012: II 140) who read dTe-wa-ša-i[l]. ll. 3b″–3c″: Compare KUB 24.4+ obv. 19′f. (CTH 376.I) and KUB 24.3+ ii 37 (CTH 376.II). Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) do not think anything is missing at the end of l. 3b″. obv. 4″–6″: The restorations are based on KUB 24.3+ ii 41–44 (CTH 376.II) and KUB 24.4+ obv. 23′–24′ (CTH 376.I). obv. 4″: Van den Hout (2007: 403) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) read: [ḫu-u-m]a-an-da KUR.KURMEŠ-TIM. obv. 8″–10″: The restorations are based on KUB 24.3+ ii 48–52 (CTH 376.II) and KUB 24.4+ obv. 28′–rev. 3 (CTH 376.I). KUR.KURMEŠ-TIM is restored in obv. 8″ and 10″ on the basis of obv. 4″. obv. 11″: The traces are illegible. Torri (2010: 365) reads: […] ⸢ḫar⸣-n[i-in-ki-iš-ki-it], so also Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2). The ruling preceding this line is only vaguely visible on the photographs. Torri (2010: 365) collated the tablet and indicated a ruling here, as does van den Hout (2007: 403). Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) do not indicate the ruling. obv. 1‴: Torri (2010: 365) reads [ku-iš DINGIRMEŠ]-⸢na⸣-[aš] ⸢Ú⸣-[UL na-aš-ta le-e], similarly Czyzewska (2012: II 141). obv. 2‴: On the basis of KUB 24.3+ ii 63 (CTH 376.II) and KUB 24.4+ rev. 11 (CTH 376.I) one would expect anda ḫarkanzi after ⸢i-da⸣-la-u-aš, but something else seems to have been written here since the traces after ḫar- do not belong to the sign KÁN and anda is missing. Nonetheless, Torri (2010: 365), Czyzewska (2012: II 141), and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) read ḫar-k[án-zi]. Perhaps we may read ḫar-k[ir] here, although a preterite would be unexpected. obv. 2‴–3‴: The restorations are based on KUB 24.4+ rev. 11–13 (CTH 376.I) and KUB 24.3+ ii 64–66 (CTH 376.II).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

344

A Fragmentary Prayer against Plague and Enemies (CTH 376.III)

obv. 4‴: The restorations are based on KUB 24.4+ rev. 14–15 (CTH 376.I). URUKÙ.BABBARTI is preferred over URUḪA-AT-TI because of obv. 6‴. The text has ME-AŠ after DINGIR instead of MEŠ or ME.EŠ. obv. 8‴–11‴: The restorations follow Torri 2010: 365; compare ibid. 366, Berman 1983: 7f., and Czyzewska 2012: II 141, 142. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.2) read i-y[a-at] at the end of obv. 8‴. The function of these lines within the text is unclear. They seem to represent the report of a KIN oracle (Torri 2010: 363, Berman 1983: 7f.)1055 which might have been part of the colophon (so also Czyzewska 2012: II 141). In any case this occurrence of an oracle report on a prayer tablet is unique within the Hittite corpus. Oracle reports have occasionally been added to texts of a different type, e.g., in the cult inventory KBo 8.56 and in the fragment of a festival text KBo 45.79 (Berman 1983: 4f., 7, 8).

III.2 TABLET FORMAT OF KUB 30.13 (+) KBO 12.132 (+) VBOT 121 KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121 is a remarkable tablet. The prayer was written only on the obverse of this single column tablet. The reverse is blank except for three lines (3a″–3c″) on the reverse of KBo 12.132.1056 These were added to the prayer when the clay was already starting to dry. The first line (3a″) is a continuation of obv. 3″. This indicates that the passage belongs to the prayer-text written on the obverse and should be read between obv. 3″ and 4″.1057 It is odd to find a tablet with an (almost entirely) blank reverse. Within the Hittite tablet collections this is only common for small labels (CTH 283). For texts of other genres it is extremely rare: Waal merely lists merely 17 of such tablets.1058 Most of these are rather small in size and they are usually not intended to be kept for a long time.1059 KUB 30.13 (2156/g) is a small fragment. The reverse and the tablet’s edges are lost. It contains the remains of 12 lines which are divided into 6 paragraphs. A horizontal ruling precedes the first preserved line, indicating that a new paragraph begins there. KBo 12.132 (286/t) preserves part of the obverse, the right edge, and the reverse of the tablet. The remains of 11 lines can be read on the obverse. They are divided into 3 paragraphs and preceded by two more paragraphs of which no text is preserved. The reverse only contains the inserted passage ll. 3a″–3c″. VBoT 121 preserves text on the obverse; the reverse is blank. The fragment contains the end of the prayer followed by a KIN oracle. After the final horizontal ruling there is a blank space.

1055 The KIN oracle was performed by the ‘Old Woman’ (MUNUSŠU.GI) and it involved lots. How it worked exactly is unclear. On the KIN oracle see Archi 1974. 1056 On the photograph one can see possible traces of cuneiform signs at the top of the reverse of KBo 12.132. These may however also be fractures in the clay. In any case, Otten did not copy them in KBo 12.132, nor did Torri or Rieken see these as traces of cuneiform signs. 1057 Torri 2010: 367, van den Hout 2007: 403, 404, Waal 2015: 74, fn. 223. 1058 Waal 2015: 67. See also ibid. 67, fn. 191 for a list of tablets which may have a blank reverse. She did not include KUB 30.13(+) in either list. 1059 Waal 2015: 67–73. The edict KUB 21.37 (CTH 85) is the only tablet of a larger size with a blank reverse listed by Waal. Waal (2015: 72–73) suggests that this tablet might have been publicly displayed, or that it may be a draft for or a copy of such a tablet.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Tablet Format of KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121

345

Figure 10. Wedge head within the ruling after VBoT 121 obv. 3‴. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: fotarch BF01905.

Figure 11. Part of the ruling after VBoT 121 obv. 11‴. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter. net/: fotarch BF01905.

KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121 is written in NS1060 but it seems to have been based on a MH precursor, presumably CTH 376.I (see Ch. 6.4 and Ch. 8.2.1). The text was not justified so each line would end at the outer right side of the tablet (see obv. 2″, 4″, 5″, and 7″). The end of the prayer is indicated by a single ruling. The lack of a double ruling may be compared to KUB 24.4+ (CTH 376.I), in which the prayer-text is also concluded by a single ruling. The text is divided into many short paragraphs, much in the same way as KUB 24.4+ (CTH 376.I).1061 This division is probably reminiscent of its MH precursor. The horizontal rulings were made with a stylus which was applied to the clay multiple times to draw a single line.1062 This is particularly clear in VBoT 121. The rulings are quite straight, but to draw a single one of these lines the stylus was applied to the clay at least two or three times. This is clear from the heads of wedges visible within the rulings, e.g., in those after obv. 3‴ (Figure 10) and obv. 7‴. The final ruling after obv. 11‴ does not show a wedge head, but the first part of the line ends above its continuation, where the stylus was once again applied to the clay (Figure 11). In KUB 30.13 the rulings are not perfectly straight, nor are they parallel to each other. For example, the ruling after obv. 7′ is drawn under a small angle slanting upwards. In KBo 12.132 the rulings are quite straight. The second ruling appears to be a double ruling. However, since it occurs in the middle of the prayer it may also be a single ruling drawn badly.

1060 On the palaeography of the tablet see p. 150, Appendix VIII, Torri 2010: 366, van den Hout 2007: 405 (KBo 12.132), 406 (KUB 30.13), and Klinger and Neu 1990: 149f. (KUB 30.13 joined to KBo 7.63). 1061 See p. 337 incl. fn. 1051. 1062 Cf. Torri 2010: 367.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

IV. THE PRAYER FOR MURŠILI II TO THE SUN-GODDESS OF ARINNA (CTH 376.II) This New Hittite prayer (CTH 376.II, listed in Appendix I as No. 11) was composed for Muršili II. It is addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, except for one part of the plea, referred to as Plea II in the present study, which is directed to (all) the gods. Its best preserved and thus main text witness is A (KUB 24.3+) written in New Script. It could be an original contemporary manuscript from Muršili II’s reign (see Ch. 6.2). This tablet was found in Temple I.1063 It is well preserved except for the first two paragraphs and a few frag-mentary passages. The tablet has two columns on each side. The prayer-text covers the first three columns and is followed by a double ruling. The fourth column contains only the colophon with the rest left blank. The tablet format of KUB 24.3+ is described in more detail in Appendix IV.2 below. B (KUB 36.80) preserves the beginning of the prayer and a colophon. It is written in New Script. The late forms of ID and SÌLA suggest that it could be a later copy, i.e., postdating the reign of Muršili II.1064 Since most of the prayer is broken off and the preserved text is not duplicated by any of the other text witnesses of CTH 376.II, its assignment to CTH 376.II is not entirely certain. The fragment may as well have belonged to another prayer of Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna that also began with the elaborate prayer introduction, such as KUB 36.81 (CTH 376.4). In any case, from the parallels between CTH 376.II and CTH 377 we may conclude that CTH 376.II began with an introduction as is preserved in KUB 36.80 (see Ch. 7.1). Carruba (1983: 9) suggested that KUB 36.80 may be the ‘separate tablet’ referred to in the colophon of KUB 24.3+ iv 8′. C (KBo 52.16+) uses the late forms of URU and LI and is thus dated NS (IIIb).1065 This fragmentary tablet is therefore probably a later copy of CTH 376.II. Similarly, D (KBo 53.13 (+) KBo 66.191) may also be a later copy, for the late form of LI suggests a IIIb date.1066 This tablet is assigned to CTH 376.II rather than to CTH 376.I, because the lack of horizontal rulings in KBo 53.13 is comparable to the parallel lines in KUB 24.3+ (A). However, KBo 66.191 has a horizontal ruling where KUB 24.3+ does not have one, but CTH 376.I ms. A does (after KUB 24.4+ obv. 12′). The assignment of this tablet to CTH 376.II is, therefore, not entirely certain.

1063 The fragments 544/u, 1947/u, and 401/u, published as KBo 51.18a and KBo 51.18b, were found in the dump of L/19. 107/w (KBo 71.20) was also found in L/19 in front of storage room 12 (Konkordanz). 1064 Note also the late forms of DU, URU, RU, AḪ, and SAG. 1065 Note also the late forms of TAR and ḪAR. KI does not occur in the late IIIc form. 1066 Note further the late sign-forms of E, AZ, URU, and ḪAR. The signs ŠA, TA, and GA are written with large inscribed verticals.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

348

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

The edition below is primarily based on KUB 24.3+.1067 Variants in the duplicates are indicated in footnotes. All observations are based on previous publications and the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Text Witnesses A KUB 24.3 + KBo 51.18a + KBo 51.18b + KUB 31.144 + KBo 71.20

Date NS

Find spot Temple I

Duplicates

IV.1 TEXT EDITION B KUB 36.80, obverse ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION Introduction 1 [dUTU URUa-ri-in]-⸢na?⸣ u-ia-it-⸢mu⸣ [m]⸢mur⸣-ši-l[i-iš? LUGAL-uš] 2 [tu-e-el? ARAD-K]A? ⸢i⸣-it-wa am-me-el A-NA B[E-EL-TI-IA?] 3 [A-NA dUTU URU]⸢a⸣-ri-in-na me-mi → Invocation 3 nu-wa dUTU UR[UA-ri-in-na] 4 [DINGIRLAM ŠA S]AG.DU-IA mu-ga-a-mi nu-za-ká[n ma-a-an] 5 [na-ak-k]i-iš dUTU URUa-ri-in-na ne-pí-š[i? DINGIRMEŠ-aš] 6 [iš-tar-na] še-er ma!-a-an-za a-ru-ni ma-a-an-za A-N[A ḪUR.SAGMEŠ] 7 [x x]x-ka4 ⸢wa-aḫ-ḫa⸣-an-na pa-a-a[n-za] 8 [ki-nu-na]-⸢at-ta⸣ [GI]Š[E]R[I]N-an-za Ì-aš-š[a?] 9 [x x]x[x x kal-li-iš]-du nu-ut-t[a …] 10 […] Ì-aš-ša š[a- …] A KUB 24.3+, obv. i 2′ [ … na-aš-ta EGI(R)]-pa Éka-ri-im-m[a?] 3′ [an-da e-ḫu nu-ut-t(a k)a-a-ša mu-ki-iš-ki-m]i NINDAḫar-ši-it1068 4′ [DUGiš-pa-an-du-zi-it nu-uš-ša-an pa-ra-a ka-l]a-an-ga-an-za e-eš 5′ [nu-ut-ta ku-it me-mi-iš-ki-mi na-at iš-t]a-ma-⸢aš-ki⸣ ‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage 6′ [zi-ik-za dUTU URUa-ri-in-na na-ak-ki-i]š DINGIRLIM-iš 7′ [nu-ut-ta DINGIRLIM-IA? ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ-ia? I-NA KU]R URUKÙ.BABBARTI ta-aš-šanu-wa-an 8′ [nam-ma-ma-at-ta ta-me-e-da-ni KUR-e] É.DINGIRLIM-KA

1067 For previous editions, see p. 315. Translations: Singer 2002a: 49–54, Ünal 1991: 803–8 (with CTH 376.I and CTH 377), Bernabé 1979: 267–71, Vieyra 1970: 555–60 (with CTH 376.I and CTH 377), Goetze 1950a: 396f. (with CTH 376.I and CTH 377). 1068 B obv. 12f.: […-t]a? k[a?-…] / […]x x?[…]. Then the tablet breaks.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

349

Text Edition

Text Witnesses B KUB 36.80

Date NS

Find spot -

C

NS

Temple I

NS

Temple I

D

KBo 52.16 + ABoT 2.21 + Bo 43281069 KBo 53.13 (+) KBo 66.191

Duplicates A i 1′–3′; obv. 1–9 precede A A iii 11′–iii 27′ A ii 14–24, ii 27– 30, 47–54

B KUB 36.80, obverse ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION Introduction 1 [O Sun-goddess of Arinn]a! Muršil[i, the king], 2 [you]r [servant], has sent me (saying): ‘Go speak to my l[ady?,] 3 [the Sun-goddess of] Arinna!’ Invocation 3 ‘(Herewith) I invoke the Sun-goddess of [Arinna], 4 my [per]sonal [goddess].’ [Whether] 5 you, O [honour]ed Sun-goddess of Arinna, are in heave[n among the gods] 6 above, or whether you are in the sea, or whether you 7 have gone to roam i[n the mountains …], 8 [now], may the [c]e[da]r a[nd] the oil 9 [… summon] you! […] And to you […] 10 [… cedar] and oil […]. A KUB 24.3+, obv. i 2′ [… Come bac]k [into your] chape[l]! 3′ [Herewith] I [am (constantly) invoking you] with thick bread 4′ [(and) libation]! Be [sa]tisfied! 5′ [What I keep saying to you, li]sten [to it]! ‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage 6′ [You, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are an honoure]d deity. 7′ [For you, my goddess and the temples are] made strong [in] Ḫatti. 8′ [But, moreover, in another land] your temple

1069 Bo 4328 non vidi. Transliteration of the fragment follows Czyzewska 2012: I 166f.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

350

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

9′ [Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki e-eš-zi nu-u]t?-⸢ta⸣ EZEN4ḪI.A SÍSKURḪI.A-ia 10′ 11′ 12′ 13′ 14′ 15′

[I-NA KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-pát šu-up-pi pár-ku]-⸢i⸣ pé-eš-kán-zi [nam-ma-ma-at-ta ta-me-e-da-ni KUR]-⸢e⸣ Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki pé-eš-kán-zi [ … I]Š-TU KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI [ … ] e-eš-zi nam-ma-ma-at-ta [ta-me-e-da-ni KUR-e Ú-UL ku-wa-pí]-ik-ki e-eš-zi [GAL?ḪI.A-ta BI-IB-RIḪI.A KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.G]I? NA4ḪI.A I-NA KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-pát

16′ 17′ 18′ 19′ 20′

[e-eš-zi EZEN4ḪI.A-ia-at-ta? EZEN4?.I]TUḪI.A MU-ti mi-i-ia-na-aš [zé-na-an-da-aš? gi-im-ma-an-t]a?-aš ⸢ḫa-me-eš-ḫa⸣-an-da-aš ⸢a-ú-li-uš mu⸣-k[i-iš-na-aš-ša? EZ]EN4ḪI.A I-⸢NA⸣ [KUR U]RU⸢KÙ⸣.BABBARTI-pát e-eš-ša-an-zi nam-ma-⸢ma⸣-[at-ta] ta-me-e-da-ni ⸢KUR⸣-e Ú-UL ku-wa-pí-ik-ki e-eš-š[a-a]n-zi

21′ nu tu-el ŠA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na DINGIRLIM-ia-tar I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-⸢TI⸣-pát 22′ na-ak-ki-⸢ia⸣-aḫ-ḫa-an nu-ut-ták-kán mmur-ši-DINGIRLIM-iš erasure LUGAL-uš ARAD-⸢KA⸣ 23′ I-NA KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-⸢pát na-aḫ⸣-ḫa-an-za nu tu-el ŠA dUTU URUa-r[i]-in-na 24′ ḫi-im-mu-uš SÍSK[U]RḪI.A ⸢EZEN4⸣ḪI.A i-ia-u-wa-an-zi 25′ ša-ra-a ti-it-ta-nu-uš-kán-zi nu-ut-ta ḫu-u-ma-an pár-ku-i 26′ pé-eš-kán-zi nam-ma-aš-ša-an É.DINGIRLIM-KA A-NA KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI 27′ na-aḫ-ša-ra-az ti-ia-an-za nu ma-ni-in-ku-wa-an 28′ ⸢Ú⸣-UL ku-iš-ki ti-ia-az-zi Hymn 29′ ⸢zi⸣-ik-za dUTU URUa-ri-in-na na-ak-ki-iš DINGIRLIM-iš 30′ ⸢nu⸣-ut-ták-kán ŠUM-an lam-na-aš iš-tar-⸢na na⸣-ak-⸢ki-i⸣ DINGIRLIM-ia-tarma-ták-⸢kán⸣ 31′ DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na na-ak-ki-i nam-⸢ma⸣-za-⸢kán⸣ DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na 32′ zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na na-ak-ki-iš ⸢šal-le⸣-eš-ša-az 33′ zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na nam-ma-ták-kán ⸢da⸣-ma-a-iš ⸢DINGIR⸣LUM 34′ ⸢na⸣-ak-ki-iš šal-li-iš-ša Ú-UL e-eš-zi ḫa-an-ta-an-⸢da⸣-ša-⸢az⸣ 35′ [ḫa-a]n-né-eš-na-aš EN-aš zi-ik-pát ne-pí-ša-aš-ša 36′ [ták-na-a]š-ša LUGAL-u-iz-na-tar zi-ik-pát du-ud-du-uš-ki-ši 37′ [KUR.KUR]⸢MEŠ⸣-a[š-k]án ZAGḪI.A-uš zi-ik-pát zi-ik-ki-ši 38′ [mu-g]a-⸢u⸣-[w]a-ar-ra zi-ik-pát iš-ta-ma-aš-ki-ši 39′ [zi-i]k-pát-za dUTU URUa-ri-in-na gi-i[n]-zu-wa-la-aš DINGIRLUM zi-i[k] 40′ n[u g]i-in-zu zi-ik-pát da-aš-ki-[š]i pa-ra-a ḫa-an-da-an-za-ša-⸢kán⸣ 41′ ⸢an-tu⸣-uḫ-wa-aḫ-ḫa-aš tu-uk-pát A-NA dUTU [UR]Ua-ri-in-na aš-ši-ia-an-za 42′ na-an zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na [ša]r-le-eš-ki-ši 43′ ne-pí-ša-aš-ša-az ták-na-aš-ša ḫu-u-⸢la⸣-le-e-eš-ni 44′ zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na la-lu-uk-k[i-m]a-aš 45′ KUR.KURḪI.A-ša-za-kán iš-tar-na zi-ik-pát aš-š[a-nu-w]a-an-za DINGIRLIM-iš

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

351

9′ [is never (made strong) for you]. For you, they continually provide the festivals and ritual(s) 10′ in a [holy (and) pur]e manner [only in Ḫatti]. 11′ [But, moreover, in another lan]d they never provide (them) [for you]. 12′ [For you, lofty temples adorned] with silver (and) gold 13′ exist [only in Ḫatti]. Moreover, 14′ [in another land it neve]r exists for you. 15′ [For you, cups (and) rhyta of silver, gold, (and)] stones [exist] only in the land of Ḫatti. 16′ [For you, festivals – the] monthly [festival]s, the annual (festivals): 17′ [the fe]stivals [of autumn, winte]r, (and) spring, 18′ the animal sacrifices, [and the mukeššar] – exist only in Ḫatti. 19′ But, moreover, in another land 20′ they never ex[i]st [for you]. 21′ Your godhood, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, is honoured only in Ḫatti. 22′ Only in Ḫatti is Muršili, the king, your servant, 23′ respectful to you. They continually set up your images, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, 24′ to fully perform the rituals (and) festivals. 25′ They continually provide everything in a pure manner for you. 26′ Furthermore, for the silver (and) gold of your temple 27′ respect is established. 28′ No one will step near it. Hymn 29′ You, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are an honoured deity. 30′ Your name is honoured among names, and your godhood 31′ 32′ 33′ 34′ 35′ 36′ 37′ 38′ 39′ 40′ 41′ 42′ 43′ 44′ 45′

is honoured among the gods. Furthermore, among the gods, only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are honoured, and only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are great. Furthermore, no other deity is honoured and great (compared) to you. The lordsic of just [ju]dgement are you alone, and only you govern the kingship of heaven and earth mercifully. Only you establish the borders of the lands, and only you listen to mugawar(s). Only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are a merciful deity, and only you have mercy. The just man is dear to you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, and only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, let him prevail. In the circumference of heaven and earth only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are the (source of) light. Throughout the lands only you are a worshipped goddess,

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

352

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

46′ 47′ 48′ 49′ 50′ 51′ 52′ 53′ 54′ 55′ 56′

nu-za KUR-e-aš ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš at-ta-aš an-na-aš z[i-i]k ḫa-an-né-eš-na-ša-az pa-ra-a ḫa-an-da-an-za EN-aš zi-ik nu-ut-ta ḫa-an-né-eš-na-aš pé-di tar-ri-ia-aš-ḫa-aš NU.GÁL ka-ru-ú-i-li-ia-ša-za-kán DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na zi-ik-pát aš-ša-nu-wa-an-za DINGIRMEŠ-na-ša-aš-ša-an SÍSKURḪI.A zi-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na zi-ik-ki-ši ka-ru-ú-i-li-ia-ša-aš-ša-an DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš ḪA.LA-ŠU-NU zi-ik-pát zi-ik-ki-ši ⸢ne⸣-[p]í-ša-aš-ša-aš GIŠIG EGIR-pa tu-uk-pát ḫa-aš-kán-zi [nu-ká]n ⸢ne⸣-p[í-ša-a]š KÁ-uš zi-ik-pát aš-ša-nu-wa-an-za [dUTU URUa-ri-in-na] ⸢šar?⸣-ri-iš-ki-it-ta ne-pí-ša-aš-ša [ták-na-aš-ša? DINGIRMEŠ-eš] erasure [tu-u]k?-pát A-NA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na

57′ [kat-ta-an ka-ni-na-an-te-eš ku]-⸢it-ta dUTU⸣ URUa-ri-in-na me-mi-eš-ki-ši 58′ [DINGIRMEŠ-ša a-ap-pa? tu-uk-pát? A-NA dUTU URUa-ri-i]n-⸢na a-ru-ú-i-iš⸣-k[án-zi] (Remainder obv. i lost, ca. 5 lines) Obv. ii 1 [an-t]u-uḫ-ši-ia-za-kán ku-e-da-ni DINGIRMEŠ š[a-a?-an-zi] 2 [n]a-an-ša-an ar-ḫa pa-aš-ku-wa-an-z[i na-an EGIR-pa] 3 [z]i-ik-pát dUTU URUa-ri-in-na g[e]-e[n-zu-wa-ši] PLEA I Requests – Support + Attention 4 ki-nu-na mmur-ši-DINGIRLIM-in LUGAL-⸢un⸣ d⸢UTU URUa⸣-r[i-in-na] 5 lu-lu-wa-a-i nu mmur-ši-DINGIRLIM-in ⸢LUGAL⸣-[u]n ḫa-an-da-a[n?-da?-an] 6 ARAD-KA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na ki-iš-šar-ta ḫar-a[k] 7 nu-ut-ta mmur-ši-DINGIRLIM-iš! LUGAL-uš ud-da-a-ar 8 ⸢ku⸣-e ⸢me⸣-mi-eš-ki-iz-zi nu ⸢dUTU URU⸣a-ri-in-na GEŠTU-[an] 9 pa-ra-a l[a-ga]-⸢a-an⸣ ḫar-ak ⸢na⸣-at iš-ta-ma-aš-ki PLEA II Rhetorical Question with Answer – Problem (plague) [1a] 10 [k]i-i DINGIRME[Š ku-it i]-⸢ia⸣-at-tén nu ḫi-in-kán tar-na-a[t-tén] Description Problem (plague) [1a] 11 ⸢nu⸣ KUR URUK[Ù].⸢BABBAR⸣T[I ḫu-u-m]a-an-pát BA.ÚŠ nam-⸢ma⸣ A-NA D[INGIRMEŠ] 12 NINDAḫar-ši-in [DUGiš-p]a-an-du-zi-ia Ú-UL ⸢ku⸣-iš-k[i] 13 i-ia-zi LÚ.M[EŠ?APIN.L]Á? A.ŠÀA.GÀRḪI.A DINGIRLIM ku-i-⸢e⸣-[eš] 14 an-né-eš-kir1070 na-a[t] ⸢e⸣-kir nu nam-ma A.ŠÀA.G[(ÀR)ḪI.A (DINGIRLIM)]1071 15 a-ni-ia-an-zi w[a-a]r-aš-ša-an-zi Ú-UL ku-i[(t-ki)]1072 1070 D obverse begins here, obv. 1′: [… an?-ni?-i]š?-⸢ke?⸣-[er?]. 1071 D obv. 2′: […]x x ⸢A⸣.[GÀ]RMEŠ DINGIRLIM. 1072 D obv. 3′: […]⸢Ú⸣-UL [k]u-it-ki.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

46′ 47′ 48′ 49′ 50′ 51′ 52′ 53′ 54′ 55′ 56′

353

and to all the lands you are father (and) mother. The just lordsic of judgement are you and your fatigue does not exist in the place of judgement. Among the primeval gods you in particular are worshipped. Only you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, set the offerings for the gods. Only you set the primeval gods their shares. They keep reopening the door of heaven for you alone, and only you, O (widely) worshipped [Sun-goddess of Arinna], pass through the gate of heaven. And [the gods] of heaven [and earth are bowed down for yo]u alone, O Sungoddess of Arinna, 57′ [Wha]tever you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, say, 58′ [the gods] keep prostrat[ing themselves again to you alone, O Sun-goddess of Ari]nna. (Remainder obv. i lost, ca. 5 lines) Obv. ii 1 The person at whom the gods are angry, 2 and who they reject, 3 only [y]ou, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are compassionate towards [him again]. PLEA I Requests – Support + Attention 4 Now, O Sun-goddess of Ar[inna], sustain Muršili, the king! 5 Hol[d] Muršili, the king, your tru[e] servant 6 by the hand, O Sun-goddess of Arinna! 7 The words which Muršili, the king, 8 continuously speaks to you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, 9 hold (your) ear in[clin]ed and keep listening to them! PLEA II Rhetorical Question with Answer – Problem (Plague) [1a] 10 O Gods, [what] is this you have done? [You have] allowed a plague. Description Problem (Plague) [1a] 11 The [enti]re land of Ḫatti is dying. As a consequence, 12 nobody prepares the thick bread and the [li]bation for [the gods]. 13 The [plough]men who always worked the fields of the god 14f. have died. As a consequence, they do not work (or) harvest the fie[lds of the god] in any [way].

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

354

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

16

MUNUSMEŠ NA₄ARA5 ŠA DINGIRMEŠ NINDA.GUR4.RAḪI.A

ku-i-e-e[(š ma-al-le-eš-keer)]1073 17 na-at e-kir nu nam-ma NINDA.GUR4.RA Ú-⸢UL⸣ [(ku-iš-ki ma-al-zi)]1074 18 UDUa-ú-li-⸢ú⸣-uš-kán GU4ḪI.A UDUḪI.A ⸢ḫa⸣-a-l[(i-ia-az)]1075 19 a-ša-u-na-az ku-⸢e⸣-[e]z-za-aš kar-aš-⸢ke⸣-er nu L[Ú.MEŠSIPA.GU4] 20 LÚ.MEŠSIPA.UDU e-kir ⸢ḫa⸣-a-li-ia a-ša-a-u-wa(-)x [kar-ša-an-da-ri?] 21 nu ú-iz-zi A-NA DINGIRMEŠ NINDA.⸢GUR4⸣.RAḪI.A DUGiš-pa-[an-du-zi] 22 UDUa-ú-li-uš-ša kar-⸢ša⸣-an-da-ri nu-un-⸢na⸣-[aš] 23 ú-wa-at-te-ni DINGIRMEŠ a-pé-⸢e⸣-da-ni ud-da-a-ni-⸢i⸣ 24 wa-aš-du-li ḫar-te-ni1076 → Complaint [1b] 24 na-aš-⸢ta⸣ A-NA DUMU.LÚ.U19.L[U] 25 ḫa-at-ta-tar-šum-mi-it ḫar-⸢ak⸣-[t]a nu ZAG-an ku-⸢it⸣ [i-ia-e-ni] 26 na-at NU.GÁL → Request + Wishes [1c] 26 nu DINGIRMEŠ ku-it wa-aš-túl uš-kat-te-ni 27 nu na-aš-šu DINGIRMEŠ-ni-ia-an-za1077 ú-⸢id⸣-du na-at me-⸢ma⸣-ú 28 na-aš-ma-at MUNUS.MEŠŠU.GI LÚ.MEŠA[(Z)]U1078 LÚ.MEŠMUŠEN.DÙ me-mi-ia-an-⸢du⸣ 29 na-aš-ma-at za-aš-ḫi-ia-az DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU a-uš-du1079 30 na-aš-ta URUDUZI.KIN.BAR-aš GIŠšar-pa-⸢az⸣ ku-un-ku-u-e-en1080 31 ⸢nu⸣ DINGIRMEŠ A-NA KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI ge-en-⸢zu⸣ nam-ma ta-at-tén Description (enemies) [2a] 32 ⸢ke-e-ez⸣-za-at ḫi-in-ga-na-an-za ta-⸢ma⸣-aš-ta ⸢ke⸣-e-ez-za-ma-at 33 ⸢ku⸣-ru-ra-an-za ta-ma-aš-ta nu ku-ri-wa-⸢na⸣-aš KUR.KURMEŠ ku-e 34 a-ra-aḫ-za!-an-da1081 KUR URUmi-it-ta-an-ni KUR URUar-za-u-wa 35 nu ḫu-u-ma-an-za šu-ul-le-e-et nu-za-kán DIN[GIR]MEŠ ša-ra-a 36 Ú-UL i-ia-an-⸢zi⸣ na-aš-ta NI-EŠ DINGIRMEŠ šar-⸢re⸣-eš-kán-⸢zi⸣ 37 ⸢ÉḪI.A⸣.DINGIRMEŠ-ma ⸢la⸣-u-wa-ar-ru-na ša-an-ḫi-iš-kán-⸢zi⸣ Wish – Revenge [2b] 38 ⸢na⸣-at A-NA DINGIRMEŠ kat-ta-wa-a-tar nam-ma ki-ša-ru Requests [2c] 39 nu-uš-ša-an ḫi-in-kán ku-ru-ur ga-aš-ta-an i-da-a-lu-un 40 ta-pa-aš-ša-an A-NA KUR URUmi-it-ta-an-ni Ù A-NA KUR URUar-za-u-wa 41 tar-na-at-tén wa-ar-ša-an-da šu-ul-la-an-da KUR.KURḪI.A 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081

D obv. 4′: [… ME]Š ku-i-e-⸢eš ma⸣-al-le-eš-ke-er. D obv. 5′: […]x Ú-UL ku-⸢iš-ki⸣ ma-al-⸢zi⸣. D obv. 6′: [… M]EŠ ḫa-a-li-ia-az. D breaks. D continues. D obv. 2″: [… LÚ.M]EŠAZU. D has a horizontal ruling after this (D obv. 2″). D obv. 3″: [… ku-u]n-ku-a-ni. D obverse breaks. The text has ḪA instead of ZA.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

355

16 The women of the grinding stone who [always ground (the flour for)] the thick breads of the gods 17 have died. As a consequence, no[body grinds (the flour for)] the thick bread. 18f. From the corr[al(s)] (and) pen(s), from which they always selected the sacrificial animals – cattle (and) sheep – the [cowherds] 20 (and) shepherds have died. The corral(s) (and) the pen(s) [are neglected]. 21 So it came to pass that the thick bread, the liba[tion], 22 (and) the animal sacrifices for the gods are neglected. 23 And you, O Gods, proceed to 24 hold us accountable in that matter. Complaint [1b] 24 To mankin[d] 25 our wisdom has got lost. What righ[t we do], 26 it does not exist. Requests + Wishes [1c] 26 O Gods, the offence (waštul) which you perceive, 27 may either a Man of God come and say it, 28 or may the Old Women, the Diviners, (or) the Augurs say it, 29 or may a person see it through a dream! 30 We have been dangling from the point of a needle. 31 O Gods, take pity again on Ḫatti! Description Problem (Plague and Enemies) [2a] 32 On the one hand plague has oppressed it (i.e., Ḫatti), and on the other hand 33 enmity has oppressed it. The kuriwana lands which 34 are around – the land of Mittani and the land of Arzawa – 35 each bec[ame] disrespectful. They do not worship the gods. 36 They continuously violate the oath of the gods. 37 They continually seek to despoil the temples. Wish – Revenge [2b] 38 May it become (a reason for) vengeance for the gods a[gai]n! Requests [2c] 39 Leave the plague, enmity, famine, (and) evil 40 fever to the land of Mittanni and to the land of Arzawa! 41 Rested are the disrespectful lands,

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

356

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

42 〈〈A-NA〉〉 KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-ma ta-ri-ia-an KUR-e 43 nu ta-ri-ia-an-da-an la-a-at-tén wa-ar-ši-ia-an-da-an-ma 44 tu-u-ri-ia-at-tén Description Problem (enemies) [3a] 45 ke-e-ma nam-ma ŠA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát KUR.KURḪI.A-TIM KUR URU⸢ga⸣-aš-ga 46 [n]a-at LÚ.MEŠSIPA.ŠAḪ Ù LÚ.MEŠE-PIŠ GADA e-eš-šir 47 ⸢Ù⸣ KUR URUa-ra-u-wa-an-na1082 KUR URUka-la-aš-ma KUR URUlu-uk-ka4 48 KUR [UR(Up)]í-⸢ta⸣-aš-ša1083 na-aš-ta ke-e-ia KUR.KURḪI.A-TIM 49 A-N[A dUTU U]RUa-ri-in-na a-ra-u-e-eš-ta nu ar-ga-mu-uš 50 ar-⸢ḫa⸣ [pé-e-eš-š]ir nu EGIR-pa KUR URUḪA-AT-TI1084 GUL-ḫa-an-ni-ia-u-wa-an d[a-(a)]-⸢er?⸣1085 51 ka-ru-ú-⸢ia?⸣ [KUR U]RUKÙ.BABBARTI IŠ-TU dUTU URUa-ri-in-na 52 a-ra-aḫ-zé-na-aš ⸢A⸣-[N]A KUR.KURḪI.A-TIM UR.MAḪ ma-a-an šar-ḫi-iš-ki-it 53 nu pa-ra-a URUḫal-pa-an ⸢URUKÁ.DINGIR.RA⸣-an ku-i-uš1086 ḫar-ni-in-ki-iš-ki-it 54 nu KUR-e-aš ḫu-u-ma-an-da-a[š a-aš-š]u ⸢KÙ⸣.BABBAR KÙ.GI DINGIRMEŠ-ia1087 〈da-a-er〉 55 na-at PA-NI dUTU URUa-ri-in-⸢na⸣ [zi-ik-k]i-ir 56 ki-nu-na a-ra-aḫ-zé-na-an-te-⸢eš⸣ [ud-ne-e-an-t]e-eš 57 ḫu-u-ma-an-te-eš KUR URU⸢KÙ⸣.BABBARTI [wa-al-ḫ]a-⸢an⸣-né-eš-ki-u-wa-an da-a-er Wish – Revenge + Request – Reputation [3b] 58 na-at A-NA dUTU URUa-⸢ri⸣-in-na ⸢kat-ta⸣-wa-a-tar 59 nam-ma ki-ša-a!-ru nu-za DINGIRLUM tu-el ŠUM-KA 60 le-e te-ep-ša-nu-ši Requests + Wishes [3c] 61 nu A-NA DINGIRMEŠ ku-iš kar-pí-iš kar-tim-mi-ia-az 62 ku-iš DINGIRMEŠ-na-aš Ú-UL na-aḫ-ḫa-an-za na-aš-ta l[e-e] 63 a-aš-ša-u-e-eš i-da-a-la-u-wa-aš an-da ⸢ḫar-kán-zi⸣ 64 na-aš ma-a-an 1EN URUKI na-aš-m[a-at 1EN ÉTUM?] 65 na-aš-ma 1⸢EN LÚ⸣ nu DINGIRMEŠ a-pu-u-u[n-pát] 66 1-an ⸢ḫar⸣-[ni-ik-tén? …]⸢KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI⸣[…] (Remainder obv. ii lost, ca. 5? lines missing)

1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087

D reverse begins here. D rev. 2′. D rev. 5′: ⸢URU⸣ḪAT-TI. D rev. 6′: […]-⸢a-er⸣. D rev. 10′: ku-it. D reverse breaks.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

357

42 but the land of Ḫatti is a tired land. 43 Untie the tired one 44 and harness the rested one! Description Problem (Enemies) [3a] 45f. Furthermore, to the land of Ḫatti these lands belong(ed): the land of Kaška – they were swineherds and weavers – 47 and the land of Arauwanna, the land of Kalašpa, the land of Lukka, 48 (and) the land of [P]ittašša. Also these lands 49 became free fro[m the Sun-goddess of] Arinna. They have repudiated the tributes 50 and they again [beg]an [to attack] the land of Ḫatti. 51 Before, the land of Ḫatti together with the Sun-goddess of Arinna 52 always raged against the surrounding lands like a lion. 53 Furthermore, Aleppo (and) Babylon, which it (i.e., Ḫatti) used to destroy, 54 (from them) 〈they took〉 the [good]s – silver, gold, and (statues of) gods – of all the lands 55 and they [placed] them in front of the Sun-goddess of Arinna. 56 Now, the surrounding [land]s 57 all began to [att]ack the land of Ḫatti. Wish – Revenge + Request – Reputation [3b] 58 May it become (a reason for) vengeance for the Sun-goddess of Arinna 59 again! O Goddess, do not degrade 60 your name! Requests + Wishes [3c] 61 Who(ever) is (a cause of) anger for the gods 62 (and) is not respectful of the gods, do not 63 consider the good ones among the evil ones! 64 Whether it is a single city or [it is a single house] 65 or a single person, O Gods, 66 [destroy?] only that single one! …] the land of Ḫatti […] (Remainder obv. ii lost, ca. 5? lines missing)

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

358

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

Rev. iii PLEA III

(Beginning rev. iii lost, ca. 5? lines missing) Request – Send evil to enemy 1′ ⸢i-la⸣-[li-iš]-⸢kán⸣-z[i ku]-⸢i?-e-eš-ma⸣ 2′ BI-IB-R[IḪI.]⸢A⸣ [GALḪI.A] Ú-NU-TE⸢MEŠ⸣ ŠA [KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI] 3′ da-an-na š[a-a]n-⸢ḫi⸣-iš-kán-zi 4′ ku-i-e-eš-ma-aš-za A.⸢ŠÀ⸣A.GÀRḪI.A-KU-NU GIŠKIRI6MEŠ.GE[ŠTIN?-K]U-⸢NU⸣ 5′ GIŠTIRMEŠ-KU-NU ta-an-⸢na⸣-at-ta-u-wa-an-zi 6′ ša-an-ḫi-iš-kán-zi ku-i-e-eš-ma-aš-za 7′ LÚ.MEŠAPIN.LÁ LÚ.MEŠNU.GIŠKIRI6 MUNUSMEŠ NA₄ARA5 8′ ta-an-na ša-an-ḫi-iš-kán-zi 9′ nu i-da-a-lu-un ta-pa-aš-ša-an ḫi-in-kán 10′ ga-aš-ta-an dUTU URUa-ri-in-na GAŠAN-IA 11′ a-pé-e-da-aš ⸢A⸣-NA KUR.KURḪI.A LÚKÚR pa-a-i1088

Requests 12′ nu-za dUTU URUa-ri-i[n-n]a-⸢ia?⸣ zi-ki-la 13′ mu-ke-eš-ki-iḫ-ḫu-u[t? x? ša?-a?-a]n?-za me-mi 14′ ú-e-šu-ri-ia-an-z[(a-ma E)GIR-pa (ḫ)]a-an-da-ḫu-ut Request – Support 15′ na-aš-ta A-NA m[(mur-ši-li LUG)]AL-i A-NA ARAD-KA 16′ A-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-[(ia1089 a)n-d(a a)]š-šu-li 17′ ne-iš-ḫu-ut1090 → Requests – Give good 17′ nu A-N[(A mm)ur-ši-l(i)] ARAD-KA 18′ TI-tar ḫa-at-tu-l[(a-tar i)n-na]-ra-u-wa-a-tar 19′ ⸢ŠA⸣ EGIR.UDMI [(ZI-aš) la-lu]-uk-ki-ma-an 20′ [M(UKAM GÍ)]D.DA-ia [(pé-eš-ki) nu]-uš-ši-kán 21′ [A-NA ZI-Š]U a[(n-da la-lu-u)]k-ki-ma-an 22′ [du-uš-ga-ra-a]t-t[a-an-na] zi-ik-ki 23′ [(nu-uš-ši) ḫa-aš-š]a-tar [DUMUMEŠ] DUMU.MUNUSMEŠ 24′ [(ḫa-aš-šu-u)]š ḫa-an[(za-aš-š)]u-⸢uš⸣ pé-eš-ki 25′ [(nu-uš-š)]i nu-ú-un [(t)]u-u-ma-an-⸢ti-ia-an⸣ 26′ [pé-e(š-ki)] nu-uš-ši [(ḫal)]-ki-ia-aš GIŠ[GEŠ]TIN-aš 27′ [UZ6?]-aš GU4-aš UDU-aš ANŠE.KUR.R[A-a]š1091 28′ [DUMU.L]Ú.[U19.LU-aš-ša m]i-ia-tar pé-eš-[k]i 29′ [nu-uš-ši x x x]x-tar tar-ḫu-u-⸢i⸣-[l]a-a-tar 1088 1089 1090 1091

C begins. B 1′: […]x x[…] C 6′: [A-N]A KUR URUKÙ.BABBARTI-ia. C 7′: [n]e-eš-ḫu-ut. C breaks.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

Rev. iii PLEA III

(Beginning rev. iii lost, ca. 5? lines missing) Request – Send evil to enemy 1′ [which] w[is]h to […], which 2′ seek to take the rhyta, 3′ [cups], and utensils of [silver (and) gold], 4′ which seek to lay waste to your fields, your [vine]yards, 5′ (and) your groves, 6′ which 7′ seek to take the ploughmen, the vine dressers, 8′ (and) the women of the grinding stone, 9′ to those lands, 10′ O Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, 11′ give the evil fever, [plag]ue (and) famine! Requests 12′ O Sun-godess of Arinna, you yourself, 13′ be invoke[d] continuously! [O angry one], speak! 14′ O oppressed one, come back in order! Request – Support 15′ To [Muršili, the kin]g, to your servant, and 16′f. to the land of Ḫatti, turn [in be]nevolence! Requests – Give good 17′ T[o Muršili …?], your servant, 18′ [continually give] life, heal[th, vig]our, 19′ for the future [bri]ghtness of the soul, 20′ and [lo]ng [years]! Continually place 21′ [brigh]tness 22′ [and happiness in his soul]! 23′ Continually give him [offsp]ring – [sons], daughters, 24′ grandsons, (and) [granddaug]hters! 25′ Continuously [giv]e him contentment (and) obedience! 26′ Continually give him growth of grain, [vi]nes, 27′ [goats?], cattle, sheep, horse[s], 28′ [and humans]! 29′ [Continually give him …], courage,

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

359

360

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

30′ [x x x x x]x pa-ra-a ⸢ne⸣-ia-an-da-an 31′ [GIŠTUKUL-in pé-eš-ki nu-u]š-ši KUR.[KU]RḪI.A LÚKÚR 32′ [ŠA-PAL GÌRMEŠ-Š]U ⸢zi⸣-ik-ki Wishes (fragmentary) 33′ [x x x x x x]x x-id-du 34′ [x x x x x x]x-⸢ši?⸣ pí-ra-an 35′ [x x x x x x]-⸢ru⸣ → Request – Support 35′ nu ⸢dUTU⸣ URUa-ri-in-n[a] 36′ [A-NA KUR URUḪA-A]T-TI g[e]-en-zu 37′ [nam-ma da-a] → Wishes – Give good 37′ [n]a-at-za EGIR-an x[x x x] 38′ [x x x ša-k]u-wa-an-du-uš ḫ[é]-⸢mu?⸣-[uš] 39′ ⸢ú?⸣-[wa-an-d]u? nu še!-iš-du-wa-a[š] 40′ IM-⸢an-te-eš i⸣-ia-an-da-ru m[a-a-ú] 41′ še-iš-du → Promise 41′ [n]u šu-ma-a-aš A-NA ⸢DINGIR⸣ME[Š] 42′ NINDA.GUR4.RA⸢ḪI.A⸣-[KU-N]U DUGiš-pa-an-tu-z[i-ia?] 43′ ⸢ša-ra⸣-[a ki-i]t-⸢ta⸣-ri → INSTRUCTION 43′ nu pa-an-ku-u[š] 44′ a-pa-a-at ⸢e⸣-[eš-d]u ḫal-za-i1092 (Remainder rev. iii blank) Rev. iv COLOPHON (A) (Beginning of rev. iv lost, probably only a few lines are missing) 1′ ⸢a?⸣-[ … ]x-⸢na mu-ga-u-wa-an-zi⸣ 2′ u?-[ … ]x tup-pí-ia-aš A-WA-TEMEŠ 3′ a-⸢pí-ia a-ni-ia⸣-nu-un nu dUTU URUa-ri-in-na 4′ URUKÙ.BABBAR-ši I-NA UD.7.KAM mu-ke-eš-ki-nu-un 5′ I-NA URUa-ri-in-na-ia I-NA UD.7.KAM 6′ mu-ke-eš-ki-nu-un na-aš-ta ki-i A-WA-TEMEŠ 7′ an-da me-mi-iš-ki-nu-un mu-u-ga-u-wa-aš-ma 8′ ar-ḫa-ia-an ḫa-an-ti ṬUP-PÍ (Remainder rev. iv blank)

1092 B rev. 1′: […]x-⸢wa⸣-a[r …].

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

30′ [(and) a man’s strong], battle-ready 31′ [weapon]! Continually place the enemy lands 32′ [beneath his feet]! Wishes (fragmentary) 33′ May it/he […]! 34′ […]… 35′ May it/he […]! Request – Support 35′ O Sun-goddess of Arinn[a], 36′ [On the land of Ḫatti] 37′ [take] pity [again]! Wishes – Give good 37′ … 38′ […] May [the s]oaking rains 39′ c[ome!] May 40′ the winds of prosperity come! May it t[hrive] 41′ (and) prosper! Promise 41′ For you, for the gods, 42′ [you]r thick breads [and] libations 43′ will be [serv]ed. INSTRUCTION 43′ The congregation 44′ calls out ‘May that be!’ (Remainder rev. iii blank) Rev. iv COLOPHON (A) (Beginning rev. iv broken, probably only a few lines are missing) 1′ […] to invoke [the Sun-goddess of Arinn]a 2′ […] the words of the tablet 3′ I recorded. The Sun-goddess of Arinna 4′ I invoked continuously in Ḫattuša for seven days 5′ and also in Arinna for seven days 6′ I invoked (her) continuously. These words 7′ I continuously spoke. The mugawar 8′ is, in addition, on a separate tablet. (Remainder rev. iv blank)

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

361

362

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

B KUB 36.80, reverse COLOPHON (B) 2′ […] ma-a-an ŠÀ KUR URUḪAT-⸢TI⸣ [ … ] 3′ [… ak-k]i-iš-ki-it-ta-ri [ … ] 4′ […]x ⸢ṬUP⸣-PA-⸢i?⸣ ḫa-an-ti-i [ … ] 5′ [… m]a-a-an dUTU URUa-ri-in-n[a … ] 6′ [… mu]-⸢u⸣-ga-a-an-zi nu-uš-ša-⸢an⸣ [… ] 7′ [ud-da-ar] an-da me-mi-iš-kán-zi Comments B: The lines on this fragment are generally considerd part of col. i. However, there is no trace of a second column to be found. Therefore, I cautiously consider this fragment as single columned. It is difficult to discern how many signs are missing from the beginning and end of the lines. B obv. 1–3: See also the discussion in Ch. 7.1. B obv. 1: Singer (2002a: 50) and Lebrun (1980: 156) restore this line, in accordance with CTH 377 3, as a direct address with epithet. Singer (2002a: 50) translates ‘[O Sun-goddess of Arinna! A mighty and honored goddess are] you!’ and Lebrun (1980: 156) restores [dUTU UTUTÚL-na na-ak-ki-iš DINGIR-uš zi]-ik-ka4, leaving out šarku- ‘eminent, mighty, powerful’. Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 435) seem to follow the restoration Lebrun. They suggest that the epithet šarku- is omitted deliberately here because the term does not occur anywhere in CTH 376.II and because there would not have been enough space to restore it. However, the first visible traces of a sign in obv. 1 is a large vertical wedge with possibly a trace of a Winkelhaken before it. This could, with Lebrun, be the end of QA or, as suggested here, it could be the end of NA. It is unclear how many signs are missing at the beginning of this line. It thus depends on the exact width of the tablet whether, as suggested here, only an address to the Sun-goddess of Arinna or one with epithet, as in CTH 377 3, should be restored. B obv. 1f.: The restorations suggested here follow KUB 14.10+ i 2f. (CTH 378.2), for which see pp. 157f., and Czyzewska (2012: I 158). Lebrun (1980: 156) reads: u-ya-it-mu [mmu]r-ši-l[i LUGAL-uš ARAD-KA] / [MUNUS.LUGAL-aš-ša GEME-KA u-i-e-e]r, in accordance with CTH 377 4f. There is, however, no reason to assume that the queen was mentioned here next to Muršili II, since there is not a single reference to a queen throughout the entire prayer. Furthermore, the two verb forms that Lebrun restores at the beginning and end of the sentence do not agree in number and are therefore grammatically incorrect. Though this formulation occurs in CTH 377 4f., it does not occur here in this text. Cf. the comments on CTH 377 4f. in Appendix V and the discussion in Ch. 7.1.2. B obv. 2f.: Lebrun (1980: 156) restores am-me-el A-NA D[INGIRLIM ŠA] / [SAG.DU-YA dUTU URU]a-ri-in-na. However, the traces at the end of obv. 2 do not belong to DINGIR but rather to BE, since the beginning of a Winkelhaken is visible. Therefore, following Czyzewska (2012: I 158) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1), I tentatively restore A-NA B[E-EL-TI-IA?] / [A-NA dUTU URU]⸢a⸣-ri-in-na. It should be noted that the epithet ‘my lady’ usually follows the name of the goddess; here it precedes it, if the restoration is correct. B obv. 3–10, A i 2′–5′: See also the discussion in Ch. 7.2. B obv. 4: The restoration follows Lebrun (1980: 156) and Czyzewska (2012: I 158). Cf. CTH 377 6–7 in Appendix V. B obv. 6: HW2 A 354a reads lanza here instead of ma!-a-an-za. A participle lānza ‘released, loosened’ of lā- however does not fit the context. The parallel in CTH 377 9 has mān. The first sign of the word in KUB 36.80 looks like MA with one small horizontal wedge in front of it. This small wedge was probably written erroneously by the scribe, who intended to write mān=za; compare ma-a-an-za further on in the same line.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

363

B KUB 36.80, Reverse COLOPHON (B) 2′ […] When in the land of Ḫatti […] 3′ […] are [d]ying continuously, […] 4′ […] is finished. A separate tablet […] 5′ [… W]hen they [in]voke the Sun-goddess of Arinn[a …] 6′ […] 7′ They speak [these words] continuously. B obv. 6: It remains unclear why the adverb šēr ‘above’ has a different position here than in CTH 377 8. According to Czyzewska (2012: I 173) in CTH 377 šēr may be understood as a free-standing adverb, whereas in KUB 36.80 it may be understood as a ‘postposition dislocated to the end of the sentence’. In my view šēr functions as an adverb in both texts. B obv. 7: Czyzewska (2012: I 158) restores [ku-e-da(?)-a]š?-qa at the beginning of the line and translates ‘to [som]e [mountains]’ (ibid. 168). Lebrun (1980: 156) reads […]x-ni. However, the final vertical wedge of QA is clearly visible. B obv. 8: Here the text differs from the parallel CTH 377 10–12. The clause na-aš-ma-za I-NA KUR LÚKÚR zaaḫ-ḫi-ia pa-a-an-za (CTH 377 10) is omitted in the present prayer, even though most editions have restored it here in obv. 8 (so Czyzewska 2012: I 158, Singer 2002a: 50, and Lebrun 1980: 156). However, the traces before -an-za do not belong to the sign A, because the final vertical is not broken. Nonetheless, Czyzewska (2012: I 158) reads ⸢MÈ?-ia? pa?-a?⸣-an-za. The traces could belong to ERIN, which is the reading proposed here and by Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.1. This reading also makes more sense in light of the following Ì-aš-š[a?] ‘and oil’, making the sentence parallel to CTH 377 12. B obv. 9: Probably šanezziš waršulaš ‘fragrant odour’, or one of these words, was written before [kal-li-iš]du, cf. CTH 377 11f., Czyzewska 2012: I 158. Lebrun (1980: 156) reads […]ḫal-[…]-du at the beginning of obv. 9. B obv. 9–11 // A i 1′–2′: Czyzewska (2012: I 158f.) restores the following statement: nu-ut-⸢ta⸣ [ka-a-ša(?)] / [mu-ki-iš-ki-mi(?) GIŠERIN-aš(?)] Ì-aš-ša š[a-ne-ez-zi-it(?)] / [wa-ar-šu-li-it(?)], and translates ‘[I hereby invoke] you [with] the fra[grant odour of the cedar] and of the oil’ (ibid. 168, cf. ibid. 173f.), cf. CTH 377 13f. Though conjectural, Czyzewska’s suggestion would fit the context. These fragmentary lines are omitted in CTH 377, see p. 163. A i 2′–5′: The restorations are based on CTH 377 12–17, see Appendix V. A i 5′: There is not enough space on the tablet to fit the same text as CTH 377 15–17: nu=a kuit memiškimi nu=mu DINGIRLUM ištamanan lagān ḫark n=at ištamaški. Of these three clauses in CTH 377, only the final one, n=at ištamaški, is partly preserved in KUB 24.3+ i 5′. Following Lebrun (1980: 157), I restore nu=a kuit memiškimi at the beginning of the line because in CTH 377 n=at ištamaški refers back to this relative clause (see pp. 168f., 170). The middle clause was probably not written here, but compare the similar request for attention in ii 7–9. A i 6′–28′: See also the discussion in Ch. 7.3. A i 6′–15′: The restorations are based on the parallels in CTH 377 18–28 and KUB 36.81 i 6′–15′ (CTH 376.4), see the Partitur on pp. 181f. Where the two parallel texts differ, preference has been given to the text of KUB 36.81 because it seems to be more closely related to CTH 376.II than CTH 377 (see Ch. 7.2.2 and Ch. 7.3.3). A i 7′: See the comments on CTH 377 19 in Appendix V. A i 10′: See the comments on CTH 377 22 in Appendix V. A i 13′: Czyzewska (2012: I 159) reads -pá]t before e-eš-zi. However, neither in the copy nor on the available photographs are any traces of a sign visible.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

364

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

A i 13′–15′: The verb forms are singular (ēšzi 3sg.prs.act) though its subject is plural. The parallel in KUB 36.81 i 13′ also has the singular verb form. A i 16′f.: The restoration is based on KUB 36.81 i 16′, for which see p. 185. A i 16′: On MU-ti mi-i-ia-na-aš … EZEN4ḪI.A ‘the annual festivals’, literally ‘festivals of the course(s) of the year’, see Kloekhorst 2008: 569f. and CHD L–N 229–34. For this passage in particular, see CHD L–N 231b. The parallel CTH 377 30 reads: EZEN4ḪI.A MU-aš me-e-a-na-aš. It is unclear why ‘year’ is in the dativelocative (MU-ti) here, when the parallel in CTH 377 30 has a genitive (MU-aš). Compare also KUB 17.21+ i 25′ // KBo 51.17(+) i 7′ (CTH 375) where we find the dative-locative MU-ti (var. MUKAM-ti) in a similar context (see p. 198). A i 17′: Czyzewska (2012: I 159) restores [gi-im-ma-an-ta-aš zé-na-an-d]a-aš at the beginning of the line. The restoration offered here, placing the same words in reversed order (cf. Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.1), would agree with the order of the seasons in KUB 36.81 i 17′f. (see pp. 182f.) and with the natural order: spring, autumn, winter. Though the three seasons in the parallel in CTH 377 31f. begin with autumn (giim-ma-an-ta-aš), there too it follows the natural order of the seasons: autumn, winter, spring. A i 18′: The restoration is based on the parallel CTH 377 32f., for which see Appendix V, cf. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1). A i 21′: The translation of DINGIRLIM-ia-tar, Hittite *šiuniyatar, as ‘godhood’ follows CHD Š 507a, cf. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) who translate it as ‘Göttlichkeit’. It has often been translated in the present context and the parallel CTH 377 36 as ‘divinity’ (e.g., CHD L–N 369b, Singer 2002a: 51, 55, and Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 433). On the term, see also HW 268, where it is translated as ‘Gottheit, Göttlichkeit’ as well as ‘Götterbild’, and Kloekhorst 2008: 764, who translates it as ‘(statue of) deity’. A i 24′: The translation of this sentence follows Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 433). Compare also the translations of CHD Š 227b ‘They finish worshipping your images, performing/celebrating your rituals and festivals’, and Singer (2002a: 51) ‘They perform fully substitute rites, rituals, and festivals for you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna’. Hittite ḫimma- means ‘imitation, substitute, replica’ (HW2 Ḫ 596–99, Puhvel HED 3: 314f., Kloekhorst 2008: 343) and hence also ‘image’ (CHD Š 227b), as which it is translated here. A i 29′–ii 3: See also Ch. 7.4. A i 34′: Czyzewska (2012: I 160) indicates that a ruling follows after this line, but no ruling is visible in the photograph or the copy. A i 37′: Czyzewska (2012: I 160) reads [KUR.KUR.HI.]⸢A-aš⸣-kán. The reading offered here is based on the copy where traces of MEŠ seem visible. On the available photographs it cannot be discerned whether MEŠ or ḪI.A is written. In comparison to i 45′ one would expect ḪI.A. A i 39′: The double occurrence of zik ‘you’ (1sg.nom) is probably a scribal error. A i 55′: RI in ⸢šar⸣-ri-iš-ki-it-ta is written with two Winkelhaken instead of one. A i 56′: The restoration is based on KUB 31.127+ i 33 (CTH 372) and KUB 36.75+ i 9′ (CTH 374), for which see p. 211. Whether ták-na-aš-ša really needs to be restored here remains uncertain. Possibly one or two signs need to be restored at the beginning of the line. A i 57′: The restoration is based on KUB 31.127+ i 33 (CTH 372) nd KUB 36.75+ i 11′ (CTH 374), for which see p. 212, so also Czyzewska 2012: I 161. A i 58′ff.: The lacuna at the end of obv. i may be restored on the basis of the parallels in CTH 374 (KUB 36.75+ i 13′–17′, KUB 30.11+ obv. 7″–14″) and CTH 372 (KUB 31.127+ i 35–46), for which see Ch. 7.4.1. These passages, however, consist of more text than would fit the lacuna and it remains unclear what was included in CTH 376.II and what was not. Since the clause about the judging of the cases of people and animals also occurs in the Model prayer of Muwatalli II (CTH 381), see p. 222, it seems probable that CTH 376.II also contained such a clause. A ii 1–3: The restorations are based on the parallels in KUB 31.127+ i 46–48 (CTH 372) and KUB 30.11+ obv. 15″–16″ (CTH 374), for which see p. 213, cf. Güterbock (1980: 48) and García Trabazo (2002: 292). In

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

365

contrast, Güterbock (1980: 48) restored na-an-ša-an in ii 2, probably on the basis of the preceding clause; neither Czyzewska (2012: I 161) nor Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) restore anything after paškuwanzi. A ii 4–9: See also the discussion in Ch. 8.1. A ii 4–6: Compare the parallels in KUB 31.27+ i 49–51 (CTH 372) and KUB 30.11+ obv. 17′–19′ // KUB 36.75+ ii 6′f. (CTH 374), for which see Ch. 8.1.1. A ii 7: The ending of Muršili’s name in -uš is a scribal error for -iš. The scribe apparently had forgotten to write the final vertical wedge, cf. Czyzewska 2012: I 161. A ii 7–9: Compare the similar request for attention in i 5′ and its parallels in CTH 377 15–17 and KUB 36.81 i 3′–5′ (CTH 376.4), see pp. 168f., 170. A ii 10–66: See also the discussion in Ch. 8.2. A ii 10: The restorations are based on KUB 14.10+ i 5–7 (CTH 378.2) and KUB 14.12 obv. 1–2 (CTH 378.3), for which see p. 241. Compare also the parallel in KUB 30.13+ obv. 1′ (CTH 376.III, see Appendix III). Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) do not interpret ii 10 as a rhetorical question, but as a statement; they translate ‘Dies, (ihr) Götte[r], (ist), was ihr ge[t]an habt: Ihr habt die Seuche zugelass[en]’. A ii 11, 14, 17: In each of these lines, as well as in the parallel to ii 17 in KUB 24.4+ obv. 2′ (CTH 376.I), namma denotes temporal posteriority and a causative relationship between the clause that it introduces and the preceding one. That no one prepares the offering bread and libation anymore (ii 11–13) is a consequence of the fact that everyone in Ḫatti is dying (ii 11). The causative connection is more obvious in ii 14 and ii 17. In order to capture both the temporal and causative dimension of namma I translate it as ‘as a consequence’ in these instances. A ii 13–15: The first preserved lines of CTH 376. I, KBo 60.18 obv. 1′–2′, are parallel to these lines. A ii 13: The restoration LÚ.M[EŠ?APIN.L]Á? was first suggested by Gurney (1940: 26), and followed by all other editions. LÚ.MEŠAPIN.LÁ also occurs in iii 7′ albeit in a different context, cf. García Trabazo 2002: 292, fn. 13. For the reading A.ŠÀA.GÀR, see Hoffner 1997: 190f., cf. Weeden 2011: 160f. Lebrun (1980: 159) erroneously reads A.ŠÀ ÍDḪI.A here and in ii 14. A ii 14–66: From ii 14 until the end of the second column (ii 66) the text runs parallel to KUB 24.4+ (CTH 376.I), for which see Appendix II. A ii 14f.: Following Czyzewska (2012: I 162), I do not restore a negation at the end of the line, contra Gurney 1940: 26, who is followed by García Trabazo 2002: 292 and Lebrun 1980: 159. The expected negation is expressed in UL kuitki which occurs in extraposition after the two verb forms in ii 15 (only preserved in C). Here UL kuitki is used adverbially meaning ‘in no way’ (CHD L–N 414). Its extraposition emphasises this strong negation (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 408 [§30.9]). The parallel lines in KBo 60.18 obv. 2′ (CTH 376.I E) and KUB 30.13(+) obv. 4′ (CTH 376.III), for which see Appendices II and III, have the nom.sg.c [naa] kuiški instead. This is probably why Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) read Ú-UL ku-i[š-ki] at the end of ii 15, in spite of the duplicate D obv. 3′: Ú-UL ku-it-ki. A ii 18, 22: UDUauli- is understood in ii 18 as meaning ‘sacrificial animal’ and the following GU4ḪI.A ‘cattle’ and UDUḪI.A ‘sheep’ are interpreted as examples of such sacrificial animals. In ii 22 the translation ‘animal sacrifice’ seems better since there it is combined with the standard offerins NINDAḫarši- ‘thick bread’ and DUGišpantuzzi- ‘libation’. Following Kühne (1986) auli- acquired these meanings through processes of metonymy, while its literal, original meaning is ‘throat’ (‘Kehle’); see also HHW 33 and Kloekhorst 2008: 229f., who translates ‘tube-shaped organ in the neck: throat(?), windpipe(?), carotid artery(?)’. For other translations of auli-, see Puhvel HED 1/2: 229ff., Tischler HEG 1: 94f., and HW 38. The word is also attested with the determinative UZU. As Czyzewska (2012: I 179) points out, in ii 18 UDU is clearly written separately from auli-. Nonetheless, UDU probably needs to be understood as a determinative. A ii 19: The restoration follows Gurney 1940: 26. A ii 20: One would expect a-ša-a-u-wa-a[r …] (nom-acc.n.sg-pl), so Gurney 1940: 26, García Trabazo 2002: 294, and Czyzewska 2012: I 162. However, the sign following WA cannot be AR, since it begins with a

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

366

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

horizontal on top of a slanted wedge. The signs A and U in a-ša-a-u-wa(-)x are written over an erasure. The sign A appears to be written over a Winkelhaken and U seems to be written over two Winkelhaken. It thus seems as if the scribe had initially forgotten to write the sign A and when he realised his mistake, he had already written U and the beginning of WA, which he decided to correct by writing over these signs. At the end of the line kar-ša-an-da-ri is restored in analogy with ii 21–22. However, Lebrun (1980: 159), followed by García Trabazo (2002: 294), restores kar-aš-ki-ir. Czyzewska (2012: I 162) restores kar-ši-iaan-da-ri(?), but this form is, according to Kloekhorst (2008: 454), not attested. In the parallel KUB 24.4+ obv. 4′ (CTH 376.I), Czyzewska (2012: I 148) does restore kar-ša-an-da-ri(?). If the restoration suggested by Lebrun, karaškir, a 3pl.impf.prs.act from the same verb karš(iya)- ‘to cut (off), to separate; to stop’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 454), is correct, it needs to be negated to distinguish it from the usage of the same verb in ii 19, where it is used to denote something positive, i.e., the selecting of animals. In ii 22 and the suggested restoration for ii 20 the distinction is established by employing the medio-passive verb voice instead of the active voice used in ii 19. A ii 22–24: Compare the comments on KUB 24.4+ obv. 6′–7′ in Appendix II. A ii 23: The reading ud-da-a-ni-i proposed here seems to be confirmed by the parallel in CTH 376.I D KBo 57.20 1′: ud-da-ni-i. The spelling ud-da-a-ni-i is attested in OH/NS texts, albeit not often (Kloekhorst 2008: 932). This orthography may have found its way on both tablets through older MH texts that were used as models for this composition. A different reading is proposed by Czyzewska (2012: I 163), who reads ud-da-a-ni-i[a], interpreting the enclitic =ya as giving emphasis. A ii 25: The restoration is based on KUB 24.4+ obv. 9′ (CTH 376.I). Since ḫaatar is generally bestowed on men by the gods, we may assume that ii 24–26 presents a general statement about the current incompetence of mankind, presumably the people of Ḫatti, who have been left without ḫaatar by the gods. I translate ḫaatar here as ‘wisdom’ in spite of Beckman’s arguments against this translation (Beckman 1986: 26–30). A different view is held by Czyzewska, who argues that “people have lost confidence in their own wisdom and cannot think of any reasons or transgressions committed that would have cause the plague” (Cwyzewska 2012: I 182). The possessive =šummit attached to ḫaatar has often erroneously been interpreted as a second person plural, ‘your’, referring to the gods, e.g., by Gurney 1940: 27, Archi 1978: 83, Carruba 1983: 5, Lebrun 1980: 169, Ünal 1991: 805, García Trabazo 2002: 295, Puhvel HED 3: 261, HW2 Ḫ 500b, and Beckman 1986: 28. The correct form for a second person plural would be =šmet or =šmit. The form =šummit is a first person plural which refers to DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU ‘mankind’ in ii 24 (so also Catsanicos 1991: 3, fn. 5, Singer 2002a: 68, fn. 4, and Czyzewska 2012: I 170, 181f.). A ii 27: It remains unclear whether or not it is necessary to assume an accidental omission of LÚ before DINGIRMEŠ-ni-ia-an-za, cf. CTH 378.2, KUB 14.8 rev. 43′ // KUB 14.10+ iv 11: LÚ.DINGIRLIM-ni-an-za=ma. Since LÚ probably functions as a determinative, it need not have been obligatory. The word (LÚ)šiuniyant-, translated as ‘man of god’ here, is rare and occurs primarily in fragmentary contexts, for attestations see CHD Š 506f. Therefore, it is unclear what the (LÚ)šiuniyant- did precisely. From the present context it is clear that he could receive and/or interpret messages from the gods and that he is distinguished from the old women, diviners, augurs, and dream interpreters. The (LÚ)šiuniyant- is often considered to be a kind of ‘ecstatic’ who received messages directly from the gods without any intermediary divination method (CHD Š 506, Beckman 1999b: 533, Haas 2008: 7f., Metcalf 2015b: 50f.). Compare also the MUNUS.DINGIRLIMia-wa who occurs in the oracle report KUB 5.6+ ii 29′. A ii 30: The interpretation and translation of the figurative expression follows CHD Š 288f. Compare the parallel in CTH 378.2, KUB 14.10+ iv 19′–20′: nu-kán URUDUZ[I.KI]N.BAR-aš / GIŠšar-pa-az ku-un-ku-u-e-ni ‘We are dangling from the point of a needle’, which uses a present tense instead of a preterite. In this text it also follows a passage in which Muršili asks for messages through oracles, similar to the requests preceding it in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II, see the discussion in Ch. 8.2.4. A ii 33: Here kuriwana- describes the ‘political status of Mittanni, Arzawa and Kizzuwatna in their relation to Ḫatti’, which apparently differs from that of ‘the lands that belong to Ḫatti’ mentioned in ii 45–48 (Gurney 1940: 95). Probably because of this distinction Gurney (1940: 29) translated kuriwana- as

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

367

‘independent’ (similarly HW 118 ‘unabhängig, nicht lehenspflichtig’). This translation needs to be rejected, since the term refers to lands that are in some way subordinate to or dependent on the Hittite king, see e.g., Goetze 1957: 98f. Puhvel (HED 4: 265f.) describes kuriwana-/kuerwana- as an ‘adjective describing a foreign person, people, or country in relation to a superior potentate or power’ and that it ‘expresses a status of dependency without actual formal subjection or incorporation (distinct from vassaldom …)’, cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 494. This interpretation is apparently followed by Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) who translate kuriwanaš KUR.KURMEŠ here as ‘autonome Länder’. The adjective has the Luwian ending -wana and is derived from the noun ku(e)ra- ‘field cut, territory’ (Puhvel HED 4: 166, Kloekhorst 2008: 495, Neumann 1961: 93, see also Oettinger 1979: 120 (LÚku(e)r(e)wana- ‘Parzellenbesitzer’). This probably led Melchert (2005: 93) to translate kuriwana- as ‘territorial’. He interprets it as referring ‘to a land that was viewed as somehow dependent or in a position of inferiority’ (ibid.). A ii 35: The translation follows Melchert 2005: 93. Melchert (ibid. 94f.) argued that the verb šulle- ‘refers always to an act of disrespect towards a superior’, except perhaps in the treaty of Muršili with ManapaTarḫunta KBo 19.70: 11′. For further attestations of šulle-, see Melchert 2005. A ii 36: Instead of šarreškanzi (3pl.prs.impf.act of šarr-), which we find here, the parallel KUB 24.4+ obv. 18′ (CTH 376.I) has šarrantati (3pl.prt.mp of the same verb). In both instances the medio-passive meaning ‘to transgress, to violate (an oath)’ seems accurate because of the grammatical object NĪŠ DINGIRMEŠ ‘oath of the gods’. In the present prayer the present tense and the imperfective -šk- emphasise that the violation of the oath of the gods by the enemy lands is a recurrent phenomenon which is still ongoing. The preterite form used in the Middle Hittite KUB 24.4+, on the other hand, suggests that it happened in the (recent) past. A ii 37: The form lawarruna is an infinitive of the Luwian verb lawarr(iya)- ‘to despoil, to strip’. It is also attested with a Glossenkeil. The few forms that occur in Hittite texts are all inflected according to the Luwian paradigm (CHD L–N 49, Kloekhorst 2008: 521, cf. Puhvel HED 5: 67 and Tichler HEG L-M 47). A ii 39f.: The composer of this text added idalun tapaššan ‘evil fever’ to the list of ‘evils’ which the gods are asked to send to the enemy lands of CTH 376.I and he omitted Kizzuwatna from the enemy lands. The term tapašša- is also attested with Glossenkeil and may be a loanword from Luwian. It refers to a disease, as is clear from the equation with GIG in oracle reports (Gurney 1940: 99). It is generally translated as ‘fever’ on the basis of the suggested etymological connection to Latin tepor ‘warmth’ and Sanskrit tápas‘heat’. This was already suggested by Hrozný 1919: 30, fn. 3, cf. Gurney 1940: 99. However, Tischler (HEG 3: 121–123) argued that it is uncertain whether tapašša- indeed means ‘fever’ or ‘heat’ and that it is unclear whether the word is inherited or a loanword. Kloekhorst (2008) apparently does not consider the term to have been inherited, since he did not include it in his dictionary. I have maintained the common translation ‘fever’, but since tapašša- may just as well refer to another kind of disease or have a general meaning ‘disease’ the translation is left in italics. A ii 42: A-NA at the beginning of the line is probably a scribal error since KUR URUḪATTI should have the nominative case here, cf. the parallel in KUB 24.4+ obv. 23′ (CTH 376.I) where it is written correctly without A-NA. A ii 43f.: This is a figurative expression. The enemy lands and the land of Ḫatti are compared to draft animals (cf. CHD L–N 2) as is clear from the usage of the verb turiya- ‘to harness, to hitch (a draft animal) up to’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 900f., Tischler HEG 3: 458–62, HW 229). The verb lā- is more general ‘to release, to untie’, etc. (Kloekhorst 2008: 509, CHD L–N 1–4), and may be translated as ‘to unhitch’ when it is said of draft animals (CHD L–N 1, 2). A parallel is attested in the ritual KBo 11.14 ii 16–18 (CTH 395), for which see p. 254 and CHD L–N 2. A ii 49: The verb form arawešta is singular, though one would expect a plural because of its plural subject: The parallel KUB 24.4+ obv. 28′ (CTH 376.I) does have the expected plural form araweššer.

KUR.KURḪI.A-TIM.

A ii 50: CHD P 321a restores [pé-eš-š]er. The reading d[a-(a)]-⸢er?⸣ follows ms. D KBo 53.13 rev. 6′. The parallel in KUB 24.4+ rev. 8 (CTH 376.I) has the same form, though it is spelled differently. On the photo-

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

368

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

graphs of KUB 24.3+ available in the Konkordanz, only one Winkelhaken or small diagonal wedge is visible on the right edge, which may belong to the sign IR. A ii 52: The precise meaning of the verb šarḫ(iya)- is unclear. It also occurs with a Glossenkeil. CHD Š 252 translates it as ‘to press upon(?), maul(?)’. Tischler HEG 2: 887f. translates ‘drücken, pressen; bedrücken, bedrängen’, but compare HHW 163, where he gives a reference to the hapax šarḫuntalli- ‘räuberisch’, for which see also CHD Š 257. The verb is used here with a dative-locative case. From the context it is clear that the verb has a meaning similar to ‘to attack’, ‘to overpower’, or ‘to (have) control over’. The translation offered here, ‘to rage against’ follows Gurney 1940: 31. Compare Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1), who translate ‘wüten’. The parallel in KUB 24.4+ rev. 3 (CTH 376.I) employs a different verb, presumably ār- ‘to come, to arrive’, translated here as ‘to invade’, which is used with an accusative instead of the dative-locative case. A ii 53: The fragmentary duplicate D, KBo 53.13, has kuit (nom.-acc.sg.n) instead of kuiuš (acc.pl.c), cf. the parallel in CTH 376.I, KUB 24.4+ rev. 4: [(URUḫal-pa-a)]n ku-i-⸢uš⸣ URUKÁ.DINGIR.RA ku-i-uš ‘on the one hand Aleppo (and) on the other hand Babylon’. Here kuiuš … kuiuš may serve to emphasise that the two cities are far away from each other and/or that the destruction of these cities were two separate events. Why the plural is used here remains unclear. A ii 54: The verb is accidentally omitted by the scribe. The restoration of 〈da-a-er〉 is based on ii 55 and the parallel in KUB 24.4+ rev. 5 (CTH 376.I). In KUB 24.4+ rev. 5 the verb is in the third person singular (daa[š?]), but here we need to restore a 3pl.prt.act, because we find such a form in ii 55 ([zikk]ir), which has the same grammatical subject. A ii 58f.: Cf. ii 38. A ii 60: The sign E in le-e is written slightly higher and diagonally. The scribe seems to have initially forgotten to write the sign, but inserted it later, after he wrote the rest of the line. A ii 66: The restoration of ⸢ḫar⸣-[ni-ik-tén?] is based on Czyzewska (2012: I 165), contra Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1), who restore ⸢ḫar⸣-n[in-kán-du], and García Trabazo (2002: 302), who restores ⸢ḫar⸣-[pí-ia-attén]. See the comments on KUB 24.4+ rev. 13 (CTH 376.I) in Appendix II. A iii 1′–43′: See als the discussion in Ch. 8.3. A iii 4′: Based on CTH 377 74′ one would expect GIŠMÚ.SAR-KU-NU to have been written at the end of the line, but there is not enough space. Similarly, the LÚ.MEŠNU.GIŠMÚ.SAR, who are mentioned in the parallel CTH 377 77′, are not listed in iii 7′. A iii 4′f.: In these lines the possessive =KU-NU ‘your’ (pl.) is attached to each of the objects that the enemy lands want to destroy. In the parallel CTH 377 74′ it appears to have been added only to the first object of the enumeration: in ms. A, KUB 24.1+ iv 3, the possessive is attached to the first object, A.ŠÀA.GÀR, but the other constituents are lost in the break; they are preserved, without the possessive, in ms. B, KUB 24.2 rev. 8′, but on this tablet the first object, A.ŠÀA.GÀR, is broken off. A iii 12′–17′: Compare KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′ (CTH 334), for which see p. 264 and the discussion in Ch. 8.3.3. A iii 12′: The reading dUTU URUa-ri-i[n-n]a-⸢ia?⸣ follows Gurney (1940: 34) and is followed by all other editions except Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1). However, one would not expect the clitic =ya to be attached to the direct address here, particularly since the sentence already begins with nu (Gurney 1940: 117). One could also read dUTU URUa-ri-i[n-na] ⸢GAŠAN?-IA?⸣ (so Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 376.1). GAŠAN-IA ‘my lady’ often follows the name of the Sun-goddess of Arinna in prayers and it seems to fit the visible traces. However, throughout CTH 376.II, this apposition is not attested, unless it indeed occurs here. This makes the reading less plausible. Moreover, the signs IN and NA would have to have been written rather small. A iii 12′f.: The parallel in KBo 31.76+ i 7′f. (CTH 334) has a statement instead of a request to be ‘invoked’ (see pp. 178, 264). A iii 13′f.: The restorations are based on KBo 31.76+ i 9′f. (CTH 334), for which see p. 264. Based on this parallel the restorations of Czyzewska (2012: I 166) – [zi-ik-la]-za before me-mi in iii 13′ and nam-ma

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Tablet Format of KUB 24.3+ (A)

369

before ḫa-an-da-aḫ-uḫ-ut in iii 14′ – need to be rejected. Contra Czyzewska (2012: I 172) and Rieken et al. (2009), šānzama memi ‘O angry one speak!’ does not introduce the following request as something the addressee should say. Instead, it is a request for pacification, see pp. 264f. On the meaning of wešuriant-, see Carruba 1966: 50–54. A iii 23′: Instead of ḫaššatar ‘offspring’ which, following Czyzewska (2012: I 166), is restored here, Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) restore [DUMU-l]a-tar, which they translate as ‘Jugend’. A iii 28′: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) do not restore the clitic conjunction =ya. Instead they read [DUMU.LÚ.U19.L]U?-aš [m]i-[y]a-tar. A iii 31′–32′: The restorations are based on CTH 377 63′–64. A iii 33′: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) read [… -i]š-[k]e-ed-du. A iii 35′–37′: Compare ii 31 where the same request occurs, albeit addressed to the gods. A iii 38′–40′: The restorations follow Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 450). Contra Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 450) and Czyzewska (2012: I 167) the plene spelling ḫé-e-mu-uš is not reconstructed, because there does not seem to be enough space between ḪÉ and the traces of MU, which are preserved at the bottom of the fragment 401/u (= KBo 51.18b). Compare the following clause from a ritual for the Sun-goddess of the Earth (CTH 448) in which the ‘soaking rains’ and the ‘winds of prosperity’ also occur together in a fragmentary context, KUB 51.50 iii? 14′: ša-ku-⸢wa⸣-an-du-uš ḫé-mu-uš ši-eš-⸢du⸣-[wa-aš IMMEŠ-uš …] ‘the soaking rains [(and) the winds of] prosp[erity …]’ (cf. CHD Š 54a, 456b, HW2 Ḫ 579a, Groddek 2004: 80). The restoration of šakuwanduš in iii 38′ is based on this fragment. Kloekhorst (2008: 368), Lebrun (1980: 165), and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1), read [h]u-wa-an-du-uš instead. For the form šešduwaš against še/iššawaš in CTH 377 87′, see the comments on this line in Appendix V. A iii 43′: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) restore [a]r-[t]a-ri from the verb ar- ‘to stand (by)’, which in combination with šara means ‘to stand ready, to be provided’ (Puhvel HED 1: 104). The noun panku- can either refer to the assembly, functioning as a synonym of tulliya- ‘assembly’ (Beckman 1982: 442, CHD P 91 mng. 3), or to an unspecified body of people, i.e., to everyone present (Beckman 1982: 436f.). The latter meaning of panku- is generally assumed in the present context and it indeed seems more plausible. Therefore, I follow Gurney’s translation of panku- as ‘congregation’, cf. the discussion in Ch. 8.4. A iii 43′f.: See the comments on CTH 377 89′ in Appendix V and the discussion in Ch. 8.4. B rev. 4′: Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 376.1) read: […]x [Ṭ]UP-PA x ḫa-an-ti-i.

IV.2 TABLET FORMAT OF KUB 24.3+ (A) KUB 24.3+ is a two-column tablet with an intercolumnium. The text is written in portrait orientation. Almost the entire tablet is preserved. Only the beginning of the first column, the lower edge, the lower end of the obverse, and the upper end of the reverse are lost. It is unknown whether or not the tablet had a Randleiste on the obverse or on the upper side of the reverse. The lower end of the reverse does not have a Randleiste.1093 On the obverse the text begins immediately at the top of the tablet, close to the upper edge. The end of the prayer is indicated by two horizontal rulings at the end of rev. iii, after which the remainder of the column is left blank. Rev. iv contains the colophon and is otherwise blank.

1093 As expected, there is no Randleiste at the upper side of the obverse. Randleisten usually do not occur at the top of the obverse (Waal 2015: 103).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

370

The Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II)

Figure 12. End of KUB 24.3+ i 28′. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: fotarch BoFN00461.

Figure 13. Part of the intercolumnium of KUB 24.3+ obverse. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: fotarch BoFN00461.

The signs are written closely together, giving the tablet a crowded impression. Small spaces have been left between words. Only at the end of a paragraph, between the final line of text and the ruling, are there blank spaces on the tablet. The text is not justified. Only the final sign of the final line of a paragraph is positioned more towards the right when there is space left, thus separating the final sign from the rest of the word to fill the space on the tablet. These signs are however not placed at the

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Tablet Format of KUB 24.3+ (A)

371

outer right side. Examples occur in i 28′ (Figure 12) and ii 44, but it was not done after i 20′ or ii 60 where there would have been enough space as well. The text and horizontal rulings in obv. i often continue into the intercolumnium (Figure 13). Neither the horizontal nor the vertical lines seem to have been impressed very deeply into the clay. The vertical lines of the intercolumnium on the reverse seem to have been impressed a bit deeper and to have been drawn more carefully than those on the obverse. The vertical lines of the intercolumnium on the obverse seem to have been drawn in several strokes (Figure 13). The horizontal lines are drawn evenly. They begin with a small wedge which was impressed either before after the lines had been drawn. This may be inferred from the instances in which the wedge is not positioned exactly on the horizontal rulings, e.g., the ruling after ii 9 and ii 55 (Figure 14). Moreover, these wedges are impressed deeper than the rulings. The wedge at the beginning of the ruling after ii 60 is impressed over a smaller wedge head that now still precedes it, giving the impression that the scribe was not satisfied with his first attempt (Figure 15). The ruling after ii 44 has been drawn rather careless, since two lines are visible towards the end. Just before the stylus seems to have been applied to the clay again, for a very small, lightly impressed head of a wedge is visible (Figure 16).

Figure 14. Beginning horizontal ruling after KUB 24.3+ ii 55. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: fotarch BoFN00462.

Figure 15. Beginning horizontal ruling after KUB 24.3+ ii 60. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: fotarch BoFN00462.

Figure 16. End of the horizontal ruling after KUB 24.3+ ii 44. The wedge head within the ruling is encircled. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: fotarch BoFN00462.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

V. THE PRAYER OF A SCRIBE TO TELIPINU (CTH 377) The Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu for the well-being of Muršili II (CTH 377, listed in Appendix I as No. 12) is unique within the corpus of Hittite prayers. It is the only independent or personal prayer directed to Telipinu, the only extant daily prayer, and the only known prayer of a scribe, see Ch. 4. The text has come down to us in three exemplars, two of which, KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 (A) and KUB 24.2 (B), are relatively well-preserved. Since KBo 58.10 was found in the dump of Temple I, ms. A was probably kept in this building. The find spots of the other two tablets are unknown. The small fragment Bo 8072 (C) has thus far only been published in transliteration by Kassian and Yakubovich (2007). The edition below follows their transliteration of this fragment. A (KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10) is a later copy of the text. It is written in LNS; note particularly the late forms of BI, KI (i 2), ḪA, and SAR. Another distinctive feature of the tablet is its cursive writing, with varying degrees of ‘cursiveness’. According to Miller (KBo 58: V), KBo 58.10 shows the same handwriting as KUB 14.14+, ms. A of the “First” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.1). The tablet is written in landscape orientation, which is uncommon for Hittite tablets of this size (see Appendix V.2). The palaeography, orthography and language of B (KUB 24.2) shows that it was written down earlier than A. It uses more older sign-forms than A. For example, B employs exclusively the old forms of LI and UN, but both old and late forms of AG. A also uses only an old form of UN, but both the old and late form of LI and AG. On the dating of these tablets, see Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 426f. and Ch. 6.2 above. The prayer is presented below in a Partitur to emphasise the variants between the text witnesses. After the editions the appearance and tablet format of the two main manuscripts, KUB 24.1+ (Appendix V.2) and KUB 24.2 (Appendix V.3), are described. All observations are based on previous publications and the photographs available through the Konkordanz. Where the photographs are unclear, the hand-copies published in KUB 24 and KBo 58 have been used.1094 Text Witnesses A KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 B KUB 24.2 C Bo 8072 (non vidi)

Date LNS NS ?

Find spot Temple I -

Duplicates = A i 1–ii 2, iii 16′–iv 18 = A iii 2′–14′

1094 For previous editions, see p. 315. Translations: Singer 2002a: 54–56 (no. 9), Goetze 1950a: 396–97, Bernabé 1979: 273–75.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

374

The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377)

V.1 TEXT EDITION Transliteration, Partitur TEXT DESIGNATION 1 A i 1 [ki?-i?]-ma-kán Ṭ[UP-PÍ DUB.SAR A-NA DINGIRLI]M an-⸢da⸣ B obv. 1 [ki?-i?-ma?-k]án ⸢ṬUP-PÍ DUB⸣.SAR A-NA DINGIRLIM an-⸢da⸣ → C

2

Ai2 B obv. 1f.

(Broken) [UD-at U]D-at me-mi-iš-⸢ki⸣-i[z-zi nu? DINGIR?LAM] ⸢wa⸣-al-li-iš-⸢ki⸣-i[z-zi] UD-⸢at UD-at⸣ me-mi-⸢iš⸣-k[i-iz-zi] / [nu? DING]IR?LAM wa-al-li-iš-ki-iz-zi

ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION Introduction 3 A i 3 [dte-li-p]í-nu-uš šar-ku-uš n[a-ak-ki-iš D]INGIRLIM-iš zi-ik B obv. 3 ⸢d⸣te-li-pí-nu-uš šar-ku-uš na-ak-ki-iš DINGIR-uš zi-ik 4

Ai4 B obv. 4

5

Ai5 B obv. 4f.

6

Ai6 B obv. 5f.

7

Ai7 B obv. 6

u-⸢i⸣-[i]a-at-mu m⸢mur-ši-DINGIRLIM⸣ L[UGAL-uš tu]-⸢e⸣-el ARAD-KA mmur-ši-i-li u-i-ia-at-mu LUGAL-uš tu-e-el ARAD-KA → MUNUS.LUGAL-aš-ša MUNUS.LUGAL-aš-⸢ša⸣ dte-li-pí-nu-un dte-li-pí-nu-un

tu-e-el GÉME-iš [u-i]-⸢e⸣-[e]r i-it-wa / tu-e-el GÉME-KA u-i-e-er i-it-wa →

an-ze-el EN-NI DINGIRLAM / an-ze-el EN-NI DINGIRLAM

ŠA ⸢SAG⸣.DU-NI mu-ga-⸢a-i⸣ ŠA SAG.DU-NI mu-ga-a-i

Invocation 8 A i 8 nu-za-kán ma-⸢a-an⸣ na-ak-ki-i[š] dte-li-pí-nu-uš še-er ne-pí-ši B obv. 7 nu-za-kán ma-a-an na-ak-ki-iš dte-li-pí-nu-uš še-er ne-pí-ši DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na ⸢ma-a-an a⸣-r[u-n]i na-aš-ma A-NA ḪUR.SAGMEŠ₄ B obv. 8 DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na ma-a-an a-ru-ni na-aš-ma A-NA ⸢ḪUR⸣.SAGMEŠ₄

9

Ai9

10

A i 10 B obv. 9

11

A i 11

B obv. 10

12

wa-ḫa-an-na [p]a-a-an-za ⸢na⸣-aš-⸢ma!⸣-za I-NA KUR LÚKÚR za-aḫ-ḫi-ia pa-a-an-za wa-ḫa-an-na pa!-a-an-za ⸢na⸣-aš-ma-za I-NA KUR LÚKÚR za-aḫ-ḫi-ia pa-a-an-za ki-nu-na-at-⸢ta⸣ ša-ne-ez-zi-⸢iš⸣ wa-ar-šu-la-aš ki-nu-na-at-ta ša-ne-ez-⸢zi⸣-iš wa-ar-šu-la-aš → ERIN-an-za ⸢Ì⸣-an-za ERIN-an-za Ì-an-za /

A i 12

GIŠ

B obv. 10f.

GIŠ

13

kal-⸢li-iš⸣-du na-aš-ta EGIR-pa kal-li-iš-du na-aš-ta EGIR-pa →

ka-ri-im-ni erasure an-⸢da e⸣-[ḫ]u erasure nu-ut-ta ka-a-ša ka-ri-im-ni-it-ti an-da e-[ḫ]u / nu-ut-ta ka-a-ša →

A i 13

É

B obv. 11f.

É

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

375

Text Edition

14

A i 14

B obv. 12

15

A i 15

B obv. 13

16

A i 16

B obv. 14

17

A i 17

B obv. 14

mu-ki-iš-ki-mi NINDAḫar-ši-i[t DUGiš-pa-a]n-du-zi-it mu-ki-iš-ki-mi NINDAḫar-ši-it DUGiš-pa-an-du-zi-it nu-uš-ša-an pa-ra-a ka-⸢la-a-an⸣-[ká]n-za e-eš nu-ut-ta ku-i[t] nu-uš-ša-an pa-ra-a ka-la-a-an-kán-za e-eš nu-ut-ta ku-it me-mi-iš-ki-mi nu-mu DINGIRLUM iš-⸢ta⸣-ma-na-an me-mi-iš-ki-mi nu-mu DINGIRLUM iš-ta-ma-na-an → la-ga-a-an ḫar-ak na-at iš-t[a-m]a-aš-ki la-ga-a-an ḫar-ak na-at i[š-ta-ma-aš-ki]

‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage 18 A i 18 zi-ik-za dte-li-pí-nu-uš n[a-ak-ki-i]š DINGIRLIM-⸢iš⸣ B obv. 15 zi-ik-za dte-li-pí-nu-uš na-ak-ki-iš DINGIRLIM-iš → 19

A i 19

B obv. 15f.

20

A i 20

B obv. 16f.

21

A i 21

B obv. 17f.

22

A i 22

23

A i 23

nu-ut-ta DINGIRLIM-IA Ù ÉM[EŠ.DINGIRMEŠ] ⸢I⸣-NA KUR URUḪA[T-TI-pát] nu-ut-ta DINGIRLIM-I[A] / Ù ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát → da-aš-ša-nu-wa-an nam-ma-ma-ta [ta?-me]-⸢e?⸣-da-ni ut-n[i-e] ta-aš-nu-wa-an nam-ma-ma-at-t[a] / ⸢ta-me-e⸣-da-ni KUR-e → Ú-UL Ú-UL

ku-wa-pí-ik-ki e-e[š-zi n]u-ut-ta EZE[N4ḪI.A] ku-wa-⸢pí⸣-ik-ki e-eš-zi / [ … E]ZEN4ḪI.A →

SÍSKUR I-NA KUR URUḪAT-TI ḪI.A B obv. 18f. SÍSKUR I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát

B obv. 19

24

A i 24

B obv. 20

25

A i 25

B obv. 21

26

A i 26

27

A i 27

pí-iš-kán-zi nam-⸢ma⸣-ma-ta dam-me-e-d[a-ni] [pí-iš-ká]n-⸢zi nam⸣-[m]a-ma-at-ta ta-me-e-da-ni ut-ni-e Ú-UL ku-w[a]-⸢pí-ik-ki pí⸣-i[š-kán-zi] [ … ku-wa-pí-i]k-ki pí-iš-kán-zi ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ-ta

[

pár-ku IŠ-T[U …

I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-⸢TI-pát⸣ B obv. 21f. I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-[TI-pát]

B obv. 22

28

A ii 1

B obv. 23

29

A ii 2

B obv. 23

p[ár-k]u-i šu-up-pí pár-ku-i / [šu-up-pí] →

… KÙ.B]ABBAR KÙ.GI

[ /[

… …

] ⸢ú-nu-wa-an-ta⸣ →

] ]→

ta-me-e-da-ni K[UR-e … ] […]x x x x[x x x x Ú]-⸢UL⸣ ku-wa-pí-ik-k[i e-eš-zi] [GAL?]ḪI.A-ta BI-IB-RIḪI.A KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.BABBAR.GI4 NA4[ḪI.A] [ … ]→ ⸢I⸣-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát e-eš-zi [ … KUR URUḪ]A-⸢AT-TI-pát e⸣-e[š-zi] (B obv. breaks)

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

376

The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377)

30 31 32 33 34 35

A ii 3

36 37

A ii 9

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

A ii 4 A ii 5 A ii 6 A ii 7 A ii 8

A ii 10 A ii 11 A ii 12 A ii 13 A ii 14 A ii 15 A ii 16 A ii 17 A ii 18 A ii 19

EZEN4ḪI.A-it-ta EZEN4.ITU EZEN4ḪI.A erasure MU-aš

me-e-a-na-aš gi-im-ma-an-ta-aš ḫa-mi-iš-ḫa-an-da-aš zé-na-an-da-aš a-ú-li-uš mu-ki-iš-na-aš-ša EZEN4ME.EŠ I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát e!-eš-zi erasure nam-ma-ma-at-ta ta-me-e-da-ni KUR-e! Ú-U[L] ku-wa-pí-ik-ki e-eš-ša-an-zi ⸢nu tu⸣-el ⸢ŠA⸣ dte-li-pí-nu erasure DINGIRMEŠ-tar ⸢I⸣-[NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát] ⸢na?⸣-[a]k?-k[i?-ia-aḫ-ḫ]a-an nu-ut-ták-kán mmur-š[i-DINGIRLIM-iš LUGAL-uš ARAD-KA] [MUNUS.LUGAL-aš GÉME-KA] ⸢Ù DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL⸣ A[RADMEŠ-KA] [I-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-pát na-aḫ-ḫa-an-te-eš nu tu-el] [ŠA dte-li-p]í-nu x[ … ]x[x] [i-ia-u-wa-an-z]i ša-ra-⸢a⸣ [ti-it-ta-nu-uš-ká]n-z[i] [nu-ut-ta ḫ]u-u-ma-an šu-up-p[í pár-ku-i p]í-iš-kán-zi [nam-ma-aš-ša]-an erasure É.DINGIRLIM-K[A? BI-IB-R]IḪI.A-KA [TÚG?ḪI.A-KA] Ú-NU-TEMEŠ-KA na-⸢aḫ-ša-ra-za⸣ ti-ia-an-za [x x x x x E]GIR-pa kap-pu-wa-an A-NA Ú-NU-UT [x x x x ma-ni-i]n-ku-wa-an Ú-UL ku-iš-ki ti-ia-az-zi

HYMN 47 A ii 20 [zi-ik-za dte-l]i-pí-nu-uš na-⸢ak⸣-ki-iš DINGIRLIM-iš 48 A ii 21 [nu-ut-ták-kán ŠUM-a]n? ŠUMḪI.A-aš iš-tar-na-〈〈aš〉〉 na-⸢ak-ki⸣-i 49 A ii 22 [DINGIRLIM-ia-tar-ma-ták-kán?] ⸢DINGIRMEŠ-aš iš-tar-na⸣ na-a[k]-⸢ki⸣-[i] (A obv. ii breaks, ca. 8? lines missing) (Beginning A rev. iii lost, ca. 10? lines missing) PLEA (III) Request – Support 50′ A iii 1′ [x x x x x x x x]⸢DUMU⸣M[E.EŠ.LUGAL ARADMEŠ-KA] 51′

A iii 2′ C 1′

[Ù A-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-T]I an-da aš-⸢šu-li⸣ [ne-iš-ḫu-ut] Ù[ … ]→

Direct Address + Epithet 52′ A iii 3′ [zi-ik-za dte-l]i-pí-nu-uš šar-ku-uš ⸢DINGIR⸣[LIM-iš] C 1′f. [ … ] / dte-li-[pí-nu-uš … ]→ Requests – Give good 53′ A iii 4′ [nu LUGAL MUNUS.LUGAL DUMUME]Š.LUGAL TI-an ḫar-ak nu-⸢uš-ma-aš⸣ C 2′f. [ … ] / TI-an ḫar-a[k … ]→ 54′

A iii 5′ C 3′f.

[x x x x x EGI]R.⸢UD⸣MI ḫa-ad-du-la-tar MUKAM.ḪI.A GÍD.DA [ … ] / EGIR.UD[MI … ]→

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

55′

A iii 6′ C 4′

56′

A iii 7′ C 5′

57′

A iii 8′ C 5′

58′

A iii 9′ C 6′

[x x x x x] pé-eš-ki nu-uš-ma-aš-kán A-NA ZI-ŠU-NU an-da [ … ] [la-lu-u]k-ki-ma-an du-uš-ga-ra-da-an-na la-lu-u[k-ki-ma-an … ]→ [zi-ik-ki] [ … ] [nu-uš-ma]-aš [DUM]U.NITAME.EŠ DUMU.MUNUSMEŠ ḫa-aš-šu-uš ḫa-an-za-šu-uš pé-eš-ki nu-uš-ma-a[š … ]→

59′ A iii 10′ [nu-u]š-⸢ma⸣-aš nu-ú-un tu-um-ma-an-ti-ia-an pé-eš-ki C 6′f. [ … ] / tu-um-m[a-an-ti-ia-an … ]→ 60′ A iii 11′ ⸢nu-uš⸣-ma-aš ḫal-⸢ki⸣-ia-aš GIŠGEŠTIN-aš ŠA GU4 UDU C 7′ [ … ] 61′ A iii 12′ C 8′

DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU-ia erasure DUMU.LÚ.⸢U19⸣.[LU-ia

mi-i-ia-ta pé-eš-ki … ]→

62′ A iii 13′ nu-uš-ma-aš LÚ-aš tar-ḫu-u-i-li-in pa-ra-a n[e]-⸢ia⸣-[an-da]-a[n] C 8′f. [ … ] / pa-ra-a [… ]→ 63′ A iii 14′ C 9′f.

64′ A iii 15′ C

d.GIŠTUKUL-in

pé-eš-ki nu-uš-ma-aš KUR.KUR LÚKÚR […] / […]x x[…] ŠA-PAL erasure GÌRMEŠ-ŠU-NU

zi-ik-⸢ki⸣ na-at i[n-…]

(Breaks)

Request – Remove evil 65′ A iii 16′ IŠ-TU KUR URUḪA-AT-TI-ma-kán i-da-lu-un ta-[pa-ša-an] B rev. 1′ IŠ-⸢TU KUR⸣ URUḪA-A[T-TI… ] 66′ A iii 17′ ḫi-in-kán ka-aš-ta-an erasure ma-a-ša-an-na a[r-ḫa ḫar-ni-ik?] B rev. 2′ ḫi-in-kán ka-aš-⸢ta-an⸣ [ … ] Request – Send evil to enemy 67′ A iii 18′ nu KUR.KURḪI.A LÚKÚR ku-e šu-ul-la-an-ta B rev. 3′ nu KUR.KURḪI.A LÚKÚR ku-e šu-ul-l[a- … ]→ 68′ A iii 19′ ḫar-šal-la-an-ta ku-e-eš-kán tu-uk A-NA dte-li-⸢pí⸣-nu B rev. 3′f. [ … ] / ku-e-eš-kán tu-uk A-NA d[ … ]→ 69′ A iii 20′ B rev. 4′f.

377

Ù A-NA DINGIRMEŠ URUḪA-AT-TI UL

[

…

na-aḫ-ḫa-an-te-eš ] / na-aḫ-ḫa-an-te-eš→

70′ A iii 21′ ku-e-da-aš-ma-az šu-me-en-za-an ÉḪI.A.DINGIRMEŠ-KU-NU B rev. 5′ ku-i-e-eš-ma-a[z … ]→

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

378

The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377)

71′ A iii 22′ ar-ḫa wa-ar-nu-um-ma-an-zi i-la-li-iš-kán-zi B rev. 5′f. [ … ] / i-la-li-iš-kán-zi → 72′

A iv 1

B rev. 6′f.

73′

A iv 2

B rev. 7′

74′

A iv 3

B rev. 7′f.

75′

A iv 4

B rev. 8′

76′

A iv 5

B rev. 9′

77′

A iv 6

B rev. 9′f.

78′

A iv 7

B rev. 10′f.

ku-e-eš-ma BI-I[B-RIḪI.A … ] ku-e-eš-⸢ma BI-IB-RIḪI.A GALḪI.A⸣ [Ú-NU-TEMEŠ] / KÙ.BABBAR → KÙ.BABBAR.GI4 KÙ.GI

da-a[n-na ša-an-ḫi-iš-kán-zi ku-e-eš-ma-aš-za] da-an-na ša-an-⸢ḫi⸣-iš-kán-zi ku-e-e[š-ma-aš-za]→

A.ŠÀA.GÀR-KU-NU

[

GIŠ ⸢KIRI6⸣[.GEŠTIN … ] ] / GIŠKIRI6.GEŠTIN GIŠMÚ.SAR GIŠTIR →

…

dan-na-at-ta-aḫ-ḫu-wa-an-⸢zi⸣ š[a?-an-ḫi-iš-kán-zi] dan-na-ta-aḫ-ḫu-u-wa-an-z[i ša-an-ḫi-iš-ká]n-⸢zi⸣ ku-i-e-eš-ma-aš-za LÚ.ME.EŠAPIN.LÁ ⸢LÚ⸣.M[E.EŠNU.GIŠKIRI6.GEŠTIN] ku-i-e-eš-ma-aš-za LÚ.ME.EŠAPIN.LÁ LÚ.ME.EŠNU.GIŠKIRI6.GEŠTIN → 〈〈LÚ.〉〉LÚ.MEŠNU.GIŠMÚ.SAR erasure MUNUSMEŠ N[A4ARA5 … ] LÚ.MEŠ NU.GIŠM[Ú.SAR MUNUSMEŠ N]A4ARA5 / da-an-na ša-an-ḫi-iš-kán-zi → nu i-da-lu-un ta-pa-ša-an [ḫi-in-kán … ] nu i-da-lu-un ta-pa-aš-š[a-an ḫi-in-k]án / ka-a-aš-ta-an〈〈-na〉〉 erasure →

BURU5ḪI.A-ia erasure B rev. 11′ BURU5ḪI.A-ia

79′

A iv 8

a-pé-e-da-aš A-NA [KUR.KURḪI.A … ] a-pé-e-da-aš A-NA ⸢KUR.KUR⸣[ḪI.A] ⸢LÚKÚR pa-a-i⸣

Requests – Give good 80′ A iv 9 ⸢A⸣-NA LUGAL-ma MUNUS.LUGAL DUMUMEŠ.LUG[AL Ù A-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI] B rev. 12′ A-NA LUGAL-ma MUNUS.LUGAL DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL Ù A-NA KUR URUḪA-AT-TI → 81′ A iv 10 B rev. 12′f.

TI-tar TI-tar

82′ A iv 11

ḫa-ad-du-la-tar in-⸢na⸣-[ra-wa-tar ḫa-at-tu-⸢la-tar⸣ / ⸢in-na⸣-ra-wa-tar

EGIR.UDMI B rev. 13′f. EGIR.UDMI

…

]

MUKAM GÍD.DA

du-uš-ga-ra-at-ta-a[n-na pé-eš-ki … ] du-uš-⸢ga⸣-ra-at-ta-an-na p[í-iš-k]i / [nu-uš-ma-aš ḫa]l-⸢ki⸣-ia-aš

GEŠTIN-aš GEŠTIN-aš

še!-e-ša-an-na-aš G[U4ḪI.A-aš še-e-ša-na-aš GU4ḪI.A-aš

83′ A iv 12

GIŠ

GIŠ

B rev.14′

GIŠ

GIŠ

…

]

UDUḪI.A-aš UZ6ḪI.A-[aš]

ŠAḪ-aš ANŠE.GÌR.NUN.NAḪI.A-aš ANŠE.KUR.RA-aš g[i-im-ra-aš … ] ḪI .A B rev. 15′ [ŠAḪ-aš ANŠE.GÌR.]⸢NUN.NA ⸣ -aš ANŠE-aš gi-im-ra-aš ḫu-u-it-ni-it

84′ A iv 13

85′ A iv 14

DUMU.LÚ.U19.LU-aš-ša ŠA EGIR.UDM[I B rev. 16′ [ … ]x ⸢EGIR.UD⸣MI

… ] mi-ia-a-tar pí-iš-ki →

Wishes – Give good 86′ A iv 15 nu mi-e-eš-du ḫé-⸢e?-mu?-uš?-ša? ú?⸣-[wa?-an?-du?] B rev. 16′f. nu mi-e-eš-ša-〈an〉-d[u] / [ … ]→

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

379

87′ A iv 16 nu še-e-eš-ša-u-wa-a[š I]M⸢ḪI⸣.A-uš i-i[a-an-ta-ru] B rev. 17′ [ … ]-⸢iš⸣-ša-wa-aš ḫu-u-wa-du-uš i-ia-an-ta-r[u] 88′ A iv 17 B rev. 18′

nu I-NA KUR URUḪAT-⸢TI⸣ ma-a-ú še-⸢eš-du⸣ URU [ … K]Ù.BABBARTI ma-a-ú ši-iš-du

INSTRUCTION 89′ A iv 18 nu pa-a-an-ku-⸢uš⸣ a-pa-a-at e-eš-du ḫal-za-a-⸢i⸣ B rev. 18′f. nu pa-an-ku-[uš] / e-eš-⸢du⸣ ḫal-za-a-i (B: Randleiste, end of the reverse) COLOPHON (only in A) 90′ A iv 19 DUB.1⸢PU⸣ QA-TI LÚDUB.SAR-za GIM-an 91′ A iv 20 A-NA LUGAL še-er PA-NI dte-li-pí-nu 92′ A iv 21 UDKAM-ti-li ar-ku-wa-ar e-eš-ša-i (A: Remainder of rev. iv blank) Translation TEXT DESIGNATION 1 [This] text a scribe will recite 2 daily to the deity and he will praise the deity continuously. ELABORATE PRAYER INTRODUCTION Introduction 3 O Telipinu, an eminent (and) honoured deity are you! 4 Muršili, the king, your servant, 5 and the queen, your servant, sent (sg.!) me. They sent (me saying): ‘Go 6 invoke Telipinu, our lord, 7 our personal god!’ Invocation 8 Whether you, O honoured Telipinu, are above in heaven 9 among the gods, (or) whether (you are) in the sea, or are gone to roam in the mountains, 10 or (whether) you are gone to an enemy land for battle, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

now, may the fragrant odour – the cedar (and) the oil – summon you! Come back into your chapel! Herewith I am (constantly) invoking you with thick bread (and) libation. Be satisfied! What I keep saying to you, O God, hold (your) ear inclined to me and listen to it!

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

380

The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377)

‘Only in Ḫatti’ passage 18 You, O Telipinu, are an honoured deity. 19 For you, my god and the temples are made strong only in Ḫatti. 20 But, moreover, in another land (your temple) 21 is never (made strong) for you. For you, they continually provide the festivals 22 (and) ritual(s) in a pure (and) holy manner only1095 in Ḫatti. 23 But, moreover, in another 24 land they never provide (them) for you. 25 26 27 28 29

For you, lofty temples adorned wi[th si]lver (and) gold [exist] only in Ḫatti. [Moreover], in another l[and it] neve[r exists for you]. For you, [cup]s (and) rhyta of silver, gold, (and) stone[s] exist (sg.) only in the land of Ḫatti.

30 31 32 33 34 35

For you, festivals – the monthly festival(s), the annual festivals, the festivals of winter, spring (and) autumn, the animal sacrifices and of the mukeššar – exist (sg.) only in Ḫatti. But, moreover, in another land they never exist for you.

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Your godhood, O Telipinu, is honoured [only in Ḫatti]. [Only in Ḫatti are] Murš[ili, the king, your servant], [and the queen, your servant], and the princes, [your] s[ervants], [respectful to] you. They [continually set up your images, O Telip]inu, [to] fully [perfor]m [the rituals (and) festiva]l(s). They continually [pr]ovide everything in a hol[y (and) pure manner for you]. [Furthermore], [for] your [rhyta, your garments], (and) your utensils (of) your temple 44 respect is established. 45 [They …] are taken care of. 46 No one will step near the utensils […]. Hymn to Telipinu 47 [You, O Tel]ipinu [are] an honoured deity. 48 [Your nam]e is honoured among names, [and your godhood] 49 is honoured among the gods. (A obv. ii breaks, ca. 8? lines missing.) (Beginning A rev. iii lost, ca. 10? lines missing.) 1095 A omits.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

381

PLEA (III) (beginning lost) Request – Support 50′ [To the king, to the queen, to] the prin[ces, your servants] 51′ and [to the land of Ḫatt]i [turn] in favour. Direct Address + Epithet 52′ [You], Telipinu, are an eminent deity. Requests – Give good 53′ Keep [the king, the queen, (and) the pri]nces alive! 54′ Continuously give them [… for the fut]ure, health, long years, 55′ [and …]! [Continuously place] 56′ brightness and happiness 57′ in their soul! 58′ 59′ 60′ 61′ 62′ 63′ 64′

Continuously give them sons, daughters, grandsons, (and) granddaughters! Continuously give them contentment (and) obedience! Continuously give them growth of grain, vines, cattle, sheep, and humans! Continuously give them a man’s strong, battle-ready, divine weapon. Put the enemy lands continuously beneath their feet! And […] them (i.e., the enemy lands) […]!

Request – Remove evil 65′ [Remove] from the land of Ḫatti evil f[ever], 66′ plague, famine, and locusts! Request – Send evil to enemy 67′ The enemy lands, which are arrogant 68′ (and) enraged, which are 69′ not respectful to you, Telipinu, and to the gods of Ḫatti, 70′ which wish to 71′ burn down your (pl.!) temples, 72′ which seek to take the rhyta, cups [and utensils] of silver 73′ (and) gold, 74′ which [seek] to lay waste to your fields, 75′ the vineyards, the gardens, (and) the groves, 76′ 77′ 78′ 79′

which seek to take the ploughmen, the vinedressers, the gardeners, (and) the women of the grinding stone, to those lands give the evil fever, [plag]ue, famine, and locusts!

Requests – Give good 80′ To the king, the queen, the princes, and the land of Ḫatti 81′ [continuously give] life, health, vigour, long years,

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

382

The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377)

82′ and happiness for the future! Continuously give [them] for the future growth of [gra]in, 83′ vines, fruit trees, cattle, sheep, goats, 84′ pigs, mules, horses1096 – together with wild animals of the field – 85′ and of humans! Wishes – Give good 86′ May they grow!1097 And may the rains c[ome]! 87′ May the winds of prosperity come! 88′ May it thrive and prosper in the land of Ḫatti! INSTRUCTION 89′ The congregation calls out ‘May that be!’1098 COLOPHON (only in A) 90′ One tablet, complete. When a scribe 91′ performs a prayer for the king to Telipinu 92′ daily. Comments 1–2: See also Ch. 3.5. 3–7: See also Ch. 7.1. 3: B has DINGIR-uš, the correct nominative form of šiu(n)- ‘god(dess), deity’, see e.g., CHD Š 462. In A we find DINGIRLIM-iš instead. This must be a nominative form as well, but the ending in -iš is odd. For further attestations, see Weeden 2011: 189. This has led scholars to assume a second stem *šiuna/i- next to šiu(n)(CHD Š 474, Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 100 (§4.50), Tischler HEG 2: 1079, cf. Weeden 189, fn. 830), or that the Luwian massani- may be behind the logographic spelling (Tischler HEG 2: 1084, cf. Weeden 2011: 189, fn. 830, 191). Weeden (2011: 192f.) opposes the assumption of an i-stem *šiuni- or a thematised stem *šiuna-. Instead, he interprets the spelling DINGIRLIM-iš (nom.) and DINGIRLIM-in (acc.) as a purely graphic phenomenon which somehow derived from the Akkadian reading of DINGIRLIM as -ili- in personal names. The ending in -iš or -in would not reflect the accurate vowel of the underlying word but only indicate the nominative or accusative case ending. Weeden suggests therefore to read a heterogram: DINGIR-LIM-IŠ. Either way, the spelling DINGIRLIM-iš represents a later orthography (Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 426– 27). According to Weeden (2011: 189) it is attested from Muršili II on. 4f.: The occurrence of two forms of the verb uiya- ‘to send’ within a single sentence, a 3sg.prt.act at the beginning and a 3pl.prt.act at the end, is grammatically incorrect. This is a consequence of adapting an existing clause from one text to a new context with a plural subject instead of a singular one. The original formulation seems to be preserved in KUB 14.10+ i 2f. (CTH 378.2) and probably also in KUB 36.80 obv. 1f. (CTH 376.II). There we find ‘Muršili, the king, your servant’ (mmuršili LUGAL-uš tuēl ARAD-KA) as the singular subject and only one verb form (uiyat=mu 3sg.prt.act=1sg.dat-loc) positioned at the beginning of the clause. In CTH 377 4f. the subject has changed into a plural by adding ‘and the queen, your servant’ (MUNUS.LUGAL-ašša tuēl GÉME-KA (A: GÉME-iš ). The scribe apparently realised that he needed a plural verb form and therefore added one (uyer 3pl.prt.act) at the end of the clause even though he had already written the singular form at the beginning of the sentence. For all this, see Ch. 7.1, especially Chs. 7.1.2–7.1.3.

1096 B: ‘donkeys’. 1097 A: ‘May it grow!’ 1098 B: ‘May it be!’

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

383

A different though unconvincing explanation for the 3sg.prt.act form at the beginning of the clause has been suggested by Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 435) who argue that the verb positioned before its subjects has the tendency to agree in number with the first of its subjects. 5: GÉME-iš in A is probably a scribal error for GÉME-KA which we find in B. The Hittite word underlying GÉME is unknown but according to HW 273a the nominative singular is written GÉME-aš and does not end in -iš as we find in A. Since the signs KA and IŠ are similar – compare KA in KUB 24.1+ i 4 with IŠ in KUB 24.1+ i 5 – it is possible that the scribe of A mistook KA on his Vorlage for IŠ or he simply forgot to write a few additional wedges that would turn IŠ into KA. 6: In A the sign NI in EN-NI is written higher than the other signs. 8–17: See also the discussion in Ch. 7.2. 10: Judging by the photograph in the Konkordanz, the sign IA is written errneously for MA in A i 10: ⸢na⸣aš-⸢ma!⸣-za, cf. the duplicate B KUB 24.2 obv. 9. Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 428) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377) do read ⸢ma⸣ (written over erasure). In the same line, Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 428), Czyzewska (2012: I 251), and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377) read za!-aḫ-ḫi-ia. According to Walther’s copy in KUB 24 the sign ḪA appears to be written followed by AḪ. Walther already recognised ḪA as a scribal error for ZA. However, judging from the photograph, the large Winkelhaken following the two broken verticals belongs to the following sign AḪ. Thus, a perfect ZA is written here with the first Winkelhaken of AḪ written very close to it. 13: Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 428, fn. 12) suggest that the traces after Éka-ri-im-ni in A belong to an erased IT. In B the old enclitic possessive pronoun =i is preserved here: Éka-ri-im-ni-it-ti. 15–17: The clause nu=mu DINGIRLUM ištamanan lagān ḫark seems displaced, because it occurs in between a relative clause and its main clause without referring to either of them. Thematically the clause does agree with the surrounding ones, since it too is a request to listen to the prayer. The parallel in CTH 376.II does not seem to have this clause, see KUB 24.3+ i 5′ and the comments on this line in Appendix IV. That the placement was erroneous seems to be confirmed by the parallel in KUB 36.81 i 3′–5′ (CTH 376.4), where the clause precedes the relative and the main clause. Nonetheless, in KUB 24.3+ ii 7–9 we find the same order of clauses as in CTH 377 15–17. See pp. 168f., 170. 18–46: See also the discussion in Ch. 7.3. 19: DINGIRLIM-IA is often understood as a vocative referring to the addressee as ‘my god’, see e.g., the translations of Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 433, Singer 2002a: 54, and Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 377. However, the following Ù ‘and’ makes this interpretation problematic, because it cannot be used as a clause linking connective here, since the sentence is already introduced by nu (cf. Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 438). Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 438) mention the possibility that Ù would introduce a new sentence; nu=a DINGIRLIM-IA would then be a nominal clause “You are my god”. However, ‘my god’ is not a common address in Hittite prayers. One only finds it in sections of CTH 372–74 where it is a remnant of a Mesopotamian precursor. Therefore, a different interpretation is suggested here in which Ù connects DINGIRLIM-IA ‘my god’ and ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ ‘temples’. Compare the parallel KUB 36.81 i 7′ (CTH 376.4) where =ya seems to be placed after ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ ‘temples’ in a similar manner. DINGIRLIM-IA ‘my god’ could refer to the deity or his statue (CHD Š 484f.). Alternatively, we may assume a scribal error for DINGIRLIM-ia-tar, Hittite *šiuniyatar, ‘godhood, divine image, deity, divinity’ (CHD Š 507f.), cf. CTH 377 37. 22: Following CHD P 165b, parkui šuppi is used adverbially here and translated as ‘in a pure (and) holy manner’ (so also Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 433). By contrast Singer (2002a: 51, 55) translated these as adjectives to EZEN4ḪI.A SÍSKUR(ḪI.A) ‘festivals and ritual(s)’ both in this text and in the parallel in CTH 376.II (KUB 24.3+ i 10′f.). According to Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377) they have a depictive function (‘in reinem und heiligen Zustand’). 25: The adjective parku ‘high’, only preserved in A, is singular, whereas the noun to which it belongs, ÉMEŠ.DINGIRMEŠ, is plural. The parallel in KUB 36.81 i 12′ (CTH 376.4) has the correct plural form pargauwa, see p. 182.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

384

The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377)

27: The reading K[UR-e] in A i 27 follows Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 429) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377). One could also read u[t-ni-e] (so Czyzewska 2012: I 252). Only two small Winkelhaken, which could belong to KUR as well as to UD, are visible. 28: The restoration at the beginning of the line follows Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 429) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377). One may also consider restoring TÚG instead of GAL on the basis of KUB 17.21+ i 15′– 16′ (CTH 375), for which see p. 182; cf. CTH 377 44 and the comments on CTH 377 43f. 28, 73: KÙ.BABBAR.GI4 in A seems to be a scribal error for KÙ.GI ‘gold’. Czyzewska (2012: I 252) reads KÙ.BABBAR.SI22, but the sign is GI4, not GI (= SI22), although according to HZL GI4 is also a late sign-form of GI. I disagree with Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 439f.) that KÙ.BABBAR.GI4 should be added to HZL as a logogram for ‘gold’, since the only attestations are these two in this prayer. 30: In A ii 3 the small horizontal of AŠ in MU-aš is not as deeply impressed into the clay as the other wedges on the tablet. On the ‘the annual festivals’, see the comments on KUB 24.3+ i 16′ (CTH 376.II) in Appendix IV. 34: In A ii 7 KUR-e! is incorrectly written with URU instead of E, so also Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 377. Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 429) apparently do not interpret it as a scribal error since they read KUR URU and translate ‘land (or) town’ (ibid. 433). However, the parallel in KUB 24.3+ i 19′ (CTH 376.II) does have KUR-e, which shows that here in CTH 377 A ii 7 we are dealing with a scribal error. 36: The translation of DINGIRMEŠ-tar, Hittite *šiuniyatar, as ‘godhood’ follows CHD Š 507a, cf. the comments on KUB 24.3+ i 21′ in Appendix IV. 39–42: The restorations are based on KUB 24.3+ i 23′–26′ (CTH 376.II), for which see Appendix IV and the Partitur on pp. 181f. 40f.: Compare the comments on KUB 24.3+ i 24′ (CTH 376.II) in Appendix IV. 43f.: The restoration is based on KUB 17.21+ i 15′f. (CTH 375), for which see see p. 198. Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 430) restore GALḪI.A-KA at the beginning of l. 44. The interpretation of É.DINGIRLIM-K[A] ‘your temple’ as a genitive is based on KUB 24.3+ i 26′ (CTH 376.II). One could also understand it as part of the enumeration and translate ‘[Furthermore], [for] your temple, your [garment]s, [your rhyta], (and) your utensils respect is established’. 45f.: Compare KUB 17.21+ i 11′–12′, 16′–17′ (CTH 375), for which see p. 198. 45: Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 430) restore [na-at-za E]GIR-pa at the beginning of the line. 46: Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 430) restore [DINGIRLIM(?) ma-ni-i]n-ku-wa-an at the beginning of the line. 47–49: The restorations are based on KUB 24.3+ i 29′–30′ (CTH 376.II). See also Ch. 7.4. 49ff.: The remainder of the hymn may be restored on the basis of KUB 24.3+ i 31′–34′ (CTH 376.II), see Ch. 7.4.1. 50′–88′: See also the discussion in Ch. 8.3. 50′–51′: These and the preceding lines, which form the beginning of the plea, can be restored on the basis of KUB 24.3+ iii 12′–17′ (CTH 376.II). Compare also the parallel KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′ (CTH 334), for which see p. 264. The plea of CTH 377 is likely to have started with a statement using the verb mugai- as we find in KBo 31.76+ i 7′f., rather than with the request that occurs in KUB 24.3+ iii 12′f. (cf. p. 264). The beneficiaries of the request we find here were probably the king, the queen, the princes and the land of Ḫatti. As in l. 80′, probably none of the royal family members were mentioned by name. ARADMEŠ-KA ‘your servants’ is restored at the end of l. 50′, because there appears to be enough place to include it. This implies that also the king and the queen were probably given the appositions ARAD-KA ‘your servant’ and GÉMEKA ‘your servant’ respectively. Such appositions are lacking in l. 80′. 51′: Compare KUB 24.3+ iii 16′–17′ (CTH 376.II), for which see Appendix IV.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Text Edition

385

52′: The restorations are based on l. 18, where the adjective nakki- ‘honoured’ is used instead of šarku‘powerful’. Compare also l. 47. 52′f.: Compare Privat 35 iii? 2′f., for which see Appendix VII. If the comparison is indeed warranted, we may restore a form of paḫš- ‘to protect’, probably an imperative, at the beginning of l. 53′. 54′: Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 430) restore [mi-ia-a-tar ?] at the beginning of the line, but this would be unexpected, since there is no mention of crops, livestock, or the population here. Compare the similar requests in KUB 24.3+ iii 17′–22′ (CTH 376.II), where miyatar ‘growth’ does not occur. 56′: Compare KBo 52.16+ 10′–11′ (CTH 376.II C), where anda and lalukkiman follow each other immediately. Nonetheless, Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 430), following CHD L–N 29a, restore [mi-ú-mar (lalu-u)]k-ki-ma-an at the beginning of l. 56′. They suggest a similar restoration for CTH 376.II A KUB 24.3+ iii 20′–22′ (Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 445). Singer (2002a: 55) seems to have accepted this restoration in CTH 377 56′ and the break seems large enough to restore 2 or 3 signs before lalukkiman. The restoration offered here follow the parallel in KBo 52.16+ 10′–11′. 59′: The meaning of nū(t)- is unclear. The translation ‘contentment’ follows the suggestion of CHD L–N 476f., cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 610. The word often occurs in enumerations of positive things as we find here, suggesting that it refers to something desirable. In such lists it is always followed by either ištamaššuwar or tummantiya-, which are synonyms (Kloekhorst 2008: 610). Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 433, 446f.) translate nū(t)- as ‘(power of) hearing(?)’ and connect it to Hurrian nui-. They separate nū(t)- from the interjection (𒑱)nū, assuming only the latter to be ‘an expression of compliance or satisfaction’ (ibid. 447). Rieken (2006) equates nū(t)- with the expression apāt ešdu ‘May that be’, for which see CTH 377 89′ and KUB 24.3+ iii 44′ (CTH 376.II), and translates it as ‘Zustimmung’. The term tummantiya-, which is also attested with Glossenkeil, is Cuneiform Luwian for ‘obedience’, derived from tummanti(ya)- ‘to hear’ and tummant- ‘ear’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 412). Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 446) reject the translation ‘obedience’ for tummantiya- because they think it is ‘rather odd for a king to pray to gods for obedience’. They translate it as ‘(power of) understanding(?)’ instead (ibid. 433f.). 62′: The restoration is based on KUB 24.3+ iii 30′ (CTH 376.II). 63′: DINGIR before GIŠTUKUL-in is unique and, in combination with LÚ-aš in l. 62′, rather unexpected, see Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 447f. 64′: Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 431) restore na-at in-[na-ra ḫar-ga-nu?] at the end of A iii 15′, cf. Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377) who restore in-[na-ra …]. 65′: Restored on the basis of l. 78′. 66′: The restoration is based on the parallel in CTH 483, KBo 8.70 ii? 11′: [a]r-ḫa ḫar-ni-ik-tén with duplicate KUB 15.34+ ii 48, for which see p. 272. Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 431) restore a[r-ḫa da-a?] ‘take away!’. They prefer arḫa da- ‘to take away, to remove’ because it is in opposition to pai- which occurs in l. 79′ (ibid. 448). CHD L–N 204 and Puhvel HED 3: 298 restore a[rḫa uiya] ‘send away!’. This verb occurs in a similar request to remove a plague in some of the plague prayers, e.g., in KUB 14.8 rev. 17f. (CTH 378.2; see HW2 Ḫ 567b), and in KUB 14.12 rev. 13 (CTH 378.3; see Puhvel HED 3: 298). 70′: A has kuedaš (dat-loc.pl) instead of the syntactically correct kuiēš (nom.pl), which we find in B, see Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 427, cf. Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 377. 72′: Restored on the basis of KUB 24.3+ iii 2′ (CTH 376.II). ŠA before KÙ.BABBAR is not included in the restoration, since it seems unlikely that ŠA was written at the end of the line when KÙ.BABBAR is written at the beginning of the next line (in B). 73′: The restoration of ku-e-eš-ma-za is based on KUB 24.3+ iii 4′ (CTH 376.II). 75′: Restored on the basis of KUB 24.3+ iii 6′ (CTH 376.II). 77′: The doubling of LÚ in A seems to be a scribal error. According to Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 431) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377) the first LÚ was already erased by the scribe, but judging by the photograph available through the Konkordanz this does not seem to be the case. Possibly the scribe wrote a

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

386

The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377)

double determinative to indicate that the noun is plural. He seems to have done the same with the following ‘women of the grinding stone’, but there he did erase the first MUNUS. 82′: The restoration nu-uš-ma-aš follows l. 60′. Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 431, 453) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377) only restore nu before ḫalkiš in both A and B. However, one expects a reference to the beneficiaries in this sentence. In B there is enough space at the beginning of the line to restore the longer nu-uš-ma-aš. In A the scribe would have had to write more densely towards the end of the line or continue writing in the intercolumnium, as he has done also in A i 10, for example. The restoration of pé-eš-ki istead of pí-iš-ki is based on other attestations of this form in A (ll. 55′, 58′, 59′, 61′, and 63′). 83′: CHD Š 446 translates GIŠšešannaš here as ‘fruit’, and GIŠGEŠTIN-aš accordingly as ‘grapes’. Here they are translated as the trees or plants on which these products grow. Either interpretation of the terms could be accurate in the present context, cf. CHD L–N 114b. 84′: In A Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 432) read ANŠE in ANŠE.KUR.RA with an exclamation mark. The sign indeed resembles GU or GÌR but according to HZL it could be a late form of ANŠE. 86′: The restoration follows Kassian and Yakubovich (2007: 432) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 377). In B the omission of -an- in mi-e-eš-ša-〈an〉-du does not need to be a scribal error (cf. Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 377). Compare the following line where the n of ḫuwant- ‘wind’ is also not written. In both cases the n is omitted before a dental written with DU. 87′: Gurney (1940: 115) assumes še/iššawaš to be a scribal error for šešduwaš, the verbal noun of šešd- ‘to prosper’, which we find in the parallel KUB 24.3+ iii 39′ (CTH 376.II). This interpretation is followed by CHD L–N 114f. and Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 451, but not by Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 377. Gurney (1940: 115) understands this error occurring in both A and B as a sign that the two tablets may have been written at the same time from dictation. However, this hypothesis needs to be rejected because palaeography and linguistics show that A was written later than B. Kassian and Yakubovich ascribe the error to a lack of grammatical knowledge of the Hittite scribe. They suggest ‘that the scribe of the common prototype of A and B did not know the full paradigm of šešt- “to be fruitful, flourish” and “emended” the correct form of šeštuwaš based on the erroneous morphological analysis of šešdu “let it prosper” in the following sentence, or some other sort of idiosyncratic linguistic considerations’ (Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 451). Indeed še/iššawaš in A and B can best be explained by the fact that A is probably a direct or indirect copy of B, but with Kloekhorst (2008: 756–57) the form is not a scribal error. Kloekhorst argues convincingly that the stem of the verb from which the verbal noun še/iššawaš derives is šiš- rather than šišd-/šešd- as it is generally cited (e.g., CHD Š 455f.). As he points out, except in the verbal noun šešduwaš in KUB 24.3+ iii 39′ and šišduwar in KUB 15.34+ ii 23, a d is not found in any other form of this verb; in šešdu (3sg.imp.act) it is part of the ending. The correct form of the verbal noun would then be še/iššawaš which we have here in CTH 377. Kloekhorst explains the verbal nouns with d as a secondary form created by analogy with the 3sg.imp.act form šešdu, the most attested form of the verb. In KUB 24.3+ it even occurs in the line directly following the verbal noun (Kloekhorst 2008: 757). 87′: The nom.pl ḫuwa(n)duš in B is remarkable, especially when compared to the parallel in CTH 376.II which has the more common nom.pl ending for an -nt-stem in -eš (KUB 24.3+ iii 40′: IM-⸢an-te-eš⸣). The ending in -uš may be explained as a later New Hittite phenomenon (Kassian and Yakubovich 2007: 451), though also in NH the ending in -eš is more common, cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 70 (§3.16). 89′: See HW2 Ḫ 99b, CHD L–N 477a, and the discussion in Ch. 8.4. According to CHD L–N 477a apāt ēšdu may be the equivalent of the (Luwian) interjection nū that is called out during certain rituals.

V.2 TABLET FORMAT OF KUB 24.1+ (A) KUB 24.1+ is a two-column tablet in landscape format, a format which is extremely rare in the tablet collections of Ḫattuša. It is particularly rare for tablets of this size.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Tablet Format of KUB 24.1+ (A)

387

The landscape format was primarily used for small tablets that were not intended to be kept and stored for a long period. These include, for example, economic texts and labels.1099 Apart from KUB 24.1+, there is one other larger tablet that is certainly written in landscape format: KUB 29.58+ (CTH 811). Furthermore, KBo 10.10 and KUB 37.198 (CTH 542) may also have been written in landscape format, though we cannot be certain since the tablets are damaged.1100 KBo 10.10 is a Hittite list of women. KUB 29.58+ and KUB 37.198 both contain texts of a Babylonian origin written in Akkadian. Neither of them is written in Boğazköy ductus.1101 For KUB 24.1+ the case is different, since here we are dealing with a late copy of an indigenous Hittite prayer. Overall KUB 24.1+ has a somewhat messy appearance. The script is very cursive and the degree of ‘cursiveness’ is not consistent throughout the tablet, with some parts written more cursively than others. The size of the script also varies. Particularly the last three lines of the first column are written very small and close together, giving the impression that the scribe tried to fit these lines in this final paragraph of the column but ran out of space. The many erasures contribute to the messy appearance of the tablet. Even the vertical and horizontal rulings were made carelessly. On the obverse the left column is wider than the right column. The vertical lines of the intercolumnium are not straight and they are impressed quite deeply into the clay, deeper than the paragraph lines. A Randleiste only occurs on the lower end of the obverse. The paragraph lines are also not straight, though those on the obverse seem to be drawn more carefully than those on the reverse. Multiple attempts seem to have been made to draw the double ruling preceding the colophon. Many different lines are visible, some of which are impressed only superficially (Figure 17). Similar complications are visible in the beginnings of the rulings after i 7 and i 10. The ruling after iii 15′ was not drawn in one go. After a few centimetres the scribe lifted his stylus from the clay and applied it again. This second part of the ruling begins slightly higher than the first part. As a result, the ends of the two parts of the

1099 Waal 2015: 78f. 1100 Waal 2015: 79 incl. fn. 243. 1101 KUB 29.58+ (CTH 811) is an Akkadian medical text containing prescriptions against fever (ṣibit li’bi šadî) (Schwemer 2013: 155). For an edition, see Meier 1939. Though the tablet is not written in Boğazköy ductus (Schwemer 2013: 155, Waal 2015: 79, Konkordanz), Ehelolf (KUB 29: VIII) and Meier (1939: 199) argue on the basis of orthography and grammatical inconsistencies that the tablet was not imported from Babylonia, but rather copied in Ḫattuša (cf. Waal 2015: 79, fn. 242). However, according to Schwemer (2013: 155) the syllabary is ‘peripheral’ and the text contains ‘occasional Assyrianisms and corruptions’. Meier also considers the language of KUB 29.58+ to be closer to Middle Babylonian than to the Akkadian from Boğazköy. Waal (2015: 79) suggests that KUB 29.58+ may either have been imported or written in Ḫattuša by a foreign scribe. KUB 37.198 (CTH 542) contains Akkadian oil omens (elaeomancy). For an edition of the text, see Pettinato 1966: II 91–108. Since the tablet is broken it is uncertain if it was written in landscape orientation (Waal 2015: 79, fn. 243), but Pettinato (1966: II 91) considers it to be so. The ductus and orthography of KUB 37.198 shows that the tablet was not written in Ḫattuša but imported from Babylonia (Pettinato 1996: I 77, Riemschneider 2004: 135).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

388

The Prayer of a Scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377)

Figure 17. Double ruling after KUB 24.1+ iv 18, preceding the colophon. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: Fotarch BoFN01886c.

Figure 18. Part of the ruling after KUB 24.1+ iii 15′. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: Fotarch BoFN01886c.

Figure 19. Part ruling after KUB 24.1+ i 17. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: Fotarch BoFN01885a.

ruling are positioned on top of each other. A bit further the scribe lifted his stylus again, for a small head of a wedge is visible (Figure 18). Such wedge-shapes within the ruling show that the ruling was made with a stylus and not in one go. They also occur in other rulings in KUB 24.1+, e.g., after i 17 (Figure 19), ii 8, and iii 8′.

V.3 TABLET FORMAT OF KUB 24.2 (B) KUB 24.2 is a single-column tablet of which only the upper part of the obverse and the lower part of the reverse are preserved. The text is written in portrait orientation. The left margin is indicated by a vertical line both on the obverse and on the reverse.1102 On the obverse the text begins immediately at the top of the tablet, leaving no blank space. At the bottom of the reverse there is a faint horizontal ruling, which might be considered a Randleiste (Figure 20). The lines of text are not perfectly horizontal on the tablet; the right ends tend to slant upwards. This appears to be stronger on the reverse than on the obverse. The rulings on the reverse and the final visible ruling on the obverse also slant upwards on the right side. The scribe apparently was struggling to fit the entire text on the tablet. The upward slanting of the lines may have saved him, since he managed to squeeze the final two words in the right lower corner (rev. 19′), see Figure 20.

1102 The indication of the margin on the left by a vertical line is more common on single-column tablets than on tablets with multiple columns (Waal 2015: 99, 101).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Tablet Format of KUB 24.2 (B)

389

Figure 20. KUB 24.2 reverse, lower end. Photo: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net/: Fotarch N03362.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

VI. KBO 22.78 The small prayer fragment KBo 22.78 preserves parts of 13 lines. Because of its poor state of preservation, KBo 22.78 is not included in the catalogue of Hittite prayers in Appendix I. Though the preserved lines are clearly related to CTH 376.I, CTH 376.II and CTH 376.III, KBo 22.78 is not a duplicate to any of these prayers. Another parallel occurs in the “Second” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.2), but contra Hoffner (1976: 336), it is also not a duplicate of this text. The first seven lines are similar to the wishes to reveal a past offence in KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′–13′ (CTH 376.I), KUB 24.3+ ii 26–30 (CTH 376.II), and KUB 14.10+ iv 8′–22′ (CTH 378.2). The textual history of these passages is treated in Ch. 8.2.4. The following lines, ll. 7′–12′, resemble the request to punish only the guilty party in KUB 24.4+ rev. 11–13 (CTH 376.I), KUB 24.3+ ii 64–66 (CTH 376.II), and KUB 30.13(+) 2‴– 3‴ (CTH 376.III). Since in CTH 376.I and CTH 376.II the two passages do not follow each other immediately, KBo 22.78 clearly is a separate text. In addition, there are several variants between the passages in KBo 22.78 and the other prayers. Not enough diagnostic signs are preserved to provide a secure date for the fragment. In the Konkordanz it is dated as ‘mh.?’. The forms of ḪAR and UN indeed support a Middle Script date. If correct, it is written in a rather late Middle Script, since URU is written with its verticals almost aligned, and also the use of the sign SÌLA is remarkable in this respect. A transliteration of the fragment has been published by Groddek (2008: 78f.) and Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 389.67). Neither Groddek nor Rieken et al. suggest any restorations. In the edition offered below the text has been restored as much as possible on the basis of the parallels mentioned above. The restorations remain to a large part conjectural, in particular since the width of the column and/or tablet is unknown. Transliteration 1′ [ … ]⸢na-an⸣[…] 2′ [ … ]-za-⸢ka4⸣ wa-aš-⸢ta-nu⸣-x[…] 3′ [x? x? x? nu] na-aš-šu LÚši-⸢ú?⸣-[ni-ia-an-za] 4′ [ú-id-du n]a-at me-ma-ú n[a?-aš-ma-at te-eš-ḫi-it] 5′ [ú-wa-al]-lu na-at EGIR-pa S[IG5-aḫ-mi?] 6′ [na-aš-ta? URUD]Uše-pí-ik-ku-uš-ta-aš [GIŠšar-pa-az] 7′ [ku-un-ku-u]-⸢e⸣-ni na-aš-ma-kán m[a?-a-an? …] 8′ [ … ] na-aš-ma 1EN URULUM […] 9′ [ … ]-x-ia-u-an ḫar-zi nu […] 10′ [ … ] še-er A-NA KURTI […] 11′ [… DINGI]R?LUM a-pu-u-un 1E[N …]

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

392

KBo 22.78

12′ [1EN? URU?L]AM ḫar-ni-ik A-[NA? …] 13′ [ … ]x-x-⸢an? ⸣-x nu x[…] Translation 1′ […]…[…] 2′ [… the matter which you] regard as an offence […] 3′ [… Let] either a man of god 4′ [come and] say it, o[r let me see it in a dream] 5′ (so) [I (can) make] it ri[ght] again. 6′f. We are dangling by the point of a needle. 7′ Whether [it is …] 8′ […] or a single city […] 9′ [who] has […]-ed […] 10′ […] above to/for the land […] 11′ [O Go]d, that single [… or] 12′ [single city] destroy! …[…] 13′ […]… And […] Comments 1′–7′: See Ch. 8.2.4. Compare the parallels in KUB 24.3+ ii 26–30 (CTH 376.II, Appendix II) KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′–13′ (CTH 376.I, Appendix IV), and KUB 14.10+ iv 8′–22′ (CTH 378.2), for which see pp. 246f. 2′: One would expect either wa-aš-ta-nu-uz-zi (3sg.prs.act) or wa-aš-ta-nu-an-zi (3pl.prs.act) depending on whether the prayer is directed to the gods or to a single deity. The verb waštanu- ‘to regard as an offence’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 985) has a similar meaning to the expression waštul auš- ‘to perceive (as) an offence’ that occurs in the parallels in KUB 24.4+ obv. 10′ (CTH 376.I) and KUB 24.3+ ii 26 (CTH 376.II). 3′f.: Restored on the basis of KUB 24.3+ ii 27 (CTH 376.II). 4′f.: Restored on the basis of KUB 14.10+ iv 9′–10′ // KUB 14.8 rev. 42′ (CTH 378.2), for which see p. 246. 5′: The clause seems comparable to nezzan ganešmi ‘so I (can) acknowledge them’ which occurs in a similar context in KUB 30.10 obv. 25′, 26′, 28′ (CTH 373) and KUB 31.127+ ii [51, 53], 58 (CTH 372), see p. 244. Here a 1sg.prs.act of lazziyaḫḫ- ‘to make right, to repair, to correct’ (CHD L–N 53–55) has been restored, though one could also restore a plural form if there is more than one supplicant. Compare also KUB 14.8 rev. 38′–39′ (CTH 378.2) and KBo 11.1 obv. 41 (CTH 382), both in different contexts. 6′f.: Restored on the basis of KUB 14.10+ iv 19′–20′ (CTH 378.2), KUB 24.3+ ii 30 (CTH 376.II), and KUB 24.4+ obv. 13′ (CTH 376.I). 7′–12′: Cf. KUB 24.3+ ii 64–66 (CTH 376.II) in Appendix IV, KUB 24.4+ rev. 11–13 (CTH 377) in Appendix V, KUB 30.13(+) 2‴–3‴ (CTH 376.III) in Appendix III, and KBo 11.1 obv. 37–38 (CTH 382) on p. 253. 11′: The restoration of the direct address [DINGI]RLUM is based on KUB 24.4+ rev. 12f. (CTH 377) and KUB 24.3+ ii 65 (CTH 376.II). However, Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 389.67) and Groddek (2008: 79) read [UR]ULUM. At the end of the line Rieken et al. (2016: CTH 389.67) and Groddek (2008: 79) incorrectly read me-x[…]. Photographs of the tablet and the parallels in KUB 24.4+ rev. 13 (CTH 376.I) and KUB 24.3+ ii 65–66 (CTH 376.II) confirm the reading 1E[N …] offered here. 12′f.: Based on KBo 11.1 obv. 39 (CTH 382) one could tentatively restore: A-NA KURTI-ma-at-kán le-e an-da ša-an-aḫ-ti ‘But do not avenge it on the land!’.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

VII. PRIVAT 35 The fragment known as Privat 35 is listed in the Konkordanz as CTH 385.8.1103 It is not included in the catalogue of Hittite prayers in Appendix I because of its poor state of preservation. A copy of the fragment has been published by Schwemer (2006: 239). Tezt is only preserved on one side of the fragment, possibly the reverse. The remnants of two columns are visible, but only the right column (iii?) preserves a translatable passage. The preserved lines resemble clauses in Plea III of the Prayer for Muršili II to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.II) and its parallels in the Prayer of a scribe to Telipinu (CTH 377), for which see Ch. 8.3. Since Mezzulla and Ḫulla are mentioned in iii? 5′, Privat 35 is probably addressed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna and deities who are associated with her. The mention of the king, the queen, and the princes without giving their names, echoes CTH 377. Furthermore, iii? 2′ seems parallel to CTH 377 53′, and iii? 4′–11′ resemble the relative clauses of the request to send evil to the enemy in KUB 24.3+ iii 1′–9′ (CTH 376.II) and CTH 377 67′–77′. According to Schwemer the fragment is written in MS and probably belongs to a Middle Hittite prayer.1104 However, not enough diagnostic signs are preserved to provide a secure date. Judging by the older form of AZ (iii? 9′) without the subscript and the forms of AḪ and ḪAR, the fragment may indeed be dated MS or later.1105 A remarkable feature of Privat 35 is the blank paragraph in the right column. Two prayers in our corpus also have blank paragraphs. The Prayer of Puduḫepa for the well-being of Ḫattušili III (CTH 384) consists of five related prayers written on one tablet. Only one manuscript of this text, KUB 21.27+ has come down to us. On its reverse we find blank paragraphs in between the separate prayers. In addition, on KUB 14.13+, the primary text witness of the “Fourth” plague prayer of Muršili II (CTH 378.1), we find two paragraphs which are left blank except for the sign PAB, which is written several times. In one of them we also read the Hittite rendering of this logogram, ḫar-ra-an ‘broken’. Blank paragraphs may thus indicate that a new text begins within the composition, as in KUB 21.27+, or that we are dealing with the copy of a damaged original, as in the case of KUB 14.13+. Why a blank paragraph occurs in Privat 35 remains unclear.1106

1103 Previous editions: Schwemer 2006: 239–41, Rieken et al. 2016: CTH 385.8, Czyzewska 2012: II 143 (iii? 4′–11′). 1104 Schwemer (2006: 239) points out šumenzan in iii? 12′, and the sign-forms of AḪ, ḪAR, AZ, AR, EN, ḪÉ, and MEŠ. 1105 These observations are based on Schwemer’s copy. A photograph was not available to me. 1106 Contra the suggestion of Schwemer (2006: 240), it probably has nothing to do with the way prayers were composed.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

394

Privat 35

Transliteration Rev. iii? (beginning lost) 1′ ⸢ḫu⸣-u-⸢ma-an-da-a-aš ḫu-u⸣-i[a-…] 2′ nu LUGAL MUNUS.LUGAL DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL [TI-an ḫar-kán-du?] 3′ nu-uš pa-aḫ-ša-an-ta-ru (Blank, space for ca. 5 lines) 4′ LÚ.MEŠKÚRḪI.A-ma-za ku-i-⸢e⸣-eš tu-el [ŠA dUTU URUa-ri-in-na] 5′ dme-ez-zu-ul-la dḫu-ul-la [BI-IB-RIḪI.A GALḪI.A ŠA?] 6′ KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI Ú-NU-TEMEŠ-KU-NU ḫu-u-[ma-an-du-uš da-an-na?] 7′ i-la-a-li-⸢iš-kán⸣-zi LÚ.MEŠA[PIN.LÁ LÚ.MEŠNU.GIŠKIRI6] 8′ MUNUSMEŠ NA₄ARA5 MUNUS.⸢MEŠUŠ⸣.BAR da-a-[an-na ša-an-ḫi-iš-kán-zi] 9′ É.DINGIRMEŠ-KU-NU-ma-az ar-ḫa [wa-ar-nu-um-ma-an-zi i-la-a-li-iš-kán-zi] 10′ ⸢A⸣.ŠÀḪI.⸢A⸣-KU-NU GIŠKIRI6ḪI.A-KU-NU Z[AGḪI.A-KU-NU] 11′ [d]a-an-na-at-ta-aḫ-ḫu-wa-a[n-zi ša-an-ḫi-iš-kán-zi] 12′ [nu š]u-me-en-za-an ŠA DI[NGIRMEŠ(?) …] 13′ […]x x[…] (Remainder of column lost) Rev. iv? (beginning lost) KUR URUki-iz-zu-w]a-⸢at⸣-ni-ia 1′ [ … d]ḫé-pát 2′ [ … 3′ [ … ḫu-u]-ma-an-te-eš 4′ [ … ḫ]u-u-ma-an-te-eš 5′ [ … ] 6′ [ … ]x 7′ [ … ] 8′ [ … 9′ [ … 10′ [ … (Remainder of column lost)

] -d]u? -š]a?-an

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Privat 35

395

Translation Rev. iii? (beginning lost) 1′ all …[…] 2′ [May they keep] the king, the queen, and the princes [alive] 3′ and may they protect them! (Blank, space for ca. 5 lines) 4′ 5′ 6′ 7′ 8′ 9′ 10′f.

The enemies who wish [to take] your, [O Sun-goddess of Arinna,] O Mezzulla, O Ḫulla, [rhyta, cups of] silver and gold, and a[ll] your utensils, (who) [seek to] ta[ke] (your) fa[rmers, gardeners], women of the grind-stone, (and) weavers, and (who) [wish to burn down] your temples, (and who) [seek] to lay waste to your fields, your orchards, (and) [your] bor[der regions],

12′f. [Y]our, O G[ods, …] 13′ […] (Remainder of column lost) Rev. iv? is too fragmentary for translation Comments The restorations follow Schwemer 2006: 240. iii? 2′: Cf. CTH 377 52′, for which see Appendix V. iii? 4′–11′: Cf. KUB 24.3+ iii 1′–9′ (CTH 376.II) and CTH 377 67′–77′, for which see Appendices IV and V.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

VIII. THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) AND RELATED PRAYERS Below, the forms of selected diagnostic signs in the main text witnesses of CTH 376.I, CTH 376.III, CTH 376.II, and CTH 377 are described below.1107 This is the basis for the palaeographic analysis of these five tablets in Ch. 6.2, which was done to establish their relative chronology. The chronological order of the tablets from the oldest to the latest is KUB 24.4+ (MS), KUB 24.3 (NS), KUB 24.2 (NS), and KUB 24.1+ (LNS). Due to the fragmentary state of KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121, it is unclear how it should be positioned in relation to the other NS tablets, though the tablet was probably written down later than KUB 24.3+. Tablets discussed KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 KUB 30.13 (+) KBo 12.132 (+) VBoT 121 KUB 24.3+ KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 KUB 24.2

No. 9 10 11 12 12

CTH no. CTH 376.I CH 376.III CTH 376.II CTH 377 CTH 377

ms. A A A B

Date MS NS NS NS LNS

AḪ (HZL 332) KUB 24.4+: Only the older form of AḪ occurs with the horizontal wedge beginning in the middle of the triangle of Winkelhaken (HZL 332A). KUB 30.13(+): Not attested. KUB 24.3+: AḪ occurs primarily in a later form with the head of the horizontal placed just outside the cluster of Winkelhaken (HZL 332B, HZL 332/4–6, 9). In some forms (e.g., i 22′, 23′, ii 56) the horizontal appears to begin just inside, to the outer right, of the cluster of Winkelhaken (HZL 332/3). KUB 24.1+: The later form of AḪ, with the head of the horizontal wedge outside the triangle of Winkelhaken, predominates (ii 17, iii 20′, and iv 4). In iii 20′ the three Winkelhaken do not form a triangle. Instead, they are 1107 Cf. the chronological development of the described signs in Ch. 1.3.3. KU is not treated below because it is not attested in any of the tablets. All observations are based on the photographs of the respective tablets of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Snippets from the following photographs are used in Figures 21–54 below: KUB 24.4+: Mainzer Fotoarchiv hethiter.net:/ fotarch BoFN00465, BoFN00466, BoFN05435a, BoFN05435b; KUB 30.13(+): BoFN07357a, B0451b, B0452b, BF01905; KUB 24.3+: BoFN00461, BoFN00462, BoFN00463, BoFN00464, B0655a, Bo625b, Phb11220b, Phb11221a, B1173k, BoFN10361a; KUB 24.1+: BoFN01885a, BoFN01886c, B1010d, B1145c; KUB 24.2: B2328, N03362.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

398

KUB 24.2:

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

positioned on top of each other in an almost straight line, comparable to HZL 332/8. Compare the same phenomenon in the forms of ḪAR on this tablet. Only in i 10 an older form of AḪ occurs with the head of the horizontal positioned inside the triangle of Winkelhaken, some-what towards the right side of the triangle. In rev. 5′ and 8′ AḪ occurs in a later form with the head of the horizontal positioned outside to the right of the cluster of three Winkelhaken. In obv. 9, on the other hand, AḪ is written in the older form with the head of the horizontal in the middle of the three Winkelhaken.

It is remarkable that the only older form of AḪ in the two text witnesses of CTH 377 occurs at the same position within the text, in the word za-aḫ-ḫi-ia (KUB 24.1+ i 10 // KUB 24.2 obv. 9). The question arises whether this parallel distribution of sign-forms may be the result of copying from another tablet by sight or is coincidental. In KUB 24.1+ i 10 the head of the horizontal inside the triangle of Winkelhaken is positioned slightly more towards the right than in KUB 24.2 obv. 9 which might suggest a later date for KUB 24.1+. KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

i 41′

i 10

obv. 16′

rev. 3

rev. 10

i 41′

ii 56

iii 20′

iv 4

obv. 9

rev. 8′

Figure 21. Selected attestations of AḪ.

ḪAR (HZL 333) KUB 24.4+: The older form of ḪAR with the three horizontals beginning inside the cluster of Winkelhaken (HZL 333A) is employed throughout the tablet. KUB 30.13(+): The three horizontal wedges of ḪAR in obv. 4′ and obv. 10′ begin just inside or on the edge of the cluster of Winkelhaken and are thus closer to the later form (HZL 333B) than to the older one. KUB 24.3+: ḪAR is written almost exclusively with four horizontal wedges. Forms with three wedges occur in ii 12 and ii 24. The horizontals begin just inside or on the edge of the cluster of Winkelhaken and are thus closer to the later form (HZL 333B) than to the older one.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

399

AG (HZL 81)

KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

The three Winkelhaken of ḪAR do not form a triangle. Instead, they are positioned almost vertically above each other. Compare the same phenomenon in the form of AḪ in KUB 24.1+ iii 20′. ḪAR is written consistently in the later form with the horizontal wedges to the right of the Winkelhaken (cf. HZL 333/7). ḪAR occurs in a later form. As in KUB 24.3+, it is consistently written with four horizontals. In obv. 12 and 14 the Winkelhaken of ḪAR form a triangle, though the lower Winkelhaken is so small that it is difficult to spot. The horizontal wedges begin just inside the triangle (similar to HZL 333/4). In obv. 8 the three Winkelhaken are positioned in a diagonal line beginning with the first Winkelhaken in front of the horizontals, and going up to the upper right, above the horizontals. This form is not listed in HZL. In obv. 4 the triangle of Winkelhaken is positioned in front of the horizontals (HZL 333/6).

KUB 24.4+ KUB 30.13(+)

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

rev. 4

obv. 4′ (ARA5)

rev. 11

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

KUB 24.2

CTH 377 B

ii 4

ii 5

i9

i 14

obv. 4

obv. 8

ii 16 (ARA5)

ii 24

ii 10

iii 4′

obv. 12

obv. 14

Figure 22. Selected attestations of ḪAR.

AG (HZL 81) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

KUB 24.1+:

Not attested. AG occurs once in the old form (obv. 10′). The old and late form of AG both occur on this tablet, but the older sign-form predominates. Only two late forms are attested in i 22′ and ii 9. They have the standard form with the two vertical wedges running through the lower horizontal (HZL 81B). The older form is written consistently in the same way throughout the tablet and roughly corresponds to the standard old form (HZL 81A). Its lower horizontal is rather short and does not reach the vertical wedge. Two different forms of AG occur on this tablet. The forms in i 8 and ii 20 are characterised by a broken vertical wedge (HZL 81/11). In i 8 the sign is written more cursively and the final two horizontals are missing. A later form of AG consisting of two vertical wedges and three horizontal wedges occurs in i 17, ii 21, and iii 4′ (HZL 81/19).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

400

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

KUB 24.2:

Two different forms of AG occur on this tablet, but both forms differ from those used in KUB 24.1+. An older form is used in obv. 3 and 7 (HZL 81/5). The form is similar to the one used in KUB 24.1+ ii 20, except for the vertical, which is not broken in KUB 24.2. A later form of AG occurs in obv. 14 and 15 (cf. HZL 81/14).

The two main manuscripts of CTH 377 (KUB 24.1+ and KUB 24.2) both use an old and a late variant of AG. It is remarkable that in the two instances where these tablets preserve AG in the same position in the text, they both use either an older form (KUB 24.1+ i 8 // KUB 24.2 obv. 7) or a later form (KUB 24.1+ i 17 // KUB 24.2 obv. 14).1108 Such a similar distribution of older and later sign-forms may be the result of copying from a tablet by sight. KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

obv. 10′

i 29′

i 31′

ii 9

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

i8

i 17

obv. 3

obv. 7

ii 20

iii 4′

obv. 14

obv. 15

Figure 23. Selected attestations of AG.

AL (HZL 183) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

AL occurs once (rev. 8) in the old form without Winkelhaken (HZL 183A). Not attested. Not attested. KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.1+ CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

rev. 8

i 2 (AL-LI)

obv. 2

CTH 376.I A

KUB 24.2

Figure 24. Selected attestations of AL.

1108 For the other occurences of AG in either manuscript, the sign in the duplicate is either not preserved or not legible.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

401

AR (HZL 289)

KUB 24.1+:

The sign AL occurs once (i 2) in a later variant with Winkelhaken (HZL 183/12). The lower horizontal is prolonged so that it underlines the following sign, LI. This long horizontal wedge is slightly waved. Such a slight wave is also visible in the lower horizontal of AG in i 17 (Figure 23) on the same tablet. AL occurs once (obv. 2) in an old form without Winkelhaken (HZL 183/5).

KUB 24.2: AR (HZL 289) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+: KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

The IGI-part of AR is written noticeably larger than the following RIpart. This is particularly clear in the size of the vertical wedges. AR is written with a broken horizontal. Throughout the tablet AR is written consistently with a broken horizontal. AR is written consistently with broken horizontal throughout the tablet, only the degree of cursiveness differs. Remarkably in the colophon the verticals lean to the left (KUB 24.1+ iv 21), whereas in the main part of the text they lean to the right. AR occurs once (obv. 10) with a broken horizontal.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 22′

obv. 10‴

i 38′

iv 21

obv. 10

Figure 25. Selected attestations of AR.

AZ (HZL 92) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+):

AZ is written in the later form with the subscript (HZL 92B). AZ occurs once (obv. 6′) in the older form without the subscript (HZL 92A).

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

obv. 13′

obv. 6′

i 28′

iii 21′

Figure 26. Selected attestations of AZ.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

402

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

KUB 24.3+:

Throughout the tablet AZ is written in the later form with subscript (HZL 92B). AZ (ii 19 and iii 21′) is written in the later form with subscript (HZL 92B). AZ occurs once (rev. 5′) in the later form with subscript (HZL 92B).

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2: UG (HZL 93) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

UG (obv. 27′) occurs in the later form with subscript (HZL 93B). Not attested. Throughout the tablet UG is consistently written in the later form with subscript (HZL 93B). UG (iii 19′) is written in the later form with subscript (HZL 93B). UG (rev. 4′) is written in the later form with subscript (HZL 93B).

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

CTH 376.I A

KUB 24.4+

CTH 376.II A

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+ CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

KUB 24.2

obv. 27′

iii 19′

iii 19′

rev. 4′

Figure 27. Selected attestations of UG.

BI (HZL 153) KUB 24.4+:

KUB 30.13(+):

BI occurs in the ‘standard’ older sign-form with the heads of the two horizontals positioned exactly above each other (HZL 153/1). In obv. 13′ the lower horizontal does protrude slightly, albeit not as much as in the late form in KUB 24.1+. BI occurs in the ‘standard’ older sign-form with the heads of the two horizontals positioned exactly above each other (HZL 153/1).

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 13′

obv. 9′

i 10′

i6

obv. 5

obv. 26′

obv. 5‴

i 11′

i 22

obv. 22

Figure 28. Selected attestations of BI.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

DA (HZL 214)

KUB 24.3+: KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

403

BI occurs in the ‘standard’ older sign-form with the heads of the two horizontals positioned exactly above each other (HZL 153/1). BI is consistently written in the late form with the protruding lower horizontal (HZL 153/2). BI occurs in the ‘standard’ older sign-form with the heads of the two horizontals positioned exactly above each other or the upper horizontal protruding slightly.

DA (HZL 214) KUB 24.4+: The oldest form of DA, with aligned horizontals and a broken middle horizontal (HZL 214A), predominates on this tablet. Some forms show minor variations of this old form, without any chronological implications. No form with unbroken horizontal is attested. In obv. 23′ and rev. 8 the heads of the three horizontals form a straight but slightly diagonal line, giving these DA signs a slightly stepped form (cf. HZL 214B). A variant with the upper horizontal slightly indented occurs in obv. 24′ (twice) and rev. 22 (HZL 214/1). In obv. 24′ the second DA sign has a protruded middle horizontal (cf. HZL 214/13). KUB 30.13(+): The older form of DA with aligned horizontals and a broken middle horizontal (HZL 214A) predominates. In obv. 4″ and obv. 7″ the middle horizontal is slightly indented (HZL 214/5) and the heads of the upper and lower horizontal are larger than that of the middle one. KUB 24.3+: Four variants of DA occur on this tablet. All preserved forms have the broken middle horizontal. The two dominant forms are the stepped form (HZL 214B) and the form with the upper horizontal indented (HZL 214/1). The latter occurs more often (14 times) than the stepped form (8 times). A form with protruding middle horizontal occurs in ii 23 (HZL 214/13) and iii 40′ (HZL 214/12). The oldest form of DA, with aligned horizontals (HZL 214A), occurs three times (ii 54, 63, and iv 7′). KUB 24.1+: Most DA signs on this tablet have three aligned horizontals. The majority is a late form without the broken middle horizontal. Old forms with a broken middle horizontal occur in i 20 and iv 2. In some very cursively written forms the two lower horizontals are indented, but the middle wedge a bit less than the bottom one, forming as it were an ‘inverted stepped’ form (e.g., i 27, iii 16′, 21′, and iv 2). The same phenomenon occurs in some forms of ID on this tablet. In ii 5 the lower horizontal is indented; this sign is not written cursively. KUB 24.2: DA is consistently written with aligned horizontals. Only in rev. 11′ the upper horizontal might be slightly indented, but the sign is damaged. The large majority of the forms have the older broken middle

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

404

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

horizontal. Only in rev. 6′, and possibly in obv. 19,1109 we find DA in the late form without the broken horizontal. KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

obv. 19′

obv. 23′

obv. 23′

i 17′

i 47′

ii 23

obv. 24′

obv. 24′

rev. 5

ii 23

ii 54

ii 63

rev. 8

rev. 22

KUB 30.13(+)

iii 14′

iii 40′

KUB 24.1+

CTH 376.III

KUB 24.2

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 9′

obv. 4″

i1

i 20

obv. 11

obv. 17

obv. 7″

obv. 5‴

i 27

iv 2

obv. 19

rev. 6′

Figure 29. Selected attestations of DA.

ID (HZL 215) KUB 24.4+:

KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

The oldest form of ID (HZL 215A) is used on this tablet (obv. 8′, rev. 3, and rev. 5). A form with indented upper horizontal (cf. HZL 215/3) occurs as well (obv. 9′ and obv 21′). ID in rev. 6 seems to be in between this indented form and the oldest sign-form. In addition, the slightly stepped form occurs once (obv. 10′) and ID in rev. 14 seems to be in between the slightly stepped form and the oldest form. ID occurs once (obv. 10′) in the oldest form (HZL 215A). Two variants of ID are attested on this tablet, both with broken middle horizontal. The form with indented upper horizontal (cf. HZL

1109 According to the hand-copy of KUB 24.2, DA in obv. 19 is written with the broken horizontal, but I could not see it on the photograph. It is difficult to see the broken wedge on a photograph, since the second wedge is small and has not been impressed very deeply into the clay.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

405

DI (HZL 312)

KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

215/3) is predominant (e.g., in i 3′, i 25′, ii 26, ii 34). We also find the (slightly) stepped form (ii 25 first ID and ii 40). The heads of the horizontals in these sign-forms form a straight but diagonal line. The same phenomenon is visible in some forms of DA on this tablet. ID is primarily written with aligned horizontals. Occasionally an ‘inverted stepped’ form occurs (i 14 and ii 3) due to the cursive writing style; compare the similar forms of DA on this tablet. In i 5 and i 14 (first ID) ID is written with a broken middle horizontal, whereas it occurs in the later form without the broken middle horizontal in i 14 (second ID) and ii 3. ID is primarily written with aligned horizontals. Only in obv. 11, the middle horizontal seems to be slightly indented. Old and late forms of ID, with (obv. 5, obv. 12 second ID, obv. 13, rev. 15′ first ID) and without (obv. 11, obv. 12 first ID?, rev. 15′ second ID) broken middle horizontal, occur. The ‘ḪI’ within ID in obv. 5 and 11 has a remarkably large amount of small upper Winkelhaken. KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

obv. 8′

obv. 9′

obv. 10′

obv. 21′

rev. 5

rev. 6

KUB 30.13(+)

ii 25

ii 25

ii 34

ii 40

KUB 24.1+

CTH 376.III

obv. 10′

i 55′

KUB 24.2

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

i5

i 14

obv. 5

obv. 11

i 14

ii 3

obv. 12

obv. 13

Figure 30. Selected attestations of ID.

DI (HZL 312) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

DI occurs once (rev. 10) in the old form without additional vertical. Not attested. DI occurs once (i 48′) in the old form without additional vertical.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

406

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

Not attested. Not attested. KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

rev. 10

i 48′

Figure 31. All attestations of DI.

KI (HZL 313) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+: KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

The old form of KI with one vertical wedge is used throughout. Only the old form of KI with one vertical wedge is attested. The old form of KI with one vertical wedge is used throughout. The old form of KI with one vertical wedge is primarily used on this tablet. A late form of KI with two vertical wedges (LNS, IIIc) occurs in i 2 (first KI). Throughout the tablet the old form of KI with one vertical wedge is used.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 20′

obv. 4′

i 11′

i2

obv. 3

obv. 7‴

iii 12′

i8

obv. 20

Figure 32. Selected attestations of KI.

DU (HZL 128) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+: KUB 24.1+:

This tables uses the old form of DU with Winkelhaken (HZL 128A). In obv. 6‴ we find DU in the late form with a diagonal wedge rather than a Winkelhaken (HZL 128B). This tablet uses the old form of DU with Winkelhaken (HZL 128A). The late form of DU with a diagonal wedge is used consistently throughout this tablet (HZL 128B).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

407

E (HZL 187)

KUB 24.2:

Both old and late forms of DU occur on this tablet. Old forms with Winkelhaken (HZL 128A) are attested in obv. 6, 12, and rev. 18′; late forms with a diagonal wedge (HZL 128B) occur in obv. 11, rev. 13′, and 17′.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+) CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+ CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 10′

obv. 6‴

ii 29

i 14

obv. 6

iii 39′

iv 15

obv. 11

CTH 376.I A

obv. 12′

KUB 24.2

Figure 33. Selected attestations of DU.

E (HZL 187) KUB 24.4+:

KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

Only older forms of E, with the first vertical being significantly smaller than the following one, are used on this tablet. In all attested forms the head of the first vertical reaches the upper horizontal. Only the late form of E with equally sized verticals (HZL 187B) is attested (obv. 3′, 9′, 5‴). On this tablet we only find older forms of E, with the first vertical being significantly smaller than the following one. In most forms the first vertical reaches the upper horizontal, though forms with a smaller first vertical occur as well (e.g., ii 16, ii 46 [2x]). This tablet only uses late forms of E with both verticals being of the same size (HZL 187B). On this tablet the old form of E with the small first vertical wedge predominates. The head of the small vertical wedge is either positioned in between the two horizontal wedges (e.g., obv. 13, 17, rev. 6′, 14′), or touches the upper one (e.g., rev. 3′, 4′, 7′). In obv. 17 the first vertical reaches just above the upper horizontal wedge, but it is still significantly smaller than the following broken vertical. In contrast, the sign E in the introduction proper (obv. 4 and 5 [2x]) is written in the late form, with both verticals being of the same size (HZL 187B).

In the two mss. of CTH 377 it stands out that KUB 24.2 still preserves many older forms of E and a few later sign-forms at the beginning of the text, whereas KUB 24.1+ only contains late forms of E.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

408

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 23′

obv. 3′

i 19′

i 21

obv. 4

obv. 26′

obv. 9′

ii 16

i 27

obv. 13

rev. 9

obv. 5‴

ii 35

iii 19′

obv. 17

Figure 34. Selected attestations of E.

GAD (HZL 173) KUB 24.4+: GAD is consistently written with a small vertical that reaches the upper horizontal. In two of the three preserved signs the two horizontals are aligned. In rev. 8 the two horizontals are parallel, whereas in obv. 20′ and 26′ the lower one is slightly diagonal and continues below the next sign, thus underlining either a part (obv. 20′) or the entire sign that follows (obv. 26′). GAD in obv. 20′ and 26′ resembles HZL 173/5; the form in rev. 8 resembles HZL 173A and 173/1. KUB 30.13(+): Not attested. KUB 24.3+: The forms of GAD are closer to the later sign-form (HZL 173B) than the older one (HZL 173A), since the vertical reaches above the upper horizontal. The only difference with HZL 173B is that the lower wedge is horizontal and not slightly diagonal. The upper horizontal protrudes in front of the lower one, but only the lower horizontal continues beyond the vertical wedge (cf. HZL 173/9). KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

obv. 20′

obv. 26′

rev. 8

ii 26

ii 38

ii 46

ii 58

Figure 35. All attestations of GAD.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

409

URU (HZL 229)

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

Not attested. Not attested.

URU (HZL 229) KUB 24.4+: Throughout the tablet URU is written in the old form with the first vertical being significantly smaller than the following one and with aligned horizontals (HZL 229A). The head of the first vertical either reaches the upper horizontal or is below it. KUB 30.13(+): URU occurs in a later form with the first vertical being the same size as the following one (l. 3a″, obv. 9″ and obv. 8‴). KUB 24.3+: Throughout the tablet URU is written in the old form with the first vertical being significantly smaller than the following one and with aligned horizontals (HZL 229A). In most cases the head of the first vertical reaches the upper horizontal, though forms in which it is placed below the upper horizontal occur as well (e.g., i 56′, ii 3, ii 6, ii 40 (2x), ii 66). There are almost always three horizontals; only in ii 40 (2x) is URU written with four horizontals. KUB 24.1+: A later form of URU, with two large vertical wedges and a protruding middle horizontal, is used. KUB 24.2: A later form of URU, with two large vertical wedges and a protruding middle horizontal, is used. KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+) CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+ CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 19′

obv. 9″

i 44′

i 19

obv. 16

rev. 8

obv. 8‴

ii 40

iv 17

obv. 21

CTH 376.I A

KUB 24.2

Figure 36. Selected attestations of URU.

UN (HZL 197) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

UN is consistently written in an older form in which the first vertical is significantly smaller than the following ones. Not attested. UN is consistently written in an older form in which the first vertical is significantly smaller than the following ones.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

410

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

KUB 24.1+:

UN is consistently written in an older form in which the first vertical is significantly smaller than the following ones. In iii 16′ and iv 7 the second vertical is not broken and smaller than the following one. UN is consistently written in an older form in which the first vertical is significantly smaller than the following ones. In obv. 5 the second vertical is not broken and smaller than the following one.

KUB 24.2:

CTH 376.I A

KUB 24.4+

CTH 376.II A

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+ CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

KUB 24.2

obv. 6′

ii 22

i6

obv. 5

obv. 9′

iii 9′

iii 16′

rev. 10′

Figure 37. Selected attestations of UN.

SAG (HZL 192) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+: KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

Not attested. Not attested. Not attested. SAG occurs in a late form. The first two verticals have the same size. The lower horizontal seems to consist of only one long wedge rather than two. On this tablet we find both an old and a late form of SAG. The old form occurs in obv. 6 with the first small vertical reaching the upper horizontal. In obv. 8 the late form occurs with aligned verticals. The first vertical is nonetheless rather short since it is the only vertical that does not continue below the lower horizontal. KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 377 A

i7

CTH 377 B

i9

obv. 6

obv. 8

Figure 38. All attestations of SAG.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

411

KÙ (HZL 69)

KÙ (HZL 69) KUB 24.4+:

KUB 30.13(+):

KUB 24.3+:

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

Only two KÙ signs are preserved on this tablet. Both occur in rev. 5, in the old form. They contain in total four horizontals and the first vertical is significantly smaller than the following broken vertical. Only one fragmentary KÙ sign is preserved in obv. 6‴. It is a NS variant with the first vertical being the same size as the following broken vertical. KÙ occurs in KUB 24.3+ only in an older form in which the first vertical is smaller than the following one. Most forms have five horizontals. In ii 54 (first KÙ) it has only four horizontals, and in i 23′ it has five or six. This tablet employs a later NS form of KÙ, with aligned verticals. In ii 1 (second KÙ) we find a form with only three horizontals. This tablet uses the same NS form of KÙ with aligned verticals as KUB 24.1+.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

rev. 5

obv. 6‴

i 15′

ii 1

obv. 21

ii 66

ii 1

rev. 7′

rev. 5

Figure 39. Selected attestations of KÙ.

ZU (HZL 209) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+):

obv. 14′

ZU is written with a broken upper horizontal (cf. HZL 209(1)B). The first vertical is still slightly smaller than the following one. Not attested. KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

obv. 17′

obv. 22′

i 39′

i 40′

Figure 40. All attestations of ZU.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

iii 36′

412

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

KUB 24.3+:

ZU is written with broken upper horizontal (cf. HZL 209(1)B). The first vertical is still slightly smaller than the following one. Not attested. Not attested.

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2: EL (HZL 307) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+: KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

EL occurs once (rev. 9) in the old form with the middle vertical being smalller than the other two. Not attested. EL occurs in the old form in which the middle vertical is smaller than the other two. This tablet uses late forms of EL with aligned verticals. However, in ii 9 and less obviously in i 5, the middle vertical seems a little bit smaller than the outer two. In i 4 EL is written with four instead of three verticals. All attestations of EL occur in the older form with a smaller middle vertical.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

rev. 9

i 21′

i 23′

ii 59

i4

i5

i6

ii 9

obv. 4

obv. 5

obv. 6

Figure 41. All attestations of EL.

RU (HZL 43) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

RU occurs only in the old form with the middle vertical being significantly smaller than the outer ones (HZL 43A). Only one form of RU is attested (obv. 7‴). It is a late form in which all three verticals are of the same size (HZL 43B). RU occurs in the older form with the smaller middle vertical (HZL 43A). In some forms the difference in size between the middle vertical and the other verticals is larger (e.g., in ii 33, ii 39, ii 59) than in others (e.g., in i 51′, iii 35′, iii 40′). It is remarkable that the forms in which there is a more significant difference in size of the verticals, all occur in the second column. This particular distribution of the RU-

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

413

EN (HZL 40)

forms could indicate that the scribe copied the second column from an older model or Vorlage than the other parts of the prayer. The second column is parallel to the MS KUB 24.4+, in which RU also shows a significant difference in size between the middle vertical and the outer two. The single attested RU-sign (i 9) is too damaged to analyse. RU occurs once (obv. 8). It is a later form with aligned verticals. The form begins with one Winkelhaken which is positioned just before the horizontal wedge.

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

CTH 376.I A

obv. 20′

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.III

CTH 377 B

obv. 7‴

obv. 8

rev. 2

KUB 24.3+ CTH 376.II A

i 49′

i 51′

ii 33

ii 37

ii 38

ii 39

ii 51

ii 59

iii 35′

iii 40′

Figure 42. All attestations of RU.

EN (HZL 40) KUB 24.4+:

KUB 30.13(+):

KUB 24.3+:

EN is written with the small vertical positioned in between the head of the horizontal and the first vertical, but closer to the vertical wedge. Occasionally it is almost below the first vertical (e.g., obv. 14′, 24′). The two Winkelhaken are positioned behind the two verticals and the first Winkelhaken touches or is positioned below the final vertical. EN occurs once (obv. 3‴). The small vertical is positioned almost at the beginning of the sign, below the head of the horizontal. Each of the two Winkelhaken is positioned below one of the larger verticals. In all forms of EN the small vertical is placed in between the head of the horizontal and the first large vertical. In ii 31 and ii 64 the small vertical is positioned more at the beginning of the sign, close to the

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

414

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

head of the horizontal. The two Winkelhaken are placed below the two verticals (i 35′, ii 31, ii 64, iii 36′), or behind them (i 47′, ii 30). EN occurs twice (i 6, iii 21′). The small vertical is positioned at the front of the sign, alligned with the horizontal. The two Winkelhaken are positioned next to each other below the two large verticals. EN occurs once (obv. 6). The small vertical is positioned at the front of the sign. The two Winkelhaken are positioned diagonally in comparison to each other.

KUB 24.4+ CTH 376.I A

KUB 30.13(+) CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+ CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 24′

obv. 3‴

ii 30

i6

obv. 6

iii 36′

iii 21′

rev. 12

KUB 24.2

Figure 43. Selected attestations of EN.

GI (HZL 30) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+):

Only the older form of GI (HZL 30A) occurs on this tablet Not attested.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

ii 4

obv. 21

obv. 11′

i 12′

i 26′

obv. 14′

i 39′

ii 28

rev. 5

ii 31

ii 54

iii 36′

Figure 44. All attestations of GI.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

rev. 7′

rev. 16′

415

ḪA (HZL 367)

KUB 24.3+:

KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

The older form of GI (HZL 30A) predominates on this tablet. In ii 31 the Winkelhaken above the horizontal are not placed in a single line, but two Winkelhaken are placed above the other two Winkelhaken. This form is not listed in HZL. One later form with the ‘ḪI-ending’ (HZL 30B) occurs in i 26′. In ii 4 we find the older form of GI, ending in a horizontal with three small Winkelhaken above it. In addition, twice we find GI4 for GI in what seems to be a unique spelling of ‘gold’ as KÙ.BABBAR.GI4. GI4 is listed in HZL as a late form of GI (HZL 30/7) and as a separate sign (HZL 234). GI is written in the later form with the ‘ḪI-ending’ (HZL 30/6).

ḪA (HZL 367) KUB 24.4+: Only the old form of ḪA with two Winkelhaken (HZL 367A) occurs. The two Winkelhaken are approximately the same size. KUB 30.13(+): ḪA occurs in the old form with two Winkelhaken (HZL 367A). The second Winkelhaken is larger than the first. In obv. 6′ and obv. 9″ the lower wedges of the broken verticals are placed slightly to the left in relation to the upper ones. KUB 24.3+: Only the old form of ḪA with two Winkelhaken (HZL 367A) occurs. The two Winkelhaken are approximately the same size. KUB 24.1+: All forms of ḪA haver the late form, with one large Winkelhaken positioned behind the two broken verticals (cf. HZL 367B and 367/8). KUB 24.2: Only the older sign-form of ḪA with two Winkelhaken (HZL 367A) occurs. The first Winkelhaken is small and positioned in the lower half of the second broken vertical. The second Winkelhaken is large and placed behind the two broken verticals. In obv. 16 the lower wedges of the broken verticals are positioned slightly to the left of the upper ones. KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 25′

obv. 6′

obv. 7′

i 41′

ii 2

obv. 21

obv. 8″

obv. 9″

iii 16′

iii 20′

rev. 12′

Figure 45. Selected attestations of ḪA.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

416

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

IG (HZL 67) KUB 24.4+:

KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

Only two identical old forms of IG (HZL 67A) are preserved (obv. 13′, rev. 6). The two Winkelhaken at the end are not placed above of each other, but at a slight angle, sloping upward to the right. The form has four horizontals in total. Not attested. IG occurs in the older form (HZL 67A). Most forms have a total of five horizontal wedges, e.g., i 11′, 35′, 38′, and iii 32′ (HZL 67/1-2), though some forms have only four horizontals, e.g., i 44′, 45′, 49′, 52′, 53′, ii 3, iii 22′, (HZL 67A). IG in i 47′ may even have only three horizontals (cf. HZL 67/3). The two Winkelhaken are positioned vertically (e.g., i 11′, 36′, 40′, 53′, iii 22′, 32′) or at a slight angle, sloping upward to the right (e.g., i 35′, 42′, 44′, 48′, 50′). This tablet employs a late form of IG (HZL 67/5). The late form of IG (HZL 67/5) predominates on this tablet. An old form of IG occurs (HZL 67A) in obv. 3.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 13′

i 11′

i 36′

i 18

obv. 3

rev. 6

i 45′

iii 32′

i 21

obv. 15

Figure 46. Selected attestations of IG.

LI (HZL 343) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+: KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

This tablet uses old forms of LI (HZL 343A). Two old forms of LI (HZL 343A) occur in obv. 6′ and obv. 7′. A late form (HZL 343B) occurs in obv. 7‴. This tablet uses only old forms of LI (HZL 343A). The later form of LI predominates (HZL 343B). The older form (HZL 343A) occurs in i 6, iii 2′, iii 3′(?) and iii 13′. Only old forms of LI (HZL 343A) are preserved on this tablet. In four instances (obv. 7, 11, 15, rev. 6′) the second lower horizontal is indented (HZL 343/3).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

417

SÌLA (HZL 21)

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

i 49′

ii 9

obv. 4

iii 16′

iii 13′

obv.15

obv. 4′

rev. 11

obv. 6′

obv. 7′

obv. 7‴

Figure 47. Selected attestations of LI.

SÌLA (HZL 21) KUB 24.4+: Not attested. KUB 30.13(+): Not attested. KUB 24.3+: SÌLA is attested once (ii 47). It has the old form without a Winkelhaken or diagonal wedge (HZL 21A). The sign is written significantly larger than the surrounding signs. The vertical is particularly large. KUB 24.1+: SÌLA is attested once (iv 19) in the colophon of the text. It occurs in the late form with the upper diagonal wedge. KUB 24.2: Not attested. KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

ii 47

iv 19

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

Figure 48. All attestations of SÌLA.

SAR (HZL 353) KUB 24.4+: On this tablet we find a later form of SAR with two verticals at the end, the first vertical being slightly smaller than the following one (HZL 353B). KUB 30.13(+): Not attested. KUB 24.3+: SAR occurs in the old form, with a single vertical wedge (HZL 353A). KUB 24.1+: SAR occurs in the latest form, in which the cluster of Winkelhaken is followed by a narrow rectangle (i 3, iv 19). KUB 24.2: SAR occurs in a later form with two verticals. The first vertical is smaller than the second one and it is positioned further away from

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

418

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

the final vertical than in KUB 24.4+. It thus somewhat resembles the late form, the end of which looks like LAGAB, attested in KUB 24.1+. KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 13′

ii 6

ii 30

ii 36

i3

obv. 1

obv. 18′

ii 52

iii 4′

iii 7′

iv 19

obv. 3

Figure 49. All attestations of SAR.

ŠA (HZL 158) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+):

KUB 24.3+:

KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

ŠA is written with the head of the small vertical between the two horizontals. ŠA in l. 3a″ is written on the edge and is therefore not clearly visible on the photograph. According to the copy, the head of the small vertical is positioned between the two horizontals. In l. 3c″ the inscribed vertical is extremely small (only its head is visible) and it does not touch the upper or the lower horizontal. In obv. 7′, l. 3b″ (second ŠA), and obv. 7‴ the head of the small vertical of ŠA reaches the upper horizontal. The form in l. 3b″ (first ŠA) is very different and looks odd. It has four cursively written horizontals, and the lower Winkelhaken also looks like a horizontal. The small vertical is written somewhere in the middle of the sign. This form is listed in HZL as the latest form of ŠA (HZL 158/16). Interestingly, it is used to write the Akkadogram ŠA ‘of’. In almost all forms of ŠA on this tablet the head of the small inscribed vertical reaches the upper horizontal. In ii 39 (and possibly also in i 55′ and iii 8′) the head of the small vertical is positioned between the two horizontals. This tablet primarily contains later forms of ŠA: 13 forms in which the small vertical begins above the upper horizontal; 7 forms of ŠA in which the small vertical touches the upper horizontal; and no forms in which the small vertical begins in between the two horizontals. This tablet contains more older than later forms of ŠA: 5 forms in which the head of the small vertical is positioned between the two horizontals; 4 forms in which the head of the small vertical is reaches

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

419

GA (HZL 159)

the upper horizontal; and only one form in which the small vertical begins above the upper horizontal. KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 18′

obv. 7′

i 34′

i5

obv. 6

obv. 19′

3b″

i 55′

i 20

obv. 10

obv. 20′

3b″

ii 39

ii 8

obv. 12

rev. 11

3c″

ii 60

iv 14

rev. 10′

Figure 50. Selected attestations of ŠA.

GA (HZL 159) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

GA is attested once. The small verticals begin in between the two horizontal wedges. Not attested. The heads of the two small verticals of GA touch the upper horizontal.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 27′

ii 39

ii 49

iii 10′

i7

i 17

obv. 6

iii 7′

iv 11

obv. 14

Figure 51. Selected attestations of GA.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

420

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

KUB 24.1+:

The heads of the two small verticals of GA are positioned at or just above the upper horizontal. The two small verticals of GA begin between the two horizontals.

KUB 24.2: TA (HZL 160) KUB 24.4+:

KUB 30.13(+):

KUB 24.3+: KUB 24.1+: KUB 24.2:

This tablet primarily employs the later form of TA with the heads of the two small verticals positioned in between the two verticals (HZL 160B). In obv. 20′ they even seem to be placed on the lower horizontal. In obv. 13′ (first TA) and obv. 15′ (2x) the small verticals reach the upper horizontal. In obv. 10′ the heads of the small verticals of TA are positioned just below the upper horizontal, almost touching it. In obv. 5″ and obv. 7‴ the heads of the small verticals reach the upper horizontal. TA is consistently written with the heads of the two small vertical wedges on the upper horizontal. On this tablet TA either has the head of the two small verticals positioned on the upper horizontal or just above it. With one possible exception, all TA-forms on this tablet have the heads of the two middle verticals in between the two horizontals. In rev. 10′ the two small verticals seem to begin at the upper horizontal.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 15′

obv. 10′

i 19′

i 12

obv. 11

obv. 18′

obv. 5″

i 46′

i 20

obv. 16

obv. 20′

obv. 7‴

ii 6

i 27

obv. 19

iii 5′

ii 4

rev. 10′

rev. 8

Figure 52. Selected attestations of TA.

It stands out that there is no significant difference between ŠA, TA, and GA in the examined tablets. In each tablet the heads of the small verticals are more or less in

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

421

TAR (HZL 7)

the same position in all three signs. ŠA, TA, and GA are, therefore, not useful for dating these tablets. TAR (HZL 7) KUB 24.4+: KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

TAR is attested twice in KUB 24.4+ (obv. 20′ and 22′). Both are old forms (HZL 7A). In obv. 1′ the latest form of TAR (HZL 7C) occurs. Both the oldest (HZL 7A) and the latest form of TAR (HZL 7C) are used on this tablet, in a more or less equal random distribution.1110 The upper wedges of TAR in i 21′ and ii 58 seem to be slightly diagonal, placing these forms somewhere in between HZL 7A and 7B.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 30.13(+)

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.III

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 20′

obv. 1′

i 21′

i9

obv. 8

i 36′

ii 9

rev. 13′

i 49′

iv 10

rev. 16′

obv. 22′

Figure 53. Selected attestations of TAR.

KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

Only late forms of TAR occur on this tablet. In i 9 the lower wedge is placed horizontal and runs parallel to the broken upper horizontal (HZL 7/10). In ii 9 the lower wedge is positioned diagonally. In all other forms of TAR (ii 21, iii 5′, iii 13′, and iv 10 [2x]) the lower wedge is positioned slightly diagonally, but with a smaller angle to the upper horizontals than in ii 9. This tablet employs the late form of TAR. In rev. 12′ and 13′ the head of the diagonal and the second horizontal wedge overlap.

1110 I counted eight or nine old forms of TAR (HZL 7A) including iii 29′ (first TAR) even though the photograph is unclear, against nine late forms (HZL 7C).

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

422

The Palaeography of KUB 24.3+ (CTH 376.II) and Related Prayers

Ù (HZL 265) KUB 24.4+:

KUB 30.13(+): KUB 24.3+:

KUB 24.1+:

KUB 24.2:

The two attested Ù-signs each contain two vertical wedges, one after the first horizontal and one at the end of the sign. In addition, a Winkelhaken is placed on the four horizontals (cf. HZL 265/5–6). Not attested. Ù is written with only one vertical wedge at the end of the sign and a Winkelhaken on the four horizontals (HZL 265/11). In ii 40 Ù begins with a double Winkelhaken, which is probably an error: the scribe forgot to erase the first Winkelhaken which is partly covered by the second one. On this tablet Ù is written with four horizontals following the first horizontal after the Winkelhaken and only one vertical at the end of the sign. In i 19 Ù is written over an erasure. In iii 20′ the Winkelhaken was written over a large vertical wedge that was probably written in error. Ù is written with fewer wedges than on the other tablets under discussion. It has a single vertical at the end of the sign. The large Winkelhaken is followed by a horizontal that is followed by two small horizontals, which are placed on top of one larger horizontal. A Winkelhaken is positioned behind the middle horizontal.

KUB 24.4+

KUB 24.3+

KUB 24.1+

KUB 24.2

CTH 376.I A

CTH 376.II A

CTH 377 A

CTH 377 B

obv. 22′

ii 40

i 19

obv. 16

obv. 26′

ii 46

iii 20′

rev. 12′

Figure 54. All attestations of Ù.

The conclusions on the (relative) dating of the five tablets on the basis of this palaeographic analysis are presented in Ch. 6.2, where it is placed in context together with the dating of the individual compositions.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abusch, Tzvi 2003 ‘Blessing and Praise in Ancient Mesopotamian Incantations’, in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschri für Claus Wilcke, ed. by Walther Sallaberger, Konrad Volk, and Annette Zgoll, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14, Wiesbaden, pp. 1–14. Alp, Sedat 1991a Hethitische Keilschritafeln aus Maşat-Höyük, TTKY VI/34, Ankara. 1991b Hethitische Briefe aus Maşat-Höyük, TTKY VI/35, Ankara. Alster, Bendt 1975 Studies in Sumerian Proverbs, Mesopotamia 3, Copenhagen. 1997 Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections, Bethesda. 2007 Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection, CUSAS 2, Bethesda. Archi, Alfonso 1971 ‘The Propaganda of Ḫattušiliš III’, SMEA 14, pp. 185–215. 1974 ‘Il sistema KIN della divinazione Ittita’, OA 13, pp. 113–44. 1977 ‘I poteri della dea Ištar Ḫurrita-ittita’, OA 16, pp. 297–311. 1978 ‘La peste presso gli ittiti’, PP 33, pp. 81–89. 1983 ‘Die Adad-Hymne ins Hethitische übersetzt’, OrNS 52, pp. 20–30. 1988 ‘Eine Anrufung der Sonnengöttin von Arinna’, in Documentum Asiae Minoris Antiquae. Festschri für Heinrich Oen zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by Erich Neu and Christel Rüster, Wiesbaden, pp. 5–31. 1995 ‘Hittite and Hurrian Literatures: An Overview’, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV, ed. by Jack M. Sasson, New York, pp. 2367–77. 2007 ‘Transmission of Recitative Literature by the Hittites’, AoF 34, pp. 185–203. Arnott, Robert 2002 ‘Disease and Medicine in Hittite Asia Minor’, in e Archaeology of Medicine: Papers given at a Session of the Annual Conference of the eoretical Archaeology Group Held at the University of Birmingham on 20 December 1998, ed. by Robert Arnott, BAR-IS 1046, Oxford, pp. 41–52. Asan, Ali Naci 2014 Der Mythos vom erzürnten Go. Ein philologischer Beitrag zum religionshistorischen Verständnis des Telipinu-Mythos und verwandter Texte, DBH 41, Dresden.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

424

Bibliography

Bachvarova, Mary R. 2002 From Hiite to Homer: the Role of Anatolians in the Transmission of Epic and Prayer Motifs from the Near East to the Greeks, dissertation, University of Chicago. Bawanypeck, Daliah 2005 Die Rituale der Auguren, THeth 25, Heidelberg. Beal, Richard H. 2000 ‘The Ten Year Annals of Great King Muršili II of Ḫatti’, CoS 2, pp. 82–90. 2002a ‘Gleanings from Hittite Oracle Questions on Religion, Society, Psychology and Decision Making’, in Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. by Piotr Taracha, Warsaw, pp. 11–37. 2002b ‘Hittite Oracles’, in Magic and Divination in the Ancient World, ed. by Leda Ciraolo and Jonathan Seidel, AMD 2, Leiden, Boston, and Köln, pp. 57–81. Beckman, Gary 1983 Hiite Birth Rituals, StBoT 29, Wiesbaden. 1986 ‘Proverbs and Proverbial Allusions in Hittite’, JNES 45, pp. 19–30. 1993 ‘From Cradle to Grave: Women’s Role in Hittite Medicine and Magic’, JAC 8, pp. 25–39. 1996 Hiite Diplomatic Texts, WAW 7, Atlanta. 1997a ‘Prayers: Plague Prayers of Muršili II’, CoS 1, pp. 156–60. 1997b ‘Hittite Proverbs’, CoS 1, p. 215. 1999 ‘The Tongue is a Bridge: Communication between Humans and Gods in Hittite Anatolia’, ArOr 67, pp. 519–34. Berman, Howard 1983 ‘Some Hittite Oracle Fragments’, Hethitica 5, pp. 3–9. Bernabé, Alberto 1987 Textos literarios hetitas, Madrid. Bittel, Kurt, and Rudolf Naumann 1953 ‘Datierung’, MDOG 86, pp. 21–23. Böhl, Franz M. Th. 1916 ‘Ausgewählte Keilschrifttexte aus Boghaz-Köi’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 50, pp. 159–215, 303–26. Bryce, Trevor 2005 e Kingdom of the Hiites, Oxford. Burde, Cornelia 1974 Hethitische medizinische Texte, StBoT 19, Wiesbaden. Carruba, Onofrio 1966 Das Beschwörungsritual für die Göin Wišurijanza, StBoT 2, Wiesbaden. 1969 ‘Die Chronologie der heth. Texte und die heth. Geschichte der Grossreichszeit’, ZDMGS 1, pp. 226–49.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

1983

425

‘Saggio sulla pregiera etea (a proposito di CTH 376)’, in Studi orientalistici in ricorde di Franco Pintore, ed. by Onofrio Carruba, Mario Liverani, and Carlo Zaccagnini, StMed 4, Pavia, pp. 3–27. Catsanicos, Jean 1991 Recherches sur le vocabulaire de la faute. Apports du Hiite à l’étude de la phraséologie indo-européenne, Cahiers de NABU 2, Paris. Cavaignac, Eugène 1951 Review of: J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Elementarbuch; II Lesestücke in Transkription (Heidelberg, 1946), RHA 11, p. 72. Cavigneaux, Antoine 2009 ‘Deux hymnes sumériens à Utu’, in Et il y eut un esprit dans l’Homme. Jean Boéro et la Mésopotamie, ed. by Xavier Faivre, Brigitte Lion, and Cécile Michel, Travaux 6, Paris, pp. 3–18. Christiansen, Birgit 2012 Schicksalsbestimmende Kommunikation. Sprachliche, gesellschaliche und religiöse Aspekte hethitischer Fluch-, Segens- und Eidesformeln, StBoT 53, Wiesbaden. Christmann-Franck, Lisbeth 1989 ‘Hymnes et prières aux dieux hittites’, in Prières de l’Ancien Orient, Paris, pp. 39–57. Chrzanowska, Anna 2015 Ritual der Ḫantitaššu, hethiter.net/: CTH 395.2.1 (INTR 2015-11-04), [accessed 1 August 2017]. 2016 Ritual der Ḫantitaššu von Ḫurma: “Wenn die Jahre eines Menschen gestört sind”, hethiter.net/: CTH 395.1 (INTR 2016-03-23), [accessed 1 August 2017]. Collins, Billie Jean 1997 ‘Hittite Canonical Compositions: 3. Rituals’, in CoS 1, pp. 160–68. 2007 e Hiites and eir World, ABS 7, Atlanta. Cooper, Jerrold 1972 ‘Bilinguals from Boghazköi. II’, ZA 62, pp. 62–81. Cornelius, Friedrich 1975 ‘Ein hethitischer Hexenprozess’, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité 22, pp. 27–45. Czyzewska, Izabella S. 2012 How to Pray to Hiite Gods: A Semantic and Contextual Analysis of Hiite Prayer Terminology with the New Editions of Selected Prayers of Muršili II, dissertation, SOAS, University of London, .

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

426

Bibliography

Dardano, Paola 2002 ‘“La main est coupable”, “le sang devient abondant”: sur quelques expressions avec des noms de parties et d’éléments du corps humain dans la littérature juridico-politique de l’Ancien et du Moyen Royaume hittite’, OrNS 71, pp. 333–92. 2014 ‘“Halte (dein) Ohr geneigt und höre mir zu!”: Zur hethitischen Phraseologie der Kommunikation zwischen Menschen und Göttern’, WO 44, pp. 174–89. 2019 ‘Zwischen Rhetorik und Stilistik: die rhetorischen Stilmittel der hethitischen Gebete’, in Altorientalische Gebetsliteratur: Form, außersprachlicher Kontext und interkulturelle Adaptionsprozesse, ed. by Alexandra Grund-Wittenberg and Elisabeth Rieken, WO 49/1, pp. 14–28. Daues, Alexandra, and Elisabeth Rieken 2015 ‘Das Gebet der Gaššuliyawiya: Struktur und Performanz’, in Saeculum. Gedenkschri für Heinrich Oen anlässlich seines 100. Geburtstags, ed. by Andreas Müller-Karpe, Elisabeth Rieken, and Walter Sommerfeld, StBoT 58, Wiesbaden, pp. 31–49. 2018 Das persönliche Gebet bei den Hethitern. Eine textlinguistische Untersuchung, unter Mitwirkung von Jürgen Lorenz, StBoT 63, Wiesbaden. 2019 ‘Rhythmische Sprache in den hethitischen Gebeten’, in Altorientalische Gebetsliteratur: Form, außersprachlicher Kontext und interkulturelle Adaptionsprozesse ed. by Alexandra Grund-Wittenberg and Elisabeth Rieken, WO 49/1, pp. 29–47. Deighton, Hilary J. 1982 e ‘Weather-God’ in Hiite Anatolia. An Examination of the Archaeological and Textual Sources, BAR-IS 143, Oxford. Del Monte, Giuseppe F. 1992 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Supplement, RGTC 6/2, Wiesbaden. 2009 L’opera storiografica di Mursili II re di Hausa, Vol. I: Le gesta di Suppiluliuma, Pisa. Del Monte, Giuseppe F., and Johann Tischler, 1978 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte, RGTC 6, Wiesbaden. De Martino, Stefano 1998 ‘Le accuse di Muršili II alla regina Tawananna secondo il testo KUB XIV 4’, in Studi e Testi I, ed. by Stefano De Martino and Fiorella Imparati, Eothen 9, Firenze, pp. 19–48. 2003 Annali e Res Gestae antico Iiti, StMed 12, Pavia. de Roos, Johan 1983 ‘Drie Hittitische gebeden’, in Schrijvend verleden: documenten uit het oude Nabije Oosten vertaald en toegelicht, ed. by Klaas R. Veenhof, Medede-

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

427

lingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 24, Leiden and Zutphen, pp. 220–32. 1984 Heitische geloen. Een teksteditie van Heitische geloen met inleiding, vertaling en critische noten, dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. 1995 ‘Hittite Prayers’, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East III, ed. by Jack M. Sasson, New York, pp. 1997–2005. 2001 ‘Rhetoric in the s.c. testament of Hattusilis I’, in Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his SixtyFifth Birthday, ed. by Jan Gerrit Dercksen, Norbertus J. C. Kouwenberg, Theo J. H. Krispijn, and Wilfred H. van Soldt, PIHANS 89, Leiden, pp. 401–6. 2007 Hiite Votive Texts, PIHANS 109, Leiden. Dinçol, Ali M. 2001 ‘Ein interessanter Siegelabdruck aus Boğazköy und die damit verknüpften historischen Fragen’, in Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongress für Hethitologie. Würzburg, 4.–8. Oktober 1999, ed. by Gernot Wilhelm, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, pp. 89–97. Dinçol, Ali M., Belkis Dinçol, J. David Hawkins, and Gernot Wilhelm 1993 ‘The “Cruciform Seal” from Boğazköy-Hattusa’, IM 43, pp. 87–106. Durkheim, Émile 1912 Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse: le système totémique en Australie, Paris. Edel, Elmar 1994 Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache. 1. Umschrien und Übersetzungen, Opladen. Ehelolf, Hans 1928 ‘Ein kleinasiatischer Hymnus aus dem Tontafel-Archiv von Boghazköi’, Berliner Museen 49, pp. 32–34. Eliade, Mircea 1957 Das Heilige und das Profane. Vom Wesen des Religiösen, Rohwolts Deutsche Enzyklopädie 31, Hamburg. Falkowitz, Robert S. 1980 The Sumerian Rhetoric Collections, dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Fontaine, Carole R. 1987 ‘Queenly Proverb Performance: The Prayer of Puduḫepa (KUB XXI, 27)’, in e Listening Heart, Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., ed. by Kenneth G. Hoglund and Roland E. Murphy, JSOT Supplement Series 58, Sheffield, pp. 95–126. Forrer, Emil 1922 Die Boghazköi-Texte in Umschri 1 Einleitung, Die Keilschri von Boghazköi, WVDOG 41, Leipzig. 1929 ‘Arinna’, RlA 1, pp. 149–50.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

428

Bibliography

Fowler, Alastair 1982 Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the eory of Genres and Modes, Oxford. Frechette, Christopher G. 2011 ‘Shuillas’, in Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction, ed. by Alan Lenzi, ANEM 3, Atlanta, pp. 24–35. 2012 Mesopotamian Ritual-Prayers of ‘Hand-Liing’ (Akkadian Šuillas). An Investigation of Function in Light of the Idiomatic Meaning of the Rubric, AOAT 379, Münster. Friedrich, Johannes 1925 Aus dem hethitischen Schritum. Übersetzungen von Keilschritexten aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi. 2. Religiöse Texte, Der Alte Orient 25, Leipzig. 1945 Review of: KUB 33, KUB 34, and IBoT, AfO 15, pp. 103–9. 1946 Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Zweiter Teil: Lesestücke in Transkription mit Erläuterungen und Wörterverzeichnissen, Heidelberg. 1957 ‘Ein hethitisches Gebet an die Sonnengöttin der Erde’, RSO 32, pp. 217–24. Furlani, Giuseppe and Heinrich Otten 1957–71 ‘Gebet und Hymne in Ḫatti’, RlA 3, pp. 170–75. Fuscagni, Francesco 2012 Rituale di evocazione per Ištar di Ninive celebrato dal LÚḪAL insieme ai LÚ.MEŠ NAR (CTH 716.1), hethiter.net/: CTH 716.1 (INTR 2012-03-05), [accessed 1 August 2017]. 2016 Rituale di evocazione per le dee DINGIR.MAḪ, le dee Gulšeš, le dee DINGIR.MAḪ degli dei e le dee DINGIR.MAḪ delle parti del corpo degli uomini e per le dee Zukki e Anzili (CTH 484), hethiter.net/: CTH 484 (INTR 201603-31), [accessed 1 August 2017]. Gander, Max 2010 Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Länder, THeth 27, Heidelberg. García Trabazo, Jose V. 2002 Textos religiosos hititas. Mitos, plegarias y rituals, BCBO 6, Madrid. Gerçek, Nebahat İlgi 2012 e Kaška and the Northern Frontier of Ḫai, dissertation, University of Michigan. Glocker, Jürgen 1997 Das Ritual für den Weergo von Kuliwišna. Textzeugnisse eines lokalen Kultfestes im Anatolien der Hethiterzeit, Eothen 6, Firenze. Goetze, Albrecht 1950a ‘Hittite Prayers’, ANET, pp. 393–401. 1950b ‘Hittite Ritual, Incantations, and Descriptions of Festivals’, ANET, pp. 346–61.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

1957

429

Kleinasien, Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients 3/1, 2nd edition [1st edition: Götze 1933], München.

Gordin, Shai 2015 Hiite Scribal Circles, Scholarly Tradition and Writing Habits, StBoT 59, Wiesbaden. Gordon, Edmund I. 1959 Sumerian Proverbs: Glimpses of Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Philadelphia. Görke, Susanne 2000 Das Gebet des hethitischen Priesters Kantuzili, MA thesis, Freie Universität Berlin. 2014 Ritual für Muršili II (CTH 462), hethiter.net/: CTH 462 [accessed 1 August 2017]. 2016 Ein taknaz-da- und Ersatzfiguren-Ritual (CTH 448.2.1.1), hethiter.net/: CTH 448.2.1.1 [accessed 5 September 2017]. Götze, Albrecht 1929 ‘Die Pestgebete des Muršiliš’, Kleinasiatische Forschungen 1, pp. 161–251. 1933 Kleinasien, Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients 3/1, München. Greenberg, Moshe 1995 ‘Hittite Royal Prayers and Biblical Petitionary Psalms’, in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: für Walter Beyerlin, ed. by Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger, HBS 1, 2nd edition, Freiburg; Basel; Wien, pp. 15–27. Grobe, Rolf 1953 ‘Hethitische Sonnenlieder und ihre akkadischen Parallelen’, dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin. Groddek, Detlev 1999 ‘Neue Textfragmente zu den Annalen Muršiliš II.’, Hethitica 14, pp. 147–51. 2004 Hethitische Texte in Transkription KUB 51, DBH 15, Dresden. 2007 ‘Zur Deutung von heth. išḫanatalla-’, IJDL 4, pp. 37–62. 2008 Hethitische Texte in Transkription KBo 22, DBH 24, Wiesbaden. 2010 Hethitische Texte in Transkription KBo 54, DBH 31, Wiesbaden. 2011 Hethitische Texte in Transkription KBo 57, DBH 36, Wiesbaden. 2012 Hethitische Texte in Transkription KBo 58, DBH 39, Wiesbaden. 2015 Hethitische Texte in Transkription KBo 46, DBH 47, Wiesbaden. Gurney, Oliver R. 1940 Hiite Prayers of Muršili II, AAA 27, Liverpool. Güterbock, Hans G. 1952 ‘The Song of Ullikummi, Revised Text of the Hittite Version of a Hurrian Myth (Continued)’, JCS 6, pp. 8–42. 1956 ‘The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili II’, JCS 10, pp. 41– 68, 75–98, 107–30. 1958 ‘The Composition of Hittite Prayers to the Sun’, JAOS 78, pp. 237–45.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

430

Bibliography

1960

‘Mursili’s Accounts of Suppiluliuma’s Dealings with Egypt’, RHA 18, pp. 57–63. 1974 ‘Appendix: Hittite Parallels’, JNES 33, pp. 323–27. 1978a ‘Some Aspects of Hittite Prayers’, in e Frontiers of Human Knowledge. Lectures Held at the incentenary Celebrations of Uppsala University 1977, ed. by Torgny T. Segerstedt, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 38, Uppsala, pp. 125–39. 1978b ‘Hethitische Literatur’, in Altorientalische Literaturen, ed. by Wolfgang Röllig, Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft 1, Wiesbaden, pp. 211– 53. 1980 ‘An Addition to the Prayer of Muršili to the Sungoddess and Its Implications’, AnSt 30, pp. 41–50. 1983 ‘A Hurro-Hittite Hymn to Ishtar’, JAOS 103, pp. 155–64. 1986 ‘A Religious Text from Maşat’, Anadolu Araştırmalı 10, pp. 205–14. 1988 ‘Hethitisch kurkurāi- und Verwandtes’, in Documentum Asiae Minoris Antiquae. Festschri für Heinrich Oen zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by Erich Neu and Christel Rüster, Wiesbaden, pp. 115–19. Guthrie, George H. 1994 e Study of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, Leiden, New York, and Köln. Haas, Volkert 1970 Der Kult von Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte, Studia Pohl 4, Rome. 1994 Geschichte der hethitischen Religion, Leiden, New York, and Köln. 2006 Die hethitische Literatur: Texte, Stilistik, Motive, Berlin and New York. 2008 Hethitische Orakel, Vorzeichen und Abwehrstrategien. Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Kulturgeschichte, Berlin and New York. Haas, Volkert, and Gernot Wilhelm 1974 Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna, Hurritologische Studien 1, AOATS 3, Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Hagenbuchner, Albertine 1989 Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter. 2. Teil. Die Briefe mit Transkription, Übersetzung und Kommentar, THeth 16, Heidelberg. Heinhold-Krahmer, Susanne, Inge Hoffmann, Annelies Kammenhuber, and Gerlinde Mauer 1979 Probleme der Textdatierung in der Hethitologie (Beiträge zu umstrienen Datierungskriterien für Texte des 15. bis 13. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.), THeth 9, Heidelberg. Hoffmann, Inge 1984 Der Erlaß Telipinus, THeth 11, Heidelberg.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

431

Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 1968a Review of: Onofrio Carruba, Das Beschwörungsritual für die Göttin Wišuriyanza, (StBoT 2, Wiesbaden, 1966), JAOS 88, pp. 531–34. 1968b ‘Birth and Name-Giving in Hittite Texts’, JNES 27, pp. 198–203. 1976 Review of: KBo 22, BiOr 33, pp. 335–37. 1981 ‘The Hurrian Story of the Sungod, the Cow and the Fisherman’, in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians. In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on his Seventy-Fih Birthday April 29, 1981, ed. by Martha A. Morrison and David I. Owen, Winona Lake, pp. 189–94. 1983 ‘A Prayer of Muršili II about his Stepmother’, JAOS 103, pp. 187–92. 1998 Hiite Myths, WAW 2, 2nd edition, Atlanta. 2000 ‘Thoughts on a New Volume of a Hittite Dictionary’, JAOS 120, pp. 68–75. 2009 Leers from the Hiite Kingdom, WAW 15, Atlanta. 2013 ‘“The King’s Speech” Royal Rhetorical Language’, in Beyond Hai: A Tribute to Gary Beckman, ed. by Billie Jean Collins and Piotr Michalowski, Atlanta, pp. 137–53. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr., and H. Craig Melchert 2002 ‘A Practical Approach to Verbal Aspect in Hittite’, in Anatolia Antica: Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati, ed. by Stefano De Martino and Franca Pecchioli Daddi, Eothen 11, Florence, pp. 377–90. 2008 A Grammar of the Hiite Language, Part 1: Reference Grammar, Languages of the Ancient Near East 1, Winona Lake. Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. 1968 ‘Muwatallis’ “Prayer to Be Spoken in an Emergency,” an Essay in Textual Criticism’, JNES 27, pp. 204–8. 1969 ‘Hittite Royal Prayers’, Numen 16, pp. 81–98. Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J., and F. Josephson 1967 ‘Muwatallis’ Prayer to the Storm-God of Kummanni (KBo XI 1)’, RHA 25, pp. 101–40. Hrozný, Bedřich 1919 Hethitische Keilschritexte aus Boghazköi in Umschri mit Übersetzung und Kommentar II, BoSt 3, Leipzig. Hrozný, Friedrich, 1915 ‘Die Lösung des hethitischen Problems. Ein vorläufiger Bericht’, MDOG 56, pp. 17–50. Huber, Irene 2005 Rituale der Seuchen- und Schadensabwehr im Vorderen Orient und Griechenland. Formen kollektiver Krisenbewältigung in der Antike, Oriens et Occidens 10, Wiesbaden. Jaques, Margaret 2015 Mon dieu qu’ai-je fait? Les diĝir-šà-dab(5)-ba et la piété privée en Mésopotamie, OBO 273, Fribourg and Göttingen.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

432

Bibliography

Justus, Carol F. 2004 ‘What is Indo-European about Hittite Prayers?’, AOAT 318, pp. 269–83. Kammenhuber, Annelies 1964 ‘Die hethitischen Vorstellungen von Seele und Leib, Herz und Leibesinnerem, Kopf und Person 1. Teil’, ZA 56, pp. 150–212. 1988 ‘Ad absurdum geführte Textdatierungen in der Hethitologie’, in Studi di storia e filologia anatolica dedicati a Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, ed. by Fiorella Imparati, Eothen 1, Firenze, pp. 95–99. Kassian, Alexei, and Ilya Yakubovich 2007 ‘Muršili II’s Prayer to Telipinu (CTH 377)’, in Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Detlev Groddek and Marina Zorman, DBH 25, Dresden, pp. 423–54. Klengel, Horst 1965 Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. Teil 1: Nordsyrien, Institut für Orientforschung 40, Berlin. 1974 ‘“Hungerjahre” in Ḫatti’, AoF 1, pp. 165–74. 1999 Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, HdO 34, Leiden, Boston, and Köln. Klinger, Jörg 1996 Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der haischen Kultschicht, StBoT 37, Wiesbaden. 2005a ‘Die hethitische Rezeption mesopotamischer Literatur und die Überlieferung des Gilgameš-Epos in Ḫattuša’, in Motivation und Mechanismen des Kulturkontaktes in der späten Bronzezeit, ed. by Doris Prechel, Eothen 13, Florence, pp. 103–27. 2005b ‘Das Korpus der Kaskäer-Texte’, AoF 32, pp. 347–59. 2005c ‘Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte des Hethiterreiches. 3. Der Tatenbericht des Šuppiluliuma I. – Auszug’, TUAT NF 2, pp. 147–50. 2006 ‘Der Beitrag der Textfunde zur Archäologiegeschichte der hethitischen Hauptstadt’, in Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie. Voraussetzungen, Probleme, neue Ansätze / Structuring and Dating in Hiite Archaeology. Requirements, Problems, New Approaches. Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004, ed. by Dirk Paul Mielke, Ulf-Dietrich Schoop, and Jürgen Seeher, BYZAS 4, Istanbul, pp. 5–17. 2010 ‘Literarische sumerische Texte aus den hethitischen Archiven aus paläographischer Sicht – Teil II’, AoF 37, pp. 306–40. 2012a ‘Krankheit und Krieg im Spannungsfeld zwischen mythischer und realer Katastrophe’, in Disaster and Relief Management – Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung, ed. by Angelika Berlejung, FAT 81, Tübingen, pp. 471–97. 2012b ‘Literarische sumerische Texte aus den hethitischen Archiven aus überlieferungsgeschichtlicher Sicht, Teil I’, in PIHANS 119, pp. 79–93. 2013 ‘Hethitische Gebete’, TUAT NF 7, pp. 99–132.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

433

Klinger, Jörg, and Erich Neu 1990 ‘War die erste Computer-Analyse des Hethitischen verfehlt?’, Hethitica 10, pp. 135–60. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hiite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden IndoEuropean Etymological Dictionary Series 5, Leiden and Boston. Kronasser, Heinz 1956 Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre des Hethitischen, Heidelberg. 1966 Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache I, Wiesbaden. Kühne, Cord 1975 ‘Hethitische Texte’, in Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. by Walter Beyerlin, Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 1, Göttingen, pp. 169–204. 1986 ‘Hethitisch auli- und einige Aspekte altanatolischer Opferpraxis’, ZA 76, pp. 85–117. Lambert, Wilfred G. 1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford. 1974 ‘DINGIR.ŠÀ.DIB.BA Incantations’, JNES 33, pp. 267–322. Laroche, Emmanuel 1963 ‘Études lexicales et étymologiques sur le hittite’, BSL 58, pp. 58–79. 1964–65 ‘La prière hittite: vocabulaire et typologie’, Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section, Sciences Religieuses 72, pp. 3–29. 1978 ‘Lécanomancie hittite’, RA 52, pp. 150–61. Lebrun, René 1979 ‘Les rituels d’Ammihatna, Tulbi et Mati contre une impureté = CTH 472’, Hethitica 3, pp. 139–64. 1980 Hymnes et Prières Hiites, Homo Religiosus 4, Louvain-La-Neuve. Lenzi, Alan (ed.) 2011 Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction, ANEM 3, Atlanta. Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Helmuth Nowicki 1978 ‘Vorarbeiten zu den hethitischen Gebeten (CTH 372, 373, 374)’, OA 17, pp. 257–78. Mayer, Werner R. 1976 Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen ‘Gebetsbeschwörungen’, Studia Pohl: Series Maior 5, Rome. Mazoyer, Michel 2003 Télipinu, le dieu au marécage. Essai sur les mythes fondateurs de royaume hiite, Collection KUBABA, Série Antiquité 2, Paris. Meier, Gerhard 1939 ‘Ein akkadisches Heilungsritual aus Boğazköy’, ZA 45, pp. 195–215.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

434

Bibliography

Melchert, H. Craig 1998 ‘Hittite arku- “chant, intone” vs. arkuwā(i)- “Make a Plea”’, JCS 50, pp. 45–51. Metcalf, Christopher 2011 ‘New Parallels in Hittite and Sumerian Praise of the Sun’, WO 41, pp. 168–76. 2015a e Gods Rich in Praise: Early Greek and Mesopotamian Religious Poetry, Oxford Classical Monographs, Oxford. 2015b ‘Old Babylonian Religious Poetry in Anatolia: From Solar Hymn to Plague Prayer’, ZA 105, pp. 42–53. Mieder, Wolfgang 1993 Proverbs Are Never out of Season: Popular Wisdom in the Modern Age, New York and Oxford. Miller, Jared L. 2004 Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals, StBoT 46, Wiesbaden. 2007 ‘Mursili II’s Dictate to Tuppi-Teššub’s Syrian Antagonists’, Kaskal 4, pp. 121–52. 2008 ‘The rebellion of Ḫatti’s Syrian vassals and Egypt’s meddling in Amurru’, SMEA 50, pp. 533–54. 2013 Royal Hiite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts, WAW 31, Atlanta. 2014 ‘Mursili II’s Prayer concerning the Misdeeds and the Ousting of Tawannanna’, in Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw, 5–9 September 2011, ed. by Piotr Taracha, Warsaw, pp. 516–57. Montuori, Claudia 2015 aro rituali antico-iiti per la coppia reale, hethiter.net/: CTH 416 (INTR 2015-03-03), [accessed 21 June 2016]. Mora, Clelia 1993 ‘Lo «status» del re di Kargamiš’, OrNS 62, pp. 67–70. Mouton, Alice 2016 Rites, mythes et prières hiites, LAPO 21, Paris. Neu, Erich 1980 Althethitische Ritualtexte in Umschri, StBoT 25, Wiesbaden. 1983 ‘Überlieferung und Datierung der Kaškäer-Verträge’, in Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens: Festschri für Kurt Biel, ed. by Rainer M. Boehmer and Harald Hauptmann, Mainz, pp. 391–99. 1985 ‘Zum Alter der Pleneschreibung ma-a-aḫ-ḫa-an in hethitischen Texten’, Hethitica 6, 139–59.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

435

Neu, Erich, and Christel Rüster 1975 Hethitische Keilschri-Paläographie II (14./13. Jh. v. Chr.), StBoT 21, Wiesbaden. Neumann, Günter, 1961 Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Wiesbaden. O’Donoghue, Heather 2008 Old Norse-Icelandic Literature: A Short Introduction, [1st edition 2004], Malden, Oxford, and Victoria. Oettinger, Norbert 1979 Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums, Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprachund Kunstwissenschaft 64, Nürnberg. 2007 ‘Zur Zahlensymbolik bei den Hethitern’, in VI Congresso Internazionale di Iitologia Roma, 5–9 seembre 2005, parte I, ed. by Alfonso Archi and Rita Francia, SMEA 49, Roma, pp. 587–95. Otten, Heinrich 1942 Die Überlieferungen des Telipinu-Mythos, MVAeG 46/1, Leipzig. 1953 ‘Die inschriftliche Funde’, MDOG 86, pp. 59–64. 1972 ‘Einleitung’, in Hethitische Keilschri-Paläographie, by Christel Rüster, StBoT 20, Wiesbaden. 1973 Eine althethitische Erzählung um die Stadt Zalpa, StBoT 17, Wiesbaden. 1975 Puduḫepa. Eine hethitische Königin in ihren Textzeugnissen, AAWLM 1, Mainz and Wiesbaden. 1984 Review of: J. Tischler, Das hethitische Gebet der Gassulijawija. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Innsbruck, 1981), IF 89, pp. 298–301. 2000 ‘Ein Siegelabdruck Dutḫalias I.(?)’, AA (2000), pp. 375–76. Otten, Heinrich, and Christel Rüster 1975 ‘Textanschlüsse und Duplikate von Boğazköy-Tafeln (31–40)’, ZA 64, pp. 241–49. Otten, Heinrich, and Vladimir Souček, 1969 Ein althethitisches Ritual für das Königspaar, StBoT 8, Wiesbaden. Pettinato, Giovanni 1966 Die Ölwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern II: Texte und Kommentar, Studi Semitici 22, Roma. Polvani, Anna M. 2004 ‘Relations between Rituals and Mythology in Official and Popular Hittite Religion’, AOAT 318, pp. 369–76. Popko, Maciej 1994 Zippalanda: Ein Kultzentrum im hethitischen Kleinasien, THeth 21, Wiesbaden. 1995 Religions of Asia Minor, Warsaw.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

436

Bibliography

2007

‘Althethitisch? Zu den Datierungsfragen in der Hethitologie’, in Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Detlev Groddek and Marina Zorman, DBH 25, Dresden, pp. 575–81. Pringle, Jackie 1983 ‘Hittite Birth Rituals’, in Images of Women in Antiquity, ed. by Averil Cameron and Amélie Kuhrt, London, pp. 128–41. Puhvel, Jaan 2007 ‘Hittite nanna- as the Durative of nai-’, in Vita. Festschri in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, ed. by Metin Alparslan, Meltem DoğanAlparslan, and Hasan Peker, Istanbul, pp. 629–31. Reiner, Erica, and Hans G. Güterbock 1967 ‘The Great Prayer to Ishtar and Its Two Versions from Boğazköy’, JCS 21, pp. 255–66. Rieken, Elisabeth 2006 ‘Zur Etymologie von luwisch nū(t)-’, in GIŠ.ḪUR gul-za-at-ta-ra: Festschri for Folke Josephson, ed. by Gerd Carling, Meijerbergs arkiv för svensk ordforskning 32, Göteborg. 2014 ‘Sprachliche Merkmale religiöser Textsorten im Hethitischen’, WO 44, pp. 162–73. 2016 ‘Repetition und Variation in den hethitischen Gebeten’, in Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Andrew Miles Byrd, Jessica DeLisi, and Mark Wenthe, Ann Arbor; New York, pp. 269–77. Rieken, Elisabeth, Jürgen Lorenz, and Alexandra Daues 2009 CTH 334.2.2 – Mythos des Verschwindens von Ḫannaḫanna, hethiter.net/: CTH 334.2.2 (INTR 2009–08–26), [accessed 1 August 2017]. 2016 Gebete der Hethiter, hethiter.net/: CTH 371–389 (INTR 2015-02-10–201601-18), [accessed 1 August 2017]. Riemschneider, Kaspar K. 2004 Die akkadischen und hethitischen Omentexte aus Boğazköy, DBH 12, Dresden. Roest, Bert, and Herman Vanstiphout 1999 ‘Postscriptum. Generic Studies in Pre-Modern Traditions: Why and How?’, in Aspects of Genre and Type in Pre-modern Literary Cultures, ed. by Bert Roest and Herman Vanstiphout, Comers/ICOG Communications 1, Groningen, pp. 129–39. Rüster, Christel 1972 Hethitische Keilschri-Paläographie, StBoT 20, Wiesbaden. Rüster, Christel, and Erich Neu 1989 Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon. Inventar und Interpretation der Keilschrizeichen aus den Boğazköy-Texten, StBoTB 2, Wiesbaden.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

437

Sanders, Paul 2007 ‘Argumenta ad deum in the Plague Prayers of Mursili II and in the Book of Psalms’, in Psalms and Prayers. Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Apeldoorn August 2006, ed. by Bob Becking and Eric Peels, Leiden and Boston, pp. 181–217. 2011 ‘Overredingsstrategieën in Hethitische, Babylonische en Israëlitische gebeden’, Nederlands eologisch Tijdschri 65, pp. 101–16. Sassmannshausen, Leonhard 2008 ‘Babylonische Schriftkultur des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. in den Nachbarländern und im östlichen Mittelmeerraum’, AuOr 26, pp. 263–93. Schuler, Einar von 1965 Die Kaškäer. Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des alten Kleinasiens, UAVA 3, Berlin. Schwemer, Daniel 2001 Weergogestalten. Die Weergogestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschrikulturen, Wiesbaden. 2006 ‘Zwei hethitische Fragmente’, AoF 33, pp. 237–41. 2013 ‘Gauging the Influence of Babylonian Magic: The Reception of Mesopotamian Traditions in Hittite Ritual Practice’, in Diversity and Standardization. Perspectives on Social and Political Norms in the Ancient Near East, ed. by Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum, Jörg Klinger, and Gerfrid G. W. Müller, Berlin, pp. 145–72. 2015 ‘Hittite Prayers to the Sun-God for Appeasing an Angry Personal God: A Critical Edition of CTH 372–74’, in Mon dieu qu'ai-je fait? Les diĝir-šàdab(5)-ba et la piété privée en Mésopotamie, by Margaret Jaques, OBO 273, Fribourg and Göttingen, pp. 349–93. Schwemer, Daniel, and Aygül Süel 2021 The Akkadian and Sumerian Texts from Ortaköy-Šapinuwa / OrtaköyŠapinuwa’dan Akadca ve Sümerce Metinler, DAAM 2, Wiesbaden. Sidel’tsev, Andrej V. 2008 ‘Middle Hittite -ške-forms in Benedictions and Curses’, SMEA 50, pp. 681– 704. 2010 ‘Syntax of Lists in Middle Hittite’, in VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi bildirileri, Çorum 25–31 Ağustos 2008; Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hiitology, Çorum August 25–31 2008, ed. by Aygül Süel, Ankara, pp. 709–23. Siegelová, Jana 1986 Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschas- und Inventardokumente, Praha. Simek, Rudolf, and Hermann Pálsson 1987 Lexikon der altnordischen Literatur, Kröners Taschenausgabe 490, Stuttgart.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

438

Bibliography

Singer, Itamar 1995 ‘Some Thoughts on Translated and Original Hittite Literature’, in Language and Culture in the Near East, ed. by Shlomo Izre’el and Rina Drory, IOS 15, Leiden, New York, and Köln, pp. 123–28. 1996 Muwatalli’s Prayer to the Assembly of Gods through the Storm-God of Lightning (CTH 381), Atlanta. 2002a Hiite Prayers, WAW 11, Atlanta. 2002b ‘Kantuzili the Priest and the Birth of Hittite Personal Prayer’, in Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. by Piotr Taracha, Warsaw, pp. 301–13. 2004 ‘Questioning Divine Justice in Hittite Prayers’, AOAT 318, pp. 413–19. 2005 ‘Sin and Punishment in Hittite Prayers’, in ‘An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing.’ Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. by Yitschak Sefati, Pinhas Artzi, Chaim Cohen, Barry L. Eichler, and Victor A. Hurowitz, Bethesda, pp. 557–67. 2011 e Calm before the Storm. Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the End of the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Levant, WAW Supplements 1, Atlanta. Sommer, Ferdinand 1921 ‘Ein hethitisches Gebet’, ZA 33, pp. 85–102. Starke, Frank 1977 Die Funktionen der dimensionalen Kasus und Adverbien im Althethitischen, StBoT 23, Wiesbaden. 1981 Review of: Ahmet Ünal, Ein Orakeltext über die Intrigen am hethitischen Hof (KUB XXII 70 = Bo 2011) (THeth 6, Heidelberg, 1978), OrNS 50, pp. 466–71. 1985 Die keilschri-luwischen Texte in Umschri, StBoT 30, Wiesbaden. Stefanini, Ruggero 1962 ‘Studi ittiti I’, Athenaeum 40, pp. 3–36. Steitler, Charles W. 2015a ‘“Like an iron peg I have struck the words to the gods …”. A Hittite Invocation for Overturning Slander’, ZA 105, pp. 198–214. 2015b ‘Addendum’, in Mon dieu qu’ai-je fait? Les diĝir-šà-dab(5)-ba et la piété privée en Mésopotamie, by Margaret Jaques, OBO 273, Fribourg and Göttingen, pp. 456–57. 2017 e Solar Deities of Bronze Age Anatolia: Studies in Texts of the Early Hittite Kingdom, StBoT 62, Wiesbaden. Strauß, Rita 2006 Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung hethitischer Ritualtradition und Kulturgeschichte, Berlin and New York.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

2014

439

Das Ritual der purapši-Priester Ammiḫatna, Tulbi und Mati zur Reinigung des Tempels und der Goheit (CTH 472), hethiter.net/: CTH 472 (INTR 2014-02-19), [accessed 1 August 2017]. Sürenhagen, Dietrich 1981 ‘Zwei Gebete Ḫattušilis und der Puduḫepa. Textliche und literaturhistorische Untersuchungen’, AoF 8, pp. 83–168. 1985 Paritätische Staatsverträge aus hethitischer Sicht. Zu historischen Aussagen und literarischer Stellung des Textes CTH 379, StMed 5, Pavia. Taracha, Piotr 2009 Religions of Second Millennium Anatolia, DBH 27, Wiesbaden. Tinney, Steve 1996 e Nippur Lament. Royal Rhetoric and Divine Legitimation in the Reign of Išme-Dagan of Isin (1953–1935 B.C.), Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16, Philadelphia. Taş, İlknur 2017 Hethitische Texte in Transkription Bo 8264-Bo 8485, Autographien, DBH 43.2, Wiesbaden. Tischler, Johann 1981 Das hethitische Gebet der Gassulijawija: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar, IBS 37, Innsbruck. Torri, Giulia 1999 Lelwani. Il culto di una dea iita, VO 2, Roma. 2003a La similitudine nella magia analogica iita, StAs 2, Roma. 2003b ‘Common Literary Patterns in Hittite Magical Rituals and Prayers’, OrNS 72, pp. 216–22. 2010 ‘A “New” Prayer from the “House on the Slope”’, in Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hiites and eir Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, ed. by Yoram Cohen, Amir Gilan, and Jared L. Miller, StBoT 51, Wiesbaden, pp. 362–71. 2019 ‘Strategies for Persuading a Deity in Hittite Prayers and Vows’, in Altorientalische Gebetsliteratur: Form, außersprachlicher Kontext und interkulturelle Adaptionsprozesse, ed. by Alexandra Grund-Wittenberg and Elisabeth Rieken, WO 49/1, pp. 48–60. Ünal, Ahmet 1973 ‘Zum Status der «Augures» bei den Hethitern’, RHA 31, pp. 27–56. 1991 ‘Hethitische Hymnen und Gebete’, TUAT 2, pp. 791–817. 1996 e Hiite Ritual of Ḫantitaššu from the City of Ḫurma against Troublesome Years, Ankara. van den Hout, Theo 2003–05 ‘Orakel (Oracle). B. Bei Den Hethitern’, RlA 10, pp. 118–24.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

440

Bibliography

2007

‘The Prayers in the Haus Am Hang’, in Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Detlev Groddek and Marina Zorman, DBH 25, Dresden, pp. 401–9. 2008 ‘A Classified Past: Classification of Knowledge in the Hittite Empire’, in Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18–22, 2005, ed. by Robert D. Biggs, Jennie Myers, and Martha T. Roth, SAOC 62, Chicago. 2009 ‘A Century of Hittite Text Dating and the Origins of the Hittite Script’, Incontri Linguistici 32, pp. 11–35. 2012 ‘The Ductus of the Alalaḫ VII Texts and the Origin of Hittite Cuneiform’, in PIHANS 119, pp. 147–70. 2014 ‘“Two Old Tablets”: Thinking, Recording, and Writing History in Hittite Society’, in inking, Recording, and Writing History in the Ancient World, ed. by Kurt A. Raaflaub, Chichester, pp. 169–86. van de Peut, Lidewij E. 2013 Review of: Alan Lenzi (ed.), Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction (ANEM 3, Atlanta, 2011), in: BiOr 70, pp. 443–48. 2019 ‘Proverbs as Argument: A Rhetorical Strategy in Hittite Prayers’, in Acts of the IXth International Congress of Hiitology, Çorum, 08–14 September 2014, ed. by Yayına Hazırlayan and Aygül Süel, Çorum, pp. 781–804. Van Gessel, Ben H. L. 1998 Onomasticon of the Hittite Pantheon, HdO 33, Leiden, New York, and Köln. Vanstiphout, Herman 1986 ‘Some Thoughts on Genre in Mesopotamian Literature’, in Keilschriliche Literaturen. Ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Münster, 8.–12.7.1985, ed. by Karl Hecker and Walter Sommerfeld, BBVO 6, Berlin, pp. 1–11. Viano, Maurizio 2012 ‘A Sumerian Hymn from Boğazköy’, WO 42, pp. 231–37. Vieyra, Maurice 1970 ‘Les textes hittites’, in Les religions de Proche-Orient asiatique. Textes babyloniens, ougaritiques, hittites, présentés et traduits, Paris, pp. 459–566. Waal, Willemijn J. I. 2012a ‘Reading Between the Lines: Hittite Scribal Conventions’, in eory and Practice of Knowledge Transfer, ed. by Wolfert S. van Egmond and Wilfred H. van Soldt, PIHANS 111, Leiden, pp. 147–52. 2012b ‘Chronological Developments in Hittite Scribal Habits and Tablet Shapes’, in PIHANS 119, pp. 217–27. 2015 Hiite Diplomatics. Studies in Ancient Document Format and Record Management, StBoT 57, Wiesbaden. Wasserman, Nathan 2011 ‘Sprichwort (proverb)’, RlA 13, pp. 19–23.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Bibliography

441

Weeden, Mark 2011 Hiite Logograms and Hiite Scholarship, StBoT 54, Wiesbaden. 2012 ‘Assyro-Mittanian or Middle Assyrian?’, in PIHANS 119 pp. 229–51. Wegner, Ilse 1981 Gestalt und Kult der Ištar-Šawuška in Kleinasien, Hurritologische Studien 3, AOAT 36, Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Werner, Rudolf 1967 Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle, StBoT 4, Wiesbaden. West, Martin L. 1973 Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts, Stuttgart. 1997 e East Face of Helicon, Oxford. 2011 e Making of the Iliad. Disquisition and Analytical Commentary, Oxford. Wilhelm, Gernot 1994 ‘Hymnen der Hethiter’, in Hymnen der Alten Welt im Kulturvergleich, ed. by Walter Burkert and Fritz Stolz, OBO 131, Freiburg and Göttingen, pp. 59–77. 1991 ‘Zur hurritischen Gebetsliteratur’, in Ernten, was man sät. Festschri für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Dwight R. Daniels, Uwe Glessmer, and Martin Rösel, Neukirchen, pp. 37–47. 1999 ‘Reinheit und Heiligkeit. Zur Vorstellungswelt altanatolischer Ritualistik’, in Levitikus als Buch, ed. by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Hans-Winfried Jüngling, Bonner Biblische Beiträge 119, Berlin, pp. 197–217. 2010 ‘Zur Struktur des hethitischen “Kantuzzili-Gebets”’, in Kulte, Priester, Rituale. Beiträge zu Kult und Kultkritik im Alten Testament und Alten Orient. Festschri für eodor Seidl zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Stephanie Ernst and Maria Häusl, Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 89, St. Ottilien, pp. 33–40. Witzel, P. Maurus 1924 Hethitische Keilschri-Urkunden in Transkription und Uebersetzung mit Kommentar, Keilinschriftliche Studien 4, Fulda. Yoshida, Daisuke 1996 Untersuchungen zu den Sonnengoheiten bei den Hethitern. Schwurgöerliste, helfende Goheit, Feste, THeth 22, Heidelberg.

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

INDEX OF CITED HITTITE TEXTS Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 ................................ 194–97 Bo 7785 9′–11′ ............................................................... 302 Bo 8072.......................................................... 374–86 CTH 63 KBo 3.3+ iv 6′–11′ ............................. 32, fn. 114 CTH 70 Bo 7785 9′–11′ ................................................ 302 KBo 4.8+ iii 3–4 ............................................. 288 CTH 255.1 KUB 21.42+ i 39′–40′ ........................ 99, fn. 319 CTH 324 KUB 33.1+ ii 12′–13′ ..................................... 177 KUB 33.9 iii 10′–11′ .......................... 97, fn. 314 CTH 326 KUB 33.21+ iii 16′–19′ .................................. 177 CTH 330 KUB 33.62 ii 7′–10′........................................ 272 CTH 334 KBo 31.76+ i 7′–8′ ......................................... 178 KBo 31.76+ i 7′–13′ ....................................... 264 KBo 52.9+ obv. 11′–12′ ................................ 177 CTH 371 .......................................................... 62–70 KBo 7.28 + KBo 8.92 ................................. 62–70 CTH 372 KUB 31.127+ i 1–48 ................................ 207–18 KUB 31.127+ i 49–51 .................................. 229f. KUB 31.127+ i 56–57 .................................... 230 KUB 31.127+ ii 50–58 ................................. 244f. CTH 373 KUB 30.10 obv. 24′–28′ ................................ 244 KUB 30.10 rev. 4 ...............................................68 CTH 374 KUB 30.11+ obv. 1′–8′, 1″–16″ ............. 207–18 KUB 30.11+ obv. 17″–19″ ............................ 229 KUB 31.134(+) i 1′–8′, 1″–12″ ............... 207–18 KUB 36.75+ i 1′–18′, ii 1′–7′.................. 207–18 CTH 375 Bo 3322 + KBo 61.311 ............................. 194–97 KBo 51.17(+) ii 3–5 ..................................... 287f. KBo 53.10(+) ii 12–13 ................................... 288 KUB 17.21+ i 1′–27′ ..............................196–200 KUB 17.21+ i 10′–12′ .................................... 287

KUB 17.21+ iv 5′ .............................................124 KUB 31.123+ rev. 1′–2′ ...................................84 KUB 48.107+ iv 3′–5′ .......................................84 CTH 376.I ..................................................... 324–35 KBo 57.20 1′.....................................................366 KUB 24.4+ obv. 19′ ......................... 233, fn. 736 KUB 24.4+ rev. 4.............................................368 KUB 24.4+ rev. 18–24 ......................................86 CTH 376.II .................................................... 348–69 KUB 24.3+ i 1′–5′ ........................... 162–65, 167 KUB 24.3+ i 6′–28′ .................................. 181–86 KUB 24.3+ i 29′– ii 3 ............................... 207–17 KUB 24.3+ i 46′ ................................ 283, fn. 913 KUB 24.3+ ii 7–9 ............................................170 KUB 24.3+ ii 30 ................................ 238, fn. 761 KUB 24.3+ ii 41–44 ......................... 238, fn. 758 KUB 24.3+ ii 62–63 ......................... 238, fn. 759 KUB 24.3+ iv 1′–8′ ...........................................86 KUB 36.80 obv. 1–3..................................... 156f. KUB 36.80 obv. 3–13 ..................... 162–65, 167 KUB 36.80 obv. 7 ............................. 167, fn. 533 KUB 36.80 obv. 9 ............................. 167, fn. 533 KUB 36.80 rev. 2′–7′ ........................................87 CTH 376.III................................................... 338–44 CTH 376.4 KUB 36.81 i 1′–5′ ............................ 162–65, 167 KUB 36.81 i 3′–5′ ............................................170 KUB 36.81 i 6′–20′ ................................... 181–86 CTH 377........................................................ 374–86 3–7 .....................................................................157 11 ........................................................ 167, fn. 533 15–17........................................................ 170, 363 30 .......................................................................364 KUB 24.1+ i 3–7 ..............................................157 KUB 24.1+ i 8–17............................ 162–65, 167 KUB 24.1+ i 15–17 .........................................170 KUB 24.1+ i 18–ii 19 ............................... 181–86 KUB 24.1+ ii 20–22 ................................. 207–17 KUB 24.1+ iv 19–21 .........................................84 KUB 24.2 obv. 1–2............................................82 KUB 24.2 obv. 3–6..........................................157 KUB 24.2 obv. 7–14........................ 162–65, 167 KUB 24.2 obv. 13–14 .....................................170

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

444

Index of Cited Hittite Texts

KUB 24.2 obv. 15–23 .............................. 181–90 CTH 378.1 KUB 14.14+ rev. 23′f. ...................... 138, fn. 458 KUB 14.14+ rev. 23′–25′ ................. 114, fn. 386 KUB 14.14+ rev. 26′......................... 251, fn. 817 KUB 14.14+ rev. 32′f ....................... 251, fn. 817 KUB 14.14+ rev. 47′–48′ ............................... 251 KUB 14.14+ rev. 49 .......................... 251, fn. 817 KUB 14.14+ l.e. 1–2 ......................................... 85 CTH 378.2 KUB 14.8 obv. 1′–3′ ....................................... 246 KUB 14.8 obv. 6′–8′ ..................................... 241f. KUB 14.8 obv. 31′–39′........................... 8, fn. 30 KUB 14.8 obv. 40′–41′................................... 277 KUB 14.8 rev. 8′ ............................... 251, fn. 817 KUB 14.8 rev. 10′–19′ ............................ 134–37 KUB 14.8 rev. 13′ ........................................... 134 KUB 14.8 rev. 13′–14′ ................................... 139 KUB 14.8 rev. 14′–15′ ................................... 277 KUB 14.8 rev. 17′ ............................. 251, fn. 817 KUB 14.8 rev. 20′ ........................................... 131 KUB 14.8 rev. 20′–36′ ............................ 116–19 KUB 14.8 rev. 22′ ........................................... 103 KUB 14.8 rev. 29′ ........................................... 277 KUB 14.8 rev. 32′ ............................. 114, fn. 386 KUB 14.8 rev. 43′ ........................................... 366 KUB 14.10+ i 1–5 ......................................... 157f. KUB 14.10+ i 5–7 ........................................... 241 KUB 14.10+ iv 8′–22′ .................................. 246f. KUB 14.10+ iv 11 ........................................... 366 KUB 14.10+ iv 17′ .......................................... 331 KUB 14.10+ iv 19′–20′ .................................. 366 KUB 14.10+ iv 23′–25′ .................................... 85 CTH 378.3 KUB 14.12 obv. 1–2 ....................................... 241 KUB 14.12 rev. 7′–11′ ................................... 242 KUB 14.12 rev. 10′–11′ ................................. 331 KUB 14.12 rev. 12′ ......................................... 251 KUB 14.12 rev. 14′ ......................................... 252 CTH 378.4 KUB 14.13+ i 28–30 ......................... 147, fn. 483 KUB 14.13+ i 46 ................................. 91, fn. 291 KUB 14.13+ iv 17 ............................. 251, fn. 817 CTH 380 KBo 4.6 obv. 16′ ............................................. 263 KBo 31.80 3′ ........................................ 55, fn. 223 CTH 381 KUB 6.45+ i 1–4 ............................................. 110 KUB 6.45+ i 20–27 ......................................... 205 KUB 6.45+ ii 1, iv 46–47 ................... 42, fn. 165

KUB 6.45+ iii 13–17 ...................................... 222 KUB 6.45+ iii 23–24 ...................................... 179 KUB 6.45+ iii 32–33 ...................................... 131 KUB 6.45+ iii 32–44 ............................... 118–21 KUB 6.45+ iii 40 ..................................... 103, 107 KUB 6.45+ iii 41f. ........................................... 107 KUB 6.46 iv 10 .................................. 138, fn. 457 KUB 6.46 iv 45–47 ............................. 42, fn. 165 CTH 382 KBo 11.1 obv. 2 .................................. 55, fn. 230 KBo 11.1 obv. 15 .................................... 253, 262 KBo 11.1 obv. 22f. .......................................... 300 KBo 11.1 obv. 37–38 ..................................... 253 KBo 11.1 rev. 24′–27′ ...................................... 85 CTH 383 KUB 21.19+ i 4′–6′ ....................................... 300f. KUB 21.19+ i 11–13 ......................... 113, fn. 382 KUB 21.19+ i 20–26 ....................................... 300 KUB 21.19+ i 33f. ............................. 114, fn. 384 KUB 21.19+ i 16′–ii 3 .................................... 301 KUB 21.19+ ii 15 .............................. 114, fn. 384 KUB 21.19+ iv 27′f........................... 113, fn. 382 CTH 384 KUB 21.27+ i 1–2 ............................................. 82 KUB 21.27+ i 8................................................ 302 KUB 21.27+ i 14–15 ......................... 288, fn. 935 KUB 21.27+ i 16–18 ....................................... 288 KUB 21.27+ i 38′–43′ .................................. 301f. KUB 21.27+ ii 11–13 ..................................... 131 KUB 21.27+ ii 11–37 .............................. 120–25 KUB 21.27+ ii 16 ............................................ 105 KUB 21.27+ ii 18 ............................................ 113 KUB 21.27+ iii 34′–35′ .................................. 262 KUB 21.27+ iv 28′–47′ ........................... 124–26 KUB 21.27+ iv 39′–40′ .................................... 68 KUB 21.27+ iv 36′ .......................................... 105 KUB 21.27+ iv 37′ .......................................... 113 CTH 385.8 ......................................................... 394f. Privat 35 ........................................................ 394f. CTH 385.9 KBo 12.58+ obv. 1 ............................................ 83 CTH 385.10 KUB 57.60 ii 11′.................................. 47, fn. 175 KUB 57.60 ii 22′.................................. 47, fn. 176 KUB 57.63 iii 8′ ................................ 252, fn. 820 KUB 57.63 iii 15′f. .............................. 47, fn. 174 KUB 57.63 ii 16f. ................................ 47, fn. 175 KUB 57.63 ii 32 ................................... 47, fn. 176 KUB 57.63 iii 21′–25′ ........................ 47, fn. 177 KUB 57.63 iv 11′–15′ ....................................... 84

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Index of Cited Hittite Texts

CTH 389.2 KUB 36.91+ rev. 16–17 ................... 101, fn. 336 KUB 60.156 rev. 1′–3′ ................................... 252 KUB 60.156 rev. 5′–6′ ................................... 253 KUB 60.156 rev. 12′–13′ ................. 101, fn. 336 CTH 395 KBo 11.14 ii 16–18 ........................................ 254 KUB 57.79 iv 31–33 ....................................... 276 CTH 448 KUB 51.50 iii? 14′ ........................................... 369 CTH 416 KBo 17.1+ iii 6–7 ........................................... 262 CTH 462 VSNF 12.7 iv 16–20 ....................................... 271 CTH 472 KBo 23.1+ i 17–25 ....................................... 172f. CTH 483 KBo 8.70 ii? 11′ ............................................... 385 KUB 15.34+ i 48–65 .................................... 174f. KUB 15.34+ ii 6–25 ..................................... 269f. KUB 15.34+ ii 33–38 ........................................87 KUB 15.34+ ii 46–48 ..................................... 272 CTH 484 KUB 15.32+ i 39–45 .................................... 175f. KUB 15.32+ i 46–59 .................................... 267f. CTH 495 KBo 54.73 11′f. ................................. 265, fn. 862 CTH 584.4 KUB 15.23 rev. 17′–21′ ....................................37 CTH 671 KUB 36.89 rev. 54′ ......................................... 273 KUB 36.89 rev. 60′–61′ ................................. 273 CTH 716 KUB 15.35+ i 47–52 .................................... 270f. KUB 15.35+ i 66–67 ...................................... 289 KBo 3.3+ iv 6′–11′ ............................................... 32, fn. 114 KBo 4.6 obv. 16′ ............................................................ 263 KBo 4.8 + İzmir 1277 iii 3–4 ............................................................... 288 KBo 7.28 + KBo 8.92 ..................................... 62–70 KBo 8.70 ii? 11′ ................................................................ 385 KBo 11.1 obv. 2.................................................... 55, fn. 230 obv. 15 ..................................................... 253, 262 obv. 22f. ........................................................... 300 obv. 37–38 ....................................................... 253 rev. 24′–27′ ........................................................85

445

KBo 11.14 ii 16–18 .............................................................254 KBo 12.58 + KBo 13.162 obv. 1 ..................................................................83 KBo 12.132(+) .............................................. 338–44 KBo 13.119 iv 6′..................................................... 276, fn. 901 iv 12′ .................................................. 276, fn. 901 KBo 17.1+ iii 6–7 ................................................................262 KBo 22.78.......................................................... 391f. KBo 22.232 1′–3′ ....................................................................83 KBo 23.1+ i 17–25 ........................................................... 172f. KBo 31.76+ i 7′–8′ ................................................................178 i 7′–13′ ..............................................................264 KBo 31.80 3′ ........................................................... 55, fn. 223 KBo 34.19 4′–5′ ..................................................... 61, fn. 245 KBo 46.5 ...............................................................292 KBo 51.17(+) ii 3–5 .............................................................. 287f. KBo 52.9+ obv. 11′–12′ .....................................................177 KBo 52.16+ ................................................... 348–69 KBo 53.10(+) ii 12–13 .............................................................288 KBo 53.13(+) ................................................ 348–69 KBo 54.73 11′f. ..................................................... 265, fn. 862 KBo 55.22...................................................... 324–35 KBo 57.20 (+) KBo 7.63 .............................. 324–35 1′ ........................................................................366 KBo 58.7(+) .................................................. 324–35 KBo 58.328 ................................................... 324–35 KBo 60.18...................................................... 324–35 KUB 6.45+ i 1–4 ..................................................................110 i 20–27 ..............................................................205 ii 1 ......................................................... 42, fn. 165 iii 13–17 ............................................................222 iii 23–24 ............................................................179 iii 32–33 ............................................................131 iii 32–44 ..................................................... 118–21 iii 40 ......................................................... 103, 107 iii 41f. ................................................................107 iv 46–47 ............................................... 42, fn. 165

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

446

Index of Cited Hittite Texts

KUB 6.46 iv 10 .................................................... 138, fn. 457 iv 45–47 ............................................... 42, fn. 165 KUB 13.35 ii 40 ..................................................... 114, fn. 386 KUB 14.8 obv. 1′–3′ ......................................................... 246 obv. 6′–8′ ....................................................... 241f. obv. 31′–39′ ............................................. 8, fn. 30 obv. 40′–41′ ..................................................... 277 rev. 8′ ................................................. 251, fn. 817 rev. 10′–19′ .............................................. 134–37 rev. 13′ ............................................................. 134 rev. 13′–14′ ..................................................... 139 rev. 14′–15′ ..................................................... 277 rev. 17′ ............................................... 251, fn. 817 rev. 20′ ............................................................. 131 rev. 20′–36′ .............................................. 116–19 rev. 22′ ............................................................. 103 rev. 29′ ............................................................. 277 rev. 32′ ............................................... 114, fn. 386 rev. 43′ ............................................................. 366 KUB 14.10+ i 1–5 ................................................................ 157f. i 5–7 .................................................................. 241 iv 8′–22′ ......................................................... 246f. iv 11 .................................................................. 366 iv 17′ ................................................................. 331 iv 19′–20′ ......................................................... 366 iv 23′–25′ ........................................................... 85 KUB 14.12 obv. 1–2 ........................................................... 241 rev. 7′–11′........................................................ 242 rev. 10′–11′ ..................................................... 331 rev. 12′ ............................................................. 251 rev. 14′ ............................................................. 252 KUB 14.13 + KUB 23.124 i 28–30................................................ 147, fn. 483 i 46 ........................................................ 91, fn. 291 iv 17 .................................................... 251, fn. 817 KUB 14.14+ rev. 23′f. ............................................. 138, fn. 458 rev. 23′–25′ ....................................... 114, fn. 386 rev. 26′ ............................................... 251, fn. 817 rev. 32′f .............................................. 251, fn. 817 rev. 47′–48′ ..................................................... 251 rev. 49 ................................................ 251, fn. 817 l.e. 1–2 ................................................................ 85 KUB 15.23 rev. 17′–21′ ....................................................... 37

KUB 15.32+ i 39–45............................................................ 175f. i 46–59............................................................ 267f. KUB 15.34 + Bo 8027 i 48–65............................................................ 174f. ii 6–25 ............................................................ 269f. ii 33–38 .............................................................. 87 ii 46–48 ............................................................ 272 KUB 15.35 + KBo 2.9 i 47–52............................................................ 270f. i 66–67.............................................................. 289 KUB 17.21+ i 1′–27′ .................................................... 196–200 i 10′–12′ ........................................................... 287 iv 5′ ................................................................... 124 KUB 20.99(+) iii 20′f. ........................................ 394 KUB 21.19+ i 4′–6′ ............................................................. 300f. i 11–13................................................ 113, fn. 382 i 20–26.............................................................. 300 i 33f. .................................................... 114, fn. 384 i 16′–ii 3 ........................................................... 301 ii 15 ..................................................... 114, fn. 384 iv 27′f. ................................................ 113, fn. 382 KUB 21.27+ i 1–2 .................................................................... 82 i 8 ...................................................................... 302 i 14–15................................................288, fn. 935 i 16–18.............................................................. 288 i 38′–43′ ......................................................... 301f. ii 11–13 ............................................................ 131 ii 11–37 ..................................................... 120–25 ii 16 ................................................................... 105 ii 18 ................................................................... 113 iii 34′–35′ ......................................................... 262 iv 28′–47′ .................................................. 124–26 iv 39′–40′ ........................................................... 68 iv 36′ ................................................................. 105 iv 37′ ................................................................. 113 KUB 21.42 + KUB 26.12 i 39′–40′ ............................................... 99, fn. 319 KUB 24.1 + KBo 58.10 ............................... 374–86 i 3–7 .................................................................. 157 i 8–17................................................. 162–65, 167 i 15–17.............................................................. 170 i 18–ii 19 ................................................... 181–86 ii 20–22 ..................................................... 207–17 iv 19–21 ............................................................. 84 KUB 24.2 ...................................................... 374–86 obv. 1–2 ............................................................. 82

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1

Index of Cited Hittite Texts

obv. 3–6 ........................................................... 157 obv. 7–14 .......................................... 162–65, 167 obv. 13–14 ....................................................... 170 obv. 15–23 ................................................. 181–86 KUB 24.3+..................................................... 348–69 i 1′–5′ ................................................ 162–65, 167 i 6′–28′ ....................................................... 181–86 i 29′– ii 3.................................................... 207–17 i 46′ ..................................................... 283, fn. 913 ii 7–9 ................................................................ 170 ii 30 ..................................................... 238, fn. 761 ii 41–44 .............................................. 238, fn. 758 ii 62–63 .............................................. 238, fn. 759 iv 1′–8′ ................................................................86 KUB 24.4 + KUB 30.12 ............................... 324–35 obv. 19′ .............................................. 233, fn. 736 rev. 4 ................................................................ 368 rev. 18–24...........................................................86 KUB 26.66 iii 10–11 ............................................. 105, fn. 357 KUB 30.10 obv. 24′–28′ .................................................... 244 rev. 4 ...................................................................68 KUB 30.11+ obv. 1′–8′, 1″–16″ .................................... 207–18 obv. 17″–19″ ................................................... 229 KUB 30.13(+) ................................................ 338–44 KUB 31.101 25′ ....................................................... 115, fn. 388 KUB 31.123 + FHL 3 rev. 1′–2′ ............................................................84 KUB 31.127+ i 1–48 ......................................................... 207–18 i 49–51 ........................................................... 229f. i 56–57 ............................................................. 230 ii 50–58 .......................................................... 244f. KUB 31.134 (+) KUB 31.129 i 1′–8′, 1″–12″ ........................................... 207–18 KUB 33.1+ ii 12′–13′ .......................................................... 177 KUB 33.9 iii 10′–11′............................................. 97, fn. 314 KUB 33.21+ iii 16′–19′......................................................... 177

447

KUB 34.42 ........................................................... 98f. KUB 33.62 ii 7′–10′ .............................................................272 KUB 36.75+ i 1′–18′, ii 1′–7′ ........................................ 207–18 KUB 36.80 ..................................................... 348–69 obv. 1–3 ......................................................... 156f. obv. 3–13 .......................................... 162–65, 167 obv. 7 ................................................. 167, fn. 533 obv. 9 ................................................. 167, fn. 533 rev. 2′–7′ ............................................................87 KUB 36.81 i 1′–5′ ................................................ 162–65, 167 i 3′–5′ ................................................................170 i 6′– 20′ ...................................................... 181–86 KUB 36.89 rev. 54′ ..............................................................273 rev. 60′–61′ ......................................................273 KUB 36.91+ rev. 16–17 ......................................... 101, fn. 336 KUB 48.107+ iv 3′–5′ ................................................................84 KUB 51.50 iii? 14′ ................................................................369 KUB 57.60 ii 11′ ..................................................... 47, fn. 175 ii 22′ ..................................................... 47, fn. 176 KUB 57.63 ii 32....................................................... 47, fn. 176 iii 8′ .................................................... 252, fn. 820 iii 15′f. .................................................. 47, fn. 174 ii 16f. .................................................... 47, fn. 175 iii 21′–25′ ............................................ 47, fn. 177 iv 11′–15′............................................................84 KUB 57.79 iv 31–33 ............................................................276 KUB 60.156 rev. 1′–3′ ..........................................................252 rev. 5′–6′ ..........................................................253 rev. 12′–13′ ....................................... 101, fn. 336 Privat 35............................................................ 394f. VBoT 121(+) ................................................. 338–44 VSNF 12.7 iv 16–20 ............................................................271

© 2022, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11949-8 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39359-1