The Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur [12]

Citation preview

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA CUNEIFORM TEXTS VOLUME XII

BARUCH

OTTERVANGER

The Tale of

HE NEO—ASSYRIAN TEXT CORPUS PROJECT

l

-'

«.mu~4.l _n-r,

«-ln.

“4.”

l. ».47

w.

» -

l]1 l 3

Cover Illustration:

Man with the royal diadem carrying a mountain goat and holding a lotus or poppy in his right hand, followed by the same figure raising his right hand in blessing (cf. lines 34-38). Limestone bas-relief from the throne room of the palace of Sargon II

in Dur-S'arrukin/Khorsabad (A0 19872 and 19870).

C ourtesy De’partement des Antiquites Orientales, Muse'e du Louvre.

)
2“ m H 4 61% 473 1H. .m v m E! >>fi¢ H: M t-Efi T? ta “1 ’1» WHY>II W c7: :5: 51' 8+ «1» 3? m w W $51 :1? 4» 4d: fl :z. :3 ‘17 >26 E3 «1» be aw ii! :23! :E thud W fl 911,112: HEX #1 EH *1 *1 rE~' fix >11 >6 4 fig ha! ,ETtr 11 1 n E :1 tE EB 3‘77? :fi-m-rx :5 >11 an «IE! M «an W M W T? :53 *fl «I»M4 m =E>fi~n>fltw JU'&"I:ITT*»>3YWT§=E3 wwnaaimggga way maize nay first; sis-#31:? mrfiwa Q7 1;»! >++ » CMEUMI «‘mux Hflmfi r» am »+ :5 1 TE»¥+ » East YWW»’rm vflfififlfi r» KW 4m: my 35 BEN“. was: 551* w 5%.;32111 fichHrmxtgrmzt-nfiYIWfi»+m ~+>11dn HE} Y YWW»+*A¢ filtmfi 115 £111?» a} m a»?! "4+ HE! “JRHE $37 :m: T» N KE $4 W H E! -x‘Y :5: >11 gm .s‘ar-be u )uv-rt' llu qu-mn-mul- ru’1 pa-nu-ti-a u [pla-an lab-bi la .s‘ak-na-ku-mu Ia a-rap-pu-ud .5670 Why should [my] cheeks not be hollow. [my face not sunken,] My mood not wretched. my features not wasted. Should there not be sorrow [in] my heart, And my [face] not be like one who has traveled a distant road, [Should not] my face he lburntl by frost and sunshine, And [should I not] roam the wild got up like a lion? (George 2003. 690-691)4

The change from .sv'u'nulii to lummimi may be a decision made by Nabu-rihti-usur, the scribe of ms. A. The fact that the change was applied consistently (cf. 1. 16) supports this impression. Was the scribe influenced by the episode of mourning over Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic? That would suggest a well-developed taste for literature on his part. 12. The particle -ma is added at the end of the first half of the poetic line — which, in this instance. consists of a single word — probably for the sake of a metrical balance. rather than for emphasis (cf. the commentary to l. 3 above). 13. rebi‘t a‘li is an open market place within a city. either a square or a wide street. The noun rebz‘ru (ribi‘tu) has no etymological connection with rebu‘ “one fourth” (CAD R, p. 321a), but rather with Biblical Hebrew re"l,zo‘b “an open plaza” (HALOT, p. 1212b). The 1 sg. prec. form [us‘a’m is derived from .s‘a‘mu “to buy.” However, as pointed out by Noegel, this may be a pun on sawu‘, .s’amu‘ "to roast" (Noegel 1990, p. 174). In his craving for meat, Gimil-Ninurta wants to by a sheep, but the pun also makes him anticipate its cooking. 15. There is a certain irony in the fact that Gimil-Ninurta bought a three year old goat instead of a male sheep which he originally intended to buy. From the fact that he could not afford to buy beer (line 18). one should conclude that he also could not afford the price of a sheep. A three year old goat must have been cheaper and of a lower quality (cf. Milano 1998, p. 116). The number three, introduced here explicitly (after a threefold mention of Gimil-Ninurta’s unchanged clothes in ll. 10, 12, 14). will become instrumental in the further development of the plot. In ms. C, the preserved part of l. 15 ends with the verbal form is'a'mma “he bought” (note the particle -ma, which serves for emphasis or for metrical purposes and does not appear in ms. A). The collocation svulusvt‘ta enza “a three year old goat” probably appeared in ms. C at the end of the line (now broken off). There is enough room for five or six signs in the break. The placement of the verbal form is’a‘m(ma) at the beginning of the second half of the line in ms. C deviates from the standard prose syntax (where a finite verb comes at the end of a clause), and serves to underscore the verbal form. As noted by George (2003, p. 433), such alterations of word order are characteristic of the literary style of Akkadian poetry. The version of ms. A, where the adjective s'ulus‘z‘ta is placed at the beginning of the second half of the line, produces an even more remarkable literary effect: first, the sequence S'ulus'i‘ta isva"m enza creates a better poetic rhythm, and second, it underscores the adjective .s‘ulusvz‘ta “three year old,” which fits the centrality of the number three in the tales plot. It is a pity 4 The same text also appears, in a more fragmentary condition, in the Gilgamesh Epic, Tablet X, ll. 47-52 and 120-125 (George 2003, 680-681, 684-687).

24

COMMENTARY

text 0f the tale — mss. B. C and D — are so fragmentary that Other “messes to the the literary effects of possible differences between further [race cannm mat and ms. A. themwe 17. Like Edgar Allan Poe. who takes the reader away from a “normal” beginning of the story and enters an irreal situation. so does the composer of our tale here. with Gimil-Ninurta telling the reader (or the listener) about his dreams. from which he awakes realizing that they will not materialize. On the modal particle ms'a(ma). signifying assessment of a situation which is theoretically possible but counterfactual. see Wasserrnan 2012. pp. 94-1 14. x The noun gipa‘ru is a loan from Sumerian GL,.PAR, which signified a priestly residence in a temple. In Akkadian. the term acquired an additional meaning "part of a private house” (CAD G. pp. 84a-b. s.v. gipa‘ru, 2). In this instance. the reference is probably to a space within Gimil-Ninurta’s private house (as can be seen from the l sg. possessive suffix in gipa'riya). and the part of a house most suitable for slaughtering a sheep would be the courtyard .5

18. The lack of drinks, especially top quality beer, is obviously critical for Gimil— Ninurta, his friends and family. 19. The repetition of unvoiced sibilants (5”, 5) creates an alliterative effect in this line. s'e"u ba‘bi is a nominal compound meaning “a frequent. regular visitor. close friend.” The l sg. possessive suffix -_\‘a ‘my‘ refers to sve"u ("my close friends”). and not to ba’bu. 20. The second sign in kim-tum "family. kin” can be read r114, but perhaps the final mimation was retained here due to the following vowel: kimrum u salla‘tu. The two kinship terms (translated here as “kin” and “clan”) are synonyms. as can be seen from the fact that both are rendered in Sumerian with a single logogram: IM.RI.A (CAD K. pp. 375b-37b: CAD S. pp. 93a-94b). The noun sal(l)a‘tu means "clan." but it could be also understood as a by-form of another noun, s'illaru “blasphemy. sacrilege, insult” (see CAD S/2, pp. 445a447a). It is possible that we have a pun here. 21. Note the alliteration created by the repetition of syllables beginning with luand bi-. The repetition of the syllable lu- is probably what caused the scribe to write the word for “mayor” as LLihazanni. Elsewhere in the text, the noun hazannu is written with the determinative m. The spelling lul-qz’ (KI) may be a scribal pun. As Gimil-Ninurta has nothing and the mayor everything, perhaps the solution for his problem is to go to the place (KI) of plenty (lulu‘)? Note also that the verbal form lulqi — the prec. of lequ‘ “to take” — is phonetically similar to lullik, the prec. of ala‘ku “to go.” 22. As shown on Gurney’s published hand-copy (STT 38), the last three signs of this line could be read ana kara-rbij. In such a case, Gimil-Ninurta would be going to bless (kara‘bu) the mayor. However, Gurney’s collation of the tablet l resulted in the reading ana kar—rs'i‘-s'u’n “for his belly“ (Gurney 1958. p. 245). One 5 Contra Milano 1998, p. l 17, who understood gipa'ru as “at the same time a sort of storeroom and a kitchen.” In Akkadian. gipa'ru could signify an open space (“pasture, meadow.“ CAD G. p. 84b, s.v. gipa'ru, 3). Hence. it stands to reason that in the context of a private house. gipa'ru could signify a courtyard. Naturally, a courtyard would be a more fitting place for slaughtering an animal than a storeroom or a kitchen.

25

THE POOR MAN OF NIPPUR

should note the parallel with Tablet X of the Gilgamesh Epic. l. 8: ibbas‘si nissalu ina [kar-fl‘i-[s‘u’] “there was sorrow in [his heart]" (George 2003. pp. 678-679). The collocation ana karsvisvu has been understood literally: “what is pleasing and fine for his stomach" by Cooper 1975, p. 170. n. 26. Von Soden, 1990. p. 175. and n. 223, remarked “Lies ana k(1r-§i’-.s"u”, wo"rtlich ‘seinem Inneren‘." but translated “etwas Gutes und Scho‘nes will ich ihm wu”nschen." which suggests an understanding of karS‘u “belly” as metonymy for the mayor’s whole person (compare George’s translation of the Gilgamesh Epic. tablet X, l. 8. cited above). Foster, 2005, p. 931. n. 2, understood kars‘is‘u as “wordplay on ‘his stomach' and ‘his mood’." Noegel, 1996, p. 175, suggested that karsfi‘s‘u “his (the mayor’s) stomach" may be a pun for kar(a).s*f§u, from karas’u‘ “annihilation.” A horizontal dividing line appears in ms. A after 1. 22. Dividing lines appear also after ll. 63 and 71. It is not clear how those lines are related to the content of the tale. From the viewpoint of the development of the plot, the tale certainly has more distinct episodes than might be indicated by the extant dividing lines. In one instance it is possible to suggest that a dividing line marked the transition from one tablet to another in an earlier manuscript copied by the scribe of ms. A (see the commentary to l. 72 below). 24. With regard to the verbal form at the end of the line, one should note the observation made by Gurney with regard to the same text in l. 87: “i-m[g-gi']s has been restored as an incorrect spelling for uttaggis’ (Gilg. X. 5), or possibly itragis‘, ‘wandered’, since no suitable verb primae alep/z presents itself“ (Gurney 1956, p. 160). However, in our view, the verb naga’s’u “to leave, 00 away, wander around, roam” does not fit the character of Gimil-Ninurta. He is not “wandering around“ (which would be the meaning of ittaggis'. a th—stem pret. of naga‘iu). Based on the parallel with l. 87, the sign after 1' must be tag/talc. which suggests the restoration r1'7-[rak-sva] from aka‘svu “to divert, change direction, turn away“ (for this meaning of the verb, see Gabbay 2008). 1‘taks’a is a G-stem perfect form of aka‘svu, the perfect expressing a temporal sequence of actions begun with the pret. itmuha “he seized (the neck of his goat)" in l. 23. 25. The same text is repeated in 11. 65, 110. 1 l9 and 136. The name Tukulti-Enlil (“‘Tukulti‘-dEnlz'1 “My trust is (in) Enlil") fits the religious milieu of Nippur, whose chief deity was Enlil. This name is well attested at Nippur in the Kassite period, l4‘h—l2lh centuries B.C.E. (Ho"lscher 1996. p. 221). The word before isakkar can be read a-ma-tu’, without the final mimation, but the reading a—ma-ram is also possible, because i'c'akkar begins with a vowel (cf. the commentary to l. 20 above). The verbal form z‘rzakkar appears in pres-fut. (lit., “he speaks”), because it introduces direct speech (cf. the commentary to 1. ll). 26. Note the alliteration connecting the two halves of the line: lu‘rubma lu’mura. The verbal form lu‘mura is a G-stem prec. of ama‘ru “to see." It is used here in the sense “to visit” (CAD A/2, pp. l7b-l8a, s.v. ama‘ru A, 2k; and cf. Latin videre). The spelling "‘ha-za-an-na for “mayor” is surprising: it is not clear why a common noun should appear with the personal name determinative "‘. Nonetheless, whenever the noun hazannu is spelled phonetically in the tale, it is preceded by this determinative (with the exception of l. 21, where the determinative LU, signifying profession, is used). Perhaps the determinative m serves to concretize Gimil-Ninurta’s nemesis — that is, to indicate that a specific mayor is involved, even though he is not named. However. when the same

26

COMMENTARY

personage is referred to by the noun laputtu‘ (NU.BAN.DA), he is mentioned without a determinative.

28. be‘lr‘ mar Nippurik': in this line of direct speech, belt" “my Lord” is the mayor (whom the porter addresses), and ma‘r Nippuri “a citizen of Nippur” is GimilNinurta, who is spoken about. In the same phrase in l. 105, the situation is the very opposite: [26‘]? is Gimil-Ninurta (whom the mayor addresses), and ma‘r Nippuri is the mayor, pleading for mercy to himself on the grounds of his status as a citizen of Nippur! This change of roles is one of the highlights of the literary composition of the tale (cf. Cooper 1975, p. 168). 29. The collation by George 1993, p. 75: .s‘ul-man-m’“ rka‘dn-[re-e], excludes other possible readings (like the one proposed by Cooper 1975, p. 170). The noun kadru‘ means “gift, present, offering, bribe” (CAD K, pp. 32b-33b). The noun sfizlma‘nu means both “present, gift” (exchanged between partners of equal status or given by a client to his patron) and “retaining fee, gratuity (presented to officials to ensure their patronage)” (CAD S/3, pp. 245a-247a). In this instance, .iulma'ni kadré is a hendiadys, for which a neutral translation “a welcome present” has been adopted. The porter, speaking to the mayor, understood Gimil—Ninurta’s act of brining a goat to the mayor as a present. In contrast, the mayor understood it as a bribe intended to cover up some mischief on Gimil-Ninurta’s part. Nonetheless, once the mayor had accepted the goat, his refusal to honor the clientpatron relationship created by it was illegitimate (Cooper 1975, p. 168, n. 21; Zgoll 2003, pp. 197—198). 30. The restoration of the broken text in this line follows Gurney 1956, pp. 150151. It fits well with the available space in the break. 31. For minsu “why?” at the beginning of the line, see von Soden 1990, p. 175, n. 31a. At the end of the line, before the logogram KA’ (ba‘bu), there are traces of a, which is here understood as the end of [u-qa-a]-a, similarly to uqa ’ ’a ba‘bka “is waiting at your gate” in l. 28. In both instances, the noun ba‘bu “gate” appears in the adverbial accusative. For the space of three or four signs at the beginning of the break, it seems best to propose KI UZ-s'u’ (im‘ enzisvu), in accordance with l. 29. 32. The third word of the line should be read a-rbzq-ih, for abil, a G-stem participle of (w)aba"lu “to bring, carry.” A reference to “the bringer of the goat” takes the reader or the listener back to 1. 21, in which Gimil—Ninurta’s original plan is introduced. The rest of 1.32 is restored based on the narrative logic and the context. The use of the sign DIS with the value i14 (also in 1. 78) is characteristic

of Neo—Assyrian and Neo—Babylonian orthography (see von Soden and Ro”llig 1976, no. 276). 33. For the idiom ullus. libbi “joy, swelling (of heart)” (from ele‘sw “to swell, rejoice”), see CAD U-W, pp. 85a—b. This idiom points out Gimil-Ninurta’s excitement when he was brought to the mayor — an excitement soon to be reversed. ‘ At the end of the break, the restoration [ina ma]— rhar1 laputrf (NU.BAN.DA) is the one that fits best the context. The remaining part of the break has room for 3-5 signs, which are here restored as ib-ba-bil (ibbabil “he was brought,” N-stem pret. of (w)aba‘lu “to bring”).

27

THE POOR MAN OF NlPPUR

34. In the damaged part of the line, restored here as "'ha-za-an-n[i Nippuri (NIBRU)"" ina] rye-re-bil-svu’, the preposition ina “in, at” was most likely written as a single sign (AS). Otherwise, the space available in the break would not suffice to include the text. 35. Gimil—Ninurta held the goat by its neck with his left hand, because he used his right hand to bless the mayor (l. 36). The mayor, however, mistook GimilNinurta’s gesture as an indication that he was bringing a bribe to cover up some mischief on his part (1. 40). Gordon (1960, p. 140 and n. 138) remarked that this episode brings to mind a Sumerian proverb: a’-zi—da-zu ma’sv he’-da-ga’l gu‘b-bu-zu kadra he’-daga’l “Let a goat be carried in your right arm, (but) let a bribe be carried in your left!” N0 Akkadian translation of this specific proverb has survived. But as pointed out in the Introduction, there is evidence that Sumerian proverbs were translated into Akkadian and studied in scribal schools in the first millennium B.C.E. Hence, the anonymous composer of the Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur could be familiar with the relevant proverb in an Akkadian version, which would explain the allusion to it in the setting of the episode of the mayor’s mistreatment of Gimil-Ninurta.

36. The second sign in the line is clearly tu rather than [1' (note the absence of Winkelhaken before the final vertical). Thus, it is difficult to accept the reading ulli’ proposed by von Soden 1990, p. 176, n. 36a. Rather, what we have here is probably the subordinating conjunction ultu, used in a causal sense: “since, because” (explaining why Gimil—Ninurta held the goat in his left hand). For the use of the right hand for blessing. see Gurney 1956, p. 159, n. 36; Landsberger

1928,p.296.

37. In this line, the god Enlil and his city Nippur (spelled EN.LIL.KI) are both and invoked to give their blessing. For the restoration [ana] after likrubu‘ “may they bless,” cf. von Soden 1990, p. 176, n. 37a. Here and in the preceding line, the sign ana has to be restored, because the vertical wedge preceding ha-za-an-m’ is the personal name determinative, used with the noun hazamm “mayor” throughout the tale. The use of kara‘bu “to bless” with an object introduced by arm is not an Aramaism, as it is attested already in Old Babylonian letters (see CAD K, pp. 193a-b, s.v. kara‘bu, la).

38. For the reading [d]MASV" “Ninurta” at the beginning of the line, see the

collation of Gurney 1958, p. 245 (reprinted in 57711, p. 23). The reading [pi]-ri"-i "'-§'u"' “his [offlspring” at the end of the line is based on the collation of George 1993, p. 75. 40. Although kadru‘ can have the neutral meaning “gift, present,” beside the negative meaning “bribe” (see the commentary to l. 29 above), the mayor’s question mz‘nu hibiltaka “what is your wrongdoing?” points to a negative interpretation. The mayor’s question must have sounded as a “cold shower” for Gimil— Ninurta, bringing a sudden end to his joyous mood. 41. The reading It’s-risfl-s'u’ assumes the noun Iisz‘tu, a Standard Babylonian byform of s'isz‘tu “shout, cry” (for the use of svisz‘tu with reference to a cry of distress or complaint, see CAD 8/3, p. 123b, s.v. svisz‘tu A, 1b). The readings ur-ta"-s“u’, from wui’urru “commission, instruction, charge” (Saporetti 1985, p. 102; Livingstone 1987, p. 40; Noegel 1996, p. 83), and ur-sVaE-svu’ “his desire" (von Soden 1990, p. 176), are also possible. However, those readings fit less the

28

COMMENTARY

context, where a stress is made on the acuteness of Gimil—Ninurta’s plight which he reported to the mayor. Gimil-Ninurta’s attempt to explain to the mayor that he did nothing wrong only makes his situation worse.

42. In 11. 42-50, Gimil—Ninurta recounts to the mayor his situation, which has been already presented in 11. 9-21. Gimil-Ninurta’s detailed re-statement of his wish to have a party, with a special stress on the inability to do so for a lack of beer, would curry no favor with the mayor: since Gimil-Ninurta was unable to provide a decent party for his family and friends, he could not be expected to deliver a decent present to the mayor either. One might imagine the mayor listening to Gimil-Ninurta’s story with a growing irritation and anger. The mayor would be justified to turn down Gimil-Ninurta’s implicit request for financial assistance. It was the mayor’s seizure of the goat, while making mockery of the ensuing duty to return a favor to the petitioner, which brought upon him the deserved revenge (for the duty of “vertical” reciprocity between a person of authority and his subordinate, see Milano 1998: 118-1 19; Zgoll 2003: 197—198). In the last word of the line, which should be salla'ku (1 sg. stat. of sala'lu “to lie asleep”), the scribe mistakenly omitted the sign la. 43. The spelling su—ba-te-ia (with the genitive case ending -e rather than -i) is an Assyrianism; cf. 1. 14.

44. The fact that Gimil-Ninurta tells to the mayor about his purchase of a three year old goat testifies to his honesty, as well as to his naivete’. However, for the mayor. being offered an animal of a poor quality is an insult. 45. The restoration ana (DISV) at the beginning of the line is due to the lack of space in the break for the full syllabic spelling a-na. 45-50. Here follows “a story within a story.” Gimil-Ninurta tells the mayor literally what he deliberated in his mind (cf. ll. 16—21). However, the repetition has some minor variants — e.g., 1. 50 uses the noun laputru” “chief” (in a logographic spelling, partly restored: [NU.BA]N.DA), instead of hazannu “mayor” in l. 21. The audience, in contrast to Gimil-Ninurta, now clearly expects the mayor to act in his growing anger. 47. Read a—le (not a-li) for alé “where?”,' cf. a-le-e in 1. 18.

51. The sign before SVA\-bi—ia appears on Gurney’s hand-copy as MASV. In a published collation, Gurney suggested to read SUR" (Gurney 1958, p. 245; reprinted in STT II, p. 23). This logogram would render ezzu “furious, angry”. But the sign SVU’R includes many more wages than MAS (which is just a horizontal wedge crossed by a vertical wedge); and the syntax requires a preposition. It seems that the scribe simply wrote ina “in” (a horizontal wedge), and then tried to correct it into a vertical wedge representing arm “to” (as originally proposed by Gurney 1956, p. 152, n. 1). Since the correction was not carried out to the end — the horizontal wedge was not erased — the reading ina" is retained here. 52. A collation published by George 1993, p. 75, shows what might be poorly visible traces of a wedge after the break and before ni". Those possible traces can hardly count as a distinct part of a sign; it is here proposed to restore the missing sign as uz, for [u;]m‘ “[ea]rs.” The available space at the beginning of the break is

29

THE POOR MAN OF NIPPUR

rather narrow, but can accommodate the logogram NU.BA\N.DA (for laputtu‘ “chief”). The final word of the line, mu‘s‘is‘ “at night." belongs to the clause which occupies the next line and contains the mayor‘s direct speech to the butcher. The continuation of a clause from one poetic line to the next is known as enjambment. 53-56. These lines are too poorly preserved to provide a continuous transliteration or translation. Nonetheless, some possibilities are offered in the following. 53. It is possible to restore this line as [a-di mu-uq-qu s11 kad-r]u"’-u lu-u sub-tum “[As soon as he is tired,] let [the brilbe be seized." An order to seize GimilNinurta’s goat is what one logically expects here, but the adjective sjabtum “seized” at the end of the line is masculine, whereas enzu “goat” is feminine. Apparently, the goat brought by Gimil—Ninurta was designated here by some other term. The final u preserved after the break suggests the term kadru‘ “gift, present, bribe," although the traces of the preceding sign do not easily fit ru. The mayor would still consider the goat as a bribe (see the commentary to l. 40 above). The restoration adi muqqu svu' “as soon as he is tired” at the beginning of the line is purely conjectural. 54. In the second half of the line, lu .t[uh-hu]—ua’ GISV.BANSVUR “let the table b[e made abun]dant” is established by the collation of George 1993, p. 75. It is difficult to suggest a specific restoration for the first half of the line. 55. li-sa-a ’-lu at the end of the line is, most likely, a 3 m. pl. prec. of sva‘lu “to ask.” The sign sa would then reflect the consonant shift -s“t- > -ss-, characteristic of the Neo—Assyrian dialect (see Ha"meen-Anttila 2000: 22). This indicates that the verb sVaAlu appears in the Gt-stem (“to deliberate, take counsel, question, interrogate”) or in the th—stem (“to make inquiries, interrogate”). A translation “let them interrogate” seems likely. One is inclined to read the preceding signs as [ina] |_E,°‘_'.KUR.RA-rmaj “in the Ekur temple (of Nipp/ur)?’ However, the traces of a sign preserved just after the break do not easily fit E. For the beginning of the line, no specific reconstruction can be proposed. 56. rilj-si-rma1 at the end of the line is a G-stem pret. of svasu‘ “to call, shout, proclaim.” Apparently, the mayor calls to someone; compare the Gilgamesh Epic, Tablet VII, 11. 261—262: “Enkidu [rose] from his bed and called (il—si-ma) Gilgamesh” (George 2003, pp. 646—647). ‘ Whom did the mayor call? It is possible to restore [laputtu‘ (NU.BAN.DA) tappi-i Imp-ta]— |—m'" 'lj-szlrmaj “[The chief] called [to the dinn]er-[companions].” This, admittedly conjectural, restoration suggests that in l. 56, the scene shifts from the mayor’s instructions to the cook about preparing Gimil-Ninurta’s goat for a dinner to the dinner itself — a shift which is corroborated by 11. 58-60. The mayor’s seizure of Gimil—Ninurta’s goat is one of the pivotal moments of the tale. Although the text of 11. 53-56 is heavily damaged, it appears that the act of seizure is not narrated explicitly, but only the mayor’s command to the cook to seize the goat is presented (1. 53). Like in many good stories and movies, the plot shifts suddenly, leaving it to the audience’s imagination to fill in the gaps. As observed by Shifra and Klein 1996, 622, n. 3, a partial parallel to our tale appears in the Hebrew Bible, in the famous parable of the poor man’s ewe told by

the prophet Nathan to King David (2 Sam. 12: 1-7):

30

COMMENTARY

sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, ‘There were And the Lord city. one I'lCh and the other poor. The rich man had very many two men in a certain flocks and herds: but the poor ‘man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meagre fare. and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveller to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.‘ Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, ‘As the Lord lives. the man who has done this deserves to die; he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing. and because he had no pity.’ Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man." (NRSV)

However, there are major differences between the two stories. First, in the biblical parable, the poor man did not come with any request to the rich man, who simply seized the poor man’s only ewe to feed his guest. The person to whom the parable alludes — King David —seized the wife of Uriah the Hittite without any request being presented to him on Uriah’s part. Second, David was to be punished by God for his wrongdoing, whereas in our tale, Gimil-Ninurta uses his own wit to punish the mayor.

57. This line is totally broken. However, the following lines (11. 58-60) apparently contain a direct speech of the mayor, which ends with an instruction to lead Gimil-Ninurta out to the gate. Hence, it stands to reason that the speech is addressed to the porter, and the content of 1. 57 can be restored on the basis of l. 65. serving as alabastron, libation jar and 59. For kukkubu “a small container drinking flask,” see CAD K, pp. 499a—500a. The sign which expressed the possessive suffix appended to this noun is largely lost in the break, and different options have been proposed for its restoration. CAD K, p. 499b, s.v. kukkubu, i, restored ina ku-uk-ku-bi-k[a] “from yo[ur] flask.” This restoration has been followed, e.g., by Cooper 1975, p. 17]; von Soden 1990, p. 176; Foster 2005, p. 932. In a later volume of the CAD, a different restoration was proposed: ina kukkubz's'[u] “in h[is] flask” (CAD S/l , p. 287a, s.v. svalusvtu A, 1c). This restoration has the advantage of fitting the description of the execution of the mayor’s order by the porter in 1. 63. However, as Gimil—Ninurta did not have any possessions left, he would have no flask as well. Hence, it is tempting to suggest that the mayor orders the porter to pour beer for Gimil-Ninurta in his (the mayor’s) own flask. Thus, we propose to read ina ku-uk-ku—bi-i[a] “(Give him to drink) from m[y] flask.” V At the end of the line, one should probably restore [svikar (KAS) s“]a-lul-te (the logographic spelling KAS for svikaru, s'ikru “beer” is due to the limitations of space in the break). According to the lexical series urS-ra = hubullu, Tablet XXIII, Sumerian kas'.nig.III.tab.ba equals Akkadian s'i-kar Syd-lul—ri (Reiner 1974, p. 71, fragment f, col. ii, 1. 15‘). Since the Sumerian collocation includes the verb tab “to twine, double, multiply” (Akkadian ese’pu), it appears that the beer in question was “multiplied” threefold by adding water. In other words, it consisted of onethird beer proper, and two—thirds water (see further Hartman and Oppenheim 1950, pp. 46—47, nn. 54-55).

31

THE POOR MAN OF NlPPUR

As the reader (or the listener) would recall. Gimil—Ninurta made a big deal of beer, and decided not to give a banquet for his family and friends due to the lack of it. Now, Gimil-Ninurta is so frustrated by the insult of the mayor, who diluted the beer by three, that it causes him to take a threefold revenge on the mayor. He makes this point explicitly to the mayor in 11. 67—68: “For the single offence, which you in[fli]cted on me, I, for one, will pay you back a threefold compensation.” Gimil—Ninurta makes it clear to the mayor that he understood his

insult precisely. 60. The broken part/of the line is quite narrow. The collation by George (1993), p. 75: an[a" SA-b]i" KA fits well the available space. 61-63. In these lines. the mayor‘s instruction, given immediately before, is carried out by the porter. The broken parts of the text can be restored on the basis of 11.

58-60. 62. Who is the referent of the suffixed pronoun -.sv'u in the form kukkubislu]? Elsewhere in 11. 61-62, the suffix -svu(m) refers to Gimil-Ninurta (iddim‘umma, iquz'suma). However, if a drinking vessel of the mayor himself was intended (see the commentary to l. 59 above), then it might be significant that the Sign after bi is s’[u’] (according to the collation of George 1993, p. 75), as distinct from the sign sit in iqui'svuma, where the suffixed pronoun -.s“'u refers to Gimil-Ninurta. 63. The simplest understanding of ulte‘si[svu] is as a perfect of the causative VSV-stem of (w)a_su” “to go out” — hence the translation “showed [him out]” (cf. the S-stem vimperative svu‘slz'svu “show him out” in l. 60). However, (w)asu‘ has also a reciprocal St—stem: svute‘su‘ “to fight with one another” (CAD A/2, p. 383a-b. s.v. asu‘, 11). A

pun on this meaning may be intended here. 64. The verb (w)as.u‘ is used here with ba’bu (KA’) “gate” as a direct object (for the syntax of (w)as_u‘, see GAG §143c). Gimil—Ninurta makes his statement when

going out of the mayor’s residence. 66. For the reading talil-da-ar ila‘m' “greetings of the gods” in this line (as well as in 11. 111 and 137), see von Soden 1990. p. 176, n. 66a. The noun tahda‘tu is plum/e tantum. The use of rahda‘tu here is certainly ironic, as Gimil—Ninurta has no reason to wish the mayor anything good. One might compare the proverb: stahu‘ tahda‘r[u§]u nigirri Samasv “A pig [i]ts greetings are an abomination for Samasv (Lambert 1960, p. 215, iii 16; for the reading see CAD T, p. 48b, s.v. *tahdz‘tu). Cooper 1975, p. 168, noted that taha’a‘tu is used here ironically but interpreted it as “abundance,” with reference to the abundance of beatings (three) which the mayor would later receive at the hands of Gimil—Ninuna. Indeed, Gimil-Ninurta’s wish of tahda‘t ila‘m' for the mayor precedes each of the three episodes, in which he comes up with another ingenious plan to inflict a beating on the mayor (11. 66. 111 and 137).

67. This and the following lines are repeated four times in the tale (1]. 67-68, 1 12113, 138—139 and 157-158), with numerical variation in the number of the acts of retribution already accomplished. At this point, no act of retribution has been accomplished yet; in the last episode, the number reaches three. The noun expressing the direct object of the verbal form re‘mz'danm' was earlier understood as biltu “load, charge” (Gurney 1956, pp. 152-153; Cooper 1975, p. 171). This understanding seems to have been partly grounded in the existence of the idiom bilra eme‘du “to impose tribute” (CAD E, p. 142a, s.v. eme‘du, 3c). However. as has been shown convincingly by Moran 1991, pp. 327-328, the noun in this line should be understood as piltu, a by—form of pisvtu “insult, offence."

COMMENTARY

Nonetheless, pilta eme‘du seems to be a pun on bilta eme‘du, hinting at GimilNinurta's goat as an unjustly exacted tribute (cf. Noegel 1996, pp. 173-174). The word-play in this line has been so successful that it kept modern scholars busy for half a century!

68. The three acts of retribution to be carried out by Gimil-Ninurta against the

mayor correspond to the fact that the poor-quality beer the mayor gave him was diluted by three.

69. The mayor laughs, assuming that Gimil-Ninurta is powerless to harm him. Of course. he will be soon proven wrong. This is the turning point of the plot, and from here on, Gimil-Ninurta takes the initiative. As the story develops, the reader or the listener might look back with a smile at the mayor’s initial self-confidence. 70. The noun malku began to be used with reference to a Mesopotamian king, in the core territory of Mesopotamia, only at the very end of the second millennium B.C.E. — see the reference to LKA 64, a heroic poem about Ashurnasirpal I (10491031 B.C.E.), in CAD M/l, p. 168a, s.v. malku A, c. In the first millennium B.C.E.. the use of this noun — apparently of a West Semitic origin — with reference to Mesopotamian rulers became more widespread. The older Akkadian noun for “king.” svarru, does not appear in a syllabic spelling in the tale. However, it seems likely that the logograms LUGAL (ll. 71, 90) and MAN (11. 74-75) were read as svarru. 71. Previous translators of this line understood .te‘mi .sv'arri as a genitive compound (see. e.g.. Gurney 1956, p. 153; Cooper 1975, p. 171; von Soden 1990, p. 176; Foster 2005. p. 933). However, in the construct state, one would expect ,te'm rather than re‘mi. Moreover, Gimil—Ninurta turns to the king himself for justice, and hence, identifying the person who should render judgment as “the king, prince and governor” makes more sense than just “prince and governor” acting on the orders of the king (ina t_e‘nz(i) sari-i). Therefore. it seems better to understand ina ,te‘mi as a self-standing adverbial phrase, "by reason” (cf. CAD T, pp. 94b-96b, s.v. _te'mu,5). The statement “By reason the king, prince and governor should render a judgment of truth.” is not intrinsically connected to the sequence of GimilNinurta’s actions. It might be understood as a statement of the hope of the wronged Nippurite. However, eventually, Gimil-Ninurta obtains his wish from the king without the latter showing any interest in the substance of the case at hand (11. 79-80). The superficially loyal statement about the reasonable judgment

of the king, prince and governor turns out to be a satirical sting as the plot develops. 72. This line of the text appears at the top of the first fragment of ms. B (STT 39, obv.). In ms. A, it is preceded by a horizontal dividing line. It is attractive to suggest that Nabu—rihti—usur, the scribe of ms. A, copied his text from an earlier multi-tablet exemplar, in which I. 72 began a new tablet. However, ms. B was probably not the source from which ms. A was copied (see the commentary on 11. 75 and 78 below). From this point on, Gimil-Ninurta neither passively suffers his condition nor puts himself any longer at the will of a higher authority, but takes a clever and determined action to take revenge on his wrongdoer. This is an important change in Gimil-Ninurta‘s attitude and a psychological development in his character.

’l‘l’lli l’()()R MAN ()l“ Nll’l’llR

73. The reading u.s"-l