Sumerian Hymns
from
Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum
Frederick Augustus Vanderburgh
Note
The so-called “Sumerian Question” as to the genuine linguistic character
of the ancient Non-Semitic Babylonian texts has agitated the
Assyriological world for more than twenty years. The new Sumerian matter
from the monuments which is constantly coming to hand demands, in the
interest of all those who can look upon this discussion with impartial
eyes, a most rigid and unprejudiced examination. Dr. Vanderburgh in the
following monograph has adhered to the views expounded in my “Materials
for a Sumerian Lexicon” (J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1905-1907),
that the so-called Sumerian was originally a Non-Semitic agglutinative
language which, in the course of many centuries of Semitic influences,
became so incrusted with Semiticisms, most of them the result of a very
gradual development of the earlier foreign sacred speech of the priests,
that it is really not surprising to find the theory that Sumerian was
merely a Semitic cryptography set forth and vigorously upheld by so
eminent a scholar as Professor Halévy (MSL., pp. VIII, IX).
The study of the more ancient Non-Semitic texts, more particularly of
the Sumerian unilingual hymns, cannot fail to shed additional light on
the nature of this peculiar idiom, besides furnishing a valuable
addition to the study of the Babylonian religious system.
The texts of the hymns in Vol. XV. of the Brit. Mus. Cun. Texts are not
always in good condition and present many difficulties, a solution of
some of which, it is hoped, has been suggested in this work with at
least approximate correctness.
John Dyneley Prince
Columbia University
October 1st, 1907
To the
Rev. Edward Judson, D. D.,
in recognition of his friendship to the author
and of his interest in Oriental studies
Preface
Vol. XV. of the “Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British
Museum, printed by order of the Trustees”, was published in 1902. Plates
7-30 of this valuable volume contain hymns addressed to Bêl, Nergal,
Adad, Sin, Tammuz, Bau and Ningirgilu. Of these, besides the
translations given in the present work, the following have been
translated and commented on; viz., J. Dyneley Prince, Jour. Amer. Or.
Soc., xxviii, pp. 168-182, a hymn to Nergal (Pl. 14); and a hymn to Sin
(also rendered and explained in this thesis) by E. Guthrie Perry, in
_Hymnen und Gebete an Sin_ (Pl. 17). In press at present are also
translations by J. D. Prince, a hymn to Bau, Vol. XV. Pl. 22 in the
Harper Memorial Volume (Chicago); and, by the same author, a hymn to
Ningirgilu, Vol. XV. Pl. 23, in the Paul Haupt Collection to appear in
1908.
All these hymns in Plates 7-30 stand by themselves as distinct from
anything hitherto published. They are unilingual, a fact indicating that
they are very ancient and furthermore adding materially to the
difficulty of their translation. This Thesis ventures a transliteration,
translation and commentary of four of the hymns which are peculiarly
difficult owing to their unilingual Non-Semitic character. Of the
history of the tablets in question, which are all in the Old Babylonian
character, we have no information. They must tell their own story.
The writer of this Thesis wishes to acknowledge with much appreciation
the aid given him by Dr. John Dyneley Prince, Professor of Semitic
Languages in Columbia University, in the preparation of this work.
New York, Oct. 1st, 1907
F. A. Vanderburgh
List of Abbreviations
AL: Assyrische Lesestücke, von Friedrich Delitzsch. Vierte
durchaus neu bearbeitete Auflage.
ASK: Akkadische and Sumerische Keilschrifttexte, von Paul Haupt.
BN: Das Babylonische Nimrodepos, von Paul Haupt.
Br: A Classified List of Cuneiform Ideograms, Compiled by Rudolph
E. Brünnow.
CDAL.: A Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, by William
Muss-Arnolt.
CḤ: The Code of Ḥammurabi, King of Babylon, by Robert Francis
Harper.
Cler: Collection de Clercq. Catalogue. Antiquités Assyriennes.
CT: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum.
Déc: Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarzec.
EBH: Early Babylonian History, by Hugo Radau.
EBL: Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th Century, by H. V.
Hilprecht.
HBA: A History of Babylonia and Assyria, by R. W. Rogers.
HW: Assyrisches Handwörterbuch, von Friedrich Delitzsch.
IG: The Great Cylinder Inscriptions A and B of Gudea, by Ira
Maurice Price.
JA: Journal Asiatique.
JRAS: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
MSL: Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon, by John Dyneley Prince.
N: Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, by
John Punnett Peters.
OBI: Old Babylonian Inscriptions, chiefly from Nippur. By H. V.
Hilprecht.
OBTR: Old Babylonian Temple Records, by Robert Julius Lau.
R: Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, prepared by Sir Henry
Rawlinson.
RAAO: Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale.
RBA: Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, von Morris Jastrow,
Jr.
RSA: Recueil de Signes Archaiques de l’Écriture Cunéiforme, par V.
Scheil.
SSD: Les Signes Sumériens derivés, par Paul Toscanne.
SSO: A Sketch of Semitic Origins, by George Aaron Barton.
SVA: Die Sumerischen Verbal-Afformative nach den ältesten
Keilinschriften, von Vincent Brummer.
TC: Tableau Comparé des Écritures Babylonienne et Assyrienne
Archaiques et Modernes, par A. Amiaud et L. Mechineau.
TEA: Der Tontafelfund von El Amarna, herausgegeben von Hugo
Winckler.
TR: Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana, by Wm. K.
Loftus.
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Chapter I 21
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary, Hymn to Bel
Chapter II 42
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary, Hymn to Sin
Chapter III 55
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary, Hymn to Adad
Chapter IV 70
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary, Hymn to Tammuz
Glossary 81
Introduction
The gods honored in the hymns treated in the following Thesis are Bêl,
Sin (Nannar), Adad (Ramman) and Tammuz, all deities of the old
Babylonian pantheon, representing different phases of personality and
force, conceived of as incorporated in nature and as affecting the
destinies of men. These gods are severally designated in the hymns as
follows:
in Tablet 13963, Rev. 1, “O Bêl of the mountains;”
in Tablet 13930, Obv. 2, “O father Nannar;”
in Tablet 29631, Obv. 10, “O Ramman, king of heaven”; and
in Tablet 29628, Obv. 3, “The lord Tammuz” (CT. XV, 10, 15, 16, 17 and
19).
The attributes and deeds belonging to these divinities are adduced from
a wide range of literature, beginning with the royal inscriptions of the
pre-dynastic periods and ending with the inscriptions of the monarchs of
the later Babylonian empire. In fact, the building inscriptions of the
Babylonians, the war inscriptions of the Assyrians, the legendary
literature, the incantations, as well as the religious collections,
particularly the hymns, afford us many descriptions, of greater or less
length, of all the Babylonian gods.
To aid the student in understanding better the character of the four
gods whose hymns have been translated in the following Thesis, I here
give a brief descriptive sketch of each of the deities whose praises
were sung in the documents which I have chosen to render.
1. _Bêl_
Bêl was the most ancient of all Babylonian gods and was a popular deity
through the historic rise and fall of several Babylonian states, when no
other god received prominent recognition. When En-šag-kušanna, lord of
Kêngi, subdued the city of Kîš in the north of Babylonia, he brought the
spoil of his victory to Bêl. “To Bêl (_En-lil_), king of the lands,
En-šag-kušanna, lord of Kêngi, the spoil of Kîš, wicked of heart, he
presented.”[1] Urukagina, king of Lagaš, built a temple to Ningirsu, the
god of Girsu, but he, in honoring Ningirsu as the hero of Bêl, was
really honoring Bêl. “For Ningirsu, the hero of Bêl, Urukagina, king of
Širpurla, his house he built.”[2] Eannatum, who was patesi of Lagaš and
made himself king of Kîš, calls himself the chosen of Bêl, as follows:
“Eannatum, patesi of Širpurla, chosen of Bêl.”[3] Entemena, who is
called in the Vase of Silver, “son of Enanatum”,[4] and who probably was
the nephew of Eannatum, introduces his fine Cone Inscription with these
words: “Bêl, king of the lands, father of the gods.”[5] He also claims
in the same inscription to derive the right to reign from Bêl:
“Entemena, patesi of Širpurla, to whom a sceptre is given by Bêl.”[6]
Entemena’s Cone also gives us information about Mesilim. It speaks of
Mesilim as “king of Kîš.”[7] In describing the victory of Mesilim over
the Gišbanites, a people located apparently not very far from Kîš,
Entemena tells us that the victory was effected by the command of Bêl.
“Upon the command of Bêl a scourge he (Mesilim) brought over them (the
Gišbanites); the dead in a field of the land he buried.”[8] For map
showing supposed location of Gišban, see SSO. p. 158. Lugalzaggisi, a
usurper from the north, making himself master of the world in all
directions and setting up a throne at Erech, in his inscription of 132
lines, freely recognizes the favor of Bêl. “Bêl, king of the lands, to
Lugalzaggisi, king of Erech, the kingship of the world did give.”[9] In
this period preceding Sargon I., Šamaš seems to have a distinct place in
the religious world, but he does not receive the attention that Bêl
receives. He is particularly mentioned in one inscription; viz., in the
_Stèle des Vautours_, where he is spoken of as “Šamaš, the king who
dispenses splendour.”[10]
The date of these early Babylonian rulers, of course, is, as yet, not
accurately determined. The relative age of each is made out chiefly from
palaeographic evidences (see EBH. p. 8, for example), supplemented with
the attempt at fitting into one harmonious whole the events which the
inscriptions of these rulers divulge. Then the whole schedule is crowded
backward or forward or internally changed from time to time as new
evidence is gathered for or against the testimony of Nabonidus (555-538
B. C.) who, when he discovered the tablet of Narâm-Sin, declared that he
was gazing on that which no eyes had beheld for thirty-two hundred
years. Nabonidus says: “I dug to a depth of eighteen cubits, and the
foundation of Narâm-Sin, the son of Sargon, which for thirty-two hundred
years no king that had preceded me had discovered, Šamaš, the great Lord
of E-barra, permitted me, even me, to behold.”[11] On the supposed
relation of these kings to Narâm-Sin, the rulers En-šag-kušanna, a king
of the south, Urukagina, of Lagaš, and Mesilim, a king ruling at Kîš,
are placed along about the date of 4500 B. C., while Eannatum, Enannatum
and Entemena, successive rulers at Lagaš, are placed near the date of
4200 B. C. Lugalzaggisi of Erech is placed at 4000 B. C. It may be
stated here that the date of Sargon I. as 3800 B. C. is obtained by
adding to 3200 the date of the reign of Nabonidus as 550 years B. C. and
also the length of the reign of Sargon I. as 50 years.
The seat of Bêl’s cult was Nippur, a city lying between the Euphrates
and Tigris, a little below Babylon, and located, as it were, in the
midway favorable to receiving homage from kings of either the north or
the south of Babylonia. We find it mentioned as early as the time of
Entemena, who in one of his inscriptions, in speaking of something
presented to Bêl, says: “To Bêl of Nippur by Entemena it was
presented”.[12] In the bilingual legend of the Creation, Nippur seems to
be regarded as a very old city. It is placed at the head of the list of
three that are mentioned as ancient cities of Babylonia. “Nippur was not
made; E-kur was not built. Erech was not made; E-anna was not built. The
abyss was not made; Eridu was not built.”[13] Nippur evidently is older
than the worship of Bêl and the conception of Bêl is older than the
first king of whom we have mention; viz., En-šag-kušanna, who is placed
at 4500 B. C.
At Nippur was located Bêl’s great temple which was commonly called
E-kur, house of the mountain, a name particularly descriptive of the
shrine of Bêl resting on the top of the mountain-like _ziggurrat_.
Sargon I. calls himself the builder of Bêl’s temple at Nippur, and
Narâm-Sin, the son of Sargon, also calls himself the builder of Bêl’s
temple. Sargon’s language, which we take from a door-socket found at
Nippur, is: “Šargani-šar-âli, son of Itti-Bêl, the mighty king of Agade,
builder of E-kur, temple of Bêl in Nippur”.[14] The language of
Narâm-Sin from a brick stamp found at Nippur is: “Narâm-Sin, builder of
the temple of Bêl”.[15] Neither Sargon nor his son meant that he was the
original builder of E-kur. They were simply repairers of the temple,
like many other kings. Many kings down to the last king of the last
empire took much pride in rebuilding temples. There must have been a
temple at Nippur when En-šag-kušanna presented the spoil of Kîš to Bêl.
Excavations at Nippur show that, as there are great deposits of debris
above the temple pavements made by Sargon and his son, so beneath these
pavements there is a further great layer of debris, proving that the
founding of E-kur must reach far back into the darkness of pre-historic
antiquity. Sargon’s bricks were the first to bear a stamp which we may
consider to imply a date, but they were not the first bricks laid.
The _ziggurrat_ which Ur-Gur, an early king of Ur, built is the first of
which we have definite knowledge. We know something of the pavement that
Sargon I. and Narâm-Sin built, but of the character of the buildings
that might have rested on this pavement we have no information. Ur-Gur
leveled the ground and built a new platform, 8 feet high and 100 by 170
feet in area with a _ziggurrat_ consisting of three stages. Some of the
facings of his structure were made of burnt brick, bearing the
inscription of Ur-Gur (see N. II, 124). The greatest temple Nippur ever
had was built by an Assyrian king; viz., Ašurbânipal. The structure
covered a larger surface than any before it. The walls, instead of being
plain, were ornamented with square half columns. The lower terrace was
faced with baked brick, stamped with an inscription in which the
_ziggurrat_ is dedicated to Bêl, the lord of the lands, by Ašurbânipal,
the mighty king, the king of the four quarters of the earth, the builder
of E-kur (see N. II, 126).
E-kur, the temple of Bêl at Nippur, as restored on the basis of the
discoveries of the University of Pennsylvania Exploration Fund, consists
of two courts, an outer and an inner court. Within the inner court
stands the _ziggurrat_, rising to a tower of three or four stages which
the most devout pilgrims might perhaps ascend. At the top is an enclosed
shrine in which is a statue of Bêl. Here Bêl and his consort, Bêlit, for
Babylonian gods maintain family relations like human beings, are
supposed to dwell. In figurines Bêl appears as an old man, dressed in
royal robes, generally carrying a thunder-bolt in his hand (see N. II,
128). By the side of the _ziggurrat_ stands a temple for the use of the
priests. We may assume on the whole, no doubt, that the assembly of
pilgrims was confined chiefly to the outer court (see EBL. 470).
Bêl was at first a local deity, but as the circumference of the
political territory of which Nippur was the religious centre was
enlarged, so Bêl’s cult was extended. Other cities included in the same
political domain with Nippur, recognized Bêl as lord. Bêl was a sort of
war god. Kings rivaled one another in courting his favor. The victorious
king attributed his success to Bêl and brought the spoil to Bêl. The
king of the south, whether of Lagaš, Erech or Ur, and the king of the
north, whether of Kîš or Agade, always went to Nippur to celebrate his
victory. In this way Bêl’s lordship came to be recognized as extending
over all Babylonia and finally over Assyria. Ḥammurabi, king at Babylon,
2300 B. C., recognized “Bêl as lord of heaven and earth, who determines
the destiny of the land”,[16] and Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1100 B. C.),
the first great Assyrian conqueror, called Bêl “the father of the gods
and Bêl of the lands”,[17] and speaks of himself as “appointed to
dominion over the country of Bêl”.[18]
The Semitic appropriation of En-lil involved some transformation in the
conception of Bêl. Not to refer to Palestine, there were three Bêls; the
Sumerian Bêl, the Semitic Bêl and the new Bêl or Marduk, who, however,
was really a different god. The Babylonian Bêl, either in the mind of
the Sumerian, of the Babylonian or of the Assyrian, always had his seat
at Nippur.
Under Semitic influence Bêl became lord of the world. He was one in the
hierarchy of three who ruled the universe; viz., Anu, the lord of the
heavens, Bêl, the lord of the earth, and Ea, the lord of the deep. The
Sumerian name, En-lil, made Bêl the “lord of fulness”. The Semitic name
Bêl emphasized the fact of his lordship, and the name of his temple,
E-kur, “house of the mountain”, marked out the scope of his lordship.
The earth was conceived of as a mountain resting on the abyss, and the
temple with its _ziggurrat_ was built to rise up like a mountain out of
the deep. The people could stand in the court of the temple at Nippur
and say of the mountain-like structure:
“O great mountain of Bêl, O airy mountain,
Whose summit reaches heaven,
Whose foundation in the shining deep is firmly laid,
On the land like a mighty bull lying,
With gleaming horns like the rays of the rising sun,
Like the stars of heaven that are filled with lustre!”[19]
When Babylon became the chief city of all Babylonia, it was natural that
its god should be regarded as supreme. It was at this point that
political lordship seemed to pass from the old Bêl to the new, namely to
Marduk. Ḥammurabi, one of the early kings at Babylon, speaks of Bêl as
voluntarily transferring his power to Marduk. In the Assyrian legend of
the Creation this transfer is dramatically enacted. The task of
overcoming the monster Tiâmat naturally belonged to Bêl. But Marduk, the
youthful god of Eridu, the son of Ea, was urged to attempt the feat.
When he had slain the monster, there was joy among the gods. They vied
with each other in bestowing honor on the victor. Finally Bêl steps
forward and confers an honor also. He bestowed on Marduk his own title
with these words: “Father Bêl calls Marduk the lord of the world.”[20]
Marduk, therefore, is sometimes called the new Bêl in distinction from
En-lil, the old Bêl.
The idea of origins is apparently not very fully elaborated in
Babylonian literature. For instance, the Babylonians did not come so
near to the idea of creation _ex nihilo_ as the Hebrews. Their cosmogony
starts with chaos. The expanse of the heavens appears specked with
stars, some of which move with regularity. The moon travels across the
expanse according to a prescribed order. Then the Babylonian bilingual
account of the Creation gives a short statement of the creation of the
land and sea, of man and beast. Generally, however, the divinity that
planned and perfected order seems to be far in the background. The
bilingual account says:
“Marduk constructed an enclosure before the waters,
He made dust and heaped it up within the enclosure.
Mankind he created.
Animals of the field, creatures of the field he created.
The Tigris and the Euphrates he made and in place put (them)
By their names joyfully he called them”.[21]
Now Marduk, we know, took the place of Bêl and Bêl handed over his
prerogatives to Marduk. In transferring his rights he must have given
over also his power to create. If Marduk possessed the power to create
in the time of his popularity, Bêl must have had the same power in the
days of his glory, before he was succeeded by Marduk. Therefore we are
led to the belief that the early Babylonians looked upon Bêl as the
creator of animal and human life on earth.
The following hymn may be regarded as embodying a legendary view of Bêl
as creator, while the idea of destruction is also incorporated in the
hymn:
“Of Bêl, mighty hand,
Who lifts up glory and splendour, day of power.
Fearfulness he establishes.
Lord of DUN.PA.UD.DU.A, mighty hand.
Fearfulness he establishes.
Stormy one, father, mother, creator, mighty hand.
The catch-net he throws over the hostile land.
Lord, great warrior, mighty hand.
A firm house he raises up; the enemy he overthrows.
The shining one, lord of Nippur, mighty hand.
The lord, the life of the land, the _massû_ of heaven and earth.”[22]
2. _Sin_
Next after Bêl, the moon-god is worthy of consideration, because of the
age of his cult, and because of the greatness of its influence in
Babylonia. The moon-god had two Sumerian names, two Assyrian names and
two great temples. The Sumerian name most often applied to the moon-god
is Šis-ki, the particular meaning of which in this case does not seem to
be very patent. If the two syllables _Šis_ and _ki_ are taken as nouns,
the one is the construct state and the other in the genitive relation,
the name means “brother of the land”, that is, “protector of the land”,
or “helper of the land”. The other Sumerian name is En-zu, lord of
wisdom, the intellectual attribute of wisdom being closely related to
the physical property of giving light. While therefore Šis-ki expresses
the material relation of the moon to the earth, En-zu seems to state the
intellectual relation of the moon-god to the affairs of the earth. The
first Assyrian name of the moon-god to be considered is Nannar. The
derivation of this name is still in doubt. It generally occurs in
bilingual literature as the Assyrian equivalent of the Sumerian Šis-ki
(see IV R. 9, 3-18). Jastrow thinks that the word Nannar is made by the
reduplication of _nar_, “light”, and the assimilation of the first _r_,
Nar + nar = Nannar (see RBA. p. 72). The other Assyrian name, connected
with the moon-god more often at Harran than at Ur, is Sin, the sign
being EŠ, used also for “thirty”, and is applied to the moon-god as the
deity of the month of thirty days. As the cult of the moon-god traveled
from Ur to Harran, so the name of Sin traveled even into the peninsula
of Arabia and probably became a local name there in the wilderness. The
Assyrian kings of the second empire seemed to prefer to call the
moon-god by the name Sin, but the Semitic Babylonians called him Nannar.
Nannar had a temple at Ur, called E-gišširgal, and one at Harran, known
as E-ḥulḥul. Ur was the oldest of the two temple cities. Its history may
possibly reach back to 4000 B. C. Ur held a position in southern
Babylonia similar to that held by Nippur in northern Babylonia, but was
not so old as Nippur. Ur was the religious centre in the south with
Nannar as the state god, as Nippur was the religious centre in the north
with Bêl as the state god. When the states of the south and the north
were united under Ḥammurabi, Babylon, becoming the religious capital of
the south and the north combined, the state lustre of the god of Babylon
naturally came to dim the glory of the god of Ur as well as that of
Nippur. Harran, situated on the Euphrates in the northern part of
Assyria, never figured in state power, and was prominent only because of
the importance of the events that centered there, on the road between
the east and the west.
Nabonidus, the last Semitic Babylonian king (555-538 B. C.) was an
enthusiastic devotee of the moon-god. He tells us what Ašurbânipal did
to the temple of the moon-god at Mugheir. In speaking of that temple, he
calls it the house of Sin which Ašurbânipal, king of Assyria, son of
Esarhaddon, king of Assyria had built. Nabonidus himself rebuilt both
the temples of the moon-god, the temple of E-gišširgal at Ur and the
temple of E-ḥulḥul at Harran, and he gives us a description of the
rebuilding of both. We also have two prayers of Nabonidus addressed to
the moon-god, one addressed to him at E-gišširgal, the other addressed
to him at E-ḥulḥul (see I R. 68, Col. I, 6 ff. and V R. 64, Col. I, 8
ff.).
The temple ruins of E-gišširgal have been well uncovered. The temple is
of rectangular form, the four corners turned towards the four cardinal
points of the compass. The platform of the base is at the level of the
roofs of the houses, made of solid masonry of bricks and reached by
steps at the end. On the platform are two stagings, also of solid
masonry reached by steps at one end. On the second staging is a shrine
of the moon-god. In sculpture he appears as an old man with long beard
and dressed in royal robes. He wears a hat and in the scene there is
always a thin crescent (see Clercq, Vol. I, Plates X-XV). Loftus and
Taylor both give drawings of the temple of E-gišširgal (see TR. p. 127
and JRAS. XV, p. 260.) The ruins of the temple of the moon-god at Harran
have not yet been uncovered to the extent that the plan of the temple
can be laid before us.
Theologically, Nannar stood at the head of the second triad of gods. The
hierarchy of the universe consisted of the god Anu, the god Bêl and the
god Ea. The hierarchy of heaven consisted of the god Nannar, the god
Šamaš and the god Ištar; that is, the moon-god, the sun-god and the
star-god. The reason for placing Nannar above Šamaš was that Nannar was
the god of the ruling city, while Šamaš was the city god of the
dependent state, though the sun which Šamaš represents is stronger than
the moon which Nannar represents, and we should expect Šamaš, therefore,
to receive the first place. The god of the city of Larsa was Šamaš. The
god of the city of Ur was Nannar. When Larsa became subject to Ur, the
god of Larsa; viz., Šamaš, became the child of the god of Ur; that is,
of Nannar. The relation of the night to the calendar also shows that the
rank of Nannar was superior to that of Šamaš. The day began at evening;
not with the morning. The sun too was the son of the night; that is, it
issued forth from the night, in the morning. Kings, thinking of this
fact, that the sun was born of the night, often addressed Šamaš as the
offspring of the god Sin. The rising of the moon in the night to send
forth its light into the darkness also impressed the Babylonian with the
power of the moon. The waxing and waning of the moon left the same
impression on the Babylonian mind. The regularity of the phases of the
moon and its effect upon the tides as well showed the moon to be an
agent in marking time. Finally, the place of the moon among the stars
also gave him the appearance of having royal sway.
Nannar’s national influence was much like that of Bêl. Geographically,
he represented southern Babylonia, while Bêl was the chief deity of
northern Babylonia. When Marduk became the patron god of Babylon, Bêl
and Nannar still held their positions as patron gods, but in
subordination to Marduk. Besides, they did not lose their influence as
supreme deities, each in his peculiar sphere, Bêl as the god of the
earth and Nannar as the god of the moon. Bêl was ruler of the earth
while Nannar was, by his light, a producer in the earth. Bêl was the
providential director of life on earth, Nannar was the originator of
life on earth, as he formed the child in the womb. Both were superhuman
in power and wisdom. Thus Ḥammurabi: “My words are mighty. If a man pay
no attention to my words, may Bêl, the lord who determines destinies,
whose command cannot be altered, who has enlarged my dominion, drive him
out from his dwelling. May Sin, the lord of heaven, my divine creator,
whose scimetar shines among the gods, take away from him the crown and
throne of sovereignty.”[23]
No god in the mind of the Babylonian had reached the position of
combining in himself all the qualities of divinity. So it did not seem
inconsistent to the Babylonian to worship two gods like Bêl and Nannar,
or more gods. There was a tolerance of all gods; each was considered as
acting in his own circle, and these circles did not necessarily exclude
the one the other. One god might be more important than another,
according to the importance of the circle in which his virtue was
effective, or according to the importance of the political power the
circle of whose sway was under the special tutelage of some particular
god. Babylonian worship cannot be said to be polytheistic in the grosser
form, nor had it reached the higher ideal that lies in monotheism. It
may properly be considered a henotheistic worship in which there is a
pantheon of gods whose local and universal claims did not cause the gods
or their devotees to war the one on the other.
There is a truly great bilingual hymn addressed to Nannar. According to
the colophon it was transcribed by the chief penman of Ašurbânipal from
an old copy. My impression is that it is an enlargement of the hymn to
Nannar of which this Thesis gives a transliteration, translation and
commentary. For this reason I herewith append the following translation:
“O lord, highest of the gods, alone in heaven and earth exalted!
O father Nannar, lord of Anšar, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord Anu the great, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord Sin, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord of Ur, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord of E-gišširgal, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord of the shining crown, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, of most perfect royalty, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, in royal robes marching, highest of the gods!
O strong young bullock, with great horns, of perfect physical
strength, with hazel-colored pointed beard of luxurious
growth and perfect fulness!
O fruit, whose stalk growing of itself reacheth a tall form, beautiful
to look upon, whose perfection never satiateth!
O mother, the producer of life, thou who settest up for the creatures
of life a lofty dwelling!
O merciful and gracious father, thou who holdest in hand the life of
all the land!
O lord, thy divinity, like the distant heavens and the broad sea,
inspireth reverence!
O creator of the lands, founding the temple and giving it a name!
O namer of royalty, determiner of the future for distant days!
O mighty prince, whose distant thought no god can declare!
O thou whose knee bendeth not, opener of the road for the gods thy
brothers!
O thou who goest forth from the foundation of heaven to the height of
heaven, opening the door of heaven, creating light for all
men!
O father, begetter of all, who lookest upon the creatures of life, who
thinkest of them!
O lord, who fixest the destiny of heaven and earth, whose command no
one changeth!
O thou who holdest the fire and the water, who turnest the life of
creation, what god reacheth thy fulness!
Who in heaven is high? Thou alone art high.
Who on earth is high? Thou alone art high.
As for thee, when thy word is spoken in heaven, the Igigi bow down the
face.
As for thee, when thy word is spoken on earth, the Anunaki kiss the
ground.
As for thee, when thy word like the wind resoundeth on high, food and
drink abound.
As for thee, when thy word is established in the land, it causeth
vegetation to grow.
As for thee, thy word maketh fat the herd and flock and increaseth the
creatures of life.
As for thee, thy word secureth truth and righteousness and causeth men
to speak righteousness.
As for thee, thy word extendeth to heaven, it covereth the earth, no
one can comprehend it.
As for thee, thy word, who can understand it, who can approach it!
O lord, in heaven supreme, on earth the leader, among the gods thy
brothers without a rival.
O king of kings, the lofty one, whose command no one approacheth,
whose divinity no god can liken.
Where thy eye looketh thou showest favor, where thy hand toucheth thou
securest salvation.
O lord, the shining one, who directeth truth and righteousness in
heaven and earth and causeth them to go forth.
Look graciously on thy temple, look graciously on thy city.
Look graciously on Ur, look graciously on E-gišširgal,
Thy beloved consort, the gracious mother, calleth to thee: O lord give
rest!
The hero Šamaš calleth to thee: O lord give rest!
The Igigi call to thee: O lord give rest!
The Anunaki call to thee: O lord give rest!
..... calleth to thee: O lord give rest!
Ningal calleth to thee: O lord give rest!
May the bar of Ur, the enclosure of E-gišširgal and the building of
Ezida be established!
The gods of heaven and earth call to thee: O lord give rest!
The lifting up of the hand. 48 lines on the tablet to Nannar.
Mighty one. Lord of strength.
Like its original, copied and revised.
Tablet of Ištar-šuma-ereš, the chief scribe.
Of Ašurbânipal, king of legions, king of Assyria,
Son of Nabu-zer-lištešir, chief penman.”
IV R. 9.
This Ašurbânipal hymn may be considered as remarkable for its advanced
ideas. In the first part of the hymn there is introduced the
mythological idea of the bullock’s head in the moon with horns and the
face with flowing hazel-colored beard, so that strength and brilliancy
are pointed out. But the hymn advances into literal speech by which the
most varied and greatest of divine attributes are attached to the god
Nannar. He is named as sovereign god, a self-created god, a merciful
god, the begetter of all life, the maintainer of the life of the world,
the bestower of gifts to men, the establisher of dwellings; he fixes
destinies, pronounces judgment, gives water to man and supplies him with
vegetable food. He holds a unique and exalted position in heaven and on
earth above all other beings. To him the angels of heaven and spirits of
earth bow, and at his command the forces of nature perform their
marvellous functions.
3. _Adad_
The storm-god is known by the Sumerian ideogram _Im_. The sign IMMU in
the El-Amarna tablets (1500 B. C.) has the reading Adad, a name
connected with the Syrian Hadad. Oppert thinks Adad is the god’s oldest
name. It seems evidently a foreign equivalent for _Im_. The Assyrian
name Ramman is a provisional name meaning “thunderer”, and probably only
an epithet. The sign IMMU has also the value _Mer_. This is, no doubt,
the original and real name of the god, which appears as well in the form
Immer. The primary idea in the name is that of wind, then, that of rain
and finally of thunder and lightning. The god is not an object like
Nannar, but a force; then the force is personified and he is spoken of
as a person. Ḥammurabi puts him in the second triad of gods. He is the
third person of that triad, Sin being the first person and Šamaš the
second. Generally Ištar has the third place in the second triad. In that
case Ramman falls outside of that triad and takes position among all the
gods as seventh in importance. The order is as follows: Anu, Bêl, Ea,
Sin, Šamaš, Ištar, Adad (Ramman). As a Babylonian god we find Ramman’s
name appears in Ḥammurabi’s time as a common name in literature. He is
invoked in Ḥammurabi’s Code, like other gods, of course in his sphere as
a storm-god. Thus: “If a man will pay no attention to my words, may
Adad, the lord of abundance, the regent of heaven and earth, my helper,
deprive him of the rain from heaven and the water-floods from the
springs! May he bring his land to destruction through want and hunger!
May he break loose furiously over his city and turn his land into a heap
left by a whirlwind!”[24] With the kings of the Cassite dynasty Ramman
seems to be popular. His name appears by the side of that of Šamaš and
he is called the divine lord of justice. In the Babylonian dynasty of
kings, Nebuchadnezzar I. addresses Ramman as the great lord of heaven,
the lord of the subterranean waters and rain, whose curse is invoked
against the one who sets aside the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar or defaces
his monument.
Ramman is thought to be more truly an Assyrian than a Babylonian god. He
is almost as dear to the Assyrian as the god Ašur. Historical data,
however, do not furnish very early mention of his name in Assyria. We
find that he had a seat of worship in Damascus, and his cult had vogue
in the plain of Jezreel, his name appearing in Hebrew, written by
mistake, after the text was Masoretically vocalized, “Rimmon” which is
exactly the same in form as the Hebrew word for pomegranate. In Assyria
we can trace his history back to some extent by means of inscriptions in
which his name appears as an element in the compound names of kings. For
example, we find his name in the name of the ancient Assyrian king
Šamaš-Ramman, and from an inscription of Tiglath-pileser I. we learn
also that Šamaš-Ramman built a temple to the god Ramman. So we have
historical evidence that the cult of Ramman is older in Assyria than
this king, who was reigning in 1820 B. C. How much older it may be we do
not know. Jastrow thinks that the cult is indigenous to Assyrian soil.
Between the time of Šamaš-Ramman and the time of Tiglath-pileser I. the
service of Ramman must have declined somewhat, for the temple of Ramman
in the city of Aššur seems not to have been repaired from the days of
Šamaš-Ramman till Tiglath-pileser himself rebuilt it. Tiglath-pileser
says that from the time of the founding it was in decay six hundred and
forty years. Then king Ašurdan tore it down entirely. Sixty years after
the entire destruction, Tiglath-pileser builds the temple anew. He says
that in the beginning of his government the great gods Anu and Adad
demanded for him the restoration of their sacred dwelling. “I made
bricks and cleared its ground until I reached the artificial flat
terrace upon which the old temple had been built. I laid its foundation
upon the solid rock and the whole place incased with bricks like a
fire-place, overlaid on it a layer of fifty bricks in depth and built
upon this the foundations of the temple of Anu and Adad of large square
stones. I built it up from foundation to roof, larger and grander than
before, and erected also two great temple towers ... fitting ornaments
of their great divinities.”[25] From Tiglath-pileser on, temples of
Ramman do not seem to be often mentioned, but the god himself is
frequently spoken of in inscriptions of the kings. Sargon II. has one of
the eastern gates of his temple named “Ramman the producer of
abundance”. Ašurbânipal enumerates thirteen gods whom he honors as the
great gods, and places Ramman fifth in the list.
Ramman’s most esteemed service was that of bestowing blessing. The rains
in the right proportion were a boon to the land, filling the canals and
watering the soil. Ḥammurabi calls Ramman the lord of abundance and his
helper. Tiglath-pileser I. prays for the blessings of prosperity, as he
prays to Adad: “May Anu and Adad turn to me truly and accept graciously
the lifting up of my hand, hearken unto my devout prayers, grant me and
my reign abundance of rain, years of prosperity and fruitfulness in
plenty.”[26] Ašurbânipal describes the blessings he receives by the
favor of this god: “Ramman let loose his showers and Ea has opened his
springs, the grain has grown to a height of five yards and the ears have
been five sixths of a yard long, the produce of the land has been
abundant and the fruit trees have borne fruit richly.”[27] The mention
of Anu and Ea with Ramman is because of their power to produce water, Ea
representing the depths of water and Anu the heaven with its clouds of
rain.
The most conspicuous work of Ramman was that of destruction. It is in
this function of judgment that he is associated with Šamaš. The
connection lies in the fact that the lightning of Ramman is like the
day-light of Šamaš; so, as the god of lightning, Ramman has the title
_birḳu_. Lightning and flooding rain were, because of their destructive
character, fearful forces, and the kings in calling for a curse on
hostile man or land turn to Ramman in imprecation, as, for example,
Raman-Nirari I. does concerning the man who may be tempted to blot out
the record of Ramman-Nirari’s name: “May Ramman with terrible rainstorm
overwhelm him, may flood, destruction, wind, rebellion, revolution,
tempest, want and famine, drought and hunger be continually in his land.
May he come down on his land like a flood. May he turn it into mounds
and ruins. May Ramman strike his land with a destructive bolt.”[28]
Some Babylonian composer has set forth the terrifying side of Ramman’s
character in a bilingual hymn as follows:
“The lord in his anger himself makes heaven quake.
Adad in his wrath lifts up the earth.
The mighty mountain he himself smites down.
At his anger, at his wrath,
At his roaring, at his thundering,
The gods of heaven ascend to heaven,
The gods of earth enter earth,
Šamaš into the foundation of heaven enters,
Sin in the height of heaven is magnified.”[29]
4. _Tammuz_
There is a fascination about the life of Tammuz not experienced in the
contemplation of the other gods of Babylonia. He seems to be presented
to us just as though he were a man.
Our first paragraph may describe him as a resident of one of the ancient
cities of southern Babylonia. The city of his residence was Eridu on the
banks of the Euphrates. His official title is that of sun-god and his
occupation is to care for the growth of plants. The name of his father
was Ea, the lord of the city of Eridu, whose duties consisted in
governing the waters of the river on whose shore the city rested. Tammuz
had a mother, whose name was Davkina, the mistress of the vine. Tammuz
also had a sister Belili whose calling was, like that of Tammuz her
brother, the care of plant growth. Tammuz also had a bride, the famous
and treacherous Ištar, the goddess of love, represented by the evening
star; she was mistress of the neighbouring city of Erech, a little to
the north-west, and on the other side of the Euphrates. The life of
Tammuz at Eridu was romantic and his days ended in tragedy. There is a
little poem, giving a picture of his home. There was a garden, a holy
place, abundantly shaded with profuse leafage of trees whose roots went
down deep into the waters over which Ea presided. His couch was hung
under the rich foliage of the vine which his mother tended. There Tammuz
dwelt and there was his shrine. His dwelling of foliage in his youthful
days was symbolic of the domain in which the virtue of his power was to
be exercised. His real home was in heaven, for from heaven the virtue of
plant-growth proceeds with the heat of the sun. But his connection with
heaven had been forgotten, except in reminiscence found in legend. In
the legend of Adapa, for instance, we find a hint of it. Tammuz and his
companion Gišzida are seen mounting up to heaven where they receive
stations as door-keepers in the gate of Anu’s house; in heaven they
properly belong.
The descent of Tammuz to the lower world implies that he died, but the
accounts have not made a direct statement of how he died, or what was
the cause of his death. Perhaps we may conceive of the event of his
death as having taken place at Eridu before the service of lamentation
had developed into a cult honored at the court of Sargon of Akkad, where
a temple was built for Tammuz after northern Babylonia had gained the
ascendency over southern Babylonia. The literal cause of his death was
that he was not capable of making plant-growth a continuous process. The
power of the heat of the sun as the summer advanced was superior to the
virtue which Tammuz possessed over plant-life. The fierce heat of the
summer caused vegetation to take a paler hue; then the germs of decay
entered; slowly and surely the face of the land was assuming the same
state that existed before the power of Tammuz appeared to quicken the
blade of grass and the fruit-bud of the early spring. So Tammuz was
banished to the lower world. Romantically his entrance to the abode of
the dead was due to the hand which Ištar had in the events of his life.
She had many lovers, and she betrayed them all. Her betrayal in the case
of Tammuz consisted in not aiding him in her sphere as great mother in
the production of life on earth. Had she supplemented his effort and
made the earth continue to bear and bring forth, counteracting the
effect of the deadly heat of the summer solstice and the destructive
wind of the south, the gardens and the fruit orchards over whose
productiveness Tammuz presided would have enjoyed perennial fruitage,
and Gilgameš would never have had to take up the sad accusation against
Ištar:
“Tammuz, the spouse of thy youth,
Thou compellest to weep year after year.”[30]
Also there had never gone up the song of lamentation:
“He went down to meet the nether world,
He has sated himself. Šamaš caused him to perish
To the land of the dead.
With mourning was he filled on the day
When he fell into great sorrow.”[31]
According to another story of the fate of Tammuz, Ištar was the victim
of sudden and violent passion, and in a fit of anger for disregard of
her command she had smitten him down, just as she crushed the
_allallu_-bird she loved:
“Thou didst crush him and break his pinions.
In the woods he stands and laments,
‘O my pinions’.”[32]
Also as she cast out of her sight the lion:
“Thou didst love a lion of perfect strength,
Seven and seven times thou didst bury him in the corners.”[33]
The origin of the service of weeping for Tammuz is an interesting
legend. When Ištar had slain her lover, she hastened, like the going
down of the evening star, to the lower world in search of waters to
restore him to life. She searches long, passing through all the
compartments of Hades. The story does not give details of her finding
Tammuz, but instead, a scene of his burial is introduced:
“To Tammuz, her youthful consort
Pour out pure waters, costly oil.”[34]
A scene of the mourning for Tammuz is also introduced, which may be
taken as the original lamentation, all other summer solstice weepings
being anniversaries of this original one. His sister is there lamenting:
“O my only brother, let me not perish!”[35]
And a great company of mourners sing dirges by the accompaniment of the
flute and follow the instruction which Tammuz, though dead, seems to be
giving then and there:
“On the day of Tammuz play for me,
On the flute of _uknu_ and _samtu_!
With it play for me! With it play for me!
O male and female mourners!
That the dead may arise and inhale incense!”[36]
Of course the story is not finished and the circle of events not
completed without the resurrection of Tammuz. In a Chaldaean intaglio
there is a picture of Tammuz rejuvenated on the knees of Ištar (see
Clercq Vol. I, Plate IX, No. 83). Some forms of the story must include
his return to the earth, and the complete service of lamentation must
have been sometimes supplemented by a service of joy in which the idea
of resurrection was significant.
Though the original lamentation was an expression of grief for Tammuz
dead, the fully developed ceremony was an expression of several pathetic
ideas. It was accompanied with sacrifice and offerings of wine. In
Babylonia the commemoration was observed every year on the second day of
the fourth month, called the month of Tammuz. It was not only a weeping
for dead Tammuz, but a weeping for dead vegetation. The dying leaf had a
mourner. The withered stock had a sympathizing friend. For the blasted
blade of grass there was shed a tear. For the barren tree bereft of
golden foliage and luscious fruit there went up a cry of sympathy. The
ceremony was an expression of sadness that came over the people as the
oppression of the heat of summer bore down upon them, the water supply
being reduced, vegetable life put out and human life consequently made
almost unendurable by the deprivation and heat of summer. The time of
weeping was one for the expression of personal sorrow that lurks in
almost every heart. The wail of anguish was a relief to souls burdened
with their own peculiar griefs. The soul found relief in lifting up the
voice attuned to some form of elegy. There came a relief like the
rolling of the burden of guilt from the breast. The ceremony was one
that embraced in its performance the expression of confession. It was,
however, performed with the consciousness that the drought of summer was
but for a season, and that there was to follow a period of happier
existence, as the succeeding winter should merge into a new spring.
Tammuz was supposed to leave the land with the season when the spring
growth was completed, to come back again in the following year. He is
considered as dead, but his death is not an absolute one. He tells the
mourners what to do as they gather about his bier. According to some
allusions he seems also to be a lord, as it were, in the bowels of the
earth, preparing the inner earth for putting forth a new stock of
vegetation, as spring shall come. Hence, the hymn to Tammuz in this
Thesis calls him “the generator of the lower world”. His association
with his friend Gišzida substantiates more fully the idea of his
resurrection. To give vitality to his work he still maintains his old
personality of sun-god, and to him again is given a seat in heaven, as
the Adapa legend shows:
“On mounting up to heaven,
At the gate of Anu
Tammuz and Gišzida were stationed.”[37]
The story of Tammuz seems to have taken deep and almost universal hold
of the imagination and sympathy of mankind. The weeping for Tammuz is
said to have been maintained by the Babylonians till a very late period.
Similar stories to that of the Tammuz legend existed in about the same
period of history among the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Greeks and the
Egyptians, the most of these accounts having a common origin; if they
have more than one origin, they seem nevertheless to blend in the main
into one story. It is said that in the Phoenician town of Gebal by the
Mediterranean on the road leading from the people of the east to those
of the west, there is a yearly lamentation over the death of their
sun-god, the beloved Aštoreth, who had been slain by a cruel hand, just
as the spring verdure was cut down by the hot blasts of summer. The
women, tearing their hair, disfiguring their faces and cutting their
breasts, sent up a cry to heaven: “O my brother!” Across the sea by the
way of Cyprus, the cry is said to have been carried to Greece where it
found embodiment in the story of Adonis and Aphrodite. Possibly,
however, the Greek story may be indigenous. Adonis lost his life while
hunting, thrust through the thigh with the tusk of a wild boar. After
death he was in great favour with Persephone who finally yielded to the
entreaties of the inconsolable Aphrodite, and Adonis spent one half of
the year with his celestial mistress and the other half with his
infernal one. How much place the annual weeping for a departed one had
among the Hebrews may be inferred to some extent by the mention made in
the Scriptures of the service. Zechariah speaks of the well-known
mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon, and Amos refers to
the custom of mourning for an only son. Ezekiel says that the Lord
brought him to Jehovah’s house “and behold, there sat the women weeping
for Tammuz”. Jeremiah goes a step further and gives us the refrain which
was used in the weeping: “Ah me! Ah my brother!” The parallel story in
Egypt had for its hero the god Osiris who, representing goodness, upon
being slain by a foe, became judge of the dead, though his soul
continued in existence among men.
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary
Chapter I
Tablet 13963, Plate 10, Hymn to Bel
Obverse
1. _ù-mu-un na-àm-zu-ka na-àm- ......... še-ir-ma-al nì(IM)-[te-na]_
O lord of wisdom, ................ supreme by thyself!
2. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ù-mu-un na-àm-zu-ka .... še-ir-ma-al
nì(IM)-te-na_
O Bêl, lord of wisdom, ............. supreme by thyself!
3. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ù-mu-un-e kur-kur-ra_
O father Bêl, lord of the lands!
4. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ù-mu-un dug(KA)-ga zi(d)-da_
O father Bêl, lord of righteous command!
5. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil siba sag gig(MI)-ga_
O father Bêl, shepherd of the black-headed!
6. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil i-de(NE) gaba nì(IM)-te-na_
O father Bêl, the only all-seeing one!
7. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ama erim(ṢAB)-na di-di_
O father Bêl, the lord that executest judgment on thy enemies!
8. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ù-nê(r)-la ma-ma_
O father Bêl, the power of the lands!
9. _ama nà-a gù ne-sig(PA) gan-nu ki_
The bull of the pasture, the bull that encompassest the productive
land!
10. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil nin ḳar-ra ki damal-ra_
O Bêl, the bountiful lord of the broad land!
11. _ù-mu-un mu-ud-na dú(KAK) sag-ma-al ki_
The lord of creation, the creator, the true head of the land!
12. _ù-mu-un zal(NI)-laḥ(UD)-na ga nunuz-ám(A.AN) da-ma-al-la_
The lord whose shining oil is milk for an extensive progeny!
13. _ùm-mu-un silim(DI)-ma-a-ni eri ir-ir_
The lord whose decrees bind together the city,
14. _dù nà-a-ni à(ID) àm-e gal-la_
Whose powerful dwelling-place (is the seat of) a great command,
15. _kur ^dimmer Babbar (UD)-ê(UD.DU)-ta kur ^dimmer
Babbar(UD)-šu-šù_(KU)
From the land of the rising sun to the land of the setting sun!
16. _kur-ra ù-mu-un nu-um-ti za-e ù-mu-un ab-da-me-en_
O mountain, the lord of life, thou the lord indeed art!
Reverse
17. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil kur-kur-ra ga-šá-an nu-um-ti nin-zu ga-šá-an_
_ab-da(-me-en)_
O Bêl of the lands, lord of life, lord of wisdom, lord indeed thou
art!
18. _e-lum nì(IM) an-na a-kad za-da šá mu-e-da-mal_(IG)
O mighty one, dread of heaven, royal one indeed thou art!
19. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil u en_(?) _dimmer-ri-ne za-da šá
mu-e-da-mal_(IG)
O Bêl, very lord of gods thou indeed art!
20. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil mu-lu gu má(SAR)-má(SAR)-me-en mu-lu_ _še
má(SAR)-má(SAR)-me-en_
O father Bêl, who causest vegetation to sprout, who causest grain to
grow
21. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil me-lam(NE)-zu gúr(KIL)-ra ḥa mu-ni-ib-(
)-ne-ne_
O Bêl, before thy great glory may they be (in fear?)!
22. _ḥu-e an-na ḥa-e ṭú(r)-ra šà(LIB)-nì(IM) ma-ni-ib-si_
The birds of heaven and the fish of the sea are filled with fear of
thee!
23. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil-li da-da maḥ mu-e-gin(DU) sag-e-zi si-ba-e
e-nab_
O father Bêl, in great strength thou goest, the head of life, the
shepherd of the stars!
24. _ù-mu-un ka na-àm-gá(MAL) iz-ba eri ga mu-e-gin(DU) gín(GI) si
ti-šù(KU) me-a_
O lord, the mouth of production thou openest, as a prolific city
thou goest, the reed for the fulness of life thou art.
25. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil sag zi sag nê(r)-la šú ti ba-ni-ib-ag_
O father Bêl, the head of life, the head of strength, the power of
life thou makest thyself!
26. _šú-gil niš-ia mu-bi im_
Altogether there are twenty-five lines in the tablet.
27. _êr(A.ŠI) lim-ma_
Hymn of praise.
This composition is a hymn of praise to Bêl, who is directly addressed.
His name, Mu-ul-lil, appears in 14 of the 25 lines of the hymn, in which
he is called distinctively “father”, the title occurring 8 times.
The god is addressed in the second person, as is seen in line 16, where
_za-e_, the personal pronoun of the second person, is applied to him,
and also in the pronominal phase of the second person, _za-da_, found in
lines 18 and 19, not to mention other less striking symbols of the
second person singular.
The hymn consists of many laudatory epithets descriptive of Bêl’s divine
nature and work. His fatherhood and lordship are dwelt upon. He is a
righteous and all-wise father. His lordship extends not only over the
land, but up into the air as well. He provides subsistence for the
creatures of earth, being also the organizer of city and state. He
superintends also the operations of nature in the atmosphere being the
dread of heaven, the lord of gods, the occasion of fear among the birds
and fishes, the shepherd of the storms (or stars).
The time of the origin of this hymn is a matter of conjecture. The form
of the signs offers some evidence. What the early kings say of Bêl also
throws some light on the subject. The signs are, of course, later than
the picture-writing of the hieroglyph, and also later than the linear
script suited to stone. These signs are made in clay, hence the wedge
appears. The design of the signs used here has met with some
transformation since the hieroglyph was used, but it has not yet reached
the chaste and symmetrical form given by the hand of the Assyrian. In
short the signs of this hymn are old Babylonian, almost identical with
those used in the inscriptions of Eannatum, Entemena, Gudea and
Ḥammurabi. There are, however, some later and even New-Babylonian signs
among them, pointing perhaps to transcription subsequent to the original
composition.
There is no mention of any city in the hymn, as there is in the hymn to
Sin, but this hymn probably had its origin in Nippur which was the great
religious centre of Babylonia in the pre-dynastic period, when kings
ascribed their successes to Bêl and brought their booty to Nippur,
calling Bêl “the lord of the lands.”
Obverse
1. _ù-mu-un na-àm-zu-ka na-àm ..... še-ir-ma-al nì-[te-na]_
O lord of wisdom, ........... supreme by thyself!
_ù-mu-un_ means “being lord”, _ù_ equalling “lord” and _mu-un_ equalling
“being”. _ù-mu-un_ is a phonetic representation of _umun = bêlu_, (Br.
9475). _umun_ is sometimes ideographically represented by the sign
GIGURÛ, the corner wedge (Br. 8659), which signifies “depress”,
“overpower”, “be powerful”, “rule”. _umun_ may be shortened either to
_u_, _mun_ or _un_, giving to GIGURÛ three values for “lord”, _u_, _un_
and _umun_. _umun_, which is ES, has an EK value, _ugun_. In line 17, we
shall meet with another word for “lord”; viz., _ga-šá-an_.
_ù_: the sign IGI-DIBBU alone means “lord”. It has a well-known Assyrian
equivalent, _labâru_, “be old”, (Br. 9464). Brummer explains the sign
correctly as follows: IGI-DIBBU is a compound sign and equals ŠI, “eye”,
plus LU, “take away”, hence the meaning “take away the eye”, “become
old”, “elderly”, “lord”, (SVA. 2-7).
_mu-un_ contracted to _mun_ is cognate with _me-en_ which equals _bašû_,
“to be”, as in _za-e-me-en_ (Br. 10404). We shall meet the form _mu-un_
as a verbal prefix.
_mu_ here is simply a dialectic form of _me_ (MSL., p. 240). _mu_ as a
Sumerian value is attested by the sign-name MU. We shall meet with MU in
the name _Mu-ul-lil_, also as a suffix and in other ways. The MU of our
text is old Babylonian. It is the MU of Ur-Gur and Gudea (see brick of
Ur-Gur, No. 90009, CT. XXI, and Gudea’s Cylinder A, Col. XVIII, line 27,
in Déc. 36).
_un_ is plainly cognate with _en_ which is so commonly represented by
the sign ÊNU. The sign UN we shall meet again with the value _kalama_.
The UN of our text is a very ancient sign (see Cone of Eannatum, Col. I,
CT. XXI, Tablet 30062).
_na-àm-zu-ka_ consists of noun, _na-àm-zu_ and postposition _ka_.
_na-àm-zu_ is an abstract noun composed of the abstract prefix _na-àm_
and the stem _zu_.
_na-àm_ equals _šîmtu_, “fortune”, (Br. 1609 and HW. 654) and is a
dialectic form of _nam_ (Br. 2103) which is a common abstract prefix.
_na_ is a Sumerian value of the sign NANÛ. The value is simply syllabic
here. The sign originally signified “stone”. Our NA is found both in old
Babylonian tablets and in New-Babylonian inscriptions.
_àm_ (ES) also is only syllabic here. The sign has the EK value _ag_ and
is used ideographically.
_zu_: the sign representing _zu_ has only one value, presenting a rather
uncommon circumstance in Sumerian. _zu_ means “know”, also “be wise”,
and may equal _nîmeḳu_, “wisdom”, (Br. 136), but the author preferred to
say _na-àm-zu_, “the fortune of wisdom”.
_ka_, sign-name KÂGU, is a postpositive sign of the genitive. The sign
KÂGU (discussed below) is often used in this way, but it has several
values and is used to express a large number of ideas, _ka_ as a
postposition is a dialectic form of _ge_(KIT).
_še-ir-ma-al_ is ES for the EK _nir-gal_, _š_ changing to _n_ and _m_ to
_g_ (MSL. p. XI). It is translated into Assyrian by the word _etellu_.
_še-ir-ma-al_ consists then of two parts; stem _še-ir_ and suffix
_ma-al_. Strictly, _še-ir_ is “lord” and _še-ir-ma-al_ is “lordship”.
_še-ir_: _e_ and _i_ appear generally to be distinct sounds, but they
combine, just as the two _u_’s combine in _mu-un_, making _mun_, and as
the two _a_’s combine in _na-àm_, making _nam_. Evidently the weaker
sound is absorbed by the stronger, hence _še-ir_ becomes _šêr_, “ruler”,
which could be represented by NISIGÙ (JA., 1905, p. 113, also Br. 4306).
_še_ is perhaps a Semitic value coming from _šê’u_, “grain”. The
original sign is a picture of a head of grain like wheat or oats. The
name of the sign is Û-UM. The sign occurs in line 20 as an ideogram.
_ir_ is also Semitic value of the sign GAḲ-GUNÙ. We shall meet the sign
used as a verb equal to _kamû_, “bind”.
_ma-al_, phonetically written for _mal_, is an ending which adds to
_šêr_ the idea of “having”; hence _še-ir-ma-al_ means “having rule”.
_ma_: we shall find MAMÛ used mostly as a noun, but it may occur as a
verbal prefix or as a phonetic complement.
_al_: the sign has only one value, _al_, whose use is principally
syllabic. The sign-name is ALLU.
_nì-te-na_: nì-te is the main word with _na_ as a suffix.
_nì-te_: _nì_ and _te_ stand related to each other as object and cognate
verb, meaning “fear a fear”. The affinity of _nì_ and _te_ is shown by
the fact that the sign for _nì_, called IMMU, may have the value _tu_
(see Br. 8355), then the object and verb would be _tu-te_, “fear a fear”
(see Fossey in JA., 1905, p. 128). _nì-te_ may mean “self” just as _nì_
may stand not only for “fear” but for that which causes fear as
_Rammânu_, “the storm-god”, and then by way of erroneous association for
_ramânu_, “self”.
_nì_: the sign IMMU is one of the principal signs that originally
denoted “the quarter of the heavens”. It is used to signify “storm” and
many ideas connected with storm.
_te_: TÊMMÊNU originally meant “orientation”, then “to approach
hostilely”; hence _nì-te_ meant “approach of storm”.
_na_ is an indeterminate suffix, but the context shows that it means
“thy”, so that _nì-te-na_ means “thyself” (see _na_ above).
2. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ù-mu-un na-àm-zu-ka ... še-ir-ma-al nì-te-na_
O Bêl, lord of wisdom, ........ supreme by thyself!
_^dimmer_: the sign AN here has the value _dimmer_. In the great
bilingual penitential Psalm, K. 2811 (IV R. plate 10), instead of the
single sign AN, we have the spelling _dim-me-er_ (see lines 3, 7 and
others). If this were an EK composition, the sign AN might be _dingir_,
_di-in-gir_, but in the words _ù-mu-un_ and _še-ir-ma-al_ which we have
already had, we have evidence that this is an ES composition, hence AN
here is to be read _dimmer_.
_Mu-ul-lil_: Bêl has only one name in this hymn; namely, _Mul-lil_. In
the two tablets, 29644 and 29623, following this tablet, Bêl is called
_En-lil_ (see the colophons). The word _Mu-ul-lil_ divides into two
parts, _Mu-ul_, which contracts into _Mul_, and _lil_.
_Mu-ul_: _Mul_ is ES; _En_ is EK. Both _Mul_ and _En_ mean “lord”, so
that either _Mul-lil_ or _En-lil_ means “lord of fulness”. It is
probable that _mul_ (_wul_) is cognate with _en_ (el).
_mu_ (as a value is discussed in line 1).
_ul_: the sign is composed of GÊŠPU and GUṬṬU. The value _ul_ is
Semitic. We shall meet below this sign with the value _rù_ meaning
“perfect”.
_lil_: the name of the sign is KÎTU. _lil_ in magic writings means
“demon”, i. e., a spirit which may be either good or bad. Originally the
sign indicated “structure”, from which idea comes the postpositional use
of the sign with the value _ge_. _šâru_, “wind”, with the value _lil_ is
a secondary meaning of the sign.
_ù-mu-un na-àm-zu-ka_ (occurring in line 1, was discussed there). The
fragments following _-ka_ do not give a sure clue as to what the signs
were before the erasure. After _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil_ perhaps the whole of
the second line was precisely like the first.
_še-ir-ma-al nì-te-na_ (explained in line 1).
3. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ù-mu-un-e kur-kur-ra_
O father Bêl, lord of the lands!
_a-a_ is probably for _ad-da_, _ad_ meaning “protector”. Exactly how
_a-a_ comes to be used in the place of _ad-da_ may not be determined
with certainty. The explanation may lie in the relation between “water”,
“seed” and “father”. _a-a_ also seems to be a softened form of _ad-da_.
_a_ means “seed” or more primarily “water”. The sign is an ideographic
picture of dripping water.
_^dimmer Mu-ul-lil_ (explained in line 2).
_ù-mu-un-e_ divides into the word _ù-mu-un_ and the prolongation vowel
_e_, possibly demonstrative in sense (see _e_ farther on).
_ù-mu-un_ is not elsewhere in this hymn lengthened to _ù-mu-un-e_, but
_ù-mu-un_ occurs nine times.
_kur-kur-ra_ is the plural form of noun, _kur_, plus postposition _ra_.
_kur-kur_: in Sumerian the general way of denoting the plural in nouns
is by doubling the root (see ASK. p. 140), whereas the doubled root in a
verb means an intensified or causative stem. There are five other cases
of doubling the root in the hymn: _di-di_, line 7, _ma-ma_, line 8,
_ir-ir_, line 13, _má-má_, line 20; and _da-da_, line 23.
_kur_: the sign KÛRU in the old linear form represented pictorially
“mountain tops”. The value _kur_ has three very common Assyrian
equivalents, _šadû_, “mountain”, _ir⋅itu_, “earth” and _mâtu_, “land”,
all closely related to each other.
_ra_ is a common postposition signifying “unto”. Perhaps _ra_ sometimes
serves merely as a vowel of prolongation, the _r_ at the same time
making a double of the final consonant of the preceding word. In such a
case _ra_ is called a phonetic complement, while it also helps to
determine the value of the sign immediately preceding. To illustrate,
the sign KÙRU being followed by RARÛ cannot be read _gin_ nor _mad_.
_ra_ can also be the sign of the genitive (Br. 6367).
4. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil à-mu-un dug-ga zi-da_
O father Bêl, lord of righteous command!
_a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ù-mu-un_ (explained in lines 1, 2 and 3).
_dug-ga_: _dug_ is the value of KÂGU to be used here, as is at once
suggested by the phonetic complement _ga_.
_dug_: a very common meaning of _dug_ is _ḳibîtu_, “command” (Br. 532).
_ga_ is merely the vowel of prolongation _a_ with the final _g_ of the
preceding stem.
_zi-da_: _zi_ being followed by _da_ gives the impression that it should
be read _zid_ with _da_ as a phonetic complement. A final consonant in
the first syllable, however, is not always a necessity. The name of the
temple of Nabu at Borsippa is not read _È-zid-da_, but _È-zi-da_ or
_È-zida_.
_zi_ here equals _imnu_, “right”. It may sometimes equal _napištu_ (see
below, line 25).
5. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil siba sag gig-ga_
O father Bêl, shepherd of the blackheaded!
_siba_ equals _rê’û_ (Br. 5688). The sign is compounded from PA and LU
and means “staff-bearer”, since PA signifies “staff” and LU means
“hold”, “seize”. The use of the sign is confined almost entirely to the
idea of shepherd of animals and then figuratively to that of governor of
men.
_sag_: the sign with the value _sag_, called SANGU or SAGGU, is the
common sign to represent “head” which is expressed in Assyrian either by
_rêšu_ or _ḳaḳḳadu_ (see Br. 3522 and 3513). The sign occurs in many
compounds.
_gig-ga_: _gig_ is the value of MI suggested by the phonetic complement
_ga_.
_gig_: the sign is composed of the corner wedge U and the sign TATTAB
and means “darkness”. The sign really signifies “entering into
depression”. _gi_ perhaps is a dialectism for _mi_.
_ga_ = phonetic complement, _sag gig-ga_ means a race of men, evidently
here the Babylonians, the people in particular over whom Bêl exercised
rule. The term is certainly not one of depreciation. It merely shows
that the Babylonians were swarthy. On the other hand, “blackheaded” may
be intended to mean the human race inhabiting the earth in
contradistinction to the bright celestial beings (see CDAL. 878). Cyrus,
in his Broken Cylinder, seems to use the phrase as meaning the
Babylonians. His words are: _nišê ⋅al-mat ḳaḳḳadi šá ú-šá-ak-ši-du
ḳa-ta-a-šu_. “The blackheaded people whom he caused his hands to
conquer” (V R. 35, 13).
6. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil i-de gaba nì-te-na_
O father Bêl, the only all-seeing one!
_i-de_, phonetic representation of _ide_, which in the EK dialect is
represented by the sign IGÛ with the value _igi_ which in Assyrian means
_înu_, “eye” (Br. 4004, 4003 and 9273). _ide_ is ES for the EK _igi_. We
have the sign IGÛ in the colophon where it occurs with ÂU, “water”,
_a-ide_ meaning “water of the eye”.
_i_ is represented by GIṬṬÛ (“five”). The value _i_, however, is, of
course, entirely syllabic here. Notice that there is a slight difference
between the Babylonian GIṬṬÛ and the Assyrian GIṬṬÛ. In Assyrian, GIṬṬÛ
consists of two wedges followed by three. In Babylonian it consists of
three followed by two, and in the linear form the sign consists of three
horizontal lines followed by two (see AL. p. 125, No. 105).
_de_ represented by IZÛ and having the value _bil_ means “fire”. The
sign in its hieroglyphic form is probably a picture of building a fire
by the friction of an instrument against a piece of wood. Hence the sign
is properly composed of AM and GIŠ, AM representing something having a
head and GIŠ meaning “wood”. The sign in our text is old Babylonian and
may be found in Gudea (Cylinder B, Col. IV, line 13, in Déc. Plate 34).
Possibly _i-de_ could be explained as if _i_ were an abstract prefix and
_de_ as referring to the light of the eye, hence _i-de_ means “eye”.
_gaba_ is the common word for _irtu_, “breast” (Br. 4477). The sign
GABBU is a double MU-sign meaning “fulness”. From this idea of “fulness”
we easily derive the idea of “open” (Br. 4490). So that _ide gaba_ means
“open eyed”. The two MU’s appear entirely separate in the Babylonian
form of the sign as they do not in the Assyrian form (see TC. p. 18).
Our GABBU is not so old as the GABBU of the _Stèleo des Vauturs_, but is
like Gudea’s GABBU (see Cylinder A, Cob XXI, line 25, in Déc. Plate 34).
_i-de gaba_ is about equal to “omniscient”.
_nì-te-na_ may be rendered as in line 1, “thyself,” or perhaps we could
say “only”.
7. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ama erim-na di-di_
O father Bêl, the lord that executest judgment on thy enemies!
_ama_: the meaning for AMMU with the value _ama_ is _rîmu_, “bull”. AMMU
may mean “lord”, _bêlu_ (Br. 4543). In the sign AMMU we have the
hieroglyphs for the bull’s head and the mountain combined. In the oldest
Babylonian form, of course, lines are used instead of wedges. In
Assyrian the sign has been reduced to two horizontal wedges placed
before the sign DÛGU. AMMU represents “the bull of the mountains”. In
line 9 we shall have the sign GUṬṬU which represents “the bull not of
the mountains”, i. e. “the domestic bull” or “the ox”. The sign is the
same in form as AMMU, except that the little inside wedges representing
the mountains are wanting.
_erim-na_: _erim_ is taken to be the right value rather than _laḥ_,
because of the following _na_ which serves as a phonetic complement, _m_
and _n_ being closely related because of their similar indeterminate
nasal qualities.
_erim_ affords a meaning that seems to suit the context. _erim_ must be
equal to the Assyrian _⋅âbu_ which must like the Hebrew _⋅ābā_ have in
it the idea of “service”. Such expressions as the following bring out
the idea of “service”. _erim-bal-ku-a_, “slave employed at the water
wheel” (OBTR. Plate 91, Obv.). _erim-bal-gub-ba,_ “slave who carries a
hatchet” (OBTR. Plate 17, Obv.). A common meaning for _erim_ is
“warrior”, but the warrior as a soldier rather a general. Then from the
idea “soldier of the enemy”, we come to the idea “enemy”, which seems to
be the meaning here.
_na_, while serving phonetically, is also here a pronominal suffix.
_di-di_ can equal _kašâdu_ (Br. 9529 and 9563). The judgment implied by
_di-di_, accordingly, may be that executed on an enemy. _di-di_ is more
than pronouncing sentence. It is inflicting the punishment.
_di_ may be a value borrowed from the Assyrian _dânu_, “to judge”, but
this is uncertain, as such an occurrence implies Semitic influence which
could not have amounted to much if this hymn was written at a very early
period.
8. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil ù-nê-la ma-ma_
O father Bêl, the power of the land!
_ù-nê-la_ equals noun _ù-nê_ = _emûḳu_, “power” and phonetic complement
_la_.
_ù_: IGI-DIBBU might be confounded with ḤUL. It is rather carelessly
written here. _ù_, we have seen in line 1, may mean “lord” in the sense
of being “elderly”. _ù_ might mean “mountain”; if so it would be in the
sense of being an “ancient mountain”. _ù_ here, however, must be an
abstract prefix (MSL. p. XVII). _ù_, for example, is used as such a
prefix with _tu_, _ù-tu_ being equal to “offspring” (Br. 9470).
_nê_: PIRIḲḲU in passing from the old Babylonian form which we have in
our text meets with much change. The form in our text comes near to
being that of the oldest known. Even in Ḥammurabi it begins to take the
form of the Assyrian PIRIḲḲU (see CḤ. XLIV. 24. Plate LXXXI). PIRIḲḲU
with the value _gir_ which is EK for the ES _ner_ is the common sign for
“foot” (Br. 9192). With the meaning of “power” it generally has the
value _nê_ (Br. 9184).
_la_: LALÛ here is essentially the same as the old linear picture which
may readily be found in old Sumerian script, given also by Delitzsch
(see AL. p. 122, No. 31). _la_ means “fulness” like the Assyrian _lalû_,
but its use in our text is entirely phonetic. We should rather expect
_ra_ here. Note that in line 10, we have _ra_ where we should expect
_la_, and in line 12, we have _da-ma-al-la_ where the _la_ is regular,
just as _ra_ is regular in _kur-kur-ra_ of line 3.
_ma-ma_: MAMÛ in its original form is an old hieroglyph representing the
earth, so that “earth” or “the land” is a common meaning for _ma_ and
equal to the Assyrian _mâtu_ which probably comes from Sumerian _ma_,
“land”, and _da_, “strong” = DADDU (see line 1 for further comment).
9. _ama nà-a gù ne-sig gan-nu ki_
The bull of the pasture, the bull that encompassest the productive
land.
_ama_, which in line 7 was rendered by “lord”, must mean here “bull”, as
the word _nà-a_ limits us to this meaning. _nà-a_ means “pasture”.
_nà-a_ could be taken as an adjective, descriptive of the attitude of
the bull, i. e., that of lying down quietly. We have _nà-a_ again in
line 14. _a_ is simply phonetic here (see line 3).
_nà_: the sign for the value _nà_ has no sign-name. In almost this form,
the sign is easily found in the text of Gudea (see Cylinder B, Col. XVI,
line 19, in Déc. 35). The form in our text is very near to the original
linear form and differs much from the Assyrian. The ordinary meaning of
_nà_ is given by the Assyrian _rabâ⋅u_ “lie down”, kindred to the Hebrew
_rābă⋅_.
_gù_, the value here for GUṬṬU, is commonly rendered in Assyrian by
_alpu_ “ox”. The sign represents the bull’s head with horns.
Historically the sign has three forms, the old Babylonian linear form,
the old Babylonian wedge-form and the Assyrian wedge-form. The old
Babylonian linear and wedge-forms are the same, except that wedges occur
in the latter where simple straight lines appear in the former. The
Assyrian form is composed of two horizontal wedges, one upright wedge
and two little corner wedges (AL. p. 128, No. 164). The difference
between GUṬṬU and AMMU is significant (see note on line 7).
_ne-sig_: _ne-sig-ga_ equals _kamû_, “bind” (Br. 4626). The meaning
“bind” fits here.
_ne_ is not an unusual indeterminate verbal prefix (see MSL. p. XXIX).
_sig_ = PA, probably with the value _sig_, may equal _kamû_ (Br. 5575).
Hence _ne-sig_ is a verb, _ne_ being the prefix and _sig_ the stem.
_gan-nu_: the value _gan_ is indicated by the following _nu_.
_gan_ with complementary _nu_ is represented here by an ancient form of
the sign which is very different from the Assyrian form. The meaning
here must be expressed by _daḥâdu_, “plenty”, kindred to _alidu_ (IV R.
9, 24a).
_ki_: the KIKÛ of our text is New-Babylonian (see the Cyrus Cylinder, I
R. 35, line 4). The early linear form is well represented by the
wedge-form of Ḥammurabi (CḤ. Col. I, line 10, plate I). A picture of the
earth was probably attempted in the archaic linear form. It should be
noted that space is represented conventionally by parallel horizontal
lines included in a rectangle, orientated to the four quarters of the
heavens.
10. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil nin ḳar-ra ki damal-ra_
O Bêl, the bountiful lord of the broad land!
_^dimmer Mu-ul-lil_ (see line 2 for notes).
_nin_ in the sense of _bêlu_, “lord”, gives a good context.
_ḳar-ra_ equals noun _ḳar_ and postposition _ra_; _ḳar_ = “plenty” (see
MSL. 123). The text however may be _dam-ḳar-ra_.
Note that _ra_ may be taken as a postposition of the genitive as well as
phonetic complement (see on line 3).
_ki_ (see on line 9).
_damal-ra_ equals adjective plus postposition.
_damal_, ES for the EK _dagal_, with the meaning of _rapšu_, “extensive”
(Br. 5452). The sign name is AMÛ. The sign is composed of two signs one
within the other, PISANNU, “house”, the outer sign, and ANÛ, “high”, the
inner sign, hence the meaning “large space”, “extensive”.
11. _ù-mu-un mu-ud-na dú sag-ma-al ki_
The lord of creation, the creator, the true head of the land!
_ù-mu-un_ (see line 1 for note).
_mu-ud-na_ may equal “creator” or “begetter”, just as _muḥ-na_ equals
the Assyrian _a-lid_ (IV R. 9, 32a). _mu-ud_ is a phonetic
representation of the word _mud_, whose sign is MUŠÊN-DUGÛ, ḤU plus ḤI
(Br. 2273). The word _mud_ is equal to the Assyrian _banû_ (Br. 2274).
_dú_: here we must let the sense govern us in deciding on a form which
may be read either as KAK or NI. KAK with the value _du_ equal to _banû_
(Br. 5248) gives a meaning that fits smoothly with what precedes and
follows. In their original forms KAK, NI and IR are similar yet entirely
distinct signs. In the archaic linear form, KAK is a triangle with one
of the angles pointing to the right. NI is a triangle with one of the
angles pointing to the right and one upright line passing through the
triangle. IR also is a triangle with one of the angles pointing to the
right and two upright lines passing through the triangle.
_sag-ma-al_ equals noun _sag_, plus suffix _ma-al_. It could stand for
_sag-ga_ just as _sag-mal_ can stand for _sag-ga_ (Br. 3595). _sag_
equals “head” (as in line 5). _ma-al_: if _ma-al_ is taken a suffix (as
in line 1), it stands for the sign PISANNU meaning _šakânu_,
“establish”, or _bašû_, “exist”, and is ES for the EK gal.
_ki_ (see line 9).
12. _ù-mu-un zal laḥ-na ga nunuz-ám da-ma-al-la_
The lord whose shining oil is milk for an extensive progeny!
_ù-mu-un_ (see line 1 for note).
_zal_: NI means “oil”. The Babylonian KAK, NI and IR should be
distinguished from the Assyrian. In Assyrian the horizontal wedges are
parallel and do not come to an angle at the right.
_laḥ-na_: _zal laḥ-na_ means “his shining oil”, and the thought appears
to be that Bêl causes food to be produced to sustain successive
generations. His oil is milk for many generations. _zal-laḥ_ is somewhat
like the expression “finest oil” found in Assyrian inscriptions.
_laḥ_: the signs ḤISSU and ṢÂBU find their nearest approach to each
other in the value _laḥ_. Both signs have this value with the meaning
“brightness”.
_na_ here is a suffix of the third person; sometimes it is second person
(see line 1).
_ga_: our sign here is the old Babylonian GÛ which with its common value
_ga_ means _šizbu_, “milk”. The archaic linear form represents the teat
of the breast. _ga_ occurs often as a phonetic complement (see line 4).
_nunuz-ám_ means “is multitudinous”. _nunuz_: NUNUZ in this form is, as
Delitzsch observes (HW. p. 525b), New-Babylonian. In Assyrian it is
composed of ṢAB and ḤI and in New-Babylonian of ṢAB and ŠE. Here it is
equal to the Assyrian _lîpu_, German “Nachkomme”.
_ám_: A.AN, equalling _ám_, is a well recognized verbal suffix used like
the verb “to be”; for instance, _dingir-ra ám_ means “is a god” and
_gal-la ám_ means “is great” (see SVA. p. 56).
_da-ma-al-la_ is composed of the adjective _da-ma-al_ and the phonetic
complement _la_. _da-ma-al_ is the phonetic representation in ES of the
sign AMÛ meaning _rapšu_ (see line 10).
13. _ù-mu-un silim-ma-a-ni eri ir-ir_
The lord whose decrees bind together the city.
_silim-ma-a-ni_ means “his decree”. Thus, _silim-ma-a_ equals noun, plus
phonetic complement, plus vowel prolongation. _silim_: we have had the
sign SARARÛ (in line 7), where it was given the value _di_; here,
however, the phonetic complement suggests the choice of the value
_silim_, from which we derive the meaning “decree”, although
“salutation” is a more primary meaning expressed by the Semitic value
_silim_ (from _šulmu_). The sign is apparently New-Babylonian.
_ni_ is one of the common nominal suffixes of the third person. Note
that Bêl is addressed in the third person in this line, but we shall
find him addressed in the second person again in line 16.
_eri_ is ES for the EK _uru_. This value is substantiated by the name of
the city of Eridu = _Eri-ṭu_, (see MSL. p. 105). The name of the sign is
_ALU_. Our sign is old Babylonian and is not very different from the
hieroglyphic form which is supposed to represent a city (see AL. p. 121,
No. 21). It differs considerably from the New-Babylonian ALU which is
much like the Assyrian.
_ir-ir_ is an intensive form of the verb and therefore may be causative.
Bêl is supposed to have aided kings especially in capturing cities. _ir_
may mean “bind”, expressed by _kamû_, but _kamû_ is not so often
represented by IR as by DIBBU or LALLU. _kamû_ may be represented by PA
(see line 9). Although _ir_ is said to be a Semitic value, it is used in
this hymn syllabically and is the only value of the sign preserved (see
line 1 and also _dù_ in line 11 for further comment).
14. _dù nà-a-ni à àm-e gal-la_
Whose powerful dwelling-place (is the seat of) a great command,
_dù_: the sign giving this value has two origins, one of which is
represented by the value _dul_, meaning “cover” (Br. 9582). The other is
represented by the value _dù_ and means “dwelling-place”, rendered in
Assyrian by _šubtu_ (Br. 9588). _dù_ really means “prescribed space”.
_nà-a-ni_ means “his lying-down place”. _nà-a_ defines with more
particularity the nature of the dwelling as “a lying-down place”, “a
permanent place of rest”. Here we have _dù nà-a_; above we have _ama
nà-a_ (line 9).
_à_: IDU and DADDU come from the same ideogram which is the picture of
the hand and the forearm, the fingers pointing to the left. The value
_id_ is supposed to be of Semitic derivation, from the root appearing in
Assyrian as _idu_, “hand”. The sign IDU also means “side”, “wing”,
“horn”, “power”. Hence I render “powerful” here, making it qualify _dù
nà-a-ni_. The sign in our text is old Babylonian; yet it seems to be a
form that is approaching the Assyrian form. TA is also related to ID and
DA and is used as DA sometimes is, as a postposition.
_àm-e_, composed of prefix _àm_ and stem _e_. _àm_: we have had the sign
used phonetically (line 1). Here it is undoubtedly an abstract prefix
(MSL. p. XVII), qualifying the following _e_. The sign is old
Babylonian, readily found in old Babylonian inscriptions. It is a
composite sign. The enclosure contains the sign IZÛ which is also
composite. IZÛ however, as explained above (line 6), means “fire”. So
_àm_ is primarily the “fire of love”, hence the usual meaning “love”.
_e_: it is clear that _e_ can equal _ḳabû_, “speak” (Br. 5843 and HW.
578a). Hence _àm-e_ must mean “speech”. The sign is old Babylonian, as
may be seen, for instance, by examining Ḥammurabi. It is called ÊGÛ. The
New-Babylonian form comes nearer to the old Babylonian than the Assyrian
does. This fact goes to show that the Assyrian signs are as a rule
farther away from the archaic forms than the New-Babylonian signs are.
The sign ÂU represented “water”, but the sign ÊGÛ represented the
“waterditch”, “canal”. How _e_ comes to mean _ḳabû_ may perhaps be
explained by its relation to the value _i_ of KÂGU which equals _amâtu_,
“word”.
_gal-la_: _gal_, “great”, is often followed by the phonetic complement
_la_.
15. _kur ^dimmer Babbar-ê-ta kur ^dimmer Babbar-šu-šù_
From the land of the rising sun to the land of the setting sun!
_kur_ (see on line 3).
_^dimmer Babbar-ê-ta_ equals ideogram for “the sun”, plus verb _ê_ =
“coming out”, plus postposition “from”. _^dimmer Babbar_ is the ordinary
ideogram for _^ilu Šamaš_ used of “the sun”, as well as of “the god
_Šamaš_”. _Babbar_ is a value of ḤISSU which means “to be white”.
_ê_: = two signs, UD and DU, equivalent to this value, meaning _a⋅û_,
“come out”, or “go out”. The sign UD is a picture of the sun, and
represents the rising sun; hence = “come forth”.
_ta_ is a postposition meaning in this case “from”, but often “in,
into”. TA in our text is old Babylonian and much like the linear form in
early tablets. Nearly the same form can be found in Ḥammurabi also. But
on the whole, the old Babylonian, the Assyrian and the New-Babylonian
all differ from each other much. TA has a close relation to DA and ID
(see on line 14).
_^dimmer Babbar-šu-šù_ equals ideogram for “the sun”, plus _šu_ = “going
in”, plus postposition “to”.
_šu_ equals _erêbu_, “enter in”. Ideographically, ŠU means “bent over”,
or “depressed”.
_šù_ is a value of KU, as a postposition, meaning “unto”. The sign is of
rectangular form and has many values, consequently many meanings
starting with the idea “enclosure”. The governing force of _šù_ here
reaches back over _kur_ in the middle of the line, just as the governing
force of _ta_ goes back over _kur_ at the beginning of the line.
The beautiful expression of this line occurs more than once in Sumerian
and Babylonian literature. As early as Lugalziggisi it appears in royal
writings. Lugalziggisi speaks of his kingdom as extending “from the
rising sun to the setting sun”. _Babbar-ê-ta_ (UD.UD.DU.TA)
_Babbar-šu-šù_ (UD.ŠU.KU) (OBI. No. 87, Col. II, 12 and 13). And
Esarhaddon in Cylinder A says that “From the rising sun to the setting
sun he marched without a rival”. _ul-tu ⋅i-it ^ilu Šam-ši a-di e-rib
^ilu Šam-ši it-tal-lak-u-ma ma-ḥi-ra la i-šu-u_ (I R. 45, Col. I, 7 and
8).
16. _kur-ra ù-mu-un nu-um-ti za-e ù-mu-un ab-da-me-en_
O mountain, the lord of life, thou the lord indeed art!
_kur-ra_ (see on line 3).
_ù-mu-un_ (see on line 1).
_nu-um-ti_ occurs also in the next line and no doubt equals _balâṭu_,
“life”.
_nu-um_ seems to be an abstracting prefix of the nature of _nam_ as in
_nam-ti-la_ = _balâṭu_ (Br. 1697). _nu-um-ti_, however, may be a
phonetic representation of _nim_, also written _num_ which means
_elîtu_, “height” (Br. 1982 and 9011). According to this view,
_nu-um-ti_ might mean “the acme of life”, just as _nam-ti_ equals “the
fortune of life”; hence “life in general”. Or it might be suggested that
_num_ is really for _nam_, as _a_ is known to differentiate sometimes
into _u_; _ga_ for instance becomes _gu_ (MSL. p. X).
_ti_ equals _balâṭu_, “life”, and has its fuller form in _tin_, also
equal to _balâṭu_ “live”.
_za-e_ equals _atta_, “thou” (Br. 11762, also ASK. p. 139).
_ab-da-me-en_ equals “thou thyself art”. The form consists of verbal
prefix, infix and verb, as follows: _ab_, being an indeterminate prefix,
may therefore be used of the second person (MSL. p. XXV). ÊŠU is an old
Babylonian sign pictorially representing “enclosed space”, hence the
meaning of “enclosure”. It means, with the value _éš_, “house”, and,
with the value _ab_, “sea”. _da_ is like _à_(ID) (line 14),
ideographically represented by the picture of the hand and forearm (line
4). It means “side”, also “strength”. It is sometimes a reflexive verbal
infix (MSL. p. XXIV). _me-en_ equals _bašû_ (Br. 10404). _me_ also
equals _bašû_ (Br. 10361) and the longer _me-a_ equals _bašû_ (Br.
10459). _en_, therefore, is not an essential part of the word which
means “be”. _me-en_ has no connection with _ma-e_, the personal pronoun
of the first person. _men_, in fact, can be used of the second person
and even of the third as well. The defining pronoun _za-e_ here compels
us to take _me-en_ in the second person.
Reverse
17. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil kur-kur-ra ga-šá-an nu-um-ti nin-zu
ga-šá-anab-da(-me-en)_
O Bêl of the lands, lord of life, lord of wisdom, lord indeed thou
art!
_^dimmer Mu-ul-lil_ (see line 2 for note).
_kur-kur-ra_ (see line 3 for note).
_ga-šá-an_, like _ù-mu-un_ (line 1), equals _bêlu_, “lord”, and is a
phonetic form of _gašan_ which is usually represented by GÊŠPU-GUNÛ (Br.
6989 and MSL. p. 129). _ga_ is only a syllable here (see lines 4 and 12
for further comment). ŠÁ is an old sign; here it is old Babylonian and
represents closely the linear form. The sign is much used in Assyrian
with the syllabic value _šá_, especially in the place of NITÛ(ša) which
is often a relative pronoun.
_nu-um-ti_ (see on line 16).
_nin-zu_ means “lord of wisdom”. _nin_ equals _bêlu_ (Br. 10985; see
line 10). On _zu_ (see line 1).
_ab-da_ should evidently be _ab-da-me-en_ (see line 16).
18. _e-lum nì an-na a-kad za-da šá mu-e-da-mal_
O mighty one, dread of heaven, royal one indeed thou art!
_e-lum_ equals _kabtu_ (Br. 5888), and appears to stand for _elim_ which
also equals _kabtu_ (Br. 8885). _lum_ is clearly syllabic here, but the
sign, old Babylonian here, is indicative of plant-growth, consisting of
waving lines.
_nì_ equals _puluḥtu_, “fear”, here (see on line 1).
_an-na_: _an_ equaling _šamê_, “heavens”, is a value of ANÛ attested by
the phonetic complement _na_. The sign ANÛ in our text is old Babylonian
and is the same as the original ideogram of the star, except that wedges
have taken the place of straight lines. In our Hymn to Adad (CT. XV,
Tablet 29631) the transition from the Babylonian to the Assyrian ANÛ may
be clearly seen all on one page, wedges however are used, not straight
lines. There is the original form, there is the Assyrian form, and there
are intermediate forms enough to show how the Babylonian star passes
into the Assyrian ANÛ. The NANÛ of our text may be found exactly in the
Brick of Ur-Gur (CT. XXI, Tablet 90000, plate 8). In Nebuchadrezzar I.
(CT. IX, Tablet 92987), the internal horizontals have disappeared, but
the sign has not fully reached the Assyrian NANÛ.
_a-kad_: perhaps this word _a-kad_ is a loan-word from the Assyrian
_ekdu_. It is better to take _a_ as a vocalic abstract prefix and to
consider _kad_ as the root. There are three signs that give this value
_kad_ (Br. 1364, 1365 and 2700). The sign GADU means _kitû_, “clothing
material” (Br. 2704 and WH. 361; see also MSL. p. 114). The context
alone suggests here that some idea of power may be expected in the word
_a-kad_. Perhaps royal power is meant, which could be symbolically
represented by a garment, especially a royal robe.
_za-da_ no doubt stands for _za-e-da_ and would be equal to “thou
thyself”, “thou indeed” (see line 16).
_šá_ in Sumerian may represent the Assyrian _lû_, “verily”, (Br. 7047).
_šá_, simply as a syllable, occurs above (see line 17).
_mu-e-da-mal_ is a verb. _mu_ is an indeterminate verbal prefix. Whether
it is first, second or third person may be determined by the context.
Here, however, the _za-da_ of the context shows _mu_ to be second person
(see on line 1). _e_ here is a verbal infix, corroborative in character
(see MSL. p. XXIV, also lines 3 and 14). _da_ is also a verbal infix
(see line 16). _mal_ equals _bašû_, “to be”, (Br. 2238).
19. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil u en(?) dimmer-ri-ne za-da šá mu-e-da-mal_
O Bêl, very lord of gods thou indeed art!
_u_ equals _bêlu_, “lord”, and is a very common ideogram for “lord” (see
_ù-mu-un_, line 1). _en_ also equals _bêlu_, “lord”, but evidently the
text is imperfect at this point (see line 16, on _en_).
_dimmer-ri-ne_ means “gods”. _ri_ is a phonetic complement; _ne_ is a
purely phonetic plural ending used both for nouns and verbs (see SVA. p.
69).
_za-da šá mu-e-da-mal_ (see line 18).
20. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil mu-lu gu má-má-me-en mu-lu se má-má-me-en_
O father Bêl, who causest vegetation to sprout, who causest grain to
grow!
_a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil_ (see on lines 2 and 3).
_mu-lu_ is a phonetic representation of _mulu_ (Br. 6398). _mulu_ is ES;
EK would be _gulu_ (Br. 6395). _mu-lu_ frequently means the Assyrian
relative pronoun _ša_ (Br. 6406).
_gu_: GÛ is a composite sign whose original parts are NI and BE and
which means “full of death”. According to the derivation, GÛ then may be
read as “destruction” (MSL. p. 156). GÛ has also an Assyrian equivalent
_gû_ meaning “plant”, “vegetation” (Br. 11138 and HW. p. 582). The
consideration of GÛ as meaning “vegetation” looks only on the perishable
side of the object. The sign has few values. Here, it is clearly old
Babylonian resembling the linear form.
_má-má-me-en_ here equals _a⋅û_, “go out”, used of plants and trees (Br.
4303). The more generally used word for _a⋅û_ is _ê_ (UD.DU) (see on
line 15).
_má_: the name of the sign is NISIGÛ (see note on _še-ir_, line 1). The
sign is old Babylonian here. _me-en_ (see on line 16).
_še_: the sign is old Babylonian here. Its most common Assyrian
equivalent is _šê’u_, “grain” (see line 1). If we gave Û-UM the broader
meaning of “production”, at the same time reading GÛ as “destruction”,
we would have the fine antithetical parallelism: “O father Bêl, who
bringest forth destruction and who bringest forth production.” Such a
reading would give quite correctly the course of thought, for Bêl is god
of the atmosphere, lord of the clouds, and commander of the rain-storms
which are either sources of growth on earth or of ruin. On the other
hand, the translation which I have adopted seems perhaps preferable.
21. _^dimmer Mu-ul-lil me-lam-zu gúr-ra ha-mu-ni-ib-( )-ne-ne_
O Bêl, before the great glory may they be (in fear?)!
_me-lam-zu_: from the combination of ME and LAM we get the Assyrian
_melammu_, “glory”. _me_: MIMÛ with the value _išib_ means _ellu_,
“bright” (see line 16 for further comment). _lam_: one of the values of
IZÛ, seems to equal _išâtu_, “flame”, but the usual value of IZÛ for
_išâtu_ is _bil_ (see line 6, _de_), _me-lam_ literally means “bright
flame”. _zu_, besides being an ideogram for _idû_, “know”, is the usual
pronominal suffix of the second person singular (see on _zu_, line 1),
as in this passage.
_gúr-ra_ gives a good sense, though the signs resemble KU and RA giving
_šù-ra_, a double postposition. The text however is defective. _gúr-ra_
equals _kabtu_ (Br. 10183), making the phrase read “before thy great
glory”. _gúr_: KIL also has the value _gurun_ equal to _ebnu_, “fruit”
(Br. 10179). _ra_ (see on line 3).
_ḥa_: KÙA is the usual Sumerian sign used with a verb, to give a
precative sense as here. The sign here is old Babylonian and resembles
the pictorial form which is clearly that of “a fish” (see on line 22).
The original pictorial figure is one of the few to be found in which
curved lines predominate.
_mu-ni-ib-( )-ne-ne_: strangely enough the verb seems to be omitted in
the sentence of this line. Perhaps the omission is due to scribal error.
_mu_ is a verbal prefix of the third person here (see on line 18).
_ni-ib_ is a verbal infix (see MSL. p. XXXIII). The infixes are
generally personally indeterminate. They incorporate, between the verbal
prefixes that represent the subject and the verb, the object in
pronominal form, whether it be direct or indirect. _ni-ib_ really equals
“before it”. The translation disregards _ni-ib_ for the sake of
smoothness. _ni_ (see on line 13). _ib_ stands to _ni_ as postposition
to pronoun. The sign for _ib_ is old Babylonian; it is really composite
and signifies “side”. _ne-ne_ is a personal pronoun of the third person
(see ASK. p. 139). _ne_ is syllabic here (see _de_, line 6, about its
ideographic value; also _lam_, line 21).
22. _ḥu-e an-na ḥa-e ṭú-ra šà-nì ma-ni-ib-si_
The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea are filled with
fear of thee!
_ḥu-e_ equals _i⋅⋅uru_, “bird”. _ḥu_: simple _ḥu_ is used elsewhere for
_i⋅⋅ûru_. The sign MUŠÊNNU here is old Babylonian. The archaic form is
supposed to be the picture of a bird in flight. _mušên_, another value
of MUŠÊNNU, also means “bird”. _e_ is not a necessary part of the word,
being here only a vowel of prolongation probably indicating the definite
article (see lines 3 and 14).
_an-na_ (see on line 18).
_ḥa-e_ equals _nûnu_, “fish”. _ḥa_ alone equals _nûnu_ (see on line 21).
_e_ serves the same purpose as in _ḥu-e_.
_ṭú-ra_ equals _apsû_, “sea”. _ṭú_ alone equals _apsû_ (Br. 10217). _ra_
may be taken as a sign of the genitive (see on line 3).
_šà-nì_ equals “in the midst of fear”. _šà_: ŠÂGU, with the value _šà_,
equal to _libbu_ or _kirbu_, is one of the few Sumerian prepositions. It
precedes its object as a noun in the construct state, _nì_ (see on line
18).
_ma-ni-ib-si_ consists of prefix, infix and verb. _ma_ is not a very
common verbal prefix. It is indeterminate, but the sense requires the
third person (see MSL. p. XXIV). _ni-ib_ is second person here (see on
line 21). _si_: the most common meaning of _si_ is _malû_, “fill”. The
sign is Babylonian and can be found either in the Code of Ḥammurabi or
the Cyrus Cylinder.
23. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil-li da-da maḥ mu-e-gin sag-e-zi si-ba-e
e-nab_
O father Bêl, in great strength thou goest, the head of life, the
shepherd of the stars!
_a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil-li_ (see on line 2). _li_ is merely phonetic
complement. We might give it an ideographic value and connect it with
_da-da_ and render “abundant in strength”. The common meaning of LILÛ is
_rašû_, “abound”. With the value _gub_, however, it means _ellu_,
“bright”. The sign is old Babylonian, yet quite different from the
archaic linear form.
_da-da_ means “strength” (see on line 16).
_maḥ_ has three common Assyrian equivalents, _ma’adu_, “many”, _rabû_,
“great” and _⋅îru_, “high”. _maḥ_ here equals _rabû_. There is still
another Assyrian equivalent, _maḥḥu_ which must be a loanword in
Semitic.
_mu-e-gin_ as prefix, infix and verb means “he indeed goes”. _mu-e_ (see
on line 18). _gin_ is a value of the sign ARAGUBBÛ (see _ê_, line 15).
_sag-e-zi_ equals “head” (line 5) plus vowel of prolongation (line 3)
and “of life” (line 4). ZÎTU equals _napištu_ as well as _imnu_ and
_kînu_.
_si-ba-e_ divides into _siba_ and _e_. _si-ba_ is the same as _siba_
(line 5), only here the word is given syllabically rather than
ideographically. _e_ is a vowel prolongation (as in line 3).
_e-nab_ is naturally treated as though _e_ were a vocalic prefix and
_nab_ the root. _e_ as an abstract prefix, no doubt, is possible (MSL.
p. XVII). _nab_: instead of NABBU, perhaps the sign is ANA-ÊŠŠÊKU with
the last component omitted; then the value should be _mul_, equal to
_kakkabâni_, “stars”, and the clause reads: “shepherd of the stars”. _e_
may equal _mû_ “water” (see line 14), and _nab_ may equal _šamû_,
“heaven”; then we have the reading: “shepherd of the water of heaven”.
24. _ù-mu-un ka na-àm-gá iz-ba eri ga mu-e-gin gín si-ti šù-me-a_
O lord, the mouth of production thou openest, as a prolific city
thou goest, the reed of the fulness of life thou art!
_ù-mu-un_ (line 1).
_ka_: KÂGU here is a noun with the value _ka_ equal to _pû_, “mouth”,
(Br. 538). The sign originally represented the head, and its first
meaning was _gu_ equal to _ḳibû_. The sign is old Babylonian (see on
lines 1 and 4).
_na-àm-gá_ is a noun. _na-àm_ is an abstract prefix (line 1). _gá_
equals _šakânu_, “cause to be”, (Br. 5421). The sign is PISANNU. We have
had the sign phonetically represented by _ma-al_ (line 11) used as a
suffix. Here _gá_ is not a suffix, but the root.
_iz-ba_ is a verb. _iz_ is an indeterminate prefix, shown by the context
to be of the second person. _ba_ equals _pitû_, “open”. The sign is old
Babylonian. The archaic form of the sign signified “divide”.
_eri_ (see on line 13).
_ga_ (see line 12). _ga_ can be used as an adjective meaning “prolific”,
one of the derived ideas of _ga_ as “milk”.
_mu-e-gin_ (see line 23).
_gín_ equals _ḳanû_, “reed”. The sign is sometimes followed by the
phonetic complement _na_. The sign is old Babylonian.
_si_ equals “fulness” (see on line 22).
_ti-šù_ means “unto life”. _ti_ (see line 16); the sign here, however,
really resembles BALA which primarily means “breaking into”. Then we
have the derived meaning _palû_, “weapon”, then “insignia of royal
authority”, and consequently “rule”, “government”. If we read _bal_
instead of _ti_, then Bêl is “a full reed unto royalty”, which makes
little sense. _šù_ (see line 15).
_me-a_ is the same as _me-en_ (see on line 16). _a_ is phonetic (see on
line 9).
25. _a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil sag zi sag nê-la šú ti ba-ni-ib-ag_
O father Bêl, the head of life, the head of strength, the power of
life thou makest thyself!
_a-a ^dimmer Mu-ul-lil_ (see lines 2 and 3). _sag_ (see line 5).
_zi_ equals _napištu_ like _ti_ (see line 16, also 23). _nê-la_ (see on
line 8).
_šú_ equals _ḳâtu_, “hand”. The sign also has a value _kád_ which is
evidently derived from the Semitic _ḳâtu_.
_ti_ (see on line 24). If we read the sign as TIL, then Bêl is “the
power of life”. If we read BALA, then Bêl is “the power of royalty”,
signifying perhaps that royal authority is vested in Bêl.
_ba-ni-ib-ag_ is a verb, _ba_ is an indeterminate verbal prefix, but is
much used for the second person (MSL. p. XXVI). _ni-ib_ (see on line
21). _ag_ equals _epêšu_, “make”. The sign is old Babylonian.
26. _šú-gil niš-ĭa mu-bi im_
Altogether there are twenty-five lines in the tablet.
_šú-gil_ equals _napḥaru_, “what is collected”, “totality”, “entirety”.
_šú_ is a prefix to the causative stem (see on line 25). _gil_ equals
_paḥâru_, “collect”.
_nišĭa_: the signs for the numerals twenty and five are the same as in
Assyrian, _niš_ is the Sumerian numeral for “twenty”. _ĭa_ is the
Sumerian numeral for “five”.
_mu-bi im_: _mu-bi_ equals “his name”, each line of the Hymn being
considered a name of Bêl. In our translation we may read “its lines”.
_im_, the same sign as _nì_ (line 1). _im_ is sometimes equal to _ṭîṭu_,
“clay”, or _duppu_, “tablet”.
27. _êr(A.ŠI) lim(b)-ma_
Hymn of praise.
_êr_ is a value derived from two signs, A and ŠI, taken together. The
most common meaning of the value is _bikîtu_, “lamentation”, or “song”
(see _i-de_, line 6).
_lim-ma_: the phonetic complement _ma_ indicates that the preceding
value should end with _m_. Dr. Lau regards this as the sign _lib(m)_ =
_kûru_, “woe”, (Br. 7271); hence _êr-lim-ma_ would mean a penitential
psalm.