Reading akkadian PRayeRs & Hymns An Introduction

16
READING AKKADIAN PRAYERS AND HYMNS: AN INTRODUCTION
It spread (to others) the gnawing of (his) insides,
The stock of the human race was diminished.
Belet-ili went before Ea the king,
“O Ea, humankind was created by your spell,
“Second, you pinched off their clay
from the firmament of the depths.
“By your great command, you determined their capacities.
“I cast a spell on the …-disease, fever, boils,
“Leprosy(?), jaundice!
“Rain down like dew,
“Flow down like tears,
“Go down to the netherworld!”
This incantation is an incantation of Belet-ili, the great queen. 38
Although these kinds of texts are clearly excluded from the present understanding
of prayer because they are directed at malevolent (here, an illness) rather
than benevolent powers, they often bear one of the two Sumerian superscripts,
én or én-é-nu-ru, under discussion. There are a number of other texts that also
bear one of these superscripts but are directed at such things as an animal, the
wind, a would-be human lover, and in some cases nothing clearly discernible, as
in the first shaziga cited above. Finally, as in the second shaziga cited, there are
still other texts that bear the én superscript but also fit the present definition of
prayer. In fact, nearly all of the SB shuilla- and dingirshadibba-prayers in this
volume bear the én superscript (and are therefore usually called “incantationprayers”
by contemporary scholars). Besides recognizing that our constructed
category of prayer cuts across another indigenous Mesopotamian scribal category,
this fact calls for some deeper reflection about how the notion of prayer
that is developed here relates to the ancient Mesopotamian category of ritual
speech labeled én—a Sum. term often translated simply as “incantation” but
better rendered “ritual wording.” 39
First, applying an antiquated Frazerian dichotomy between “mechanical”
magic and “personal” religion—personal in that volitional agents are involved—
should be resisted because it is not helpful in clarifying or explaining the texts. 40
38 See W. G. Lambert, “Fire Incantations,” AfO 23 (1970), 39–45 for an edition of the text and
Foster, 971, whose translation is cited here.
39 Despite the fact that “ritual wording” is probably a better translation of the terms én and šiptu,
the conventional translation “incantation” is so entrenched in Assyriological scholarship that we
have (hesitantly) opted to use this rendering throughout the volume. For how our modern notion
of prayer does not correspond with the ancient superscript én, see briefly W. G. Lambert, “The
Classification of Incantations,” in Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18–22, 2005 (ed. Robert D. Biggs,
Jennie Myers, and Martha T. Roth; SAOC 62; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008), 93–97 (reference
courtesy of Christopher Frechette).
40 See Pals, Eight Theories of Religion, 31–51 for a brief summary and useful critique of Frazer’s
views. See also Tambiah, Magic, Science, Religion, 18–20 for the intellectual genealogy of such a
dichotomy.