"The King's Speech". Royal Rhetorical Language

BEYOND HATTI Gary M. Beckman BEYOND HATTI A TrIBuTE TO GArY BEckMAN edited by Billie Jean collins and Piotr Michalowski LOckWOOD PrESS ATLANTA All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. requests for permission should be addressed in writing to Lockwood Press, P.O. Box 133289, Atlanta, GA 30333, uSA. © 2013 by Lockwood Press ISBN: 978-1-937040-11-6 Library of congress control Number: Number: 2013901050 his paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). contents Publications of Gary Beckman vii Preface xvii Abbreviations xix Alfonso Archi he West Hurrian Pantheon and Its Background 1 Mary r. Bachvarova Adapting Mesopotamian Myth in Hurro-Hittite rituals at Hattuša: IŠTAr, the underworld, and the Legendary kings 23 Joel P. Brereton he r̥gvedic Ghosā Hymns and the Atirātra 45 Billie Jean collins he Place of KBo 13.145 in the Hantitaššu Text Tradition 63 Marjorie Fisher A Diplomatic Marriage in the ramesside Period: Maathorneferure, Daughter of the Great ruler of Hatti 75 Benjamin r. Foster Albert T. clay and His Babylonian collection 121 Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. “he king’s Speech”: royal rhetorical Language 137 Stephanie W. Jamison A Sanskrit riddle in hree Movements rig Veda V.84 155 H. craig Melchert Luvian Language in “Luvian” rituals in HattuŠa 159 v vi Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman Piotr Michalowski he Steward of Divine Gudea and His Family in ur III Girsu 173 Alice Mouton Le rituel d’Allī d’Arzawa contre un ensorcellement (CTH 402): une nouvelle édition 195 Elizabeth E. Payne Accounting for Gold in a Period of unrest 231 carole roche-Hawley and robert Hawley An Essay on Scribal Families, Tradition, and Innovation in hirteenth-century ugarit 241 Jack M. Sasson Prologues and Poets: On the Opening Lines of the Gilgamesh Epic 265 Brian B. Schmidt he Social Matrix of Early Judean Magic and Divination: From “Top Down” or “Bottom up”? 279 Piotr Steinkeller he umma Field ušgida and the Question of GAršana’s Location 295 claudia E. Suter he Divine Gudea on ur III Seal Images 309 Terry G. Wilfong Dig Dogs and camp cats at karanis: he Animals of the 1924–1935 university of Michigan Expedition to Egypt 325 Gernot Wilhelm Texts and royal Seals of the Middle Hittite Period from the “House of the chief of the Guards” at Hattuša 343 Index of Ancient Sources 355 “The King’s Speech” Royal Rhetorical Language Harry A. Hofner, Jr. O ne of Gary Beckman’s early publications was a short study of proverbs and proverbial language in Hittite texts.1 Many of his examples were drawn from the language employed by royalty. As a celebration of his very productive career I should like to explore a related topic, namely, how Hittite monarchs employed rhetoric in pursuance of their ideology of kingship. I once noted that Hattušili I was particularly fond of vivid metaphors and the use of animals in them.2 his opinion was supported by collins in her writings on animals in Hittite literature and elsewhere.3 At the time I wrongly assumed that this might be a personal characteristic of that king. But this vivid language was simply a part of a larger picture of the wisdom (ḫattatar) and eloquence (uttār) of Hattušili. And the question must be asked: Was such wisdom and eloquence only assumed by the ancient Hittites for Hattušili I?4 I may have made that assumption only because I was focusing too narrowly on just the edicts of this king and the uršum 1. Gary M. Beckman, “Proverbs and Proverbial Allusions in Hittite,” JNES 45 (1986) 19–30. 2. Harry A. Hofner, Jr., “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: he Hittites,” OrNS 49 (1980) 299 (§4.0), 302. For rhetorical elements in Hattušili I’s Political Testament (CTH 6), see Johan de Roos, “Rhetoric in the S. C. Testament of Hattusilis I,” in Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasions of His Sixty-ith Birthday, ed. W. H. van Soldt (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2001), 401–6. 3. For example, Billie Jean Collins, he Hittites and heir World, ABS 7 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 154. 4. Relevant to the origin of the rhetoric of the Political Testament is the issue of authorship, Liverani and Pecchioli Daddi have claimed that the true author of the Political Testament was not Hattušili I, but Muršili I, whose political interest the record of Hattušili I’s edict served (see de Roos, “Rhetoric,” 401 note 4). But since my claim 137 138 Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman text which illustrate his lair for colorful speech and devastating sarcasm. A broader perspective reveals, that in a wide variety of oicial texts, and even in the royal correspondence, other kings too regularly used a variety of rhetorical devices. Wisdom and persuasive speech is an essential part of the ideology of Hittite kingship. he king used that ability to defend his right to the throne in cases of an irregular or questionable succession, to defend his policies and prior actions in correspondence with foreign kings, to rebuke and correct the behavior of his subjects, to intimidate and demoralize the enemy on the battleield (speeches recorded in annals and examples of correcting and persuading royal addressees in international correspondence), and even to persuade the gods in prayer. his being the case, we may view the incident of Muršili II’s speech loss (CTH 486)5 in a new light: as a potential denial by the Storm God of his legitimate kingship. My thesis is that, although excellence in speech and persuasiveness was by no means limited to royalty, at least in the textual corpus, the king or queen must excel above all others. his is part and parcel of the Hittite royal ideology: that the king is the wisest of men and his speech the most eloquent and persuasive. It is very likely that Hattušili I was invoking this ideology, when he irst instructed his pankuš, who acknowledge his superior words (uttār) and wisdom (ḫ attatar) to instruct the new king in that wisdom (ḫ attaḫ ḫ išketen “make (him) wise,” KUB 1.16 ii 56–57, §10), and then urged his newly adopted son Muršili I to have the words of this edict read to him monthly: nu-za-an (58) [ud-da-]a-ar-me-et ḫ a-at-ta-<ta->-me-et-ta karta ši-iš-at-ti (59) [nu ARAD].MEŠ-YA Ù LÚ.MEŠGAL.GAL du-uddu-uš-ke-ši “So that you may internalize (lit., ‘impress upon the heart’) my words and my wisdom and thus be able to rule my [oicials] and the grandees wisely” (KUB 1.16 iii 57–59). is only that the text exhibits royal rhetoric, it is for my purpose irrelevant whether Hattušili himself or Muršili I actually composed it. 5. To the literature in Hetkonk on CTH 486, add Gary M. Beckman, “he Aphasia of Murshili II,” CANE 3:2010; Alberto Bernabé and Juan Antonio Álvarez-Pedrosa, Historia y Leyes de los Hititas. Textos del Reino Medio y del Imperio Nuevo, AKAL/ Oriente 8 (Madrid: Akal, 2004), 159–60; and heo P. J. van den Hout, “Some houghts on the Composition Known as Mursili’s Aphasia (CTH 486),” in Antiquus Oriens. Mélanges oferts au Professeur René Lebrun, ed. M. Mazoyer and O. Casabonne (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2004), 1:359–80. Harry A. Hofner, Jr. 139 It is this combination of words (uttār) and wisdom (ḫattatar) that constituted the royal image, without which the new king could not rule efectively (dudduške-). If the true author of the Political Testament actually was Muršili I, he would be claiming implicitly by this quote from Hattušili I that he possessed that same speaking ability (“words”) and that wisdom through the reading and instruction prescribed by his predecessor. In what kinds of texts are we likely to ind this royal wisdom (i.e., persuasiveness) and speech demonstrated? Compositions in which most examples will be found are royal edicts, annals, royal correspondence, and royal prayers. Royal compositions in which they play a lesser role, as might be expected, are the treaties. But even there one can see some of this skill employed in the historical prologue sections, where the king demands a vassal’s faithful allegiance on the basis of his own prior acts of benevolence. Royal Edicts he Political Testament of Hattušili I (CTH 6)6 We need not take space here to repeat all of De Roos’s (“Rhetoric”) valid examples: both the logic of the text, the selection and sequence of events narrated, the characterizations of the named actors, the alternation of positive and negative aspects, its carefully crated non-chronological sequence, and its efective use of verbal devices. he king calls the mother of his unworthy son a “snake” (MUŠ = illuyanka-),7 which in Hittite thought, as in biblical, is not complimentary. De Roos has well stated the purpose of the document and the goal of its argument: “he audience must be persuaded of the rightness of the political deed—here, the manner in which the succession is regulated” (404). But who is to be persuaded? his text states at the outset that it 6. For a full bibliography of studies either primarily or incidentally involving this text, see the Hetkonk sub CTH 6. he principal translations are: Ferdinand Sommer and Adam Falkenstein, Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Hattusili I. (Labarna II.), ABAW NF 16 (München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaten, 1938); Isabelle Klock-Fontanille, “Le testament politique de Hattušili Ier ou les conditions d’exercise de la royauté dans l’ancien royaume hittite,” Anatolia Antiqua 4 (1996); Gary M. Beckman, “Bilingual Edict of Hattušili I,” CoS 2.15:79–81; Bernabé and Álvarez-Pedrosa, Historia y Leyes de los Hititas; Gary M. Beckman et al., “Hittite Historical Texts I,” in he Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation, ed. Mark W. Chavalas (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 215–52. 7. KUB 1.16 ii 9–10, 20 = CoS 2.15:79 §§2 and 4. 140 Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman is addressed to the king’s council, consisting of ÉRIN.MEŠ nakbati u … kabtūti “the members of the principal group (i.e., the pankuš)8 and the dignitaries.” he Telipinu Proclamation (CTH 19)9 As is well known, and as I commented on this text years ago in a lecture at the Johns Hopkins University,10 this text shares with the apology of Hattušili the nature of an argument in defense of an “irregular” succession to the throne. Here too, as in the Political Testament of Hattušili I, the arrangement of the events in the selected narration is rhetorically signiicant.11 he “historical” review begins with the irst three great rulers: Labarna (I), Hattušili I (= Labarna II), and Muršili I (§§1–11). Here the repetition of the thematic line “the king, his sons, brothers, his inlaws, and his (further) family members were united” (i 2–4, 13–15, 24–26) intends by its very repetition to make the argument that the kingdom only lourishes when all branches and members of the ruling class are united without any competing factions, much less mutual bloodshed. he happy corollary to a united royal family is underscored by a second repeated line: “Wherever he went on campaign he held the enemy country subdued by (his) might. He destroyed the lands, one ater another, stripped(?) the lands of their power, and made them the borders of the sea” (§§2–3; cf also §6).” Implicit, even at this point, but to be made explicit later in the document is the corollary: there should be no division of the author’s kingdom either, but that all its factions should unite behind him now. I say “all its factions,” because—whether a reality or not—it was the legal iction of the Hittite royal ideology that the entire ruling class constituted a simple family. his theme appears already in the Political Testament, where Hattušili I admonishes and instructs the pankuš: Your clan shall be [united] like that of a wetna-animal … His (i.e., Muršili I’s) subjects are born [of one mo]ther. … A single 8. See AHw 721 sub nakbatu “Gros [‘main mass, principal part’] des Heeres.” hus nakbatu matches the partially preserved pang[awaš…] of the Hittite version. 9. Ed. Inge Hofmann, Der Erlaß Telipinus, THeth 11 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1984). 10. Harry A. Hofner, Jr., “Propaganda and Political Justiication in Hittite Historiography,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, ed. Hans Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1975), 49–62. 11. See Hofner, “Propaganda and Political Justiication.” Harry A. Hofner, Jr. 141 liver, a single set of lungs, and a single […] have been allotted [to you (all)]. herefore, don’t vie with one another for preeminence.12 he author begins with a positive paradigm, which in this case also happens to correspond to the chronological sequence. his is followed by a negative paradigm, illustrated by a highly selective review of the low points and disasters of the reigns following Muršili I and extending all the way through the reign of Telipinu’s immediate predecessor (§§12–22). Here the cause of the disasters is the shedding of royal blood (ēšḫar iye/a-, I 34 [§9 end], cf. §§13, 19–20; in subsequent paragraphs the verb is kuen§§16, 18–19, 21). When inally—in the third and climactic unit—Telipinu’s own accession and rule is described, it is both a return to the correct form of rule illustrated in §§1–11 and superior to that, in that Telipinu twice refuses to shed the blood of persons who themselves were guilty of the murder of members of the royal family (§§22–23, 25–26). Enlisted in the rhetoric of Telipinu is even a report of a message from the gods through prophets or diviners (§27). And inally, Telipinu displays himself not only as unwilling to exact revenge, but also to take preventative measures against further bloodshed through his royal edict (§27) and the order of succession that he established (§28). Nor is the Telipinu Proclamation devoid of the vivid language and rhetorical devices used in the Political Testament. Certain igures of speech found here are today unattested elsewhere. In advising the nobles how to deal with a member of the royal family convicted of plotting murder Telipinu uses the expression: nu=šmaš=an kakit karipten “devour him with your teeth!” (ii 73 [§33 end]).13 In view of the king’s own refusal to take the life of such persons, it is very likely that this expression refers to a diferent form of punishment. he devouring (karip-) may refer to the coniscation of his lands,14 and the teeth (kaki-) to an oral verdict that became legally binding with a crushing force. Whatever its precise meaning—and something precise would have had to be clear to the addressees—this expression was certainly vivid and colorful. Other examples, attributed in the text to King Telipinu are: “hey did evil to me, but I will not do evil to them” (§23), “Why should they die? hey will hide (their) eyes concerning them. I, the King, made them into re[al] farmers: 12. KUB 1.16 ii 46–49, translation in CoS 2.15:80, §§8–9. 13. [(nu-us-ma-ša-an UZUZU9-it)] ka-ri!-ip-tén. 14. his verb is used in i 20–21 of unjust authorities coniscating the houses (É.MEŠ, i.e., estates) of others. 142 Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman I have taken their weapons from their shoulders and given them a yok[e]” (§26), he Apology of Hattušili III (CTH 81) A document in which royal rhetoric plays an especially signiicant role is the Apology of Hattušili III. In this text the author must not only establish his legitimacy as king on the basis of the events that he records, but also on the basis of how his very narrative displays the eloquence and persuasiveness—the rhetoric—which are the marks of a true Hittite king. Haas identiies the goal of the argumentation of this text as follows: Die propagandistische und forensische Rhetorik der Argu– mentationsstrategie, die den Hörer zum Standpunkt des Autors führen soll, besteht darin, sich selbst als “einen gerecht geleiteten Mann” und seine Gegner als üble Neider zu charakterisieren.15 As in the Political Testament and the Telipinu Proclamation, so in the Apology of Hattušili III, the selection of events to be included and the sequence in which they appear are highly signiicant. As in the Telipinu Proclamation, here too the irst part of the narrative establishes the situation as it should be: a proper king, Muršili II, is on the throne; Hattušili is his legitimate son, even if not his irstborn. His relationship with his older brother Muwatalli is proper and friendly. As a boy Hattušili is saved from an early death by the collaboration of the goddess, who informs his father of the need to devote Hattušili to her as a child priest, and the older brother Muwatalli who conveys her message in a dream. Hattušili is on the best of terms with both the gods and the legitimate king. In the next section, the author, while simultaneously establishing Hattušili’s loyal service to his father and his older brother in the military sphere, and to the goddess as a child priest, introduces the irst example of the hostility against him that his patron goddess would consistently defend him. his corresponds in general to the second section of the Telipinu Proclamation, where the lengthy period of regicides (CoS 1.76:195–96 §§9–22) threatens the health of the kingdom and ofends the gods themselves (CoS 1.76:196–97 §§27 and 30). During the reign of his older brother, Hattušili was falsely accused by one Arma-Tarhunta, to the point that Hattušili had to stand trial. But aided by the reassurances of 15. Volkert Haas, Die hethitische Literatur: Texte, Stilistik, Motive (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 91. Harry A. Hofner, Jr. 143 his goddess, he prevailed in the trial, being found innocent of the charges and his accuser guilty of false accusation, as well as of a second charge that he had illed his city Šamuha with witchcrat. he court awarded Arma-Tarhunta’s property, wife and son, to Hattušili, which apparently allowed him to deal with them in any way he saw it. Instead of taking any life, or even keeping the family members as slaves, Hattušili followed the pattern of Telipinu by releasing the family members (§10a), thus demonstrating the same quality of mercy that was lacking in Hattušili I’s “cold” son (CoS 2.15:79 §1), but was shown by Muršili II in his treatment of Arma-Tarhunta’s mother and aged men and women (AM 70–71; see n. 36 below). Ater the death of his older brother, Hattušili showed his loyalty to him by supporting the succession of Muwatalli’s son by a secondary wife (§10b). In this section he makes it clear that he had the control of the armed forces and could have taken the throne for himself, but out of loyalty to his brother he did not. his son, Urhi-Teššup too he served faithfully. But Urhi-Teššup envied Hattušili’s success. And gradually he began to curtail his power and inluence, taking from him many areas that he had governed. Even then, he reminds us, he took no hostile action. He tolerated this persecution for “seven years,” which may be a literal igure, or a rhetorical one, meaning “for as long as I could.” he last straw was when the king tried to take from him the last two cities under his control, Hakpiš and Nerik. hen he could no longer tolerate the escalating hostile action. Even then, the author stresses, Hattušili declared war on the king in a proper and “manly” way (LÚ-nili §10c). In contrast to each aspect of Hattušili’s positive behavior, the negative, improper behavior of UrhiTeššub is contrasted. And Hattušili is careful to explain at every turn— oten using rhetorical questions directed at those who later will criticize him—that what he did was completely justiied and proper. In the clearest expression of this technique he tells that he wrote to Urhi-Teššub, as follows: “If anyone says: ‘Why did you at irst install him in kingship, and now declare war on him in writing?’ (I will answer:) ‘If he had in not acted wantonly (šulliye-16) toward me, would they (i.e., the gods) really have made a Great King [Urhi-Teššup] succumb to a petty king [me]?’ But because he has now acted wantonly toward me, by (their) judgment the 16. See H. Craig Melchert, “Latin insolesco, Hittite šulle(šš)- and PIE Statives in -ē-,” in Hr̥dā Mánasā: Studies Presented to Professor Leonard G. Herzenberg on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. N. N. Kazansky, et al. (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2005), 90–98 for this meaning. he action displays hybris. 144 Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman gods have made him succumb to me.” he logic of such a sentence may elude us moderns, but it was acceptable reasoning to an ancient Hittite. In this piece too we encounter frequent rhetorical lourishes. Not only does he make frequent use of rhetorical questions in order to persuade his readers of the justness of his cause, but he uses vivid similes and metaphors, especially in connection with his inal victory over UrhiTeššup: “[he goddess] locked him up in Šamuha like a pig in a sty.”17 Another literary device employed to great efect in this composition is the Leitwort parā ḫ antantatar, a term diicult to translate with a single term, but which implies both the gods’ control over events and the justice of that control. Whenever gods take direct action to turn events in the direction that they should go, especially if that direct action entails dramatic displays in nature such as lightning strikes or earthquakes, it is said that the deity “showed his/her parā ḫ antantatar.” his too is part of the argument, part of the royal rhetoric. Historiographic Texts (Annals, etc.) Šuppiluliuma I’s and Muršili II’s Annals he records of the king’s military campaigns contribute to the royal image by showing his competence as a ield general, and his mercy to foes who surrender. hey also contain episodes in which the king either speaks or writes a letter to the king or general opposing him in battle. hese constitute a legal justiication of the Hittite king’s military intervention on the basis of a treaty oath violated by the opponent.18 Because it was understood that broken oaths would bring divine retribution from the gods by whom the oath was taken, and for this reason the king invited the Storm God to settle the matter like a lawsuit in the ield of battle,19 such a preliminary declaration by the Hittite king also constituted a propaganda ofensive, 17. A parallel text reads instead “like a ish in a net.” 18. Even when it is not explicitly said that a treaty oath was broken, it can sometimes be inferred from the refusal of the opponent to return Hittite subjects who have either led or been taken into his land, because the right to request extradition of fugitives was only valid if part of a treaty. So, for example, the request of extradition made repeatedly (note the imperfective verb form wewakke- KBo 3.4 ii 11 and its variant wekiške- KBo 16.1 iii 9) to Uhhaziti of Arzawa implies such a previous agreement. 19. KBo 3.4 ii 9–14; AM 46–47; translation in CoS 2.16:85 and Giuseppe F. del Monte, L’annalistica ittita, TVOA 4/2 (Brescia: Paideia, 1993), 63 (against Uhhaziti of Arzawa). Harry A. Hofner, Jr. 145 calculated to demoralize the foe and persuade him to surrender. In a real sense this was also a demonstration of the king’s verbal persuasiveness, backed up, of course, by the threat of defeat by his army. Letters Complete Letters he words (uttār) and wisdom (ḫ attatar) of the king are expressed in royal correspondence, expressed in the use of rhetorical language: similes, metaphors, rhetorical questions, hyperbole, irony, and sarcasm. Since the text of a letter is much shorter than that of an edict or royal prayer, we cannot identify structural features contributing to an argument, as we were able to do with the Political Testament, the Telipinu Proclamation, the Ten-Year Annals of Muršili, or the Apology of Hattušili. his is not to say that there may not be such a structure in some royal letters, perhaps especially in those to foreign kings. But I have been unable to identify any. he full range of royal rhetoric can be seen in the copious body of letters to and from oicials in the provinces, especially in the Maşat corpus.20 An example of the use of irony may be found in the king’s threat in HKM 1421 to have his oicial blinded, if he failed to bring safely a Kaškaean hostage, who may himself already have been blinded like those enumerated in HKM 102. Sarcasm abounds in the king’s letters to his subordinates.22 he enemy not spotted by a Maşat oicial “must have been enchanted (alwanzaḫ ḫ anza).”23 Among examples of hyperbole in letters, in a letter to the Babylonian king …, in a disparaging remark about a troublesome Babylonian oicial who has long outlived his usefulness Hattušili III says of him: “IttiMarduk-balātu, whom the gods have let live almost 3,600 years.”24 In the 20. For editions of Hittite correspondence, see Albertine Hagenbuchner, Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter, 2. Teil, THeth 16 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1989); idem, Korrespondenz 1; Sedat Alp, Hethitische Briefe aus Maşat-Höyük, TTKY VI/35 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991); and Harry A. Hofner, Jr., Letters From the Hittite Kingdom, WAW 15 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). 21. Edited in Hofner, Letters From the Hittite Kingdom, 119–21. 22. Ibid., 62, 105, 23–24, 201–2, 27. 23. Ibid., 105. 24. KBo 1.10 + KUB 3.73, obv. 21, see “On Higher Numbers in Hittite,” in VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005, ed. Alfonso Archi 146 Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman sexagesimal system of Babylonian numbering 3,600 symbolizes the largest possible number. Ehli-Šarruma, king of Išuwa, in a message to the king of Hanigalbat contained in IBoT 1.34 obv. 18, protests: “Are my servants garbage?” With this hyperbole he intended to emphasize what he saw as the disparaging attitude of the king of Hanigalbat toward the Hittite vassals.25 A powerful imagery is conveyed in the following lines of a letter, parts of which became a scribal model: But concerning this matter of a fever that my lady wrote me about—(8) (actually) it was Aruḫipa who wrote it to me— (9) “In addition she is eating maḫ ḫ uella-bread and fruit”: (10–11) on account of that matter (i.e., the serious illness of the addressee) my soul has gone down into the Dark Netherworld (i.e., I am very sad). (12) And my tearful cry goes up to the gods. (13–14) Oh that the gods would step in again! If only they will make my lady well again!26 Prayers As noted by de Roos and Singer,27 the formal royal prayers in the oicial archives of the Hittite capital portray a judicial procedure, a trial in which the king (perhaps representing the people) appears as the defendant, one or more ofended gods as the prosecution, and the assembly of the gods as the judges or jury. A charge has been brought before the court and a case made against the defendant. he king’s words represent his defense, his pleading before the court of the gods.28 hus both the entire and Rita Francia, SMEA 49 (Rome: CNR - Istituto de Studi sulle Civiltà del’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente, 2007), 377 with n. 1. 25. Cited by Stefano de Martino and Fiorella Imparati, “Aspects of Hittite Correspondence: Problems of Form and Content,” in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia, ed. Onofrio Carruba, Mauro Giorgieri, and Clelia Mora, Studia Mediterranea 9 (Pavia: Iuculano, 1995), 104 with note 14. 26. KBo 13.62 obv. 7–14, edited in Hofner, Letters From the Hittite Kingdom, 335– 39. As pointed out there, this emotionally expressive hyperbole also occurs in a prayer of king Muršili II about the death of his wife (“A Prayer of Muršili II about His Stepmother,” JAOS 103 [1983] 186–92). 27. See Johan de Roos, “Hittite Prayers,” CANE 3:1997–2006 and Itamar Singer, Hittite Prayers, WAW 11 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 5–11. 28. At times the king (defendant) addresses not the judges themselves, but a sympathetic deity, a “patron deity” (DLAMMA), who acts as his advocate (Singer, Hittite Harry A. Hofner, Jr. 147 composition, as well as a particular part of it, are labeled arkuwar, which Laroche showed means essentially a legal defense or argument.29 And since both the prosecution and defense ofer arguments and seek to persuade the judges, all parts of such a prayer-text can be expected to show rhetorical features and a structure appropriate to the art of persuasion. Other elements of a royal prayer were the opening invocation or entreaty (called either mugawar, mugeššar, talliyawar or šarā ḫ uittiyawar), praise or lattery (walliyawar), and request (wekuwar). hese elements are not all present in every royal prayer, nor is their sequence a ixed one, but they tend to occur only once in the body of any given prayer. he king’s defense could contain elements of confession or exculpation from guilt, presentation of mitigating circumstances or excuses, protestation against unfair punishment, boasting of his piety and faithfulness,30 and lattering or bribing the judges with gits31 or vows. Excuses sometimes took the form of identifying the cause with a sin of an ancestor king, sometimes by claiming themselves to have been too young to know about the ofense at the time it was committed (so Muršili II and Hattušili III). Among the rhetorical devices employed are pathos, irony, paradox, hyperbole, simile, and metaphor. Pathos appears in the descriptions of the sufering of the king or his people, as well as by the humble and desperate cry for “mercy!” (Hittite duddu).32 Vivid similes and metaphors—some containing pathos33—abound: “I have no [father], I have no mother. You, O gods, are [my] father, [you are] my [mother]. You are (like) His Majesty, Prayers, 5, 23 [no. 1, §§5–14]); cf. also 32 (no. 4a, §1). 29. Emmanuel Laroche, “La prière hittite: vocabulaire et typologie,” AEPHE (1964) 13–20. 30. “He who is not respectful of the gods, … I smash him” (Singer, Hittite Prayers, 24 [no. 2, §3]); “”Never did I swear by my god and then break the oath. What is holy to my god and not proper for me to eat I have never eaten and thereby deiled my body; never did I separate an ox from the (gods’) pen … I found for myself bread, but I never ate it by myself ” (ibid., 32 [no. 4a, §§3–4]). 31. “May this (ofering) be yours and you keep eating and drinking!” (ibid., 23 [no. 1]). 32. Ibid., 22–23 (no. 1), 26 (no. 3, §8). 33. “Life is bound up with death, and death is bound up with life. A human doesn’t live forever: the days of his life are few (lit. ‘counted’). Even if a human lived forever, and evil sickness of mortals were to be still present, with it not be a grievance for him?” (ibid., 32 §5); “Because of sickness my house has become a house of anguish, and because of that anguish my soul drips away from me to another place. I have become like one who is sick throughout the year. And now sickness and anguish have become too much for me” (ibid., 33 [no. 4a, §10]). 148 Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman and I, I (am like) your subjects” … “As the snake does not [miss(?)] its hole, may the evil word return to <his> own mouth” … “As the rear wheel doesn’t catch up with the front wheel, [let] the evil word likewise [not catch up with the king and queen]” … “Behold, the word of the gods is an iron peg.”34 Hittite texts also knew the device called a kenning, a “circumlocution, in the form of a compound (usually two words, oten hyphenated) that employs igurative language in place of a more concrete single-word noun” (Wikipedia). An example is the euphemistic Hittite compound tepu pedan, literally “small place,” that designates the grave or the netherworld (CHD P, 339–40). A variant form, also designating the netherworld, is tamai pedan “another place.” his is found in the trope from the prayer of Prince Kantuzzili: ištanzaš=miš tamatta pēdi zappiškezzi “From anxiety/ anguish my soul is dripping away to another place” KUB 30.10 rev. 15, cf. CHD P, 117, 338–39; cf. KUB 30.11 rev. 10. he imagery is that of a soul’s mortal agony, and calls to mind the similar expression kuenta=an=kán kuit nu=za=kan TI-annaš UD.̮I.A-uš (1} [ZI=YA dank]ui daganzipi kattanda (2) [apadda šer pāi]škezzi “[on that account] (i.e., because of my grief at my wife’s death) [my soul] keeps going down into the netherworld” KBo 4.8 ii 22, iii 1–2, restored from KBo 13.62 obv. 10–11.35 With regard to prayers composed by Hittite kings, Collins once observed: As literature, the Hittite personal prayers are rich in poetic language, metaphors and similes, and relections on the human condition. In the face of divine anger, humans are helpless: “Wherever I low like water, I do not know my location. Like a boat, I do not know when will I arrive at land.” Free for the most part of political rhetoric, the prayers provide as honest a glimpse into the hearts and minds of the Hittite kings as we can hope to ind. Muršili II unabashedly complains of his weariness of constant conlict: “Rested are the belligerent lands, but Hatti is a weary land. Unhitch the weary one, and hitch up the rested one.” Even the righteous cannot expect to be rewarded: ‘To mankind, our wisdom has been lost, and whatever we do right comes to nothing.”36 34. Singer, Hittite Prayers, 24 §2; 25 §§5–6. 35. nu-mu-kán ZI-YA da-an-ku-i da-ga-an-zi-pí (11) kat-ta-an-ta pa-a-an-za a-pée-da-ni ud-da-a-ni pé-ra-an; cf. note 23. 36. Collins, he Hittites and heir World, 154. Harry A. Hofner, Jr. 149 Now, it is true that royal prayers are “personal” in the sense that each was ofered by a speciic and individual king. But we must be careful not to read into them more of the speciic characteristics of a particular king than is necessary to identify the details of the speciic charge that is being argued against. Hittite royal prayers are not intended to serve as (auto) biographies. It is therefore not self-evident that they aford us an “honest … glimpse” into the hearts of the individual kings. Whether or not private prayers of nonroyal persons sometimes incorporated elements of these royal prayers, the fact remains that in the textual tradition they serve to display the kind of wisdom and speech that kings used to persuade the gods to desist from actions that adversely afected both king and people. his, if you like, was part of the king’s priestly role—the verbal one. Each king in his prayers seeks to present himself to the court, not as an individual, but as a type—as a Hittite priest-king exercising his duty and prerogative. Although the Ten-Year Annals of Muršili II is not formally a prayer text, its opening lines show that it was addressed to the Sun Goddess of Arinna and constituted a textual conirmation of the fulillment of the king’s prayer and vow to that goddess. Aspects of that text resemble parts of royal prayers. At the beginning the king presents himself as young and inexperienced, and records the hostile language of rulers of surrounding lands, claiming that because he is so young and inexperienced, he is no true king.37 his is the charge against Muršili. he following military history is a kind of rebuttal of that charge and an arkuwar for the king’s legitimacy. Most of the rebuttal takes the form of portraying the king’s victories on the battle ield, and a pious dependence upon the Sun Goddess and the other gods to march before him in battle. But occasionally there are also glimpses of the king’s social piety, such as when he took pity upon Manapa-Tarhunta’s mother and the aged men and women who were sent to him as an embassy,38 reminding us of Hattušili I’s charge against his son and heir presumptive: “He was cold; he showed no mercy” (CoS 2.15:79 §1). 37. KBo 3.4 i 8–15, edited in AM 16–21; see the translation by Richard H. Beal in CoS 2.26:84. 38. AMA-ŠU LÚ.MEŠ ŠU.GI MUNUS.MEŠ ŠU.GI KBo 3.4 iii 14–18, edited AM 70–71; CoS 2.16:86 right column; and Kathleen R. Mineck, heo P. J. van den Hout, and Harry A. Hofner, Jr., “Hittite Historical Texts II,” in he Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation, ed. Mark W. Chavalas (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006) 256, §26. 150 Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman Muršili’s Speech Loss (CTH 486)39 In this text, which van den Hout has persuaded me is a combination of an original composition by the king and later scribal insertions,40 Muršili II explains how it came about that he lost his ability to speak twice: once ater a terrifying shock brought on by his traveling in an open chariot through a violent lightning storm, and again when ater repeated dreams about the event in one of these the hand of a god reached out and touched his mouth. Most if not all would agree that the aliction was hysterical aphasia, but some have speculated that the king had sufered a minor stroke.41 he text that records this event and the steps taken to rectify the loss is actually dictated by the king himself, ater his speech had been restored.42 hat very fact shows that the matter was in fact eventually rectiied and Muršili vindicated as a proper Hittite king and not one renounced by the gods. 39. CTH 486; edited Albrecht Goetze and Holger Pedersen, Muršilis Sprachlähmung, DVS-HjM XXI/1 (Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1934) and René Lebrun, “L’aphasie de Mursili II = CTH 486,” Hethitica 6 (1985), translated by Hans Martin Kümmel, “Rituale in hethitischer Sprache,” in Rituale und Beschwörungen I, TUAT II/2 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1987), 289–92 and Beckman, “he Aphasia of Murshili II,” 2010, and discussed by Oppenheim and Güterbock in A. Leo Oppenheim, he Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, TAPS NS 46.3 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956), 230–31, by Harry A. Hofner, Jr., “he Disabled and Inirm in Hittite Society,” in Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume, ed. Israel Ephal, Ammon Ben-Tor, and Peter Machinist, Eretz-Israel 27 (Jerusalem: he Israel Exploration Society, 2003), 87–88, “heodicy in Hittite Texts,” in heodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 99, 101–2, and by van den Hout, “Mursili’s Aphasia.” 40. See ibid. 41. “As far as we can determine from the expression ‘my mouth went sideways’, the king appears to have sufered a minor stroke, which caused partial speech paralysis” (Trevor R. Bryce, he Kingdom of the Hittites [Oxford: Clarendon, 1998], 239; see also Life and Society in the Hittite World [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002], 167 (qualiied to “may indicate …”] and 283 with n. 14, and Collins, he Hittites and heir World, 52, 186). Reason for increased caution was irst noted by Harry A. Hofner, Jr., “From Head to Toe in Hittite,” in Go To he Land I Will Show You: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. Joseph Coleson and Victor H. Matthews (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 253–54 and seconded by heo van den Hout, review of Trevor R. Bryce, Kingdom of the Hittites, BiOr 57 (2000): 645. 42. I am persuaded by the arguments of van den Hout, “Mursili’s Aphasia” that the text was not composed at the time of the ritual of sending the substitute ox of to Kumanni, but much later. Harry A. Hofner, Jr. 151 We now come to the interesting question: Why the speech loss of Muršili II was of such enormous import. It is generally recognized that Muršili II was the “historian par excellence” of Hittite kings,43 and this deserved reputation was not cancelled out by the traumatic incident recorded here. Muršili possibly more than other known Hittite kings understood the value of royal speech. Because his succession was in no way “irregular” like those of Telipinu or Hattušili III, he had no occasion to formulate an apology for his own kingship. But he did indicate in the opening paragraphs of his Decennial Annals the fact that upon his accession to the throne he was thought too young and unimpressive to be a real king, and the rationale for the Decennial Annals seems to have been to set those criticisms to rest. He did this in the irst instance by his successful military campaigns, which provide the subject matter of the annals. And for that reason, the king includes in the Decennial Annals only campaigns in which he personally took part.44 But it should not be overlooked that the written record itself of those campaigns became the argument against his enemy critics and his justiication before the Sun Goddess of Arinna. For this reason at the close of the text he makes a point of saying that he will also in the future carry out any assignment given him by the goddess, presumably as a kind of continuing legitimation of his status as king.45 Clearly, Muršili was at pains to give written testimony in the Detailed Annals to his fulilling this promise, for it is that composition which records his carrying out of the subsequent assignments given him by the gods, including the Sun Goddess. What scholars rightly call the “propaganda” of Hittite kings46 is also the very proof of their legitimacy when seen in the light of Hittite royal ideology. A Hittite king lacking the ability to persuade others of the wisdom and correctness of his actions is no king at all. 43. he term is van den Hout’s. 44. KBo 3.4 iv 45–47, ed. Albrecht Goetze, Die Annalen des Muršiliš, MVAeG 38 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1933), 136–37. 45. parā=ma=mu DUTU URUPÚ-na GAŠAN-YA kuit peškezzi n=at aniyami n=at katta teḫ ḫ i KBo 3.4 iv 47–48; or perhaps even better is Goetze’s alternate translation, “… I will copy it down (aniya-) and deposit (katta dai-) it (before the Sun-goddess),” see Goetze, Die Annalen des Muršiliš, 137 note a; followed by del Monte, L’annalistica, 72; “I will carry it out and put it down (on clay)” according to Beal in CoS 2.16:90. But if one prefers the translation of del Monte, which is Goetze’s alternate translation, it indicates even more clearly the vital function of the written record itself, the permanent form given to the king’s speech. 46. See inter alia Alfonso Archi, “he Propaganda of Hattusilis III,” SMEA 14 (1971) 185–215; Hofner, “Propaganda and Political Justiication.” 152 Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman For this reason Muršili II’s experience of hysterical aphasia as a result of a serious scare during a thunderstorm constituted—from a symbolic point of view—a grave impugning of his very legitimacy as king. For how could a king unable to speak, or able to do so only haltingly, demonstrative that wisdom and eloquent persuasiveness that was the mark of a Hittite king? Final houghts Hittite kings dictated the content of their documents (prayers, treaties, annals). Many royal compositions commence with the words UMMA D UTU-ŠI-MA “his is what His Majesty says.” Even more speciically, some colophons of royal prayers47 and of cult texts48 note that the text was “copied from the mouth of the king.” If this means actual dictation, as most would agree, can we legitimately claim royal dictation for other texts authored by royalty for which we have no such evidence from colophons? Evidence for a comparative reluctance in copying texts authored by the king to replace words in the original dictation glossed as stylistically suspect seems to support this assumption.49 Or does the absence of any explicit 47. DUB.1.KAM ŠA DU arkuwar ANA DUTU-ŠI=at=kan KAxU-az parā aniyan KBo 11.1 rev. 24–25. 48. kī=ma=kan tuppi ANA DUTU-ŠI KAxU-az parā m.GIŠGIDRU-DINGIR-LIM-iš aniyat KUB 15.31 iv 38–40 (CTH 484.1). 49. Yakubovich writes: “On the other hand, one can understand why the subsequent editors of the tablets were generally hesitant to replace marked words with their stylistically more appropriate synonyms. he majority of texts sprinkled with gloss marks and available in multiple copies represent annals, treaties, and similar political documents dictated either by the king or by high state oicials. Tampering with the royal word would imply a heavy liability that few people in the chancellery perhaps were willing to accept” (Ilya S. Yakubovich, Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language, BSILL 2 [Leiden: Brill, 2009], 394). For dictation of all or part of the Political Testament by Hattusili I, see the guarded and cautious remarks of H. Craig Melchert, “Death and the Hittite King,” in Perspectives on Indo-European Language, Culture and Religion. Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé, ed. R. Pearson, Indo-European Studies Monograph 7 (McLean, Virginia: Institute for the Study of Man, 1991), 187, who takes the colophon as unaltered dictation but the main body of the edict as edited. For dictation by Muršili II of matters relating to the cult in Šamuha, see Ada Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood, THeth 26 (Heidelberg: Winter, 2006), 177. For his dictation of the text telling the story of his speech loss, see van den Hout, “Mursili’s Aphasia,” 366–68, 373. For Muwatalli II’s dictating the prayer to the Storm God of Kummanni (CTH 382), see Singer, Hittite Prayers, 81. For manuscript B of Muwatalli’s prayer to the Storm God piḫ aššassiš (CTH 381) as closer to the king’s dictated words, and manuscript A as a Harry A. Hofner, Jr. 153 remark in their colophons indicate that the composition was produced by scribes and merely approved in its inal form by the king? If the latter is the case, then even a king with a speech impediment might produce written compositions to demonstrate his royal speech. But, whatever might be the case—that the king himself was able to express himself eloquently, or that he had capable “speech writers” to do it, the documentation shows that this was the mode of expression expected of a legitimate Hittite king. Was it nevertheless the case that some Hittite kings showed wisdom and ability to express themselves that exceeded all others? Were there individual kings among the Hittites who were particularly noted for excellent speech? It stands to reason that there were. But it would be diicult to identify them in view of the probable practice of scribal editing to smooth out the style.50 To the extent that the copied literature authored by the king may have been subject to stylistic editing by senior scribes, the type of evidence that would best relect the unvarnished prose of the king would be his letters, and especially those to ordinary oicials, rather than to foreign kings of equal rank. Indirect evidence to conirm scribal reluctance to alter the wording of a royal letter, especially to subordinates, is the regular omission in such letters of the polite formulas on well-being and divine protection found in the other letters.51 hat the king himself would not use such formulas with his subjects is obvious, but that a scribe might wish to add them in cases where the king himself was the author is also probable. version edited to improve style, see H. Craig Melchert, “he Problem of Luvian Inluence on Hittite: When and How Much?,” in Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der indogermanische Gesellschat, 17.–23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale, ed. Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2005), 457. For royal dictation by Hattušili III while traveling with the army, see Bryce, Life and Society, 62. 50. But see above in n. 47 for indirect evidence of the reluctance of scribes to “improve upon” the actual wording that the king dictated. 51. See Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate, “he Scribes of the Maşat Letters and the GAL.DUB.SAR(.MEŠ) of the Hittite Capital during the Final Phase of the Early Empire Period,” in dubsar anta-men: Studien zur Altorientalistik. Festschrit für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, ed. homas E. Balke, Manfried Dietrich, and Oswald Loretz, AOAT 253 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998), 163.