PBS 1/1, 02[via caspo/akkpm]

1As Lambert notes (1989: 333), we may not yet expect the first person voice at this point in the prayer.

2Lambert reads RI here instead of UŠ (1989: 325) but both the copy and the tablet indicate an UŠ. If my restoration is to be viable, I think we need to posit a missing preposition. It could have been left out inadvertently since both AŠ (ina) and the last element of PU comprise a single horizontal wedge.

3Namungatu is used elsewhere in a phrase that wishes a deity's tense heart to relax (CAD N/1, 253; Lambert 1989: 333).

4Lambert reads the first sign in this and the next line as BI/GA (1989: 325). As he notes, the two verticals in GA, as written in this text, are sometimes missing (p. 323). When this is the case, I typically transliterate the sign as BI or, if it is to be read as some phonetic version of GA, then I use an exclamation point (e.g., qa₂! in this line). The verb seems to be a Štn preterite from (w)amālu (CAD U/W, 401), but the meaning is not clear.

5CAD K, 300 suggests restoring [muruṣ lib]bi, "sickness of the heart," at the head of the line.

6For the writing and meaning of the first word (kakdû/â / kaqdû/â), see Lambert 1989: 333.

7Lambert reads ⸢MA/ZU/SU⸣ and the last sign as ⸢RI⸣ (1989: 325).

8Lambert (1989: 329, 333) prefers to understand the word as sissiru B, "granary" (see CAD S, 328, which prefers the rendering "progeny"). For another mention of the same word, see rev. i 15.

9As Lambert points out (1989: 333), CAD suggests understanding the last two words as "Ishtar of the Su-people" (S, 353), but this seems to make little sense.

10Lambert suggests there is a broken sign after the IB (1989: 325). It may be that the scribe has started the U₂ at the head of the line in the next column over a bit to the left of the margin line. If so, then we must read IT TI IB as the last word of the line. A derivation from naṭāpu, "to tear out" (CAD N/2, 128), may work here, especially given the parallel in the preceding line (i.e., a verb indicating something is lacking).

11Lambert implies that this word indicates that the present tablet was copied from a defective original (1989: 323). Although a reasonable hypothesis, it is not absolutely certain.

12The IN could be NAM instead.

13Lambert (1989: 326) suggests the beginning be restored [na]-ak-ma and renders the first two words "[h]is accumulated experience," but nakmu is only used with material objects and thus this would be the only metaphorical use of the word attested so far, to my knowledge. While remaining open to this possibility, we might rather read the MA as BA, yielding nagba, "source, spring," perhaps used in some way to describe the depth of "his" (the supplicant's?) ṭēmu. (Note the next line's use of ummuqtam, "wise.") With regard to the last sign on the line, Lambert reads te?- but UD looks more likely.

14The suggestion in CAD U/W, 392, idi[ššu(?)], "at his side," is tempting. The traces at the end of the line look to be more congruent, however, with ŠU than with IŠ. Perhaps there was a verb in the semantic domain of "leaving, departing" so that the god was not present because he had left the supplicant's side. Compare Ludlul I 43-46 (and see the next line); note also Lambert's parallel, cited in 1989: 333. It might be that i-di is from nadû, "he (his god) abandoned him," and is itself the verb with further description in the break.

15Notwithstanding Lambert's comments on the orthography of na-mi-i-ru (1989: 334), I provisionally understand the grapheme to derive from nawāru, describing the fathers' brightness or happiness toward the supplicant. Contextually, this makes good sense. The orthography indicating a long /i/ vowel may be due to a scribal mistake; the scribe has something of a propensity to use plene spellings, perhaps here incorrectly. And although there are a number of OB features in the text, the present copy could also contain later forms introduced by a post-OB copyist.

16Lambert reads (x) before the break, probably because the copy in PBS 1/1, no. 2 shows a partial sign. My photos do not show any trace of such a sign. In the following lines, Lambert reads what is visible on the copy but no longer in the photo in parentheses (see 1989: 321). As Lambert notes, this line recalls Ludlul I 82 (1989: 334).

17Lambert 1989: 326 reads ik-(k)[i-. For the first word, taken as a dual subject from Amorite ammu, see Lambert 1989: 334. His interpretation of this line (i.e., that it has to do with some kind of otherwise unknown parental custom) seems far-fetched.

18Lambert 1989: 326 reads šu-u₂-(i i-x)[. CAD Š/3 suggests restoring šu-u₂-[lim(?)], "a demon."

19The restoration follows Lambert 1989: 326; see also CAD Q, 79. Alternatively, read/restore i-ze₂-[er] at the end, according to Lambert, citing a parallel in Enuma elish IV 80 (1989: 334).

20The restoration follows Lambert 1989: 326 (see also rev. ii 9ˊ for the orthography). On the (unknown) meaning of the first word, see his comment on p. 334 and CAD Q, 79.

21For the restoration and an alternative, see Lambert 1989: 334 (see also CAD A/1, 197 for e-li-šu). Lambert also mentions a parallel to Ludlul I 84-85.

22See Lambert's discussion of the meaning of the initial verb (1989: 334), where he also notes the parallel to Ludlul II 114-115. The line conveys the idea that the supplicant was as good as dead. The restoration at the end of the line follows CAD Š/3, 281; compare Lambert's similar idea: ka-a[q-qa₂-ri (ra-bi-ti)] (1989: 326).

23Lambert derives the first verb from anāḫu, "to become tired." I think a derivation from nâḫu, "to take a rest" (see CAD N/1, 147), works better contextually, providing a contrast between the servant, presumably the supplicant's, and the supplicant himself. Note how this derivation also makes both verbs in the line (assuming the restoration is correct) duratives.

24Lambert (1989: 326) reads the second half of the line ba-ru-u₂-at bi-il-[ta-šu], rendering it "[his] load is only middling" without comment (330, 334). CAD B, 123 prefers to read i-ta-u-šum ba-ru-u₂ ze₂-bi-il, "the diviner tells him, 'Carry [your burden]'," but the tablet clearly shows an AD. I suggest the scribe has made an internal aural mistake, reversing the sound of the correct sign (TA) and writing the incorrect sign (AT). The facts that AD and TA have the same number of wedges and a somewhat similar shape in Old Babylonian support this idea. According to my suggestion, the diviner is telling the supplicant what has been learned via divination, namely, that something of the supplicant's (i.e., his personal god [ilka], his dignity [bāštaka], his virility [dūtka], etc.) has left him (see CAD T, 19 for this use of tabālu).

25I follow von Soden's reading and restoration of the line (see AHw, 1134; CAD Š/1, 110; and Lambert 1989: 334). Lambert prefers to read ša i-la-tim (1989: 326, 334), rendering the line (without a restoration at its end) "the judgments of goddesses are not excessive" (330). I do not see any good contextual reason to have a plurality of goddesses here. The dream interpreters, however, form a fitting parallel to the diviner in the previous line (see similarly Ludlul I 52 and II 6-7). The diviner, if I understand his speech correctly, is not saying the dream interpreters might give a different verdict. Rather, the diviner's findings would be corroborated by the dream interpreters; the supplicant need only ask them.

26CAD Š/2, 190 suggests restoring nišī, "of the people." For this epithet, see also rev. ii 9ˊ.

27Šatammu is not typically used to describe a deity (see CAD Š/2, 191-192, where only one citation referring to Gilgamesh is certain and for the present text it understands the word to refer to the supplicant; but note šatam napišti, referring to Nabu, in Prayer to Marduk, no. 2, line 50, for which see Oshima 2011: 242). Thus, it seems likely to me that the line refers to the supplicant himself. The second half of the line is problematic. Lambert does not give a reading or translation (1989: 326, 330). As he notes, the final sign before the break might also be read A[D]. If so, the reading in CAD Š/2, 191 is possible: šû ša šaṭpû, "he whose life is preserved" (šu-u₂ ša ša-a[ṭ-pu-u₂]), though this seems too short for the gap at the end of the line. Given my understanding of the text above, we would expect a verb that indicates that the loss has happened to the supplicant. In addition to amāru, we might also imagine some form of rašû or šakānu. The understanding of this couplet in which the goddess is described positively in the first line and the supplicant's material condition is presented negatively in the second line takes its cue from the following couplet that seems to follow the same pattern.

28The restoration was suggested by Jacobsen (1963: 483n24). See also line 27.

29As Lambert suggests (1989: 334), one might read ba-ki i-gu-u₂ (326), "the weeper who has been negligent" (330), but an emendation to IR₃, attributed to Erica Reiner (see also already CAD E, 58 and Jacobsen 1963: 483n24), seems a better reading.

30As Lambert notes (1989: 334), this line seems to be the same as obv. ii 47 below. The two mutually restore one another, though some doubt remains, especially with regard to UGU. See the note on ii 47.

31Contrary to Lambert's understanding of the first verb (1989: 330, where he read iḫ-ti-dam from ḫâdu, "to pronounce"), Oshima suggests in a discussion of the parallel cited by Lambert (p. 334, line 129 in the large prayer to Marduk) that it derives from ḫâṭu (see Oshima 2011: 184 with literature).

32This line introduces the supplicant's first person speech.

33One wonders if the scribe left out LI here due to an internal aural reversal, seeing LI and then writing its reversed syllabic value, IL, which was in fact the last sign of the word.

34The restored signs are in the copy of PBS 1/1, no. 2 but no longer on the tablet.

35Lit. "I did not cry out her 'enough' like an old man." The possessive, I think, refers to the goddess, who could save him.

36Lambert reads and translates the first verb as i-wu-a-an-ni, (Ishtar) "prosecuted me" (1989: 326, 330), presumably deriving it from awû. But, CAD A/2, 86 and AHw, 91 list the G stem of awû, "to take to court," as only occurring in Old Assyrian. Von Soden, whose reading I have adopted, derives the verb from ewû II, "belasten mit," though the present text is its only attestation (AHw, 267). (See also CDA, 85, "to impose on.") As Lambert notes (1989: 334-335), a-du-ru presumably indicates a subjunctive ending and thus is difficult to explain. I suggest the scribe has made an internal aural reversal of the correct sign's sound (UR) and mistakenly written RU. Differently, CAD A/1, 108 suggests a-du-ru may be a mistake for adlulu (leaving the subjunctive issue unaddressed).

37This line presents problems. Lambert does not attempt to translate it (1989: 326) and leaves no comments about it. CAD Š/1, 368 lists the verb as a Gt from šanānu but offers no translation, labeling the text "difficult." I suggest the verb is a Dt precative from šanû, "to change," which would thus require a plural subject, supplied by alkātu, "ways." Further, if we understand the line as quoted speech from Ishtar, the second person masculine singular pronomial suffix on bali- may be understood as referring to the supplicant, to whom Ishtar addresses her speech. This leaves the first word which has previously been read ia-at-tam (see Lambert 1989: 326 and CAD Š/1, 368), a first person feminine singular possessive pronoun in the accusative case. If we posit that the scribe has made (again) an internal aural reversal of the correct sign's sound (TU) and has mistakenly written UT (also, note how closely UT and the next sign LIŠ are in shape, which might also factor into the mistake), then the pronoun becomes nominative and the problem is solved. (Regarding the lack of mimation on the pronoun, as Lambert notes [1989: 323], mimation is used "erratically" in the text; thus, we need not be surprised by its absence here.) On my reading, the line indicates the supplicant's direct speech now includes a quotation from a female, which clearly must be the goddess herself. She essentially tells the supplicant that she need not answer to him when she changes her behavior toward him. In light of the previous line, this change in behavior should likely be understood as a result of the supplicant's lack of piety toward the goddess.

38I take i-ṣa-ar-ra-ah to be a Gtn preterite, iṣṣarraḫ, which seems to make better sense contextually than a G durative. For the use of the accusative lallara in an adverbial sense, see Lambert 1989: 335. We generally would expect an object to the Š stem of damamu. One might suppose that the accusative lallara of the previous part of the line might serve double duty as the accusative in the second part, though this seems unlikely to me. A better option may be to take rēmu as a metonymy for "mother."

39Lambert reads the broken section of the line x-GA-á[š] (1989: 326). I wonder if the traces of the first sign might be consistent with a QA, yielding qabîšu, "his speaking." The second to last sign in the line, LA, is mere traces.

40As Lambert notes (1989: 335), se-e-ri here and ga-ga-am in the next line likely designate some kind of structure. He cautiously connects ziz-zu-us-su₂ with zīzūtu, a lexeme known only from Susa (see CAD Z, 150) to indicate a division of an inheritance. It may be more likely, given the previous couplet's description of mourning, that ziz-zu-us-su₂ should be connected to the noun zizzu, "buzz, hiss," a term listed with other terms for lamentation in Nabnitu B (see CAD Z, 150 for the citation). The orthography here may be due to a locative -um. Or, we might have an otherwise unattested abstract nominal formation, zizzūtu*; thus, zizzūssu could mean something like "his state of hissing."

41The final signs may be NI?/IR?-ḪI-IS?/IṢ? (see Lambert 1989: 327). Perhaps we could read the final word as irḫiṣ, "he trampled," though what that might mean in the context of the line is unclear.

42The scribe wrote the last four signs in the line on the edge of the tablet. The UGU, if that is in fact the sign, must be considered malformed.

43On the variant šānuḫu for šūnuḫu, see Lambert 1989: 335. Although collation suggests the initial sign of the word is ŠA, CAD Q, 292 and T, 176 (the latter published after Lambert's edition) maintains the possibility of reading TA, creating an adverb tānuḫiš, "wearily," only known in this text.

44For a discussion of the line, see Lambert 1989: 335, where he writes, "[w]ith such little evidence it seems best for the moment to accept this -ašan / -iššan as a new 'hymno-epic' ending corresponding to ina/ana/kīma."

45The final signs may be [T]A/[Š]A PA/U₂ KI/DI NI/IR, as noted by Lambert 1989: 327.

46Lambert gives no reading for the last two signs. Perhaps AS?/UK? MU?.

47Lambert reads the end of the line as u₂-ru-ul?-la?-šu pa-aš-qa₂-am (1989: 327) and renders this "his difficult generation" (331, though literally on his understanding it means something more like "narrow/difficult penis"). In a note, he states, "[i]n view of the frequent association of 'foreskin' (urullu) with semen it has been assumed that urullu can allude metaphorically to procreation. If correct, this line refers to failure to obtain progeny" (335). Aside from the epigraphic difficulties in the line, urullu in the sense "penis" is typically feminine plural. Thus, it seems unlikely to be the meaning here. I tentatively have adopted the above reading, though the UḪ₂ is uncertain, in an attempt to find a term that could stand in parallel to alaktu (alkassu) in the line previous. The line will remain uncertain without a duplicate.

48The readings of the traces at the end of the line follow Lambert 1989: 327 (he does not use question marks). He gives KU as an alternate reading to the last sign.

49Lambert renders the last word "like a criminal" (1989: 331).

50The reading follows Lambert 1989: 327. Instead of KI, perhaps read DI (dittam, "lawsuit") in the last word. Lambert renders the first verb "I have not been lustful" (331). A derivation from CAD's šamāḫu B, which seems to indicate an action in the context of legal agreements (CAD glosses attestations with variations of "to break an agreement"; see Š/1, 290), might fit this context well. That root, however, is only attested (so far) in Old Assyrian.

51Lambert implicitly connects mu-ti-ta-am to the adverb mušītam (1989: 331, 335, see also the note to his line 124 on p. 336). I wonder if the TI is simply a mistake for ŠI. The preceding MU might have contributed to the misperception of the proper sign. The restoration follows Lambert's suggestion, though how it fits in with the rest of the line precisely is not clear to me.

52For a-na for "I" rather than the expected a-na-ku, see Lambert 1987: 199, commenting on the same in the OB "Man and His God." He lists other attestations. See now also the entry ana II in CDA, 16 (not in AHw).

53As CAD R, 201 notes, the implication may be that the supplicant has not received a fair verdict.

54Ishtar's looking is apparently negative. See Lambert 1989: 336.

55If the above understanding is correct, e-ka-si should be an infinitive, though I can offer no suitable candidates. The only semantically viable roots (contextually speaking) with /k/ and /s/ as the second and third radical, respectively, are nakāsu, "to kill, slaughter," and rakāsu, "to bind." Of the two, it is easier, I think, if we are looking only at the form of the signs involved, to posit a mistaken E for RA than a mistaken E for NA. However, "to slaughter" seems more fitting here in light of the previous line's use of ešēru in the sense of "to charge, attack." All of this has assumed, of course, that it is the first sign that is the problem. Alternatively, Lambert renders the first half of the line: "My . . . began" (1989: 331), suggesting e-ka-si is some unknown noun.

56Lambert suggests the first sign might also be ME (1989: 336). In any case, the first word is unknown. The writing ba-ša-ti is not expected for bāštu, which does not occur in the plural. (See obv. ii 8 where the scribe used the typical orthography, ba-aš-ta-šu.) This may be another case where the scribe has made an internal aural reversal of sounds and written the wrong sign (ŠA for AŠ). However, Lambert suggests the present writing is a poetic bi-form of the noun, similar to napištu / napšatu, since a similar form occurs in the (SB) Hymn to the Queen of Nippur (Lambert 1989: 333; 1982: 209).

57The PI could possibly be ŠI (as noted by Lambert 1989: 327). Lambert entertains the possibility of restoring a-pi-a-k[u], "I am dim," at the end of the line (336).

58Lambert understands the verbs to be in the first person (1989: 331; see likewise CAD Ṭ, 72). Although possible, it is just as likely that they are third person verbs, introducing a divine figure who mediates a message to the supplicant (see lines 27-28). The last sign might be PA, as Lambert notes (327). He entertains the possibility of restoring pa-[ti-a-am], "is open to me," at the end of the line (336).

59The last sign might be TI, as Lambert notes (1989: 327). The last word could be restored mu-n[a-at-ti . . .], providing the time in which the supplicant receives a divinely mediated message about his condition (see Ludlul III 11).

60This couplet seems to be a nested quotation of a third party (a divine figure?) within the supplicant's first person speech.

61For e-la-ki, see obv. ii 27 above. If the goddess is being spoken about in the third person, then we should restore e-la-<ša>, "except <for her>." The TA and ŠA signs are close enough in shape to suggest the scribe has copied the wrong one here. Lambert entertains the possibility of either a scribal error or that the form is a genuine phonetic variant (1989: 336). I did not see the final sign on the tablet, although it was visible for Myhrman when he made his copy (1910) and for Lambert at the time of his edition (1989).

62The restoration follows Lambert 1989: 327, 336.

63As Lambert notes, some form of nabāṭu is likely at the head of the line (1989: 336).

64I think the supplicant's first person speech has ended with the previous line and whoever speaks in the third person in the rest of the prayer resumes speaking. Now, however, this person includes himself in the invocation, "our lady," if the reading is correct (following Lambert 1989: 327). (There is very little to go on for the first two signs.)

65The restoration is my own, based on Lambert's translation of this line (1989: 331), where he inserts the word "explain" as the verb in this line, though he does not provide an Akkadian equivalent (see p. 327). I understand "his advice" to mean "the proper advice relevant to the supplicant in his situation."

66I take the accusative dimmatam here adverbially. Interestingly, the scribe has mistakenly written MI before he wrote the correct IM. This gives further support to the several conjectures above in which I suggest the scribe made an internal aural reversal of the sound he was supposed to write and then wrote the wrong sign (as here: MI for IM). As Lambert notes, the second to last sign could be DI (1989: 328).

67Lambert reads the initial sign as I but it seems to me that if the first word is a participle, then we should expect E.

68Lambert translates sa-di-du as "leader" (1989: 332) but CAD S, 18 cites this passage as uncertain. The same gives "foraying party" as the meaning of sādidu. Perhaps we are to see here Ninshubur in the role of one who leads a raiding party, though this would be out of character for him.

69Both of the extent signs are written to the right of the margin, essentially in rev. col. i.

70For the problematic ending on mātiššan, see Lambert's note to line 100 (1989: 335).

71For this use of kullumu, see CAD T, 81 and K, 523.

72Lambert gives every sign with a question mark an alternate reading: BI?/GA?; da?/it?; BI?/GA?; šu?/uš? (1989: 328)

73For this description of Ishtar, see also obv. ii 21 above.

74The restoration follows Lambert, who notes that the required verb, on his understanding, must have appeared in the following line (1989: 336).

75Lambert understands kabattaša as the object rather than the subject of the verb: " . . . ] has explained to him her reins" (1989: 332).

76Lambert gives an alternate reading for each sign with a question mark, except for NE: š]i?/m]e?; BI?/GA? KU?/MA? (1989: 328). The last two signs are written between lines 20 and 21 of the adjacent column. KU may be slightly more likely than MA, given what is visible.

77As Lambert notes, "[t]he word ba-TA-tam could be a phonetic variant or error for ba-ša-tam . . . or an error for ba-la!-ṭam" (1989: 336). If we assume bāštam to be the correct word, then the scribe (perhaps) has made a couple of mistakes, writing ba-TA-tam for ba-ša!-tam (see rev. i 22 for the same mistake) instead of the expected ba-aš-tam (see, however, the note on rev. i 22, which discusses the possibility that ba-ša-ti is a bi-form of the noun rather than an error). This line may be another example of internal aural reversal. In this case, however, the scribe, whose copy read AŠ, switched the sound to ŠA and then misformed the sign so as to read TA. A similar TA instead of ŠA mistake (also?) occurs in rev. i 28.

78Lambert (1989: 328) reads the NA as AN (with the copy). The sign looks more like a malformed NA to me.

79As Lambert notes, the BI could also be GA (1989: 328).

80See obv. i 14ˊ for the same expression.

81As Lambert notes, “further scattered traces” follow this line (1989: 328). All of the traces are of the right side of the final sign(s) of the lines that originally occupied the space. None of the signs is identifiable.