1880-07-19, 0152 + 1881-02-04, 0188 unpublished unassigned ?[via caspo/akkpm]

1Note that the first word occurs in Ludlul II 10 and see CAD E, 242 for other, comparable instances. Whatever originally appeared in the gap, it seems to me that it must have mentioned Ishtar. Von Soden suggests the sign after the break could be GAL-MEŠ (1974/1977: 44), thus [... DINGIR-MEŠ GA]L-MEŠ. Lambert's copy indicates a DINGIR is more likely (see George and Taniguchi 2019, no. 56).

2The suggested restoration is my own, based on similar phrases cited in CAD T, 169. (The plural noun to which the last word in the line refers is lost in the break; e.g., ep-šet-sa, "whose deeds"). Others suggest i-lat in the break before the last word (see, e.g., von Soden 1974/1977: 38).

3I tentatively hold the goddess as the subject of the verb (so Seux 1976: 497 and von Soden 1953: 264; 1974/1977: 42), though the subject could also be the speaker himself (so Foster: " I shall tell of myself" [2005: 327] or more literally, "make manifest my name" [327n.3]).

4The restoration follows Foster's translation (2005: 327), who attributes the suggestion to Lambert (330). The precise Akkadian is my own suggestion.

5Lambert's copy indicates a QA before the break (see George and Taniguchi 2019, no. 56); compare von Soden, who suggests RU (1974/1977: 38, 44). The restoration is my own suggestion, based on the fact that qarittu is a very common epithet for Ishtar (see CAD Q, 129-130 for examples).

6The reading ⸢ša kul-lat⸣ in the middle of the line follows Lambert's suggestion (1980: 71n.2). See also his copy (George and Taniguchi 2019, no. 56).

7The LU, as von Soden notes (1974/1977: 44), may be clear on the tablet but the text is almost certainly mistaken. I read with CAD I, 201 (even if based on Brünnow's article from 1890 in ZA 5), which cites a parallel in K.3582 (= Craig, ABRT 2 21: 10). Reading bulluṭu provides a much better sense in context. See also Foster 2005: 328; Seux 1976: 498; and von Soden 1953: 265.

8The reading of the final verb is problematic. Brünnow reads a-bak-ka (?), "I bewail" (1890: 67, 69). Von Soden suggests a-taš!-šar!, "überprufte ich . . . immer wieder" (1974/1977: 39, 42). Seux suggests we read a-maš-šar (1976: 498n.7), citing CAD A/2, 422, where a-taš-šar is implicitly rejected and Lambert is cited as collating the new reading (see now Lambert's copy [George and Taniguchi 2019, no. 56], which shows only BAR for the second to last sign). If a-maš-šar is correct, the present context would be the only case I can find of mašāru, "to drag," used metaphorically (see CAD M/1, 359-360). Foster cites Lambert's suggestion to read a-pa?-šar (2005: 330; similarly CAD D, 142: a-⸢pa-aš₂-šar⸣), perhaps to be rendered "I will tell" (so CAD D, 142) or "I will explain." After looking at the available photograph of the tablet on CDLI, it seems to me that the second to last sign may be UR, to be read taš. If ašāru is correct, the present context is somewhat difficult because ašāru is typically used for mustering, organizing, or caring for troops, people, rations, or other material items (see CAD A/2, 420-422). Abstract nouns such as "troubles" are typically not the object of such reviewing or organizing. There is one use in a colophon, however, that may be relevant here. BAK, no. 63 (see Hunger 1968) reads in part: ašrā bariā šalmā, "reviewed, collated, (and) completed" (also cited in CAD A/2, 421). This usage suggests the verb could be used for the reviewing or organizing of a text, and this may provide the one attestation that gives some viability for the use of the verb in the present context to refer to the enumeration or the surveying or the setting forth (adapting Foster's rendering [2005: 328]) of ills.

9Notice the parallel syntax here with rev. 23 below.

10For the possible meanings of this line, see Seux 1976: 498n.14. Foster (2005: 328), following a suggestion attributed to Lambert (330), reads the final two signs as one, NIN, and translates, "I was formed in mountains unknown to you, lady."

11See the use of the final verb in obv. 19.

12As Seux notes (1976: 499n.17), this line may reference the events surrounding the king's ascension to the throne.

13As Foster's translation indicates (2005: 328), nakmūti, "amassed," may very well describe the gods that are in storage because they are unfit for ritual use due to disrepair.

14The ILIMMU₄ and U are written on the edge, closely together (thus three Winkelhaken and then one more closeby). These signs designate damage on the original tablet from which the present tablet was copied in antiquity. See von Soden 1974/1977: 44 and also below.

15The reading of the end of the line follows Lambert 1980: 72n.2 (compare von Soden 1974/1977: 44). I understand the first half of the line to mean that the king so thoroughly purified (clean, cleansed, etc.) the bed that its brilliance (i.e., the reflected light from the gold and precious stones on the bed) could be seen for quite some distance. See the next line.

16The scribe has repeated la#-li-ki by mistake. Is this a turning point in the text, precisely 40 lines into it? The opening hymn in Ludlul bel nemeqi is also 40 lines long, though the above is not exclusively hymnic.

17Von Soden reads the end of the line: р[úš!?-qa?] (1974/1977: 39, 44), but the lexeme he has in mind can also simply be written PAP.ḪAL, which is attested elsewhere with šadādu (see CAD Š/1, 25). The ILIMMU₄+U indicates the copyist's tablet was damaged. I suspect it was only missing ḪAL.

18The restoration follows Foster's suggestion (2005: 330). For the idiom, see Mayer 1976: 83 with n.25, where he discusses the Assyrian morphology. The present text is not cited, but other prayers attest karû in this expression with the same morphology.

19Von Soden (1974/1977: 39) suggests restoring [u₂?-ḫ]a?-maṭ at the head of the line, translating it, "[Ich lasse] entzündet sein" (43). (See his note on the restorations of obv. 43f. on p. 44.) Rather than a first person verb, we should expect further description of what the sickness brought the supplicant. Thus, I take the verbs as third common singular.

20The restoration at the head of the line follows von Soden (1974/1977: 39). The reading at the end of the line follows Foster, who credits Lambert (2005: 330).

21The restoration at the end of the line follows von Soden (1974/1977: 39).

22Von Soden suggests we read [sur?]-ru-ḫa at the head of the line (1974/1977: 39). Lambert reads the last two signs in the transliteration as MI and NA (George and Taniguchi 2019, no. 56) rather than U and LI (with von Soden), who also gives DA? as an alternative to LI? (1974/1977: 39). Collation is required.

23Von Soden suggests we read the beginning of the line [... lit?-tak?-k]iš? (1974/1977: 39).

24Von Soden suggests restoring [... li?-g]i#?-ma-a at the beginning of the line. The last sign might be D[A] (von Soden 1974/1977: 39).

25The (speculative) restoration is based on the idea that rev. 9 parallels obv. 23.

26The reading at the end of the line follows Foster, who credits Lambert (2005: 330).

27From rev. 11 (perhaps from rev. 10, but it is broken) to rev. 21 the tablet shows a gap at the end of each line, suggesting the tablet from which the scribe of the present tablet was copying was defective (see von Soden 1974/1977: 45). Von Soden supplies [ep?-še?-ku?] at the end of this line (1974/1977: 39, 45), though the remainder of the line is blank. The curved brackets in my translation indicate the text that was likely left out.

28Von Soden (1974/1977: 39, 45) supplies [ḫi?-ṭa?], though the remainder of the line is blank. In light of the previous line, it seems to me that we should expect a participle at the head of the present line that describes the supplicant's unfavorable treatment. I assume the beginning of the line should have read: ki-i ra-ši ar-ni. How might we account for the present tablet's text? The mistaken LA was inserted under influence of the previous line and due to the fact that LA looks similar to RA, the actual sign on the copyist's tablet. The following AR ŠI AR on the present tablet is a combined result of the semantic confusion from the LA-RA interchange and the (initial) graphic similarity of the AR sign with the ŠI sign.

29Von Soden (1974/1977: 42) supplies [aš₂?-ba?-ku?], though the remainder of the line is blank. Lambert's copy here and in the next two lines indicates a sign on the edge of the tablet, apparently two Winkelhaken; see George and Taniguchi 2019, no. 56.

30The MAR extends to the margin of the tablet, but there is certainly something missing in this line. The second word in the line is ni-ʾ-lu on the tablet, which looks to be an infinitive from nâlu, "to lie down" (see Seux 1976: 500). This infinitive is the object of parsākū-ma (see CAD P, 167 for parāsu in the sense of "to stop" with the infinitive designating the activity that has ceased). Thus, it seems the king is lamenting the interruption to his normal sleep. However, I wonder if ni-ʾ-lu might be an error for ne₂-me-lu. The aleph sign is similar to EM, which could have been what the scribe intended to write though mistakenly for what should have been a ME sign. If so, we could render the line "I am cut off from benefit/profit/advantage." In this case, parāsu might have the sense of "isolated" or "alienated" (CAD P, 171). Von Soden thinks a-mar- is the beginning of a verb, but he cannot offer a restoration (1974/1977: 42, 45). I think restoring ZALAG₂ (= nūra, "light") at the end of the line is a reasonable way to complete the antithesis of (dwelling in?) darkness in the previous line. The idiom also means "to be freed" (CAD A/2, 21). Foster, citing a suggestion from Lambert, restores the word "offspring" (2005: 329).

31Von Soden suggests restoring -[an-ni] here (1974/1977: 42), though the remainder of the line is blank. He derives the verb from zummû, "to be deprived of" (45; see also Labat 1970: 252: "je n'ai que privations"; the same derivation may be reflected in Foster's "forsook(?)" [2005: 329]), which Seux rejects (1976: 500n37). Von Soden makes a goddess the subject (lost in the break). I remain unconvinced of a viable restoration.

32There is room for three or four more signs in the blank space at the end of the line.

33Von Soden suggests restoring [i?-mi?] here (1974/1977: 42) or [ma-šil] (p. 45), though the remainder of the line is blank. There might be enough room to add UGU-MU or something similar. Compare rev. 16-17 with Ludlul II 88-89.

34Von Soden suggests restoring [šar?-ru?-ti?] here (1974/1977: 42), though the remainder of the line is blank.

35There is room for three or four more signs in the blank space at the end of the line.

36There is room for three or four more signs in the blank space at the end of the line. Perhaps we can simply restore mim-ma, "anything."

37Von Soden suggests restoring [a?-na?-ṭa?-al?] here (1974/1977: 42, less likely: ap-pal-la-as, p. 45), though the remainder of the line is blank.

38Note CAD Š/3, 194, which takes šudlupu as an adverbial modifier of the participle: "who ceaselessly revere you."

39The DINGIR may be written over an erasure or the traces under the sign may be hints of an abandoned, mistaken repetition of the last part of the NIN sign that precedes it. It is in any case not flawless in its execution. There is some question about how to interpret NIN DINGIR.RA-ki since the most straight forward reading, as the logogram NIN.DINGIR.RA-ki, would result in the supplicant addressing an ēntu (or ugbabtu), which is a human priestess, a cult functionary, rather than the goddess herself. Von Soden wonders if maybe the proper understanding of the signs should be NAM.DINGIR.RA-ki, i.e., ilūtīki, "your divinity" (1974/1977: 45; see likewise, Seux 1976: 501n.42 and Foster 2005: 330 with note). A NIN for NAM mistake would have had to have taken place due to similarity in their sounds, whether aural or internal as the scribe copied the text, rather than their shape. But I think it is more likely that the NIN is correct, standing here for the renewed invocation of the deity herself (bēltu), as in obv. 15 and rev. 22 above and rev. 29 below. The problem seems to me to be a distracted scribe, who messed up the DINGIR and seems to have written a mistaken RA instead of TI. Note that RA looks something like TA, present in the line directly below ours. The scribe may have seen TA via parablepsis and written RA in our line, which makes better sense atomistically considered, after the DINGIR. In any case, the correct reading is almost certainly ilūtīki.

40The second imperative is derived from nasāku (see CAD N/2, 20).

41The idea here is that the goddess will speak the command for the divine anger to subside.

42Von Soden (1974/1977: 42) restores [NIR-G]AL₂ ([etell]eta, "princess") at the head of the line, though this seems somewhat out of place in the context of the second person references to the goddess in rev. 33. Labat (1970: 252) and Seux (1976: 501) prefer to restore "ton nom" ("your name"), which makes sense but is not congruent with the traces at the head of the line (as noted by von Soden 1974/1977: 45). These traces cannot be read as TI (so von Soden 1974/1977: 42). And, as much as we might expect a noun such as narbû or qurdu with a second person suffix, the traces cannot be read KI. IG and NAM (compare the NAM in obv. 20) are epigrapic possibilities; likewise, [x (x)-d]u-⸢u⸣. The traces are also congruent with [lud-lu-u]l, which is adopted here tentatively. (Compare the size and shape of UL in, e.g., obv. 23.)