GiiTEllllOCK: Oil Plan.
ls in Hittite Anatolia
amoog the ingredients used for bread (or honey
bread alone) in our text No. 9, first section. But
just. there, at the end of the list (K'.Bo X 34 i 14)
and following lja$Si.ggai, we find a word (in the
genitive) sap8ama$ !
Now it seems obvious that, once it had bee.n
noted that fum.ama contains oil, the similarity of
sound between fum,ama and Akkadian samaisammtt
played its part in the proposal that samama be
sesame. But the assonance ls not \rer}' close,
especially in view of the fact that the Hurrian
form is .~um. i.fun1-i.' 2 Sa·mama lacks the second
found in all other forms of this international
word, It seems to me that the Siip8ama- of KBo
X 34 i 14 has a much better chance of being the
Hittite name of the sesame, for the following
reasons:
1) The as..onanoo m th sama8$ammtt, iumiiumi
is closer;
2) it does not have the determinative GI$;
3) in cont rast to <amama it ia used for honey
bread, and
4) its position after l!aiSikka.- corresponds exactly
to that of $E.GI$. tin Otten's text."
Ille aecond. The parallel to~t KUB XXXH 128 i 6
elm.ply aaya "all (kinds of) honey bread" without
naming them. The- wording in H'W, 2 , Erg. 22: "\\'OOh•
tielt in Pa.rallelte.xten mit (dem) Idgr." puta more into
Otten't statement than wb&t the facte wal'TIUlt.
.., Known from the Ra.a Shamra vocabulary: Thureau·
Dangin, Syria XII (1931), text No. 8 on pp. 23411'. and
PL L-Lll, col. ii I I on p. 2.38, corresponding to Ub ll
124 (Jl8/, V p. 61). BW 325 and BTR 134, n. 3, quote
e.eoonda.ry literature-.
•• It muat be ttated th&t at th.e time of Otten'fl \\Titing
INDIVIDUAL PRAYER IN SU?i!ERIAN: THE CONTINUI'l'Y OF A TRADITION
WILLIA}(
I. A Sumerian Paalter?
SINCE ~·H~ FIRST of Her-
PSALM STUDIES
mann Gunkel at the beginning of this oontury,
•Original ly preise.nted, under the title of "The
Paalter of the Sumeria.ns/' to the PbJllp W. Lown
Institute of Advanood Judt\ie Studies, Brande.is Uni\'tr·
&jty, November 2, 1966.
71
What, then, is Gl$1ili-/leti-? Also a fruit, differ-
ent from both samama and the olive, and one
wh~ product can be used for anointing. Thus
the almond offers itself as a candidate, since
almond oil is known for its cosmetic use. lt is
clear that. this is no more than a possibility; the
evideuoo is not sufficient really to determine the
nature of liti-.
If we may sum up our conclusions, even though
they are only tentatiYe, we have the following oil
producing plants in the Hittite texts:
1
orasERDU, the olive;
2
Gl&Jamama, ' a kind of nut;
018/iti-, perhaps the almond;
SE. Glii. l, probably read sap§ama.- in Hittite,
"sesame " according to the tradi-
tional translation.
the tablet KBo X 34' ha.d not yet been excavated., ao
tha.t he could not know about ioplom.a·.
,.. In all pl&-Oefl known to me ending In ·o. According
to the participle duworM-"4cJ. in KBo X 34 i 24 we are
~afe in t&ki~ thls for neuter plural. Once there occun
a Luwian plural in · Cl-JM4 ( abo\•e, list 1). Other occur·
rences, which ht.•e no immediate bearing on the dig...
<::Utf9ion, are :
KUB XXXI 79, 3 tlett.r about traneport by 00..t)
may be restored a.e [ ..... A.DJ . KID OIAla·mo~mo tt.a·a.i
up·p(4 . . .] •4 ((a.o and ao many <::<>ntafners) of
wic.k ]erw·o rk (filled with) iamama: die(pa.tcb) them!,.,
KUB XXXTII 34 obv. 8 (REA 77, 127), OIBS. .....,........
kd1l wo·o.,..N·t(o] "be ba.rveated I .....
KUB XXXIV 80 obv. 9: "4i 019fo..ma·a.m..-ma ki+M· N
"let him become, turn Into, I!' The parallel pa.ra.graph•
h&\•e ••Jet him turn into a dah " a.od " into the river
Mara.Ua.nda~ ... reepectively. Does line 10 cont.a.in the
verb (li· ]l6·e·ia-t"U from liloi·, dii,cu&Md i.n n. 12 above!
w. HALLO l
the exegesia oi the Biblical Psalter has a""orded
an ever more prominent place to the comparison
of the hymns and prayers of the cuneiform tradi-
tion of ancient Meaopotamia. 2 As earl)' as 1922,
'For exhau3tive bibliograph.ies of current psalm
exegesis., cf. the periodJc ilurveyt in Theolog ische Run<f,.
sch<>u n. F. I (1929, by M. Haller), 23 (19GG. by
72 HALLO: Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Oontinu.ity of " Tradition

Stummer ventured to point out numerous "Su- understandably, to the newly disrovered Ugaritic
mero-A.kkadian parallels to the skucture of Bibl.i- texts which were evidently so much closer to !.be
eal p.alms" • in a study which, admittedly, found Psalms in langu~, style and imagery than any
little favor with Assyriologists.• In the 1930's at other Ancient Near Eastern parallels yet un-
least three different monographs reverted to Uie earthed. Patton's monograph on the "Canaanite
theme, Cumming comparing "The Assyrian and parallels in the Book of Psalms" was followed by
Hebrew Hymns of Praise," Widengren "the Ak- the briefer treatments of Coppens and O'Callag-
kad.ian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation," • han, and a number of penetrating eontributione
and Castelli.no bot.h " The lamentations and t.he by Albright. 11 Yet the faet remains that the
hymns in Babylonia and in Israel."• All tl1ese Ugaritic teits adduced in all these studies are
sl11diea retain their usefulness but, with the excep- neither hymns nor prayers, and thus ean only
tion of Castellino's, they suffer from a common indirectly serve to ilhuninate the categories of
defect: they tend to exempt the Mesopotamian Biblical psalmody as sucb.
material from the very Gattungsforschung which, The present decade has, happily, witnes.;ed a
follo~·ing Gunkel, they accept as axiomatic for reassertion of t.he relevance of the Mesopotamian
Hebrew psa.lmody. material while recognizing t.he need to confine the
This is the more strange since the Akkad.ian assessment of parallels wit.bin comparable Gat-
material comes provided with its own generic tungen, at least to begin with. Thus E. R. Dalg-
claasifieations, and with specific indications of its lish's valuable study of "Psalm 51 in the light of
cultic Sitz im Leben. Often enough, it is cited by Ancient Near Eastern Patternism " " is a deliber-
title only, and incorporated within elaborate cnltic ate attempt to meet the met.hodologieal standards
calendars or ritual prescriptions and thus clearly first demanded of Stummer's book forty years
secondary in importance to its context.' Indeed, earlier: to compare this unique subspedes of indi-
Gunkel• and Mowinckel • relied on these aspects vidual lament with the comparable penitential
of the Mesopotamian material to justify a para.lie! categories in cuneiform. Bernhardt has reviewed
approach to the Psalms, and Begrich •• had drawn the entire history of Psalm exegesis with special
elaborate comparisons between the individual reference to the so-called "royal paalms," and
laments of the Bible and the private prayers of e•·aluated these in the light of tbe Ancient Near
Mesopotamia as early "" 1928. Eastern ideology of kingship without, however,
In the 1940's and 1950's, the comparative st.ucly limiting himself !<> a specific cuneiform genf(>. 18
of the Psalma turned most of its attention, perhaps l\{ore recent.ly still, Mitchell Dahood's commentary
on Psalms 1-50 in the Anchor Bible bas returned
J. J. St.a.mm). For a. comprehensive bh1toriea.l ~urvey, to the Ugaritic parallels witl1 a vengeance, in part
et. K .. B. Bernhardt, DN Problem der Alt<>rit'ra·ta.l.isch.cn out of an understandable disenchantment with the
KOnigsideolog·i.6 (=VT Supp. 8, 1961) chs. 1-3.
• Bernha.:rdt, op. oit., 83 n. s. c.xcesses of the older Mesopotamian comparisons."
'Cl. the re•lew by B. Landeberger, OLZ 28 (1925) But to say that re<!Cnt Psalm criticism has more
479-483. accurately recognized tho limits of the comparat.i\'e
• Bernhardt, loc. °''·
• Le lameatM'ion.i. indioklu.ali 6 gli i.Jt.n i in IJ4bilon,ia
method is uot to imply that it has everywhere
e ill !sroclc (1939).
reached t.hem. For if the rich spC<!trum of lllcso-
'"No adequa.te study of literary types, in the vast potamian religious poetry was not monolithic in
Akkadian liturgy baa ;yet appeared" although "aa terms or its genres, neither was it a single un-
compared with the Pa;alter, the Babylonia.n text.a promise changing canon t.hrougbout tbe nearly three mil-
a. m.ueh larger body of de6.nite r<'sulta, aa in many lennia of its attested existence. Quite the contrary,
ca.acs not onJy the liturgical tt.xta are preserved in
writing: but alao the order of the cerf'.mooy in which I believe we can distinguish at least four different
they ~·ere sung or recited.'' W. G. Lambert, AfO 19 cuneiform "canons" within Mesopotamia, escb
( 1969 ~60) 4·7. Cf. already S. r...ngdon " Calendal.'8 of
Jiturgt" and prayers," AJSr,, 42· (1926) 110-127. II (bid.
'Cf. t .. g. Gonkel·Degrieh, Niitl-eituag i" di< Pffl.m m- '' (Leiden, l962), with note& by A. Fa1kenstel.n. Cf.
{1933) § 1.3·§ 1.5. tbe re\•\ew by c .. tellino, VT 15 {1965) 116·120.
• Cl. now D. R. Ap·Thoma3, "An appreeJation of ''Op. cit., ( note 2).
Sigmund Mov.-inc:kel's contribution to Biblical tJtudies," t t ~!. Dahood, Pt(llm.t I ( 1·50) , (The Anchor Dible,
JBL 8;; (1966) 3 1 ~ ·32~ . New York, 1966). Cf. the revie,,· by D. A. Robertson,
JO Bernhard~ loc. ott. JBL 85 (1966) 484-6.
 BALLo: Indfoid!Ull PrayM" in Sumerian: Tke Continuity of a Tradition 73

the product of a very different age and set of of later Mesopotamia, but also with Biblical
religious presuppositions, and each thoroughly psalmody.
transfonned before it was accepted into the next In order to do so within the bounds of the
canon. Of these, only the two latoet ones have methodology already set forth, it is neeessary in
hitherto been systematically invoked in any com- the first place to essay a generic classification of
parative study of the Biblical Psalter: on the one neo-Sumerian religious poetry. Only then will it
hand, t.hat is, the Akkadian canon which, origi- be po.ssible to match the resulting catei,'<lries wit.h
nating in Old Babylonian times, was expanded the corresponding genres in the later material,
and organized in Middle Babylonian times and whether Babylonian or Biblical. Finally, a single
enshrined in the great libraries of the neo- genre from the several canons will be subjected
Assyrians and, on the other hand, the late bilingual to closer scrutiny in order to weigh spooific com-
Sumero-Akkadian tradition of Middle Babylonian parisons and contrasts in the balance.
times which, elaborated in those same libraries, The concis<l bibliography of neo-Sumerian liter-
received its final form in the epigonic schools of ature compiled by Maurice Lambert may serve as
Seleucid and Parthian Babylonia long after the a starting-point for our classification." His survey
demise of a native Akkadian body politic."' recognizes fifteen separate genres. Two of these,
But there were at least two other recognized myths and epics, fall outside the purvfow of religi-
bodies of cuneiform literature which preceded ous literature in the narrow senac at issue here,
these. One of these is the Old Sumerian canon i. e. hymns and prayers. This is also true of the
who!-0 beginnings go back, it would seem, almost three types of wisdom literature which Lambert
to the beginnings of wriHng itsell, and which may distinguisl1es 1' even though, of course, a few ex·
well have been gathered into an ofllcial corpus amplea of wisdom compositions may be found
under the Sargonic kings of Agade. Much of this among the neo-Sumerian hymns just as they found
literature is only at this moment beginning to their way into the Hebrew Psalter. A similar
yield to the epade of the excavator and the crypto- ambiguity surrounds the so~alled love-poems on
graphic skills of U1e decipherer, and it is still toothe one hand, and on the other the " catalogue
early to assess its true import. ~
1
texts" which have an analogue in Ps. 68 if
But there is a more substantial body of Su- Albright's interpretation of the latter text" is
merian literature, which I would like to call neo- correct. Finally, we mnst eliminate from considera-
Sumerian and which, at least since the Second tion the genre of "Learned and Scientific 'l'exts"
'Vorld War, has absorbed the attention of ever which al<! largely or wholly pro.o in form and
more Assyriologists. This literature, chiefly cre- non-literary (i. e. monumental or archive.I) in
ated under the dynasties of Agade, Ur III and origin. That lea\'cs us with !-Oven genres of neo-
Isin I, was organized into a scholarly curriculum Sumerian religious poetry, to wit: lamentations,
in the Old Babylonian period. It attained a high hrmns t<> gods, hymns to temples, liturgies, royal
degree of literary excellence and to some extent hymns, compositions devoted to the "philosophy
survived t.be destruction of the Old Babylonian of history," and those on religious pbilosophy,-
schools to influence, as I think, also the literary seven prima facie components of an assumed neo-
products of later ages. Up to now, tl1is neo- Sumerian psalter. Let us see whether they warrant
81m1erian literatut<l has been almost com1>letely the label, first collectively on the basis of their
neglected by comparative Biblical studies_, at least common treatment and canonical arrangement,
as far as the comparative study of the Psalms is and then individually on the basis of their dfa-
concerned. Yet I hope to show that we now know tinguishing characteristics.
it well enough to attempt to compare it, not only To begin with, then, can we speak of the seven
with the Akkadian and bilingual religious poetry genres, t.aken together, as a. canonical •• collection

,..., Cf. c. g. the nuJnerous parallels considered by 1

• ••La Iitttira.ture sumi?rienne . . . ," RA 55 ( 1961)
G. R. Dri,·er, "The Psalms in the light o.f Bl\byJonian 177-196, 56 (1962) 81 ·90, 214.
re8Mrel1,'' o.pud D. C. Simpson, ed., Tlt.e P11almiatB ( 1926} 1
' For u. more detailed subdivir,ion, ef. E. I. Gordon,

100·176. Bi. Or. 17 (1960) 124.

1
•Hatlo, JA.OS 83 (1963) 167; M. Civil and R. D. "HUCA 23/1 (1950·51 ) 1·39.
BJgga, "Not.ea sur deft text.ea a~riena arcba.tques,'' 1• I am concerned here only wit·h the literary aense
RA 60 C1966) 1-16. of the term, not ita religi(lu• or eultic connotations.
74 HALLO: Indioidual Pr411er i1' Sumerian: Th• Continuity of a TNdition
in the eense of the Biblical Psalter? The usual
crit..eria here would seem to be a.n authoritative
text, a reasonably fixed number and sequence of
individual oompositious, und the grouping of
these compositions into recognizable books or sub·
divisions.•• Recent discoveries at Qumrnn ha'«
warned us not to apply the30 oosts too rigorously
even to the Biblical Psalter, and the evidence is
even more tenuous in the case of the Sumerian
text& But it does suffice to show that some of
them, at least, are met there aa well. Duplicate
exemplars of single compoallions, for instance,
show a large measure of agreement even when
found at widely scattered sites, not only in wording
but also in textual details that may be described
as '' mosoretic '' such as line counts, sttophic
structure, classification and so forth. Or again,
compositions of the same genre, or of closely re·
lated genres, were often collected on single tablets
in an order which seems to ha•e been more or less
llled. We are not yet in a p06ition to rest-On this
order in anything lilte its entirety, nor the major
groupings of the corpus aa a whole, but the an·
alogy of the later canonizations of cuneiform liter-
ature suggests that the Old Babylonian schools
were busy fixing both order and grouping. In
short., we will not be adjudged terribly premature
if we already operate witb the hypothesis that the
religious poetry of the neo-Sumerian tradition
constitut<!d the materials of what, in effed, may be
described as a complete Psalter from the literary
point of •iew.
Let us now turn more epeci!lcally to the indi·
vidual genres as isolated above, beginning with
the hymns, a category whicl1 by virtue of its im-
portance gave its name to tl>e entire Biblical
Psalter, and which survived it as a living form in
the I!odayoth of QumrlLll and the psalms of Sirab
if not of Solomon. The same category is also well·
represented in the neo-Sumorian corpus, in all of
ita diversity. There are, first of all, the hymns to
various deities, corresponding to the Biblical
hymns to God in several respects. For one thing,
they are the most numeroua of the hymns. More
important are the strnctural paral.lels, the natural
con&equence of the usential nature of hymns,
which, by their very definition, were "laudat<iry."
Thus tho invocation of tbo deity in the vocative is
followed (or, in the Sumerian, initially preceded)
by one or more epithets in apposition to the divine
" Cl . Rallo. IEJ 12 (1062) 21·26.
name, and by long recitals of the deity's attributes,
and of hie achievements-past, present a.nd future
- in mythology and history, whether these a.re
properly objects of praise, or nwo or outright
terror. The public recital which provided the
setting for the hymn is frequently nlluded to in
its very text by repeated exhortations to the soloist
or chorus to sing the deity's praises or to respond
to them antiphonally. The typical hym.n concludes
with a final doxology phrased in one of a relatively
Limited number of stereotyped formulas. All these
characteristics apply equally to the Biblical as to
the neo-Sumerian examples of U1e genre.
The more specin.lized hymnn.l genres of the
P eolter are 11.lso represented in Sumerian. Thus
the "Zion songs" may be likened to the more
elaborate hymns to temples and sacred cities in
the neo-Sumerian corpus, while the " royal
hymns" u resemble that claas of Sumerian hymns
to a deity which include, or conclude with, a
prayer oo behalf of a specific king. These hymns
have been described as " royal hymns in the wider
sense," and had a place in the public worship of
the temples. They must be distinguished from
Sumerian royal hymns in the stricter sense, in
which the king's praises are put into his own
mouth in the first person, or addressed to him in
the second. Such hymns have no liturgical anno-
tations or classifications; they have few references
to the deity nor pray to him on behalf of the
king, but rather emphasize the king's merits. Pre-
sumably they belonged in the courtly ceremonial
rather than in the temple service, and it is harder
to find their ana.logne in the Biblical Psalter,
though a relatively secular poem auch as Ps. 45
might be cited for comparison.
Conversely, it is difficult to find a precise Su-
merian equivalent to the much-debated accession
hymns of the Psalter. For while tlie ideology of
Mesopotamian kingship may hnve somehow influ·
onced the latter, it is there applied to God in a
fundamentally different sense. This ia true also
in large measure of such minor Biblical categories
aa " pilgrim gongs," congregational thanbgivings,
'' lege.nd '' a.nd ''wisdom'' psalms. '' Liturgies''
on the other hand, are represented i.n the neo-
Sumerian corpus by a number of examples.
Turning next to the congregationa.I laments,
*' Of. W. B. Pb. ROraer, Sumcrilvhe 'Ji6nig,1t.y ·1"neii'
da' /1l.-·Zeil (190.5) and my r&view, l:ll. OT, 23 (1966}
239.2.16.
 HALLO: Individual Prayer in
this relatively minor Psalm genre, to which most
of the Book of Lamentations should be added,
corresponds to the rather substantial body of la-
mentations over tlie destruction of cities in tbe
neo-Sumerian corpus. In both cases, it is clear
that real historic events, and more specifically na-
tional disast~rs, inspired the compooitions. But
both tended to sublimate the events into vague and
involved allusions to the flight of the divine pres-
ence or the breakdown of cultic processes. As a
result, tliere- is sometimes uncertainty in both as
to just what historic event is intended, the more so
as !.here seems to ha,•e been no great reluctance
about applying older allusions to more ret-ent
events. On the Mesopotamian side,, it is clear from
the number of Sumerian examples; from their
intricate strophic structure and liturgical glosses;
and from their survival in other forms into later
periods, that the public laments represented a
thoroughly institutionalized, temple-ccntered re-
sponse to the recurrent trauma of wholesale de-
struct.ion which was visited on the Jlfesopolamian
city-states and empii.,,s throughout their history."
\\'hat t.hcn of the prayers of the individual
which form the largest single quotient of the
Biblical psalter? Oddly enough, individual, or at
a.ny rate private, prayer is very poorly represented
in Sumerian literature." In part this may be
because the official cult concentrated on the Iring,
and had little use for the private individual, who
relied more often than not on a popular religion
to which the official religious literature bears little
direct testimony, or on the intercession of his
personal protective deity with the great s;ods of the
official pantheon. Indeed, our chief examples of
private prayer in early Mesopotamia come not
from canonical texts at all, but from the monu-
ments." The ubiquitous seal cylinders of the
neo-Somerian and adjacent periods typically show
the private seal owner led before the great god
by his personal deity. And the typical purpose of
private votive objects (as of royal ones) was to
forward to the deity the prayer which doubled as
' 1 Cf. R. Kutscher, a.·Gb·ba hu~luh·ha.: the hi4tory o/
a. S·umerio:rt congre-gatio.al lo:ment (u.npubt. Pb. D. thetils,
Yale, 1966); J. Krecher, S"~ch.e Kultlyrik (1966);
T. Ja.cob..n, PAPhS 107 0963) 479·482.
•• Ct. •4.. Falke-.n.8teln, "D•s Gcbet in der sumeriacbeo
Ueberliefcru.ng," R-LA 3 ( 1959) 156-60, where. prayers
cont"-IDed \vithln other literary 1:,"'tnres are alao liated.
••Cl. H&llo, '•The royal in&cription3 of Or : a ty·
po1ogj'," HliCA 33 (19~2 ) l-43 eep. pp. 12·14.
Sum~rian: The Continuity of a Tradition 75
the name of the object by leaving t.he object, with
its inscription, on permanent deposit in the cella
of the temple, close to the niche which held the
statue of the deity. Such inscribed votive objects
were, then, considered as taking the place of the
suppliant, and relieving him of the need to proffer
his prayer in bis own person, orally and perpetu-
ally. This is stated in so many words by many
of the votive inscriptions, and is implied also by
t.he fact that t.he most expensive type of votive,
the statue, clearly depicts the worshipper, not the
deity. OU1er types or voHve objects such as steles,
bowls, and replicas of tools and weapons from the
petiHoner's daily life, were simply more modest
means to attain the sa.me end. But even such
objects were made 0£ scmi·prec ious stones or preci·
ous metals and thus bcvond the means of mo.-t
worshippers, and there ,.;as consequently the need
for a less costly method of written communication
with the divine. Apparently, then, it is out of this
essentially economic context that there gradually
arose a canonical literary genre as a vehicle of
individual prayer. At first it took a form which
v;as less literary, or canonical, than economic, or
archival. For the formal choice fell upon the
letter, a form abundantly familiar to the nco-
Sumeria.n scribes for straightforward economic
purposes. Presently, the bsre outlines of the
archival letters weYe elaborated to creat~ what
constituted, in content if not in form, true prayers,
albeit in prose, and ultimately they freed them-
selves enfuely from the style of the letter to
develop into poetic parallels of the Biblical laments
of the individual. It will be my purpose to ex·
amine this particular genre, its literary history,
and its later affinities, more closely.
II. The Neo-Sumerian Letter-Prayers
Let me begin my presentation of the genre with
a translation of one. of its shorter and more
familiar examples (B.) : ••
s·peak to my king with varicolored e-J'ea who wefl.ra a
lapu$ lazuli be-a.rd
·S ay furthermore. to the golden &t.a.tu~ "born ,, on A
fa.vorable day,
{ to) the '' 3phjnx" r•l"'1 io the- holy ihoopfold, sum-
moned in tbe pure. btart of lnanna. 1 •
••Cf. below, (''), for a. bibliography of the- genre
and previour, treatment.,.
••For an Ur III e.ia.mple of a lapu~ lazuli "sphinx..'-'
d. UET 3, 415' 2.
 76 H•LLO: lndiridllOl Proytr in Sumerian: Th.e Conlisuity of o Tradition

(to) mr lord, the prince of lnM1n&: sentative of the king or of eome high royal offi-
"You in your form are a ehi1d of Beaven,
Your command like the eomma.nd or god ia neve.r cial." Such documents, while lotten1 in form, are
equa.lled {va.r.: ia not rebuc.ttd. b)' the foreign llnd&) orders in function, and havo therefor& been aptly
Your worde are a. 11tonn·wlnd (to be) rained down from designated as letter-orders." The texts we are
hea.ven, having none to count them (vat.: shepherd here considering, while easontially idontica.l to
t.b•ml them in form, function ae prayers. I therefore
Thut 1peaka Vriagga your 1cn>ant:
' M.1 k-i_ng ha.& wa.t.ehed over m)' per.on, propose to call them letter-prayen." The seven
I a.m. a citizen ( 1it.: aon) of Or, or oight aeparate examples in ten to twelve copies
If m1 Icing is (troly) of Beaven, of the genre recognized until recently., can now
Ltt. no o" carry oJI' my pat.rlm.Oft1, be more than doubled by newly published exemp-
Let no one destroy the fouDdatiOlll of ruy fathers hou:te..'
Ma.7 m7 king know it." lan f rom Ur and by unpublithed material from
the Yale Babylonian Collection ...
Thie brief but fairly l'llptesentative example Let ua flrat consider the structure of the newly·
may suffice for the moment to indicate that, named genre. It begins with a salutation to the
fotmally, our genre belongs to the category of divine nddressee which employs the basic tetmin·
Sumerian letters. As such, its literary analoguas ology of the archival letters: to my god speak,
are of several kinds. There are, first of all, the thus says" NN, your servant (so I; cf. B,., B,.,
preserved examples of royal correspondence in ~{, 0 , P), but usually elaborates on it in two
which the reigning king (not, as hel'll, the sts.tue aigniJl.cant ways. In t.b e first place it nearly alwaye
of the deified king} is addr-d by, or addressee modifies the adressee's name ,..ith a longer or
himiell to, one of hie eervants. Such letters are shorter aucceaaion of laudatory epithets in the
known to us so far only in the fomi. of literary form of appooitions (F, G, J ). In the second place,
imitation& of assumed originals allegedly ema- it frequently adds a eecond salutation, including
nating from the chancelleriea of Ur and Iain." furt~r epithets and ending ' to him say further-
Aa such th&y eb&re some of the llourishes and other more' (B,, B., C,, D, H, K, L)." On one occa;;ion
styHst.ic characteristics of our genre. Secondly, there ie even a third salutation ending 'to hlm
the school curriculum has preserved a small num- (say) for the third time,' (B,.) 11 while other
ber of private letters, in Sumerian as well as Ak- letters content themselves with additional epithets
kAdian, as mundane in style as in content, which or predicates at this point (B., B.,, C, El.
served as models of everyday correepondence fo• The message iteelf now follows, and ita length
apprentice scribes.,. Their pu11ily fictional cha•- ''aric1 considerably. In the longest exampls so
acter may be judged by the fact that one of them far attested (H}, it nms to about 4 6 lines, or five
ia auppooedly written by none other than a
monkey." .. Cf. E. Sollberger, TM B"ri•n• •Ad A4mi1&Lttrotioe
If, however, we wish to find the origin of our C<m'n~cc uJtdB7" '~ Ki11g1 of Ur C• Tes l, 1966 ) .
genre in the " real" world, we have lo go back of " A.. L. Opptnh•im, AOS 32 (1 ~) 86 od II 24 tt
pa.trim; Hallo. UUC~4. 2!t (1058) 07-100. For n~
all theee literary letters of the Old Babylonian BR.bylonfan letter-ordere:, ef. Oppenheim, JCS G ( 1950)
period to the archival documents of the neo- 196 od UET 4, 162·192.
Sumerian period. Several hundred Ur III letters •• Thlt term affm$ preferable to F. All'e " letteni of
11
&I'll known, and in their moet r.haracteristic form petition (Ar. Or. 33: 530), or Palkt.ntteln't "Gottel!J·
brief'' wbl.cb i1 diftlc:-ult to tranalate. Tbt genre is here
they constitute drafts, or orders to pay in kind, t.ake-n to include letters to deitie-, a• "'ell as those to
drawn on the great storaga~nters of the royal kioge and other mortals couched In tht elabora.te etyle
economy in favor of the bearer, usually the 11ipr1>- ot 1<>me of the tette1'6 to dtft1et.
'' A~ Ft.lke111~Ln, OLZ 36 (1933) 302; "'Bin e-u:me-
. , Cf. F. R. Krau~ "Altmt90p0tamitche Quellettaam..m.· riedtr Oottnbrid," ZA « ( 19.3.8) 1·!6; 111 Bin IUl'.l'le-
lu.n,gtn zur altmesopotamltehtD Oetchichte," Ato 20 ritcber Brit-I an den Mol"ldgott,'" A"oltc-to Biblico 12
( 1083) 1&3-155. ( 10~0) G0-77; J. :J. "'-· van DiJk, IA. 1ogn11 t1'm.6ro-
•• Set below (V), •tt6 B.1, M, 0 , and P for Sumtrian occodi~"e (19~3) 13·17.
txn.mplt1J.
0
For Akkndlan examplot, cf. F . R. Kra.ut. •t. See below, V.
Urlttf11chreibilb·ungen im altbabylonl!Milien Sehulunter 11
n•·n.h·b6·a.. So alwttya except fn J which baa nu-
rlcbt," ,JEOL VI/16 ( 1069-62} 16·39. To a ll &ppear· ob-1>6-a l Once ••·W· a lo J>BS 1/2' 93 1 3 ( = B,.) .
a n00:t, the pitifully executed J\kk&dt&n examples eome •• b·no·d~·dah; for tbc re.If.ding ef. Falken1tein, ZA
from A r.ou~h more rudimentary it.age of the curriculum. 44 1 ll but note now the t.ppannt ll·dl l·&·dWah in L.
•• llelov.·, V, 1ub Bu. ' ' b·na (\'Ar . ne) ·de.-pti.
 HALLO: Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition
times the length of tbe salutation. But in other
instances, the message is Ii ttle longer than the
salutation, and in a number of cases it is shorter.
Indeed, there are two instances where, at least as
far as preserved, tbe texts ends with the salutation
(E, C} and one of these even lacks the phrase
"thus speaks NN:" (E). The body of the letter
has no recognjzable structural subdivisions like
the salutation. Howe••er, most of its sentiments
can be classified as expresaing (1) complaint ( 2)
protests (3} prayers and ( 4) formal rein.force·
ments of the appeal, though not necessarily in
that order.
'.!.'be conclusion of the lett.er·prsyers (when pre·
served} may occaeionally consist of a vow to repay
the kindness besought in the body of the text.
More often it conaists of a brief stereotyped for-
mula either borrowed from the language of secular
letters or pc<!Uliar to the genre itself. We will
consider the various formulations in duo course.
For now, let us turn to the contents of the various
lcttcr-prayors, following the structural outline
already presented.
To begin with the addressees, they include five
of the great gods, and two goddesses. No discern-
ible princi pie governs the choice of the malo
deities, but two of them appear to be from the
cuclc of Nergal, the lord of the netherworld, if
not Nergal himself (C, G) , which seems to bespeak
a special concern w:ith the threat of death. The
others arc Utu (D.), Nanna (E), Enki (R.), and
Martu (J). The goddesses invoked can be de-
scribed more consistently. They are both healing
goddesses, in one case (Bu} Nintinuga, and in
two or three others (F, D,) Ninisina." In at
least two of these cases, the choice of addressee
is clearly dictated by the contents of the letter,
for they are petitions for relief from sickness.
The letters addressed simply to "my god"
(I) .. or "(my} king" (B., B,, B,, K) pose more
of a problem since, on the one hand, gods "'ere
sometimes addressed as "my king" e•en within
the context of the letter-prayers (J} and, on the
other band, the deified (and/or deceased} king
could be addressed as "my god." In at least one
case, it is clear that the letter-prayer is addressed
to King !§ulgi of Ur (B,), and there is another
te:rt which, though not formally a letter-prayer,
has been described as e. letter or pre.ycr to the
•• Kraul5, JCS 3 {1949) 78 D. 30 recognizes a whole
eub-genre of letter& to healing deities.
••Cl. alao JCS 8: 82; CT 44: 14.
77
deified Rim-Sin of Larsa.•• But where neither
royal name nor divine name is mentioned, it i8
difficult to decide the exact statu.s of the recipient,
whether addressed as "god " or " king." Perhaps
the question is of secondary importance, for both
were petitioned in similar terms (albeit for differ-
ent ends?}, and in similar guise (i. e. in the form
of theiT cult statue; cf. B,, K}.
For the sake of completeness, I will mention
here also two " letter-prayers" addressed neither
to gods nor to kings but to pri<ate persons, or at
most to officials (B,., L). One of them is from a
priest of Enlil to his son, the other from a scribe
to his relali<e or colleague (gi-me-a-aA). Both
are stylistically identical with tbo authentic letter-
prayers, and not with the simple literary "prac.
tice-letters " between private persons (B.,, M, 0,
P}. Perhaps they reprosent an intermediate stage
in the development from secular letter-order to
letter-prayer."
'l'he epithets applied to the various addressees
in all these letter-prayers are drawn freely from
all the rich storehouse of attributes available for
embellishing Sumerian religious and monumental
texts in general. But tbe choice was not wholly a
random one, for in most in.stances there was a
decided emphasis on those qualities of the ad-
d:ressee ..·hich were crucial for the substance of
the petition that followed in the body of the letter.
Thus the letters which prayed for the restoration
of health praised tho healing goddess for her
there.peutic skills (Bu, D,, F); one which asked
for legal redress stressed the unalterableness of the
divine command (ll,) ; one of those concerned
with scribal problems (H} addressed Enki as the
lord of wisdom. In one of the two " private "
letter-prayers, a father apostrophizes his son,
among many other things, as "the son who is
available for his god, who respects his father and
mother (var. mother and father}" (B,.)."
Our next question oonoerns the character of the
presumed writers of the letter-prayers, as far as
these may be identified by their personal names
or professional titles. This is not always possible,
for a name like U ~agga in B, (above) is corn-
,. Falkenstein, Analecta. Biblica. 12 { 1969) 70, n. 1
<id '£llS 35.
'1 Note that some of the aame pet'sonal names oeeur
ln different kinda of literary letters. Cf. Bi 1 and 8 1 ,, , .Bi,
and )J.,., K and Y.
''dumu dingir-ra-(a) -nl·lr gtlb-ba / a·a·a.JDa•a•nl (var.
ama·a·a-ni) ·lr nl·te-gA..
 78 Il.u.Lo: Individual P·rayer in Sumerian.: The Continuity of a Tradition
mon enough., the virtual equivalent of our "Good-
man " or Everyman. Whether the Gudea of I is
a private person or one of ooveral city-rulers of
that name is not clear. Rere as in other cases
(J), there is only indirect evidence for the ques-
tion. However, by far the largest number of
letters are clearly written by scribes ( C, F, G, H,
K, L). Even where the writer claims a more
specialized title in the salutation (B.), he may
still refer to himself as a scribe in the body of
the text. This state of affairs is readily explained
when we remember the origin of the letter-prayers
genre in the context of the scribal schools. As in
the case of the "school essays," the scribe found
in his own life and circumstances the materials
for exerciaing his stylistic talents.
One of these scribal !otter-prayers (C) is even
penned by a woman S<.Tibe-and thus becomes, in-
cidentally, a rare bit of evidence for the existence
of such women at this time. It is not the only
letter-prayer from a woman (cf. Bu) but it is the
only one which reveals her status, not only pro·
fessionally but socially, for it seems (the passage
is however broken) that she is furt.her identified as
a daughter or retainer of Sin-kB.Aid, king of Uruk.
As a matter of fact, we possess one example of a
letter-prayer written by a king himself- in this
case Sin-iddinam of Larsa, a later contemporary
of Sin-ka!id (D,). It may be noted in passing
that the Akkadian tradition of (royal) lctter-
prayers is first attested, at Mo.ri, only a generation
or two after this... So much for the writers, real
or fictitious, of the letter-prayers. Let us now con-
sider their actual messages: the petitions which
were the subject of the letters, and the sentiments
employed to convey them.
The complaint with which the body of the
letter often begins may refer to either the causes
or the consequences of one's suffering. One of the
fa voritc stylistic devices is to describe one's life
os ''diminishing'' (B1 )"" or as ''ebbing awa}' in
cries and sighs" (B.,)." One petitioner seems
already to foresee his bones carried ott by the
1
•0. Doeain, Syria 10 (lt:l38) 125f. Cf. alto VB.n Dijk,
Sa,ge~se 13 f. ; E . A. Speiee:r, "OmentJ and Lett.eh to
the Gode," AOS 38 (1955) 60·67 = 01'1cn·t«-t artd Bibl.ical
Studit,, (1967) 2.97-305; and below nn. 96f.
'' zi·mu ba·e· tur; tilt. variant (YBC 6458) bas, how-
ever, ba•i.
'' lm·ma•&i im-ma.-diri-ga.-ta zi al-ir-ir-re. For a.
~lightly different translation, cf. Romer, SK1Z 113, e»d.
Cf. also 11 23 below.
water to a foreign city (K).•• Another form of
complaint is t<> stress the !"'88 of friends and pro-
tectors : "those who know me, my friends, are on
a hostile footing with me" (B,,);" "thOE& who
know me no longer approach me, they speak no
word with me, my own friend no longer counsels
rue, he will not set my mind at rest" (H below)."
'l'he loss of protection or patronage is expressed
both plainly: " I ho.ve no protector " (B,., B.,
L)" and metaphorically: " like a sheep which has
no faithful shepherd, I am ~·ithout a faithful
cowherd t<> walch over me " (l);" "I am a.n
orphan" (lit. the son of a widow, B,)" which
recalls Gudca's moving plaint to Gatumdu: "I
have no mother-you are my mother; I have no
father-you are my father." ..
The petit.ions of the letter-prayers concern, in
t.be first instance, the same problems as their com-
plaints. Relief from sickness is thus one of them;
in the letters to healing goddesses, it is phrased
typically as "may she remove from my body
(interrupt) whatever sicknes.s demon may exist in
my body"'' (B.,, D,), and is followed by the
hope for restoration of complete health: "may
you place my feet in the station of life" (B 17 ) ; "
"may Damu your son (oh healing goddess) eltect
my cure" (D,)." Letters addressed to deified
kings typically seek divine or royal protection
where other friends and protectors fail : "oh my
king, may you be my protector " (B., B,; cf.
B. )." But some of the same texts go further and
their petitions may be more specific than their
complaints had been. One seeks to be confirmed
in the claims to his patrimony (B,, above);
another prays for his freedom, perhaps from debt.
slavery (B,) .•• This is also true of the two letter.
prayers addressed to private persons. In one, a
•t gtr·pad·du-mu ift.-uru-k6r-ra-~a. nam-ma-an-tbm.
•• zu•a. kal-la-mu gtr·k6r mu-dA•&n•g.i n; ..-a.r. ba.·An·dfb·
be-e8 (cf. Civil, Iraq 23: 167).
•• Cf. the same topot in the individual ll'l.mente of tho
P~alttr, c. r;. P&. 31: 12, 38: 12, 41: 10.. 55: 18·15.
"0 1'1.·~n ·tftr• (re) la•ba.(an)-tug (nu-un-tug).
"' udu-gim aipa·gi-na. nu-t11g na-gllda.·gi·na nu-mu·Wl·
t(1m·t6.m·mu. Cl. A. SjQbetg, Bi.0<. 20 (1963) 401.
et doro.U•D\t•mu• ( un) ·zu•mo·eD..
'' Cyl. A iii 6 f.; cf. Pa. 27: 10.
1
' A·zig $U·m3 giil-la. au·ml. lb~ta·Bn·ti; ''°'"·
g&·la
ha-ba-ra.n-da.gl ·ge (SE:i\( 74: l<I). Ct. va.n Dijk, 8ogeua
15 f.
•• lb.
'" «Da.·mu dumu•zu oam·A·r;u•mu he-ak (SEM 74: 16).
'' lugal·mu l!n-(mu) be-tar-re; var. hu-mu-un-tar-re.
1 ki ~•ma-mu ( ""ar .-bi) -~ h6-im-mi·lb ( ib) -r;i,·gi,.
11
 HALLO: Individual Prayer in Sume·rian: The Continuity of a Tradition 79

father seems to be pleading with his son for support king is truly of heaven" (B 6 ).•• Note that the
in his old age (B,.) ; in another, a scribe asks latter expression also occurs in the letters to
his colleague or relative for preferment to a higher living kings.•• The vows of the letter-prayers are
post and 0U1er favors (L). Thns the letter- even less subtle: if bis or her petition is granted.,
prayers were clearly t.he vehicle for expressing a the writer says, "I will surely be yonr slave-girl,
variety of human needs. will S<!rve as conrt sweeper o.f your temple, will
In addition to the complaint and the petition, serve in }rour presence,, (B11) 10 or '' dwell in )'OUr
the body of the letter-prayer is usually reiniorced gate and sing your praises ... and proclaim your
by protestations of past merits and present deserts exaltation" (B; cf. D., J)," preferably in pub-
on the part of the suppliant. He argues his moral lic." Perhaps the most persuasive offer t.h at the
innocence or ignorance, his cultic piety, his un- petitioner cau dangle h<lfore tho deity's eyes is to
swerving loyalty to the god, or simply his high endow him or her wit.11 yet another epithet, based
political or social status: " I do not know my on their latest kindness: "\\' hen I have been
guilt" (B8 ) ; " "I do not know my sin, of my cured, I will rename my goddess the one who
sin I have no knowledge" (K); •• "I observed heals(?) the cripples" (B,,, cf. also G 46)."
(all) your festh•als and offerings"" or, ncga- So much for the body of the letter-prayers. Their
t.ively phrased, "my proper devotions ( ?) I have conclusion is much briefer, but it includes, in at
not withheld from you" (J)," or both together: least two instance$, another important clue to the
"I performed (or sent) the regular prayers, cultic situation of the entire genre, for reference
the sacrifices and the offerings generously (mah- is made there to "(my) letter whicb I have de-
bi) to all the gods, I did not withhold any- posited before you" (II [variant], G). This, to-
thing from them" (D,) .•• To emphasize his gether with the fact that it is a statue which is
loyalty, the penitent may insist "I do not speak actually addressed (B 6 ) shows clearly that our
hostile (foreign) words" (I):• perhaps even that letters reflect a practice of leaving petitions in
he has not sworn by a foreign king (G) ." On the temple, at U1e feet of the cult statue or at
the contrary, be asserts, "I am a citizen of Ur" least in is own cella." But the brief concluding
(Be):' or" I am a seribe" {H, B,).'' One letter formulas are also crucial for assigning the genre
lists the past military and other service of U1e its proper place in Sumerian literary history. For
writer in detail (B,). Apparently the recital of of these formulas some, like "may my king know
past achiev<>ments or present rank is suppooed to it"" (B, ), "it is argent" (B,.)" or" do not be
qualify their bearer for futu re favors. 0 • Falkeruitein, ZA \14: 22.
To persuade the deity to act on his behalf, ••:&. g. Sulgi to lrmu 3, 3-0; L.B. 2543 (unpubl.).
however, the penitent doos not rely solely on his ''U gt\-c gtme-zu(va.r.-ni) (h~)-me-en t·Zt\•& (var.
own past merits and present status. Rather, in e.a-ni) kisal-luh·bi hf!·~·en igi .zu(var.-ni)-M h0-gub
time-honored fashion, he seeks to persuade the Cf. Gadd, ldmlil of Divine Rule Z't n. 3, who comp&rt:s
deity or king to act, as it were, " for the sake P!>s. 1 84: 10 (= 84: 11 in the l:Jebr('.w vcr&lon].
KA·to.t-z-u gt1.-•i-il (D palil t-et KA·tar-zu }u!-si-
of thy name," as well as to sway him by promise il·t-,- mt-·th numun h~·i·i (J } .
6 );

of future benefih. The element of "suasion " is ''Cf. e.g. P11. 22: 23; 26: 12; 35: 18 a.nd OOIO'\" note
typically (and somewhat pro•ocatively) phrased 02. .
as the protasis of a conditional sentence: '' If ''\'an Dijk, S'a.
g ease lSf. ( lint. 20).
''Aft.er hearing the. prtsent paper a.t iUi orig.in.al
my queen is truly of hell\·en" (B.,, D,) ; "if my presentation (t\bO.,·('. o. 1), Prof. Jaoobsen pointed out
tha.t th<'. c:r:cavations in the OiyaJa region uncovered a
•• Sul-a-tum nu-zu. elA)' tablet in an unopened cnvt.Jope lying near the bMe
•0 nam·tag-n:iu ntt·iu n.am-tag·mi. gt~t6 la·ba·il-gla.I. of a cult statue. A~ he recalled, the envelope bore only
•
1
czen·siir;kur-zu-u3 x ba-guh·bu-da-gim. (·S ID! ;4 = the ascription "to DN/' Note lllS-O that the late ( !)
D. f) copy of a \•otive inscription of Sin-iddinam plablished
•• nl·Aa,gl\·tltl<u·mt1 l a ·ba ·e·§i·k~§. by va.n Dijk, JCS 19 <1965) 1-25 includes two "Jotters n
•• dingir·-re·e-nc· ir ma11·bi inim-!a,·la..·gi-nam-ma / conlided by the. king to the statue of his fa.ther for
gi_t.kur-i-a nidba (PAD .dINNIN) -bi i-kin·en / nl·na.m nu- transmittal to Utu.
mu · nc·k~§. '• lugal·mu h6·en-zu; cf. BlN 2: 53: 3 «·}1ie11, acoord·
•• dingir ~mu 10.·kU.r-di nu-me-en ( Falkenstein, OLZ ing to 1i~alkensteln. ZA 44: 24 and A·rtal.. Bibi. 12: 10
1902, 373.) n. 2, ia also (t\D ('.Xt.ract from) a letter W a god, although
'' lugt.l·kUr-ra mu-ni nu-mu-un·pA-da that seem@ bard to pro..-e.
•• dumu uriKl-ma-me-eo. '' a·mll·rn·kam. For the expre~lon., cf. Sollberger,
' ' dub·aar-me-en. TCS I, p. 90 (40).
so HALLO: Individual Prayer itt Sumerian: The Co11tinuity of a Tradition
negligent" (0)," aro cloarly borrowed from the
oldor cliches with which the seeular letter-orders
and royal letters of Ur and Isin closed. Others, as
befits our genre, are more florid : "at the command
of Enlil may (my) eyes behold your face (Bu).'"'
But the most common conclusion: "may the heart
of my god (or king) be appeased " (B., G, !l, I)
helps to identify our genre as the lineal antecedent
of the p-0st-Sumerian penitential psalms, to which
we may now turn.
III. The Post-Sumerian Penitential Psalms
The Sumerian penitential psalm, or er-il-hun-
gA,,. is first attested by a single example from
Nippur dated to the Mjddle Babylonian period_
The text in question, published and oditod by
Langdon as long ago as 1917, wa.s recently re-
edited by the late ~'athor Bergmann."' It does
not actually carry any generic designation, but
it ends with the typical closing of the later,
labollod er&ahnnga's: " may your heart be ap·
peased like that of a natural mother, like that
of a natural father." TbJs is, in expanded form,
also the typical ending of the earlier letwr-
prayers, but since the Middle Babylonian example
is not otherwise cast in the form o! a Jetter, we
may see it as an early example, or at least a
forerunner, of the er~ahunga.81 Its significance
for o\ir purpose lies, then, in the fact that it pro-
vi<les the missing link between the neo-Sumerian
letter-prayers of the Old :Babylonian period, and
t.be fully de>•cloped post-Sumerian penitential
psalms of the first millennium, whose •·ery name
(literally lament for appeasing U1e heart, i. e. of
the god) reflects its concluding formula.
.-;\t first glance, the comparison may se"..m far·
fetched. The late genre is, to oogin with, wholly
'' gU-zu na.-an-lul>-b&-en. " rlth thi~ c l0$ing ef. za-e
nam·ba·e·§e·ba·e-de-en·U·en i.n the lbbJ ·Sin cotreapond-
enc•' Cal>E •Sb and Holfn«r, J AOS 87 ( 1967) 302.
1
• dul.l··g a 4.En·lil·li ·ka.( var.·kam r) m61-me·ru igi h~
bt-du• (var. ba~ ah·dU$ } . Cf. Uli':'l' 6: 173 iv 6 f.: duu
1tniu-in·si·na m~i lugal·mA·kam igt·bi b1 -lb"(fu,, ,,·hie b
tbllll i1J clearly al&O the oouclueion of a letter ( in spite
of Kramer's ~rv&tiou, ib., p. 4 ) , presuma.b ly to a king.
1
• Cf. S. J,a.ngdon, OECl' 6 ( 1927) pp. iii·x; Ra 22
(192.5) 119-125. The Akkl\dian equi.valent is given vt.r-i-
Ott!!ly llS u•ntnu.( ?) ($L 2: 579: 392 ), erla.hu"ga (Ailw
24:'} f .) or §lg.a (&cc rcb . Da1glish. op . cit., 34 f.).
"PllS 10/2' 3, «\. by E. Bergmann, ZA 57 (1965)
33·42.
'
1
Kr~ellCf, Z ~-\. 58 ( 1967) 28 regard.$ it as u den
J.
Er§a.hunga·Liedern n.aheatehend und als.o wahr~c hein ·
lieh &U$ der friihen KaMitenuit( !) ."
poetic in style, as attested not only by the lan-
guage, parallelisms and other internal features,
but also by the fact t.b at its lines, in distinction
from the earUer Jetter-prayers, are now fixed in
their division and as to their nmnber for each
separate composition. In the second place, the new
genre baa lost all formal !.races of any epistolary
origins, with one po.ssible exception, namely the
use of !.be phrase "your servant" to refer to the
perutent, whether he otherwise presente himeelf
in the third or in the first person.•• Thirdly, it
is couched in the emesal-dialect of Sumerian,
once erroneously translated as the '' ~·oma.n's lan.
guage" " but mor<> properly descriood as a kind
of whining or wailing tone used by women or
goddesses neither exchlSively nor universally, but
by them only in certain contexts, and also by cer-
tain men, notably the singers called gala ( kalil)
and in tlie context of lamentation.
In these formal or external respects, t.hen, the
post-Sumerian penitential psalms clearly represent
a new genre as compared to the neo-Sumerian
letter-prayers. Indocd, if we were to confine our·
selves to their formal characteristics, we might be
forced to conclude that they were simply the later
successors to the neo·Snmerian er5emma·psalms.
'l'hc crSemma, howevc.r, survived in its own right
and under its old designation, albeit cliielly as a
subsection of longer compositions. And when we
consider the perutential psalms from t.be point ol
view of contents and phraseology, a different pic-
t'Ure emerges. For this agpect of their description,
we may rely largely on Dalglish's summary."
The typical er~ahunga, then, oogins with a long
hymnic introduction in whlch the deitv invoked
is apost rophized by a succession of eplthets de-
signed, in Dalglish's words, " to remind them of
their Sp<lcial attributes, whose exercise may have
caused the distress of the worshipper or may be
the can.so of salvation later to be invoked in the
prayer." As such, they of course immediately
r<!<'all the salutations of the letter-prayers.
The complaint section of the er~ahunga in-
•• Cf. the reference& and llteraturt. e itOO. by Dalglil'h,
o·p. cit·. (not('. 12) 31 f. n. 58. The same usage appears
to apply to the Akkadian "literllr;y pN.yer& of tl1e
&bJ'lonian~" ; c:f. W. G. Lantbert, AfO 19 (1959-60)
47 f.
... S AL i~ here rl\ther "thjn, attenuated." Cf. now
J. Krecher, "Zum Em~at-Dial ekt. de• Sumeriscben."
t'alkcnat.e•n AV (\967) 86 n. 1. ·
"
1
Op. eit~ (abo\·e., n. 12) , pp. 21-35. To Dalgiah'$ li!tt
adcl no"· pTobably CT 44: 14 and 24.
 HALLO: Individual Pra.yer in Sumeric.n: The Continuity of " Tradition
eludes, like that of the letter-prayers, a descrip-
tion or the pen.itcnt's distress, a coniession of bis
sin, and a final cry of woe_ The description of
his distress is less specific here than in most of
the letter-prayers, and even the allusions to sick-
neos are more often meant metaphorically than
literally. But the other two elements often employ
the phraseology of the letter-prayers almost ver-
batim. Sins are typically committed in multiples
of seven in both genres," and in both there is an
emphasis on t.he penitent's ignorance of his sins,
or of his specific transgressions... The cry of
desperation in both may resemble the bleating of
an animal or the moans of a woman in child-
bil"th,.. though the later genre adds a few char-
acteristic interjections of its own.
Another typical portion of each penitential
psalm is the petition, or prayer in the narrower
sense. Since the distress is described vaguely as
atl unknown sin or sins, or the resulting e.ftliction,
the petition too is, naturally, less explicit than in
the Jetter-prayers. Even so, expressions such as
''free me from my sin,'' ''rem.it my punish·
mcnt,'' •• or '' rescue me from destruction'' 1' can
be fonnd in both genres.
The votive formula. which is so marked a part
of the letter-prayers recurs with little change in
the er8ahunge.'s; both thus differ from the moro
or less unconditional thanksgiving formulas of
other late genres. Compare for example the pre-
viously quoted "If Damu your son effects my cure,
then I will surely sing your praises"" with the
later "Absolve my sin and I will sing your
praises." .. Both genres, too, stress the favorable
"publicity" which will redound to the deity."
Finally, we may return to the starting point
of our comparison by considering the concluding
'' Cf. e.g. I Sf. <Kramer, nm nF 3 p. 21 } ~·itl1 IV
R 10: 4.5 ff.: na.·A.rn·t.&g·go. imln·a.-rA.-iml.n-na. Note a.lso
Jacobsen, ,JCS 5, 80 (CN~ 10099) (end) ' dingi,.mu
nam-ta.g-ga~mu tmin·[, . ,).
MCf. e.g. K (a1x1ve1 n. 60) with IV R 10:42: na.-
ani-tag·g(L Dl·ag•O.•mu DO·UD·ZU·&.m = onni cpufu ul id.i.
• Cf. e.g. B,_, (above, note 45) with K. 3153 (OECT
1
6: 21·3j BA 5: 578 f.): ib·$1 Ai·mu zi·lr· ro.= m<ifi na.p i·fti
,,a..hU,
"'Cf. the ga.te called iiul·a·lum-du.,-dlJe (li 49, bell)\Y)
with the eriahnnga-pa"gage~ cited CA.DE l 70a.
••Cf. :S 51 f. (belO\\') with P.BS 10/2: 3: 7 <Bel'g-
maun, ZA 57: 34 ) 1 na.m·da·ad·gn·nd ~n -bar·~i &ag•ki ! .
twn ZA.OI.
• 0 Above, note$ 56 and il.
• 1 0ECT 6:43:49; ef. &rg.mano, ZA 57: 41.
"Cl. H 63 (b•low) witb PBS 10/2, 3r8 (ZA 67'
411.)' ukU·• pt.·h6·ni·ib·bd k ..n ..me h6·ma·•u.
81
formula of the penitential pse.lm. In its fullest
form it includes seven different formulations, but
of these, only the last two recur in virtually every
instance, namely : "may your heart be appeased
like that of my natural mother and father."••
Thus we have here the closing formula of many
letter-prayers expanded only to include the specific
equation between personal god and parent which
had been merely implicit earlier."
In spite of certain formal and substantive differ-
ences, then, the pos!rSumerian eriahunga's in
striking measure perpetuate the tradition of the
nco-Sumerian letter-prayers, and Falkenstein's
assessment that they derive from Akkadian con-
ceptions needs to be reviewed." The formal differ-
ences no doubt reflect a change in the cultic situa-
tion: instead al commissioning a scribe to deposit
a clay tablet in letter form at the feet of the di vine
statue, the later penitent commisaioned the gala-
singer to recite his prayer orally. Perhaps it was
feared that gods could no longer read Sumerian,
for while letters continued to be addressed to
them •• or deposited before their statues,'' they
no longer served as prayers but as royal reports
or oracular inqn.iries re<1pectively; and they were
now WTitten in the vernacular, like the letter-
prayors to the gods of Anatolia," Egypt,. and
elscwhere.100
The substantive chang<>s too arc readily ex-
'' Dalgli.eb, op. ci.t., p. 32.
''On this equation, see also 'A:a.llo, JCS 20 (19Qij)
136 t., n. 53.
''" Naeh m~ioer Auff'a.eaung trotz sumeri&.cher Spraehe
sind die ir·U ·hun·g8.-KompOE1it.ionen a.ua a.kk:adieebt-n
v·or•tellu.ngen herau.egewacli•en," o.pwd D~lgli&b, op. cie.,
34, n. 72.
•• Most notably the fa.moua report or Sargon's eigbtb
campaign; er. A. L. Oppe.nheim, •• Tbe city of Assur
in 714 B. C./' JNES 19 ( 1960) 133·147, who lista the
other <'Xamples of the genre. Previously Ungna.d, OLZ
21 0918) cc. 72·6. Cl. al•o H . Tad.nor, JCS 12 {1958) 82.
7
• Relerri'ng to Knudti.on, As1yri•cM Oebt.tte a• deK
S01tntn.g ot.t , Jaat.row etatcd long a.go: "Aue Andcutr
u.ngen ln den Text.en selbst geht . . . hetvor, dass man
d1e aufgc&ch.r"iebene F·ra.ge vor dem Ootteabild nieder-
legte , , : Die Rel·igioit Babslott.ien.t u-nd ~••uritns 2
(1912) 175; cf. ai.o W. W. Struve, ICO 25/1 (1962)
1;s.
•• Ac::co·rdiug to Goetze, Kleina.aiat·itrc.he F-'01'.fohu,.ge.,.
l ( 1930 ) 220, the "aecond pla.gue prayer" of Mu·r iili
(AN'£T 304--6f) wa& in the form of a. •• GottttJbrief."
(Ref. courtesy II. Holfne.r, Jr.)
••G. It. llughe$, "A Demotie letter to Tboth,'-' JNES
17 (1958) 1-12, with other e~amp1ts of tl•e genre.
10
°Cf. the Jewieb cu,,tcin1 of depoie.itiug " letter·
pr-a.yer$" in the We.tern Wall, \\·bieh au:rviv(."9 to thia
day.
82 .HALLO: Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a T·radition

plained in terms of historically attested changes
in the Babylonian Weltanschauung as these have
been delineated by J a<:obsen.••1 Where the earlier
Babylonians worried chiefly about the divine origin
of natural misfortunes and man.lnade disasters,
the later ones were more concerned with their own
sins, known or unknown, as the causes of their
afflictions. The petition of the individual accord-
ingly witnessed a corresponding shift in emphasis :
the deity was now entreated t.o remove, not the
affliction, but the sin ; not the symptom but the
assumed underlying cause. It is, however, not my
purpose to dwell on these differences, important
though they certainly are aa indicos of develop-
mental stages in the history of M.esopotamian
religion- From the point of view of literary his-
tory, it is the similarities betwoon the earlier and
the later genre that are most impressive. They
entitle us t.o regard the neo-Sumerian letter-
prayera aa the lineal antecedents of the post-
Sumerian penitential psalms, and t.o throw them
int.o the balance in any comparison with the indi-
•idual laments of tbe Biblical Psalter.
IV. A New Sumerian Letter-Prayer (H)
A. Texts,..
YBC 4620 ( = A) : complete in 56 lines
l"BC 7205 ( = B) : "rectilinear " extract
tablet;•• u_1-15.
YBC 8630 ( = C) : " rectilinear" extract
tablet; 1•• ll. 86-..nd.
B. Structure
The letter-prayers have no structural lah<lls,'"
but the present text, by virtue of its great length,
shows a clear strophic structure based on meaning
units and the occurrence or recurrence of certain
formulas- There is also the evidence, in exemplar
A, of the line count. While the total ( 56) is cor-
rect, the subtotals are t.oo low by two for the
obverse (31 for 83) and t.oo high by two for the
reverse (26 for 23). Unlesa they were slavishly
copied from a model (in which caae it is hard to
see why the disposition of the lines would have
been altered), this seems to imply that the formulaa
of lines 2 and 7 were not counted aa separate lines,
while the long lines 39 and 40, which in A are
written over Ii lines and in C over two separate
lines, were in fa<:t counted separately. On this
assumption, and with one minor transpoaition
(moving the couplet 18 f. after line 27), the poem
consists of ele•en live-line stanzas plus a con-
cluding "doxology" of one line.

i
C. Transliteration of A.108
den-ki en-zA-dib-an-ki-a nam-ma-ni zA nu-di
il-na-a-duu
dnu-dim-mud nun(l )-gi§tu-dagal-la(2) an-da nam-ba-an-tar
me-zi bal-ha(3) a(4)-nun-ke,-ne a-nl-bi sag [nu-di]
5) gal-zu-roah u,~-ta u.-66-u! igi-gAl ba-ab-ae-[ga ']
en-nl-zu lugal-..ngur-ra dingir-sag-du-ga-mu-u[r]
il-ne-de-dah
ii
'dEN. ZU-Sa-mu-tih.(5) dub-sar dumu Ur-dnin-[ .. .]
ir-zu na-ab-b~-a
10) u, 8u mn-'el (6)-du.,-ga(7) nam-lu-ulil-us mu-c-ni-[n·...)
mu-pa-da-zu-te• IM-sub li-bi-ak ab-ba-gim [ ...]
e1.en-sizkur-zu-u6(8) glri-mu la-ba-ni-sil lul-a§ \-dn-un-na

iii
e-ne-~ (9)nl-a-na(l0) b!-ak-a(ll)-mu di nam-tag(l2)-ga(I3)-mu
nu-[til']
••a Ct. tor the prese.nt hia " .6.neient Mttopota:r:oil\n
religion: the central concern&," P .'\.PbS 107 ( 1963) 473. ••• Cf . Oordon, $ . P. p. 8 .
48 4. 1•'0n these cf. my remarks Bi.Or. 23 (1966) 24lf.
1
" Copies to be p1-bllthed ill a torthcoming Y'OS 1
•fWitb a. few minor restorations baaed on B ::..nd C;
Toi ume.. these l\re not indicated a& s~c h.
 ·HALLO: Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Conlinuity of a Tradition 83

u(l4)-nam-tar-ra(l5)-ke.(16 ) mu-DU (17) ki-lul-Ja U-la..!n izkim

na-ma-ab(J8) -kin
15) dingir-ktlr-ra nam-tag(19) (20) hu-mu-t6m(21) za-bi nu-mu-da-pA
u,-la-la-ma &bi an-ne bi-du 11-ga
sag-slg..§e nam-tag-mu nu-me-a gaba im-ma-da-ri-e[n]

v(b)
'bappir' -ra-baJa.rban 1 -da-gim kisib-e ba-ab-dab-bC-en
rnig-su-kaskal-la 1 giA-sudun-bi-TAR.a-gim har-ra-an-na ba-gub-be-cn

(iv)
20) ki-na u-u.-a-a-e ba-nli-en a-nir mu-un-si-il
a.Lan-~a.-ga-mu g1i ki-se ba-la giri-oe ba-tuA-en
[ ...].PA.AH-mu ki ba-ni-in-il uktin-mu ba-kUr
[ ...] il-nu-ku glri-mu-a a.b-sl zi-mu ba-da-zal
u,-za!ag-ga u.-HI-da-gim im-roa-an-ak ki-t<un-mu ba-an-ze..ir

v(a)
25) dub-aar-me-en nl-mu-zu-zu a-na-ma uh~ ba-ku,-re-en
~-mu &aT·re-~ ha-DU ka-mu inim-bal-bal im-ma-an-1!
ab-ba nu-me-en giAtu-mu ba-dugud igi-du,-mu ba- 1gil'-gil

vi
guru!-ad-hal e-lugal-a-ni lb-ta~-a-giro sag ki-a mu-t<un-twn
lu-zu-a-mu na-ma-te-gli in1m-ma na-ma-ab-be
30) ku-li-mu ad nu-mu-da-gi.-gi, M-mu la-(ba)-ie,-a.\
lu-in-na su-lum-mar-M ba-ku,-re-en nam-tar-mu ba-k6.r-e-en
dingir-mu za-ra nfr-iro-ta-glil-..n 111-!e nam-mu

vii
guniS-mc-en a-gim ki-lul-la nam-ma-b&ra-<gel·en

lower edge 31
reve~gud-us 8-mu la-la-bi nu-mu-'gi-gil
36) <!-du-du-a-mu sig,-e nu-ub-tag-'ge,-a1
giA-u-tur-tur (22) ki-pU-la-mu-a-gim(23) gurun(24) la-ba-U
giA-suhhu§ g(t(25)-ma(26)-da-mu-a-gim pa-mu la-ba-slg-slg

Vlll
tur-ra-(27)me-en(28) u,-mu nu-me-a ur,-se nam-ba-du-nn
sahar-ra nam-bl-ib-bala-e-en
ki ama-a-a(29) nu-gub-ba(30) ba-<>-dab-bo\-en
a-ba-n a-ra(31).zu-mu mu-ra-ab-be-e
40) ki im-ri-a-rou g(t nu(32)-si-si-i8 zA mu-e-tag-ge-en
a-ba-a kadra-mu (eras.: mu) ma-ra-ni-lb-ku,(33)

ix
•dam-gal-nun-na nitalam ki-aga-zu
ama-mu-giin ha-ra-da-tlim ir-mu bu-mu-ra-ni-ib-ku.-IJrn.1
84 H.u.1.0: Individual Prayer in Sumeri<H>: The Continuity of a Traditi<>n

•asai (34 )-alim-nun-na dumu-abzu-ke,

a-a-mu-gim ha-ra-da-tum lr-mu hu-mu-ra·ni-ib-ku, -ku,
45) lr-:lA-ne·S&,·mu bu-mu-ra- [ah] ·be
ir-mu hu-mu-ra-ni-ib-ku,-ku, ( 35)
x
u,-da nam-tag (36)ga-mu-ra-tlim(37) 'erim 1-ta {38)KU-mu-da{39)
{40)ki-kiruda-< <da-da) )-ma( 41 ) igi ( 42)11-ba-c-ni-bar{ 43) {44)ama.-mu
.Su-te-ba-ab{ 45)
ki-kuJdru-ga-mu u,-ile ( 1(! I 11-mu··e-ni-ku, {47)
ka-sul-a-lum-du,-du8-za{ 48) ga{ 49)-til KA-tar-zu ga-si-il
50) nam-tag-mu{50) gu-gim ga.-mu·ra-si-il
nam-ma.h-zu ga-'Am1 (51)-du11
X1
ki-nam-tag-dugud-da SU·nigin-zu ar ga-A(m- ...] {52)
ka-gar88-a(53)-ka. su-bar 7.i sag-ki-tilm{54)-mu [ ...](55)
ukU-e pa ga·ni-ib.(i kalam-e b6-zu-z[u] (56)
dingir-mu ni-te-ga-zu g8 (67) -me-en
55) u-na-a-du., (58)mu-ra-gub-ba-mu(59) arhu8(60) tuk-ma-r[a](61) (62)
xii
[s]a dingir-mu ki-bi ba-ma(63)-gi,-gi,
25
56
D. Variants (other than line divisiona). ·
1. B ; en-mah 33. 0 inverts the next two couplets, thus:
2. B adds: -ke. 43, 44, 41, 42.
3. B: -hal-la 34. C: asal-lu- 'HI'·
4. B: •a- 85. C: omits line 45.
5. B: -1lh 86-37. C: hu-mu-ra-ab-til[m]
6. B omits 3S-89. C: KU-ma-a[ b]
7. B adds: -ta 4~1. C: ki- 1ru 1-da-mu
8. B: l!e I 42-43. C: 1 i'-ni-in-bar
9-10. B: a-na-am 44-45. C: arhus tulru-mu- 1da-ab1
11. B: -ka- 46-47. C: mi-ni-in-KUt
12-13. B omits ·18. C omits
14. B omits 49. 0: ga-an-
15. B: -mu 50. C omits
16. B: omits 51. 0: -an-
17. B: 'e-ne1 1 52. 0 omits line 51
18. B : -ni-in· 53. C omits
19. B: -a ( ?) 54. c; -tfun-
20- 21. B: ha.-me.-tilm 55. 0: 'UN-x-y'
22-23. C: NE-gim ba-gub 56. C omits 1. 54
24. C: gurum,(GAM) 57. C: ga-e-
25. C: omits 58-.59. C: 'im'
-ma-ra-sar
26. c: ma-gid- 60. c: gis-
27-28. C: -mu 61. C: -ta
29. C adds -m]u 62. C inserts a line: [ ...]- 'mu-ra'
80. 1
C: - 'be-en ' hu-mu- run-gal'·[ . .. J'
31. C omits 63. C: -ma·•b·
82. C: nu-mu-un-[ . . .]
 Bn.1.0: lndioidual Prayer i" Sumerian: TA~ Continuity of a Tradition

E. Translation
l

1. (1) To Enid, the outstanding lord of heaven and earth whose nature is
unequalled
(2) Speak t
2. (3) T o N udimmud, the prillce to> of brood understanding who determines fates
together with An,
3. ( 4) Wbo di.&tributea the appropriate di vine attributes among the Anunnald,
whose course cannot be [reversed]
4. (5) The omndcient one who is given intelligence from sunrise to Slllllel,
5. (6) The lord of knowledge, the king of the neet waters, the god who begot me,
(7) Say furthermore I
ii
6. (8) (This ia) what Sin-samub the scribe, the aone of Ur-Nin[••.],
7. (9 ) yoursorvant, says:
8. (10) Sinoct'l the day that you created me you have [given] me an education.
9. (11) I have not been negligent toward the name by which you arc called,
like a father [ ...].
10. (12) I did not plunder your offeringa at the foetiv.U to which I go Ngularly.

iii
11. (13) (But) now, whate,·er I do, the j udgment of my sin is not[...)
12. (14) My fate<•> baa come my way, I am lifted onto a pla« of destruction,
I cannot find an omen.
13. (15) A hostile doity has verily brought sin my way, I cannot find(?) its side.
14. (16) On the day that my vigorous house was decreed by Heaven
15. (17) 'l' hcre is no keeping silent about my sin, I must answer for it.

iv
16. (20) I lie do1"n on a bed of alas and alack, I intone the lament.
17. (21) My goodly figure is bowed down to the gronnd, I am sitting on (my) feet.
18. (22) My [ ..]. is lifted from (its) place, my featuro11 are changed.
19. (23) [ ...) re&tlesanel!8 is put into my feet, my liie ebbs away.
20. (24) The bright day is made like an "alloyed " day for me,10• I slip into my
grave.
,.
21. (25) I am a scribe, (but) whatever I have lx!en taught bas been turned into
spittle ( ?) for me
22. (26) My hand i• "gone" for 1"fiting, my mouth is inadequate !or dialogue.
23. (27) I am not old, (yet) my hearing is heavy, my glance croswyed.
24. (18) Like a brewer(?) with a junior term(?) I am deprived of the right to seal.
25. (19) Like a wagon of the highway who.e yoke has boon broken(?) I am placed
on the road
a meaning "day of dt.rk:ness ,, and_ pouibly a. reading
••• Ct. .:. ?tlan and bi.a God" (1t.r•mer. VT S11ppl. 3: u,·mu. -da for our expression; for mud • dark(neea),
175) line 69. Van Djjk al&O tu.JI• my attention to U r ~f. u..·mud = Omu do,"mv· (CADD 74c), dN'anna. i-mud =
Lament (Kramer, AS 12: 30) JOO: u4 ·Rl·da ba-da-an·
tab, and tbe new variant frou' Ur (U'ET 6/2: 137: 73) i
=
d6'ln ca.clir (CADA/l : 103b) . Note alto a..n·ul!.a.n-da
do'ummot1.i ( CA.OD 123b) , where Us.AN CUSL'l) ma.y
U·IDUd 1.e b..-da•&.n·ku.. Th la, A.bd pa:raltet ex.pressiont h•ve the reading mud, (<{. USA.N = NUNUZ +All X SA
11.tt our line 48 or Reiso~r. SBB pl. 77: 20 f., sugge1t and WD e l\'U1'-UZ + AB X .KA&) .
86 HALLO: Individual Prayer in Sumerian: 1'he Oontinuity of a Tradition

vi
26. (28) Like an apprentice-diviner who has left his master's house I am slandered
ignobly.
27. (29) My acquaintance does not approach me, speaks never a word wit.h me,
28. (30) My friend will not take counsel with me, will not put my mind at rest.
29. (31) The ts.untcr has made me enter the tethering-rope, my fate has made
me strs.ngc.
30. (32) Oh my god, I rely on you, what have I do to with man?!

vii
31. (33) I am grown-up, how am I to spread out ill a narrow place?
32. (34) My house (is) a plaited nest, 1 am not satisfied wit.b its attraet.ivenesa.
33. (35) My built-up houses are not faced with brick(?)
34. (36) Like little (female) cedars planted ill a dirty place, I(?) bear no fruit.
35. (37) Iiike • young date palm planted by the side of a boat, <'l I produce no
foliage.
viii
86. (38) I am (still) young, must I walk about thus before my time? Must I roll
around in the dust?
37. (39) In a place where my<•l mother and father are not present I am detailled,
38. who will recite my prayer to you?
39. (40) In a place where my kinsmen do not gather I am overwhelmed,
40. who will bring my offering in to you?

il:
41. (41) Damgalnunna, your beloved first wife,
42. ( 42) May she bring it to you like my mother, may she introduce my lament
before yon
43. (43) Asalalimnunna, son of the abyss,
44. ( 44) May be bring it to you like my father, may he introduce my lament
before you.
45. (45) May he recite my lamentation to you, may be introduce my lament
before you.
x
46. (46) WJ1en J«l have verily brought (my) sin to you, cleanse(?) me from evil 1
47. (47) When <•> you have looked upon me in the place where I am cast down,
approach my chamber! (•l
48. (48) When (•l you have turned my dark place into daylight,'"'
49. (49) I will surely dwell in your<"> gate of Guilt-Absolved, I will surely sing
your praises I
50 (~O) I will su1·ely tear up my <"> sin like a thread, I will surely proclaim
your exaltation !
xi
51. (51 ) As you reach the place of heavy sin, I will surely (sing your] praises.
52. (52) Release me at the mouth of the grave, [save me) at the head of my tomb I
53. (53) (Then) I will surely appear to the people, all the nation will verily know I
54. (54) Oh my god, I am the on<> who reveres you!
55. ( 55) Rave mercy on C»l the letter which I have deposited before you 1 ("l
----
Cf. Kramer, Two Eleg'iea 1. 89.
1• •
 HALLO: Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of <> Tradition 87

xii
ll6. ( 56) May the heart of my god be restored I
F. Translation- Principal Variants IM-sub-ak (11) : Jestin, Thesaurus 2: 24. CADA/
(1) B: the lofty lord 1: 305c s. v. ahu, aham n<UM [v. D.].
(2) So B. A: On kadra (40): von Soden, AHw. s. v. k<Ul/tril.
(3) So B. A: The X ol fate ka-garas ( 52) : von Soden, AH w s. v. kan!Ju II.
(4) C: by a long-boat KA-tar-si·il ( 49) : Bergmann, ZA 56: 34 1>d SEM
(5) C omits 74: 17. Cf. the syllabic spelling OT 44: 14:
(6) C: he ka-ta-ar-zu se-si-li-im.
(-7) C omits ki-kukku-ga ( 48) : Sjoberg, Na.n,,,,,.Sucn 76 a.d
(8) C : have mercy on me! TRS 30: 10.
(9) C omits ki-lul-la ( 14, 33) : Castellino, ZA 52: 32.
(10) C omits ki-pO-la (36): Jacobsen apud Gordon, S. P. 461.
(11) C omits kiruda ( 47) : Falkenstein, ZA 56: 128.
(12) C: Hear kIBib-dab (18): Oppenheim, Eames, 129 242 a.d
(13) C: (which) I have written to you Pl8. '
ki-tUm/t0m/tum (24, 52): van Dijk, SageJSe
G. Abridged Glossary • 00 62; Falkenstein, ZA 57: 109.
ad-gi, -gi, (30): von Soden, AHw s. v. m<>!a.l:u Gt ku..-(ku, ) in sense of" turn into" (25, 31, 48):
(mitluku); van Dijk, SGL 2: 98. Hallo and van Dijk, E:ralta.tion of lnanna,
ad-ha! (28) : CA.DB s. v. Mrll. Glossar}', s. v.
a-gim (33) : von Soden, AHw s. v. ki<>m. la (26): von So<len, AHw, s. v. matu II.
an-da naro-tar (3) : Falkenstein, SGL 1 : 99 f. la-la with e (16): Sjoberg, Nanna-Suen 174;
ad STVC 84 iii 7. !Uecher, Sumerisch.e Kultyrilc 141.
a-ra (4): Romer, SKIZ 108 ad SRT 12: 21. la-la-gi. (34): ib.
arhus-tuku (47[var.], 55) : Romer, SKIZ 264 h\-in-na (31): Jacobsen apud Gordon S. P. p.
n. 13. 461.
e-ne..16 (13): CADI s. v. iMnna. LUL-a.S (12): von Soden, AHw s. v. ma'dii; UET
gaba-ri (17): von Soden, AHw s. v. maharu. 6: 2: 5.
gal-zu ( 5) : CADE s. vv. erfu A, emqu.. 16-zu-a (29): Civil, Iraq 23: 167; JNES 23: 5,
gil-gil (27): CADE s. v. egeru. .,1 Ludingira 6.
glr-sil (12): CADH s. v. kabdtu A [v. D.]. me-zi-hal-ha (4): Falkenstein, ZA 49: 106: 10;
giil-suhbu~ (37): MSL 5: 117: 288 and 142: 28. vs 2:8:26.
gis-u (36): Falkenstein, GSGL I 72; SAHG na~-mah-du., (-00): Hallo and van Dijk, loc.
153: 32. cit.., s. v.
gild-us (84): Falkenstein, SGL 1:71; ZA 57: nam-mu (32): ib., s. v.; cf. Falkenstein apud
121 f. MSL 4: 42; Castellino, ZA 52: 34.
gil-ki~~hl (21) : Falkenstein, ZA 57: 97 f. nig-8u (19): Civil, JAOS 88: 13, n. 06.
gU.-si-si (40): Homer, SKlZ 155: 28. n.ir-g>ll with dative (32): Falkenstein, SGL 1: 103
har-ra-an / kaskal (19): Rome.r, SKIZ 178 f. ad STVC 34 iii 30.
~gi-g81 (5): CAD~ s. v. biSltu, bi§lt uzni [v. D.]. pa-slg-slg ( 37) : d. pa-sig, == arta b<>ml CAD$
1g1-gal-sl : \•an D1ik, SGL 2: 116; Hallo, Bi. Or. 139a.
23: 243-4. sag-du (6): CADB e. v. banu.
im-ri-a ( 40) : Sjoberg, Falkenstein AV 202-9. sag-duu/di (4): Falkenstein, SGL 1: 44; ZA
Cf. also me-a-im-ri-a-mu, MSL 4: 56: 660e and 57: 93.
passim as late OB PN. sag-slg (17): van Dijk, SGL 2: 30.
sag-tum-tum (28) : La11dsberger, MSL 4: 27: 11;
10
' Only the Jateat diaCUf!l!lloua a.re listed, and <lCCa.--
Hallo, Oppenheim AV 97 note 23 ad OBGT
1tionall)• ao additional re:fe.re.not.1, No referf".nte i~ mad<··
to ,,·ords adequs.telJ• e:xpJ~i.ned in Deimel, .~umP.ri6che• JII 173fr.
Le4Jiko1~. I am indebted t..o J. \·a.n Dljk for the reJercnces sahar-ra-bala. (38): Hallo and van Dijk, loc. cit.,
marked [l'. D.] . s. v. sahar-da .. , gi•.
88 HAUO: Individ1Jal Prayer in 81Jmeria11: The Oontin1Jity of a Tradition

su-lum-mar (31): Ciril, JAOS 88:8f.
sa-ki-bi-gi.-gi, (56): Civil, Oppenheim AV 89.
§u-barJti: SL 2:354: 121f. [v.D.).
§u-duu ( 10) : Romer, SKIZ 69, n. 305. AHw somewhat arbitrary order.
s. v. liptu, lipit qate [v. D.].
~ul-a-lum (49): CADE s. v. ennittu.
Au-te-g~ ( 47) : Romer, SKIZ 86 f.
u,-HI-da (2·4) : Hallo, BiOr. 20: 139 s. v. nig- A:
SAR/HI-a and above, n. 106.
uktin (22): Falkenstein, An. Bibi. 12: 72 no. 1;
ZA 55: 4 n. 8; CAD s. vv. bunabuttum, ~ur
pan! [note: Gcetze, J AOS 65: 225: 69 reads
ukkur.]
u-na-a-du as noun (55): Hallo, Bi. Or. 20: 142 B:
(3]; Civil, .TNES 23: 7 a.d Ludingira 7.
u-nu-ku (23): CA.D$ s. v. (la) ~ald!u/~al!lu.
u-u,-a-a-e (20): Krechcr, Sumerische Kultyrilc
114 f.
zA-dib ( 1) : Romer, SKIZ 252.
zA-p8 (15): cf. Kramer, T~fH 3 p. 21: 9.
za-tag (40): Falkenstein Bi. Or. 22: 282 n. 24;
Gordon, S. P. pp. 68, 81.
V. List of letter-prayers and other neo-Sumerian
literary letters.
The letter-prayers and other neo-Sumerian lit,.
erary letters were tradited in the schools both B,:
singly and in Sammeltafeln, but apparently the
order was not entirely fixed. Many of the twenty
items in Collection B (see below) occur in differ-
ent groupings on other l'ifippur tablets. In BE
31: 21, for example, B, is followed by the catcbline B,:
of B, and in s·rvc 8, B,. and Bu follow each
other without a break; but in SLTN 129, the
sequence is B,, (break), BLo, B1•• 100 Bii 110 and
B,. 111 follow each other in SLTN 131, which Bio:
Falkenstein bas described as "einen literarischen
Sammelts rt," 112 and B., recurs at the end of a
collection of model contracts. 1 " At Ur, one tablet
(UET 6: 173) ha.a the following sequence: B1 ,,
K, B., B., B•. Another (UET 6: 174) begins with
B., continues with A, and ends with B,,. Note catalogu<·· UET 6: 196: 4 ! Some o f the other entries in this
also that B,. occurs in an Ur catalogue text
together with non-epistolary entries.u• The fol-
lowing list therefore is neoossarily arranged in a
I . ":Royal Correspondence"
Letter Collection A : royal oorrespond-
enoe o! Ur; cf. for the present F. Ali,
Ar. Or. 33 ( 1965) 529 ff. Eight dupli-
r,ates from the Yale Babylonian Collec-
tion will be published in a forthcoming
YOS volume.
Letter Collection B; cf. Ali, ibid. and
Ar. Or. 34 (1966) 289 f., note •. 11•• In-
cludes the royal corrtlspondcnce of Isin
and the following letters more or lees in
the style of the letter-prayers.
B,: 1''rom Aba-indasa "' to ($ulgi)
Texts: UET 6: 173 ii 2-iii 6; 178; 179;
YBC 6458 (unpubl.)
B,: From Ur-&igga to "my ... king"
Te.,ts: BL 5; ZA 44 pl. I; UET 6: 177;
'YBC 6711 (unpubl.)
TraMlatwn: Langdon, BL, p. 15; re-
viaed in BE 31, p. 25; J!'alkenstein, ZA
44: 1-25; Kl'amcr, ANET 382; above, 75 f.
From Lugal-murub to (his) king
r•.,1.: BE 31: 21: 1-18; SLTN 129 left
edge and obv.; UET 6: l 74a; PBS 13:
46 iii.
Tran,slation: Langdon, BE 31, p. 48
From Lugal-mnrub to (his) king
Tezt: UET 6:173 iv 8ff.; cf. also BE
31: 21 (eawbline)
From Ur-Enlila to the onsi and sanga
Tt:tts: PBS 13: 48 iii; SllrN 129 rev.
1·5; YBC 7175 (unpubl.); unpubl. tablet
in private possession in Ohio (ref.
courtesy B. IlfcNeill).
11
'

duplicate. or re!leo•ble. entrie!'S in the \"ale

catalogue o f roya.I hymn&. Cf. UET 6 : 196: 6 wit.Ja
10• Gordon, Bi. Or. li ( 1960) 141 (7) regard!! theec Hallo, JAOS 83 ( 1903 ) 171, 13_, al"' UET 6' 196, 2 ••d
teXtl5 a.& "Ee.My Co))(o,ct.ion No. 'i,'' but it is clear that 11 "'·Ith JAOS 83: i;1: 6 and 9 res1>ecti\•ely.
a.II the- texts included in it are l etter~. 11 •• After thj11J article waa comple.ted, I obte.incd a.
11 • Cf. F. Ali, '' Blou··ing the horn for official a.nn<lunce· Xerox copy of Ali'• d..i!'Ssertation from Uni\•ersity hiticro·
men~" Starner 2() (1064 ) 66·68. 6.ID:Ls (An1.1 Arbor, Michigan); to tbla I owe three- or
A. Ali, "Dedication of a dog to Nintinugga/'
111 }.'. fonJ' eorreetions or additiona in the follo\\·ing list..
Ar. Or. 34 (1966) 2$9·293. •i.• Perba.pa identical '''ith the lndasu '~hose defeat b)•
11
' NG 1 (1950) 32-. Qu.Sin is rot.'<lrded in late oopieA; cf. td7.ard, .o\fO 19
111 NBC iSOO (unpubl.); scpa.rately a.Jso on YBC (1959·60) 9·11, bu• note al•o J. L•e•!lj1e, AS 16 (1965)
12074 ( unpubl.) . 195 f.
 H•r.to: I ndiWJual Progrr W. S" ""'"4n : Th• 001'ti11uitg of <> Tradilioll 89

From Uguduibi (" the monkey") IA> n. " Scribal Correspondence .. '"
Ludiludi his mother E: From [ ...] to Nanna (salutations only)
Tnts: PBS 1/2:92; 98; STVO 8 : 1-7; Toxt: Anal. Bib/. 12 : 71 f.
SLTN 129 rev. 66 ff. Of. also above,
note 114.
TranslatioM : Falkenstein, w.,
69-77;
Sjoberg, Na1100-811en 104-7
T.,.a,..lati<ms: Falkenstein, ZA 49: 327; F: 1''rom Nanna-mansi to Nin-is;na
van Dijk, Sagesse 14; cf. Gordon, Bi. Or. Tnt: TRS 60
17:141, n. 156. Tran.•latiofl. (in part) : Kn.us, JCS 3:
B,.: From Utndug to llalatl~d 77 t.
Texts: STVC 8:8; PBS l / :95; cl. G: 1''rom Nanna-ma.nAi to [. . •]
Ali, Ar. Or. 33: 539, n. 45. 'l'oxl: BE 31: 7
B.,: From Lugal-murub to Enlil-mas.--u his
aon
T ransla.tior> : Langdon, w.
pp. 21-25
H: Sin-Samuh to Enki
Texts : BE 31 : 47; UET 6: 175; ib. 176; 7'oxts: YBC 4620, 7205, 8630 (above)
YBC 7170 (unpubl.) .Translation : H allo, above.
F ron1 Jnannakam to Nintinugga I: From Gudea to "my god."
'./'ext. : PBS 1/2: 94; 184; UET 6 : 173 Toxt: TMR n. F. 8: 56
i l._4.; ib. l 74e; ib. 180. Trarulalion: l:Vamer, ib., pp. 20 f. Cf.
Tramlati<ms: van Dijk, Sagesae 16 f.;
F8lkeostein, SAHG No. 41.
Sjoberg, Bi. o...20: 46 f .
J: From Etel-pi-Damu to Marlu
From Ini.m-Inanna to Enlil-massu. T•<il: YBC 5681 (unpubl.)
Texl : PBS 1/8: 91. K: From Inim-Enlila to (bis) king
0: From the daughter(?) of Sin-kMid, king 'l'e<it : UET 6: 178: 6'-14'
of Uruk, to Mealamtaea- Nergal ( ?) ( salu- L: From Gudea-Enlila to An-mansi his reJa..
tations only)'" live
Text: TRS 68 Text: T.MH n. F. 3: 57.
D: Royal correspondence of Larsa,'" includ- M: From [ .. . ] son of Inim-Enlila to [. . .]
ing the following: Text: BE 31: 29
D,: From [ . . . ] to Utu Translation: Langdon, BE 81, p. 48.
Text: UET 6: 18Z ( ?)
D,: From Sin-iddinam, king of Larsa, to
III. "Personal Cor respondence"
Nin.isina 111
Texl&: UET 8:70; YBC 4705, YBO O: From Sag-lugal-bi-~11 IA> Nur-Kabta
4605 ( unpnbl.) ; cl. alao SEM 74. T•>:t: L.B. 1013, to be pub!. in TLB III.
P: From rEtel-pi' ( ?)-Enlila IA> Nudimmud-
''' Wu the-re a 1Jmal1 oolloct.lon Qf U ruk letten siga hi& father ( ?)
betW6a.n those of Hin a.nd IA.rsa •8 io tbc ea8C of the 'l'oxt: PBS 12: 32.
royal hymnt, for '\\•bicb et. m,y romarka JCS 17 (1963)
116! 111 l intend to edit this letter ellewbere.
'"Of. S. N. Kramer, JAOS 88 (1068) 108, n. 3. 1
1 • E, J and J a.re included h.ere only pro•iJ!,ionalJy.