Principles of Akkadian Textual Criticism

Description

Errors of many kinds abound in Akkadian writings, but this fact’s far-reaching implications have never been unraveled and systematized. To attempt this is the aim of this book. Drawing on scholarship from other fields, it outlines a framework for the critical evaluation of extant text and the formulation of conjectural emendations. Along the way, it explores issues at the interface of orthography, textual transmission, scribal education, grammar, literacy, and literary interpretation. Abbreviations 1 Introduction 1.1 Notes on nomenclature and conventions 1.2 The transmission of Akkadian scholarship and literature 1.2.1 Transmission through copying 1.2.2 Transmission through dictation 1.2.3 Transmission through learning by heart 1.2.4 Differences in transmission between the second and first millennia? 1.2.5 Manners of transmission : summary 1.3 Transmission as a source of textual change 1.4 Attitudes to transmission 1.4.1 Ancient notions of fidelity 1.4.2 Non-restoration 1.4.3 Restoration 1.4.4 The use of multiple exemplars 1.4.5 Annotations by transmitters 1.4.5.1 hepi ‘it is broken’ and similar 1.4.5.2 Other annotations 1.4.6 How did transmitters deal with (perceived) obscurities? 1.4.7 Summary 1.5 The problem of apprentices 1.6 Attitudes to manuscripts among Akkadianists 1.7 Potential rewards deriving from the study of textual change 2 Some issues of method 2.1 Problems pertaining to authors and Urtexts 2.2 Problems in dealing with errors 2.2.1 Oddities of various kinds, and problems in identifying them 2.2.1.1 Oddities of grammar and orthography 2.2.1.2 Oddities of style 2.2.1.3 Oddities of sense 2.2.1.3.1 A two-line incongruity: Gilgameš I 298-299 2.2.2 Linguistic and orthographic oddities, and problems in explaining them 2.2.2.1 Orthographic conventions and the problem of normativity 2.2.2.2 Error or phonetic spelling? 2.2.2.3 Ignorance or inadvertence? 2.2.3 Problems in dealing with oddities: summary 2.3 Problems with establishing how extant manuscripts were understood by their writers 2.3.1 The ‘courier effect’ 2.3.2 Variability and the ‘chameleon effect’ 2.3.3 The caveat of somnolence 2.4 Evidence for relations between manuscripts 2.4.1 Judging whether anomalies are diagnostically significant 2.4.2 The problem of orthographic ‘convergence’ 2.4.3 Examples of relations at the same scribal centre 2.4.4 Examples of relations between different scribal centres 2.4.5 Stemmata 2.5 On the role of quantification in the study of a corpus language 3 Mechanisms of textual change 3.1 The importance of a typology of scribal errors 3.2 A typology of Akkadian scribal errors 3.2.1 Errors of sign similarity 3.2.1.1 Errors of sign identification 3.2.1.2 Lapsus styli and errors of tactile memory 3.2.2 Errors of sign interpretation 3.2.3 Errors of phonetic similarity 3.2.4 Saut du même au même 3.2.5 Aberratio oculi 3.2.6 Lipography 3.2.7 Haplography 3.2.8 Dittography 3.2.9 Incomplete signs 3.2.10 Polar errors 3.2.11 Errors of gender polarity 3.2.12 Errors of attraction 3.2.13 Errors of syllable inversion 3.2.14 Synonymous substitutions 3.2.15 Misremembering of words learned by heart 3.2.16 Errors of sign metathesis 3.2.17 Assyrianisms 3.2.18 Errors of ‘cut and paste’ and interpolation 3.2.18.1 Spellings as evidence for different entries’ separate origins? 3.2.19 Hypercorrection 3.2.20 Other errors 3.3 Transmitters misunderstanding their exemplars 3.3.1 Examples of misunderstanding in medicine 3.3.2 Examples of misunderstanding in literature 3.3.3 Examples of misunderstanding in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions 3.3.4 How well did transmitters know the compositions? 3.4 Transmitters making conscious changes 3.4.1 Sennacherib Rassam, MSS A and FF 3.4.2 Assurbanipal B/D VIII 3.4.3 Šalmaneser III 44 (and 45) 3.4.4 Two manuscripts of the Diagnostic Handbook XVII 3.4.5 Glosses? 3.4.6 Correction of (supposed) errors ? 3.4.6.1 Examples of correction 3.4.6.1.1 Hypercorrections on Assurbanipal MS A21 3.4.6.2 An example of non-correction 3.5 The effects of ‘cut and paste’ redaction 3.5.1 Adad-nērārī II’s kisirtu 3.5.2 Sennacherib’s ‘Walters’ inscription 3.5.3 Assurnaṣirpal II 17 3.5.4 Assurnaṣirpal II 19 3.5.5 Gilgameš X 151, idni 3.5.6 eli mahrê and eli ša mahri ‘than the previous one’ 3.5.7 Spelling patterns in a compendium of oracle questions 3.6 Errors of sign similarity by stonemasons 3.6.1 Some simple examples of stonemasons’ errors 3.6.2 Two cruces 3.6.3 How were stone inscriptions produced? 3.7 Assyrians transmitting Babylonian 3.8 Conclusions 4 Some patterns in orthography-phonology-morphology 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Issues of orthographic consistency and convention 4.3 ‘Soft’ auto-corrections 4.4 Sounds and spellings at word boundaries 4.4.1 ‘Split’ sandhi spellings 4.4.2 ‘Enriched’ sandhi spellings 4.4.3 ‘Truncated’ spellings 4.4.4 Spellings involving the conjunction u 4.4.5 Sandhi spellings across determinatives 4.4.6 Sandhi spellings mingling with sumerograms 4.4.7 A ‘trap’ 4.4.8 Glides between i-Auslaut and vocalic Anlaut 4.4.9 Summary 4.5 The ‘honorific nominative’ 4.5.1 Old Babylonian examples 4.5.2 Clear examples in Assyrian royal inscriptions 4.5.2.1 Assurnaṣirpal II 26 4.5.2.2 Adad-nērāri III 1 and 2 4.5.2.3 Sargon 4.5.2.4 Esarhaddon 4.5.2.5 Assurbanipal 4.5.3 Likely examples in the Assyrian royal inscriptions 4.5.4 Other examples from the first millennium 4.5.4.1 Neo-Assyrian 4.5.4.2 Standard Babylonian 4.5.5 Further discussion 4.6 The destabilisation of case concord 4.7 Analyses of case markers on individual manuscripts 4.7.1 Gilgameš I MS B 4.7.1.1 Enkidu as an axe of meteoric iron 4.7.2 Gilgameš VI MS a 4.7.3 TCL III+ 4.8 The distribution of pairs of interchangeable signs 4.8.1 Orthographic flourishes: man vs lugal 4.8.2 Consistent use of šá 4.8.3 Consistent use of šu1 4.9 Orthography as evidence for pseudepigraphy 4.10 Plene spellings in feminine plurals 4.10.1 Some evidence from Assyrian manuscripts 4.10.1.1 TP I 1, MSS 1-5 4.10.1.2 Sargon’s 8th Campaign (TCL III+) 4.10.1.3 Asb Prism A, MS A1 4.10.1.4 Gilgameš VI MS a 4.10.2 Glimmers of the situation in Babylonian 4.10.3 Phonological interpretation 4.10.4 What about -ūt-? 4.11 Spellings of verb-final contracted vowels before -ma 4.12 Conclusions 5 How easily were scholarship and literature sight-read in the first millennium? 5.1 Previous statements 5.2 Differences between ancient and modern reading 5.2.1 Issues of exposure and familiarity 5.2.2 The relevance of unfamiliar manuscripts 5.2.2.1 Allochthonous exemplars at Nineveh 5.2.3 Issues of textual typology 5.3 Potential obstacles to smooth sight-reading 5.3.1 Excursus on spacing and punctuation 5.4 Spellings calculated to assist readers in decipherment 5.4.1 Double consonants as aids to parsing 5.4.2 Plene spellings as aids to reading 5.4.2.1 Augmentative plene spellings 5.4.2.2 Disambiguatory plene spellings 5.4.3 Splitting the syllable šam as an aid to reading 5.4.4 ša1 vs šá 5.4.4.1 always šá, except ša1 for disambiguation 5.4.4.2 ša1 for the word, šá for the syllable 5.4.4.3 šá for the word, ša1 for the syllable 5.4.4.4 šá for the syllable, the word written with both signs 5.4.5 -tum as a marker of singular word ends 5.4.6 -tu as a marker of nom./acc. singular 5.4.7 The use of meš to mark sumerograms 5.4.8 The use of -TIM to mark sumerograms 5.5 Recapitulation on ancient misreadings in § 3.3 5.6 Towards a model of ancient sight-reading 6 Some issues of edition and interpretation 6.1 Choosing between variants 6.1.1 Codex optimus 6.1.2 Eliminatio codicum descriptorum 6.1.3 The ‘majority text’ 6.1.4 Treacherous duplicates 6.2 Formulating conjectures 6.2.1 The fallibility of manuscripts 6.2.2 The conjectural aspect 6.2.3 Lectio difficilior potior? 6.2.4 Enkidu as a powerful king 6.2.5 Ea, the wall and Ūta-napišti : who talks to who? 7 Summary 8 References Alphabetical index (selective) Index locorum