The Kassites had little influence on the literary culture of the Middle Babylonian period. They were completely extraneous to this Mesopotamian tradition. In the eyes of the Sumero-Akkadian scribes, the Kassites were representatives of those mountain people who did not know Mesopotamian culture and how to perform important rituals. Within the scribal sector of the period, Kassite influence can only be found in
Figure 21.2 Farming scene with seed-plough, found on a seal from the Kassite period.
Some names for the various coat colours of horses, whose training constituted the main innovation of the period. There was, however, a problem in translating the names of Kassite deities into their corresponding Babylonian counterparts. This practice was linked to the assumption that other cultures’ deities were none other than one’s own, but with different names. Even in the case of the names of Kassite kings, Babylonian scribes supplied a translation in Akkadian, in order to display their linguistic knowledge.
Babylonian language had meanwhile evolved along internal lines, developing from Old Babylonian to Middle Babylonian. However, this language was used in more practical documents (letters and legal and administrative texts). For literary texts, the Middle Babylonian scribes developed Standard Babylonian, an artificial compromise between Old and Middle Babylonian. Standard Babylonian was therefore characterised by several archaisms. This was a scholarly attempt to keep Old Babylonian alive as a literary language, since many of the literary compositions written in this language had by now become classics worth imitating.
Alongside Standard Babylonian, during the Kassite period scribes also began the standardisation of literary compositions. Both literary texts and more practical treaties (such as omen and medical series, lexical lists, collections of phrases and so on) had been written in the Old Babylonian period. However, over time they experienced several modifications and adaptations, at times with important additions and omissions. With the Kassite period, scribes began to believe that the formation phase of Babylonian literature had ended. It was therefore time to preserve and pass on the work of the great masters of the past. This required scribes to correctly copy, without variations, an entire corpus. In this way, the Middle Babylonian scribes developed a series of standard editions.
Many centuries later, in the library of Ashurbanipal, some editions would be referred to with the names of the scribe and his school (‘after X, from X city’). These were renowned master scribes from the Kassite period, and many later scribes considered themselves their descendants. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that the few names of ‘authors’ of literary compositions that have survived to us come from the Kassite period. These individuals could also have been responsible for the standardisation of previous works and series.
From a Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian point of view, the Kassite period was the time in which the great master writers and curators (known by name and by personality traits) of Mesopotamian literature lived, while the previous anonymous literature remained unclassifiable. However, it is worth noting that Old Babylonian literature remained anonymous because it was centred on the edubba, namely, the scribal school. The latter was therefore seen as the central institution responsible for the compositions of the time. Through the individualist spirit of the Kassite period, the desire to pass one’s name to posterity developed alongside a certain degree of pedantic overload in terms of contents. This further proves that the main scribal activity of the time was the standardisation of knowledge, rather than its composition.
However, the limited creativity of Kassite scribes should not be measured against their close connection to classic compositions. In the reconstruction of the chronology of Mesopotamian literature, the large majority of works are concentrated in the libraries of Nippur (Old Babylonian texts) and Nineveh (Neo-Assyrian texts). This fact initially brought scholars to simplistically separate texts between ‘old’ and ‘late’ works. Only subsequently, was it clarified that the Kassite period was not only responsible for the standardisation of Babylonian knowledge. It was also responsible for the composition of new and original works, as well as entirely new re-interpretations of earlier works.
The characteristic features of this period were pessimism and individualism. The crisis of social values and the attempt to resort to personal values were the result of this period of crisis (which affected the area in terms of demography, productivity and family values), and of the decline of the centrality of the Babylonian state. This brought about the beginnings of more individualistic interests. In emergent states, these interests were usually heroic in nature. However, in a state in crisis, they became more anti-heroic, even intimate, being concerned with the differences between merit and success, and between achievement and recognition. The answers provided were either an intellectual meditation on the validity of social norms, or the simplistic provision of magical or fideistic explanations and remedies. However, these two extremes often met, forming a sort of ‘double truth’. The latter provided a constructive solution through magical remedies or theological explanations. However, overall, it left an unresolved situation on the personal level.
It is known that the Epic of Gilgamesh was turned into an organic cycle in the Old Babylonian period. Among the many re-editions, it seems that it was re-written in the Kassite period with several scholarly and anti-heroic nuances, right before it was turned into its standardised edition. The poem’s series of failures (which would have been considered as such from a heroic view of life, aimed at reaching immortality) became a way to reach a deeper awareness of one’s limits and to search for more realistic models. Similarly, the Legend of Naram-Sin was originally centred on the relation between the compliance of omens and success. It therefore provided a negative depiction of the king, who sinned because of his arrogance and was punished through his failure. However, in the standard edition, the Legend’s conclusion emphasises the anti-heroic ideal of passive resistance, namely, the typical behaviour of whoever tries to do some damage control. This conclusion, which had little relevance in the Legend and was different from the Old Babylonian one, was clearly a Kassite addition. This attitude is also attested in a letter from Ugarit, in which the same ideals of passive resistance were passed on as practical advice.
Regarding omens, the large corpus of Old Babylonian omens was collected and arranged into standardised series. Some creative additions, however, can be found in physiognomic omens, as well as those concerned with behavioural characteristics. In terms of physiognomic omens, the previous period had emphasised the most visible ones, such as moles, which were considered obvious ‘signs’. The Kassite period was probably the time in which the attention turned towards physiognomic features such as the face, hair, hands and feet. This was an attempt to read an individual’s fate from these revealing clues on his personality and character. This principle is even more evident in omens gathered from an individual’s behaviour and opinion of himself. A typical expression of the Kassite scholarly environment was the fact that the omen always went against one’s opinion of oneself In other words, whoever thought of himself as a great man would have suffered a decline, whoever was shy would have been successful, and so on.
The difficulties and existential doubts of the period led to the development of the idea that a man, together with his own talents, was the maker of his own destiny. Alternatively, he had his destiny written on him or inside him, rather than in the entrails of sacrificial victims. However, this attitude, which clearly belonged to the more learned portion of society, was not as popular as the spread of formalism and magic typical of the Kassite period. Ah these traits would become an integral part of Babylonian culture in the first millennium bc. As mentioned above, in terms of medical advice, the focus on therapies attested in the Sumerian and Old Babylonian periods was now substituted by the Kassite attention for diagnoses. The latter were based on often irrelevant ‘signs’ and cured through magic and faith in the gods.
In the scribal milieu, the combination of individualistic tendencies (which were common in the period) with the crisis of the Kassite state (which was particularly worrying for the Babylonians) led to a growing tendency towards a consideration of greater themes, such as the nature of divine justice and of human destiny. These themes essentially formed what has been defined as ‘wisdom literature’. This type of literature was expressed in various ways, from dialogues to collections of proverbs, but was marked by an overall sense of pessimism and indifference. The resignation and passive resistance attested in the Legend of Naram-Sin can also be found in one text that was part of this wisdom literature, namely, the Counsels of Wisdom. This text reformulated the issues of resignation and passive resistance to suit a more personal and court environment, rather than a military one. It provided advice such as not to oppose enemies, to be accommodating, and to always appear polite, while honouring the gods through prayers and sacrifices. Therefore, the former ideals of affirming one’s valour and fairness through active interventions were substituted by a disenchanted realisation that true merits all too often remain unrecognised, thus making any exposure to dangers pointless.
The main composition of Babylonian wisdom literature is the so-called Babylonian Theodicy. It was based on this relinquishment of responsibilities in order to realise that success did not depend on merit, but on wealth. In the Theodicy, the Sumerian structure of the debate between two speakers championing opposite values was reformulated into a dialogue between the sufferer and his wise friend. Each speaker champions different points of view. Therefore, the debate was not a contraposition of two realities (such as, copper and silver, shepherd and farmer), but of two ways of seeing the same reality, following the psychological views of the time.
Of the two points of views, that of the sufferer is emotional and pessimistic, but adheres to the reality of social relations of the time. It emphasises the uselessness of active involvement in view of the poor results gained. In contrast, his wise friend shows a more optimistic and rational attitude, often accusing the sufferer of madness and lack of understanding. However, the wise friend debates on a level completely detached from the social situation of the time. This was the divine sphere, a realm that cannot be fully understood, forcing human beings to completely trust the gods in hope of a better future. The text also emphasises the idea that some sort of relation between behaviour and success still exists, hidden behind an unknown sin. The latter, then, was the cause for all the unjustifiable problems. This attitude was necessary because otherwise one would have to doubt divine justice, thus making life unbearable.
The other great composition ofBabylonian wisdom literature, the Ludlul hel nemeqi (Text 21.2), follows the same structure: the protagonist, a high court functionary vilified by his envious rivals, removed from his post, enslaved as a result of the subsequent economic difficulties, ill and depressed, was evidently punished for a sin committed against the god Marduk. Only through several dreams and exorcisms he managed to regain, through Marduk’s intervention, his health, status, power and wealth. As in the Theodicy, so the Ludlul emphasises the imperfect relation between social life and theological remedies. On the one hand, there was the realistic court environment, with its fierce competition among functionaries, the defamations, the career jumps, the rise or fall in royal favour. This was a typical representation of Near Eastern courts, but a particularly aggravated one in this competitive and more individualistic phase. In this view, the court was a meritocratic environment, yet at the same time deprived of that protection once guaranteed by tradition and kinship relations. On the other hand, there was the re-interpretation of this situation through the ideas of sins, exorcisms and divine interventions.
World History
