Available via license: CC BY-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
2023, volume 2, number 2
ISSN: 2752-3462
e-ISSN: 2752-3470
www.mtc-journal.org
Naming the gods:
traditional verse-making in
Homer and Old Babylonian
Akkadian poetry
Bernardo Ballesteros
Institut für Klassische Philologie, Mittel- und Neulatein,
Universität Wien, bernardo.ballesteros@univie.ac.at
Published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license.
DOI: 10.56004/v2.2bb
Abstract: This is an investigation of character-naming expressions in early Greek (ca.
eighth–sixth c. BC) and Old Babylonian Akkadian narrative poetry (ca. nineteenth–
seventeenth c. BC). It compares the mentions of Zeus and Enlil (the Babylonian chief
god) in Iliad Book 8 and OB Atra-hasis, and proposes a three-layeredclassication system
based on degrees of traditionality. The system involves metre and repetition parame-
ters, and accounts for the techniques through which poets in both traditions made the
mention sound venerable and ancient. Control cases include other characters in the
Iliad (Diomedes, Hector) and OB Akkadian poetry (Isthar, Ea). The resulting gures are
commensurate for the two traditions, supporting the hypothesis of a similar degree of
orality-literacy interaction. The article seeks to oer a model for ne-grained cross-
cultural literary criticism and verse study.
Keywords: Homer, Babylonian epic, oral-derived texts, formulaic structures, comparative
poetics, divine epithets
12 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
1. Oral transmission of Near Eastern poetry
to the Aegean
Comparison between surviving ancient Near Eastern poetry (Sumero-Akkadian viz.
Mesopotamian, Hurro-Hittite, Ugaritic and Hebrew) and the early Greek epic tradition
has been developing substantially over the past few decades.1The hypothesis of direct or
indirect reception of preserved Near Eastern poems by Homer is regarded with increasing
caution,2and several scholars consider a broader, analogical perspective to be more
productive.3Because, however, the quality and quantity of similarities is such that a
degree of interaction between poetic traditions (as opposed to individual works) is beyond
doubt, the question of transmission remains open.
It has long been surmised that the cross-over took place largely by oral means, probably
in southeastern Anatolia and Cyprus during the Early Iron Age (ca. 1050–700 BC).4Liter-
ary contact involving the oral phase of Greek epic is suggested by the fact that several
shared motifs appear to be profoundly ingrained in the traditional mechanisms of compo-
sition that Homer—i.e. the putative author(s) of the Iliad and Odyssey—had inherited, and
shared with contemporary poets (Mondi 1990: 150–1; Ballesteros 2021a). Though polygen-
esis certainly happened, studying similarities in poetic craft can also show that analogous
underlying parameters existed that might have facilitated literary transmission between
bilingual singers of oral poems (Ballesteros 2021a).5
This article is part of an ongoing project about structures of orality in early Greek and Baby-
lonian (Akkadian) epic. It oers a comparison of the verse-making technique underlying
the mentions of the chief gods Enlil and Zeus in the Epic of Atra-hasis (rst attested in the
eighteenth century BC) and Homer’s Iliad (dated to the eighth/seventh century BC). Fur-
ther Akkadian poetry of the same period and other Homeric characters besides Zeus are
included as control cases. I will rst discuss how Assyriologists have tackled the question of
orality in narrative poetry (§2); after setting out parameters for the present attempt (§3), I
1Especially Burkert (1991,1992); West (1997a); Haubold (2002,2013); Kelly (2008); López-Ruiz (2010,2014); Metcalf
(2015); Currie (2012,2016); Bachvarova (2016); Clarke (2019); Rutherford (2020); Ballesteros (2021a); articles in Kelly
and Metcalf (2021); Davies (2023). On Greek and Egyptian literature, see Rutherford (2016).
2Advocates of reception include Burkert, West, Currie, Bachvarova, Clarke, Davies (preceding footnote); Lardinois
(2018,2021). The texts most frequently invoked as sources are the Babylonian Gilgamesh for Homer (for a recent
critique, see Matjevic 2018) and, for Hesiod, the Hurro-Hittite Song of Emergence (see Rutherford 2018;2020: 144–62).
3On ‘genealogical’ vs. ‘analogical’ comparisons see the Introduction to Kelly and Metcalf (2021); on comparative ap-
proaches to ancient mythologies see Pace (2018: 19–70); on recent analogical perspectives, see Haubold (2013,2020,
2021); Metcalf (2015,2018); Bowie (2021); Kelly (2021); Ballesteros (2021b,2023); Calini (2023).
4For example Mondi (1990: 150–51); West (1997a: 590–610); Ballesteros (2021a: 1–2 nn. 3, 7). According to Bachvarova
(2016), Mesopotamian themes inuenced Greek epic via Syro-Anatolian mediation in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages;
for criticism, see Metcalf (2017); Gilan (2018,2021); also Yakubovich (2017).
5On bilingual singers, see West (1997a: 606–9); Bachvarova (2016: 46–49) and passim.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 13
will turn to my case-studies and preliminary conclusions (§4–5).
Oral transmission cannot have happened between Old Babylonian (OB: ca. 2000–1595 BC)
and Homeric composers (eight/seventh c. BC), separated by almost a thousand years, and
a direct line need not have existed between the Akkadian and the Greek traditions. Yet sev-
eral features of the earliest OB evidence endured into the rst millennium. Akkadian epic
of the second and rst millennia BC features pre-eminently in the continuum of literary
forms connected to performance that spanned the major literary cultures of the Eastern
Mediterranean and Near East. It is the most longstanding and best preserved. Its products,
including Gilgamesh, radiated westward from the second millennium BC, and it is with Akka-
dian poetry that most Near Eastern literary parallels to early Greek epic have been drawn
(West 1997a;Bachvarova 2016;Ballesteros 2021a). As outlined below (§2), compelling con-
textual reasons commend the OB tradition as an excellent place to start this investigation.
While comparative work may thus help us substantiate the oral transmission hypothesis, it
will also enrich analogical understanding of the literary cultures under scrutiny. Given the
limited scope of the examined Akkadian corpus and its temporal and spatial distance from
the Greek, however, this article will set the question of transmission aside, concentrating
instead on establishing comparative parameters for future research. But it is well to keep
in mind the broader context.
2. Traditional aurality in Old Babylonian
Akkadian literature
Recent work on Mesopotamian poetic orality has been sporadic and methodologically un-
coordinated, despite excellent individual contributions.6Karl Hecker’s (1974)Habilitation-
sschrift remains the most complete study of the compositional style of Akkadian epic. For
Hecker, the monotonous aspects of traditional diction are residues of a past orality, and
this remains the prevailing view (e.g., Cooper 1992;George 2003: 19–22 on the emergence
of OB Gilgamesh). More unsettling is Hecker’s notion that critics should set those traditional
aspects aside to reach the originality of the Akkadian poet (1974: 185). He is certainly right
that the ‘composition in performance’ model does not t the Babylonian scribal context. 7
But this need not mean that structures of repetition reected literary/scribal convention.
Dening the compositional role of formulaic structures—that is to say, where precisely
they fall in the spectrum ranging between ‘stock-in-trade of illiterate poets’ and ‘aesthetic
devices learnedly utilized by literate authors’—remains very dicult even in Homeric stud-
6Civil (1999); Carr (2005: 40–46); Haul (2009); Wilcke (2012); Johandi (2015). Note the important ongoing work on
Sumerian liturgical lamentations: Delnero (2015,2020); Mirelman (2020); Gabbay and Mirelman (2020).
7Hecker (1974: 65) refers to Bowra (1952) rather than to Parry and Lord.
14 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
ies, the cradle of oral-formulaic theory (see Friedrich 2019;Ready 2019;Rodda 2021). It is
widely accepted, however, that they are a function of the recitation, or singing, of the texts.
Among Assyriologists, the focus on performance was established in the 1992 collection on
Mesopotamian Epic Literature: Oral or Aural?, but the task has not been pursued, neither in the
study of formulaic patterns nor through comparison.8
The Atra-hasis epic (hereafter Atr.), and OB Akkadian poetry in general, constitute excellent
case studies.9One reason is that this poetry was ostensibly composed for performance,
as evidenced, e.g., by the closing lines (OB Atr. 3.viii.18–19): ‘Of the Flood to all the peo-
ples / I have sung: listen!’. It seems unlikely that the poet is here expressing an aspira-
tion to widespread diusion by using a conventional, gurative denotation of poetry as
‘song’.10 Scholars have analysed Atr. as shaped through musical movements, that is ‘fugal
features’ (Kilmer 1996). The evidence for musical specialism connected to poetry is par-
ticularly abundant for the eighteenth century BC, within and outside temples and royal
palaces.11 Much poetry makes direct reference to kings such as Hammurabi (see below §5),
illuminating a system interlacing institutional patronage, poetry and music.12
A second factor, besides performance, is the unknown pre-history of OB Akkadian poetry.
To explain the formation of OB Gilgamesh, Andrew George attributes a decisive role to oral
folk poetry in vernacular Akkadian.13 The linguistic morphology of much OB Akkadian po-
etry presents features absent from standard OB Akkadian prose. Once described as dening
the ‘hymno-epic’ dialect of Akkadian in a historico-geographical sense (von Soden 1931,
1933), this is a Kunstsprache that could not have been devised by an individual poet.14 The
analogy with the Homeric language, itself never spoken, and with debated regional roots, is
an obvious one.15 Unlike Homer’s, however, Akkadian poetic language has not been shown
8Vogelzang and Vanstiphout (1992). This ‘performance’ turn was not unanimously accepted: Michalowski (1992);
George (1994). See Metcalf (2015: 143–50) on written vs oral-mnemonic poetic conceptions in Babylonia and Greece.
9Atra-hasis’ edition: Lambert and Millard 1969; see also Shehata (2001); add Spar and Lambert (2005) and George (2009)
(= OB Atr. Schø., a new source in the Schøyen Collection); Wasserman (2020) on the Flood narrative (essentially OB
Tablet III).
10 Similar passages in OB Akkadian poetry: Shehata (2010: 201–11). Reference to performance (especially at the closing
of poems): Foster (1991); West (1997a: 593–600); Shehata (2010); on Enūma eliš 7.144–58 see Gabriel (2014: 84–97);
Reynolds (2021: 63–68). On the ‘let me sing’ topos, see Metcalf (2015: 130–37); Carter (this volume) on Chaucer.
11 Ziegler (2007,2011,2013); Pruzsinszky and Shehata (2010); Shehata (2010,2018). Musical rubrics: Shehata (2009); on
the institution of mummu, in charge of ocial musical training: Michalowski (2010: 201–3); Pruzsinszky (2010: 113);
Shehata (2010: 212–20).
12 Long-term (late-fourth and third millennium) perspective on public music festivals: Kutzer (2018); third-millennium
Ebla: Tonietti (2018); Ur III: Pruzsinszky (2007,2010,2011,2013); Isin-Larsa: Ludwig (1990); Metcalf (2015: 18–22;
2019); Peterson (2021).
13 George (2003: 21): ‘the spontaneity of the poetry’; cf. 24, 47; (2009: 5): ‘the plain, unadorned style found in Gilgamesh
and other narratives, which may speak for a popular, oral origin rather than a scholarly one.’
14 Hess (2010,2020); Lambert (2013: 34–44). An updated study is lacking: there is none in Vita (2021); see Streck (2021:
1024–26). On Atra-hasis, see Lambert and Millard (1969: 29–30). For OB Gilgamesh (Pennsylvania and Yale tablets), see
George (2003: 162) (hymno-epic language traits are less pronounced).
15 For the Greek epic Kunstsprache, see Heubeck (1981); Janko (1982); Horrocks (1997); Wachter (2015 (2000): 67–71;
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 15
to have evolvedthrough generations of illiterate singers. At present, the analogy highlights
that the poetic tradition preceding our texts deserves attention.
These are strong grounds to investigate traditional markers of orality in OB Akkadian texts,
whose compositional structures demand to be read bearing their performative dimension
in mind. Comparison with Homer proves instructive.
3. A comparative approach to traditional
naming
How should one conduct that comparison? Formulae are an obligatory starting point. The
‘Parryan’ noun-epithet formula (e.g., ‘and in reply to him spoke swift-footed Achilles’) is an
expression conveying ‘a given essential idea’ (Achilles in the nominative); crucially, Homer
would use one and only one expression when willing to communicate that idea under a
given ‘metrical condition’ (Parry 1971 (1928): 13). Exceptions exist, but the ‘essential ideas’
covered by ‘formulaic expressions’ are so numerous, and the system shows such pervasive-
ness (‘extension’) and such a strict connection with metre (‘economy’/‘thrift’), that it can-
not conceivably have been invented by Homer himself. Noun-epithet formulae, therefore,
must be traditional expressions. Indeed, Parry (1971 (1928): 24–36) showed that Apollonius
and Vergil do not apply the system, thus not qualifying as ‘traditional’ poets.
That ‘traditionality’ here implies the illiterate oral composition of the Homeric epics, a con-
clusion at which Parry and Lord arrived through the South-Slavic analogy, has not been
demonstrated (Lord 1960).16 Three aspects are central for present comparative purposes.
First, the systematic recurrence of a given repeated expression in discernibly identical met-
rical contexts is a sign of traditionality (though not necessarily of illiterate composition).
Second, comparison with living oral traditions supports the idea that the traditional char-
acter of certain poetic features should be associated with oral composition, whether pre-
ceding or contemporary with our written sources. Foley (1990,1991) inuentially coined
the adjective ‘oral-derived’ to describe this phenomenon, though one must remember that
oral phases of composition do not necessarily precede a given written version, and for
this reason among others, a dierent label—‘performance-directed’—seems preferable (see
also below §5). Third, the attempts at extending Parry’s approach and conclusions to cases
beyond noun-epithet expressions illustrate the fundamental role of variation, composi-
tional freedom, and idiosyncratic usage of traditionality. They can oer insights into the
poets’ artful deployment of their inherited formulaic stock.
2012); Haug (2002); Willi (2011); Jones (2012). Hess (2010: 101) draws the analogy.
16 On the formula, see Edwards (1986,1988); Finkelberg (2004); Beck (2018); Friedrich (2019). On South-Slavic poetry as
post-traditional, see Čolaković (2019).
16 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
Noun-epithet phrases that strike Homeric readers as stylistically familiar are frequent in
Akkadian narrative poetry, as they are in several other traditions (Hecker 1974: 162–8).
In Greek epic, the shaping of traditional expressions for stereotypical character-naming
is inextricably intertwined with the nature of the hexameter, a very exible but appre-
ciably regular verse. Akkadian metre shows no such regularity. Diachronic variation is
considerable, but Akkadian verse appears to be organized according to accentual peaks (of
varying number), often displaying the parallelismus membrorum based on alliterative pat-
terns that is typical of other Semitic poetry (such as Ugaritic, Hebrew, Arabic).17 Poetic
lines do not present a xed number of syllables, nor any regular quantitative alternation.
Thus, however tied to metrical factors (below §4.2), Akkadian noun-epithet formulae do
not play the same compositional role as they do in Greek epic. For instance, there is no
comparable Parryan ‘extension’ of the formulaic system, no comparable range of ‘ideas’ ex-
pressed through metrically-determined noun-epithet formulae. Nevertheless, early Greek
and Akkadian noun-epithet expressions functioned as performance-directed elements in
similar manner. Both were regarded as traditional by composers and audiences, and played
a comparable aesthetic function in evoking a venerably ancient poetic universe.18
Given the dierences in metre and in the related traditional texture of the two traditions,
this comparison is not centred on noun-epithet formulae, but more broadly on the names
of traditional characters, with a view to classifying the types of proper noun expressions
(‘mentions’) based on degrees of traditionality. I propose a spectrum of name-mention
traditionality comprising three categories:
T = traditional: most likely formulaic/traditional (viz. inherited from the tra-
dition, stylistically xed, comparatively ‘frozen’)
TB = tradition-bound: based on recognisable traditional patterns (‘exible’),
but less likely to have been inherited, as far as we can tell from available data
NF =non-formulaic: no discernible widespread (viz. presumably traditional)
structure behind the mention (save the metre)
This is a spectrum enabling a comparative discourse which respects the traditional rules of
each corpus.19 As Homerists routinely remark, our surviving texts account for a fraction of
the traditional poetry that was once current in writing and orally. Certainty is precluded as
17 Wisnom (2015) compares Old English alliterative verse. On Akkadian metre, see also Helle (2014), building on von
Soden (1981,1984); Hecker (1974: 101–54) and West (1997b); also Buccellati (1990) and Wasserman (2003: 158–62).
18 E.g., Parry (1971 (1928): 127): archaicizing formulae demonstrate ‘nobility and grandeur’ On formulae and other
structures as partes pro toto evoking the tradition, see Foley (1991: 1–59). On traditionality and group solidarity, see
Ready (2018: 114–21).
19 Ready (2018) classies Homeric similes within a traditionality spectrum; Beck (2018) considers Odysseus’ name-
epithet formulae in a semantic spectrum of contextual appropriateness.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 17
to whether an expression repeated twice is traditional or not (Hainsworth 1993: 16–17; Di
Benedetto 1998;Currie 2016). Equally important, poets display a vested aesthetic interest
in making an innovation sound traditional, which evidently contributes to further blurring
the boundaries between our categories.20 Homeric poets or audiences may or may not have
conceived of a certain formulation as traditional, but there is an extent to which one can
expect to be able to tell if it was indeed so. Yet it is imperative to search carefully for the
indigenous parameters governing the traditional expression of poetry.
4. Naming the gods
This case-study, then, concerns the mentions of Enlil in Atra-hasis and of Zeus in Iliad Book 8.
About 60% survives of the OB poem, which totalled approximately 1250 lines (Foster 2005:
228). Since the Atra-hasis lines are roughly between one-half and two-thirds the length
of a hexameter, this is an acceptable match for the 565 hexameters constituting Homer’s
Book. In the two texts, the two chief gods can justiably be said to be protagonists: both
are the most frequently named, and both drive the narrative through their initiative. Zeus
is mentioned 34 times, and I count 38 mentions of Enlil (I exclude cases where Zeus is only
mentioned patronymically (Kroniōn,Kronidēs, 4x T, 2x NF), and Atr. OB 1.131, 133 ≈ 143, 145
and 2.vi.22 because these lines are too damaged, but include the repeated lines Atr. OB
[2.ii.39–42]). The percentage result of the comparison is as follows:
Tab. 1: Mentions of Zeus in Iliad 8 and Enlil in Atra-hasis.
T TB NF
Zeus in Il. 8 (34) 67.5% (23) 12% (4) 20.5% (7)
Enlil in OB Atr. (38) 58% (22) 18.5% (7) 23.5% (9)
Before drawing conclusions on these percentages, which seemingly indicate analogous ten-
dencies (prevalence of T), control cases will require examination (§4.3). First, however, I
will discuss the components of each category.
20 See especially Scodel (2002) and Ready (2018: 55–127). Thus Homeric imitation (as opposed to allusion) may not be
manifestly advertised: Ballesteros (2020).
18 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
4.1. Zeus
Let us start with Zeus.21 The vast majority of the 23 instances classied as ‘traditional’ (T)
are noun-epithet expressions (17):
Tab. 2: Noun-epithet expressions (Zeus in Il. 8).
Lines Expression Case, position Occurrences Other
8.22 Ζῆν’ ὕπατον
μήστωρ’ ‘highest
counsellor Zeus’
acc., before
masculine caesura
2x Hom. cf. Il. 17.339*
8.38,
469
νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς
‘Zeus the
cloud-gatherer’
nom., after
hephthemimeral
caesura
35x epos
8.141 Κρονίδης Ζεύς
‘Zeus, son of Cronus’
nom., before bucolic
diaeresis
5x epos [Hes.] fr.
234.2 M-W
perhaps TB:
Κρονίδης +
Ζεὺς ἄφθιτα
μήδεα εἰδὼς
(5x epos after
masculine
caesura)
8.170 μητίετα Ζεύς ‘Zeus
the shrewd’
nom., after bucolic
diaeresis
36x epos
8.206 εὐρύοπα Ζῆν ‘Zeus
of vast voice’
acc., after bucolic
diaeresis
4x epos cf. 8.442
21 In the following tables, (*) directs the reader to the ensuing discussion. ‘Hom.’ includes Iliad and Odyssey. ‘epos’
includes Iliad and Odyssey; Hesiod’s Theogony,Works and Days, and fragments; fragments of the Cyclic poems; and
Homeric Hymns. Data are taken from TLG searches. Hexameters consist of six metra or feet, which can take a dactylic
or spondaic form, except the last, which can be spondaic or trochaic (long + short) but not dactylic. Dactyls are feet
where two short syllables follow a long one (—◡◡); spondees are sequences of two long syllables (——). Introduction
to the Homeric hexameter: Nünlist (2015), who follows, as I do, the system of Fränkel (1960); trithemimeral caesura
= Fränkel’s A4, masculine = B1, feminine = B2, hephthemimeral = C1, bucolic diaeresis = C2. Caesurae occur when a
semantic pause caused by word-end does not coincide with the end of the foot; diaereseis when it does.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 19
Lines Expression Case, position Occurrences Other
8.210 Διὶ Κρονίωνι ‘to
Zeus, son of Cronus’
dat., after feminine 7x epos before
feminine
caesura 4x
epos
8.236 Ζεῦ πάτερ ‘father
Zeus’
voc., rst dactyl 34x epos *
8.250 πανομφαίῳ Ζηνί ‘to
Zeus of all the
oracles’
dat., before
hephthemimeral
caesura
1x epos + Sim.
Ep. 52.2
Cf. [Hes.] fr.
150.12*
8.352,
427
αἰγιόχοιο Διός ‘of
Zeus the
aegis-bearer’
gen., before
hephthemimeral
caesura
17x epos
8.384 Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο ‘of
the aegis-bearer
Zeus’
gen., after
hephthemimeral
caesura
35x epos
8.387 Διὸς νεφεληγερέταο
‘of the
cloud-gatherer
Zeus’
gen., after feminine
caesura
11x epos
8.397,
438
Ζεὺς δὲ πατήρ
‘but/and father
Zeus’
nom., 4x before
trithemimeral
caesura
epos
8.442 εὐρύοπα Ζεύς ‘Zeus
of vast voice’
nom., after bucolic
diaeresis,
28x epos cf. 8.206
8.460 Διὶ πατρί ‘to Zeus
the father’
dat., before
feminine caesura
8x epos 22x epos
other
positions*
Unless otherwise indicated, all occurrences are in the specied case and metrical position.
Adherence to traditional metrical positions is thus considerably strict. The high number
of realizations of the essential idea ‘Zeus’ shows the importance of possessing an ample
20 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
search corpus: none of the expressions is repeated more than twice in Book 8, and it would
be impossible to distinguish traditionality without the rest of epos. In fact, 8.22 and 8.250
highlight that indeterminacy. The repetition of Ζῆν’ ὕπατον μήστωρ’ ‘the highest coun-
sellor Zeus’ at Hom. Il. 17.339 is unique in epos; we cannot exclude that the poet repeated
an expression of his own devising, consciously or not. What seems certain is that, even
if the phrase was consciously repeated (which should not be granted by default), the poet
wanted the expression to sound traditional, since the two contexts cannot be meaningfully
connected as evoking an intratextual allusion. An equally venerable and traditional con-
notation was doubtless attributed to πανομφαίῳ Ζηνί ‘to Zeus of all the oracles’, evoking
Zeus’ role as the ultimate prophetic source. Considering the epic corpus alone, its status as
a traditional expression in Parry’s sense would be questionable: its only other occurrence
comes in the genitive case ([Hes.] fr. 150.12 M.-W.). But an identical occurrence in an epi-
gram attributed to Simonides (fth century BC) may strengthen the possibility (AP 6.52 = 61
FGE =Ep. 55.1–2 Sider: Οὕτω τοι, μελία ταναά, ποτὶ κίονα μακρὸν / ἧσο, Πανομφαίῳ Ζηνὶ
μένουσ’ ἱερά· ‘Now thus, slender spear, against the great column / rest, and be sacred to
Zeus of all the oracles’). Again, an intertext seems unlikely.22 Finally, the ‘father Zeus’ type
(here 8.236, 397, 438, 460) may appear to sit uncomfortably among noun-epithet expres-
sions. The monosyllabic nature of the noun (in the nominative and vocative) and the Latin
and Sanskrit cognates Juppiter and Dyauṣpitṛ encourage one to take it, if not as a single word
(cf. the convenient division at Ζεὺς δὲ πατήρ ‘but/and father Zeus’), at least as behaving like
a ‘metrical word’, in which case it should be treated as NF ‘isolated’ names (see below).23
However, the fact that the dactylic vocative Ζεῦ πάτερ, out of several possibilities, appears
only at the beginning of the verse, is a clear indication of traditionality (contrast, e.g., the
dative Διὶ πατρί: 30x epos, 16x verse-end, 8x before feminine caesura, 6x after hephthemi-
meral). Taken as a whole, these examples evidence the vastness of the inherited formulaic
repertoire, as well as the exibility allowed by the hexameter—certainly not a surprising
result for Homerists, but one which is important for the comparative purpose of dening
the traditional ways of naming Zeus.
One way to deploy and evoke tradition is, thus, to use noun-epithet expressions. The sec-
ond, which accounts for about a quarter of the Tinstances (6/23), consists in a phrase
repeatedly found in the same metrical position and coupling the name Zeus with verbal or
nominal expressions generally themselves recurrent in the corpus (Tab 3):
22 ‘If there is any point to the epithet here, it is now lost’ (Sider 2020: 202). Even if the epigram is Hellenistic, this is a
generic epicism, not a reference to Homer. The metrical position argument, however, has less force here: it seems
hardly possible to make that long spondaic sequence (◡————◡) t elsewhere in a hexameter or pentameter.
23 In ‘metrical words’ or ‘Wortbilder’, proclitics, enclitics, and prepositions cohere with their referent: Fränkel (1960:
142–47). This is a moot point among Akkadian metricists: West (1997b: 182–83); Helle (2014).
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 21
Tab. 3: Further traditional mentions (Zeus in Il. 8).
Lines Expression Position Occurrences Other
8.143 Διὸς νόον ‘the mind
of Zeus’
after
feminine
caesura
9x epos 5x Διὸς νόον
αἰγιόχοιο*
(cf. below TB
8.375)
8.216 Ζεὺς κῦδος ἔδωκεν
‘Zeus granted glory’
after heph-
themimeral
caesura
4x epos Ζεὺς κῦδος 10x
epos, cf. T8.141;
but κῦδος
ἔδωκεν only
thus.*
8.364 αὐτὰρ ἐμὲ Ζεύς ‘but
Zeus me (acc.)’
after bucolic
diaeresis
2x Il. Od. 23.352 after
rst-foot
diaeresis
8.493,
517
Διῒ φίλος/οι ‘dear
to Zeus’
before
bucolic
diaeresis
17x Il. also voc. sing.
and masculine
acc. sing.*
8.526 Διί τ’ ἄλλοισίν τε
θεοῖσιν ‘to Zeus and
the other gods’
after
masculine
caesura
4x Hom.
Like noun-epithet formulae, these standard phrases may well convey the ‘essential idea’ of
‘Zeus’ (e.g., Διὸς νόον ‘the mind of Zeus’ = ‘Zeus’), which, however, does not deny the expres-
sion’s referential resonance (power determinacy and disclosure; Kelly 2007: 172–3). Some
phrases work as epithets in their own right (Διῒ φίλος). Yet as they tend to connect the
noun to specic concepts or actions, they often articulate more complex semantics than
noun-epithet formulae do, thus enriching the syntagmatic possibilities of naming. They
can be subjected to combinatory exibility and anked by noun-epithet phrases, as exem-
plied by Ζεὺς κῦδος (8.216), recurring in the half-line Κρονίδης Ζεὺς κῦδος ὀπάζει at 8.141
(‘Zeus the son of Cronos is aording glory’, itself recurring at Il. 21.566). To say ‘x gives/was
giving glory’ in the present or imperfect tense, poets would use ὀπάζω ‘grant’ (rather than
δίδωμι ‘give’ as in 8.216, aorist). κῦδος ὀπάζει(/ν) is itself a frozen expression recurring
11x epos at line end (3x with Zeus as subject). At root, these are all clearly recognizable
22 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
as frozen expressions strictly tied to certain metrical positions. Like Parry’s noun-epithet
formulae, they are unlikely to have been coined by the author of the Iliad.
Further down the spectrum of traditionality, one encounters expressions identiable as
tradition-bound (TB). Their precise shape is unparalleled in the corpus, but composed of
certain features that the audience would recognise as epic and traditional.24 These are
generally traditional epithets or other frozen expressions in specically reshued combi-
nations. I count four of them for Zeus in Iliad Book 8:
Tab. 4: Tradition-bound mentions (Zeus in Il. 8).
Lines Expression Traditional background Other
8.2 Ζεύς (…) τερπικέραυνος
‘Zeus who delights in
thunder’
Ζεὺς τερπικέραυνος after
hephthemimeral caesura 4x
Hom.
*
8.287 Ζεύς τ’ αἰγίοχος καὶ
Ἀθήνη ‘Zeus who bears
the aegis and Athena’
αἰγιόχοιο Διός before
hephthemimeral caesura 17x
epos; Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο line-end 35x
epos. Cf. above (T) 8.352/427,
384.
Perhaps T, cf.
Od. 15.245:
Ζεύς τ’
αἰγίοχος καὶ
Ἀπόλλων.
8.375 Διὸς δόμον αἰγιόχοιο
‘the house (acc.) of Zeus
who bears the aegis’
Διὸς ◡◡ αἰγιόχοιο after
hephthemimeral caesura 14x
epos
Cf. above
8.143 (T)
8.412 Διὸς δέ σφ’ ἔννεπε
μῦθον ‘and she told
them Zeus’ word’
Διὸς δ(έ) … only after feminine
caesura 17x epos.
The evidence is insucient to decide whether a given TB expression was in fact traditional
or just made to look so. One cannot exclude that the powerful hyperbaton at Il. 8.2 (see be-
low) was well known among groups of singers and considered common property. This is
perhaps more likely in the case of Ζεύς τ’ αἰγίοχος καὶ Ἀθήνη (8.287), given the Odyssean
parallel. The case of Διὸς δόμον αἰγιόχοιο (8.375) likewise displays a degree of indetermi-
nacy, since other Διὸς ◡◡ αἰγιόχοιο expressions are widespread in epos (notably Διὸς νόον
24 Note, however, that in the case of Hector and in Atra-hasis I classify as potentially TB a few items recurring two or
three times; I do so when it seems very possible (at least) that the item was devised and then repeated by the poet.
Naturally,there is no way to know for certain.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 23
αἰγιόχοιο, cf. on 8.143).
Nevertheless, the evidence does permit grouping these instances together, at least notion-
ally, because they are unique in a corpus vast enough to allow for other types of expressions
to recur up to 35 times. The case of 8.412 brings us closer to our nal category, the non-
formulaic instances (NF) displaying no hints at a traditional status. What dierentiates
Διὸς δέ σφ’ ἔννεπε μῦθον from NF cases is the relevance of the metrical position: Διὸς δ(έ)
recurs only after the feminine caesura, though its metrical shape would allow for several
other possibilities. This suggests that its recurrence was intimately tied to dactylic half-
lines (hemiepes) of the type most famously represented by Il. 1.5 (also Od. 11.297, Cyp. fr.
1.7, cf. Il. 20.15): Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή ‘and Zeus’ plan was being accomplished’ (see Allan
2008;Currie 2016: 1–4;Edmunds 2016).
NF instances, then, display the noun alone or in prepositional phrases, with no discernible
traditional viz. widespread structure behind the occurrence, save for the metrical con-
straint (as opposed to the consistent metrical positions dening T). I count seven of them
for Zeus in Iliad Book 8:
Tab. 5: Non-formulaic mentions (Zeus in Il. 8).
Lines Expression Other
8.140, 251 ἐκ Διός ‘from Zeus’ 3x before bucolic diaeresis (including 8.140
and 251); 19x epos
8.242 ἀλλὰ Ζεῦ ‘but, O Zeus’ Ζεῦ (voc.) 54x epos; in this position only in 4x
epos αἲ γὰρ Ζεῦ invocations
8.249 πὰρ δὲ Διὸς βωμῷ
‘beside Zeus’ altar’
only here in epos
8.424, 428 Διὸς ἄντα ‘against
Zeus’
only here in epos
8.444 Διὸς ἀμφίς ‘around
Zeus’
At rst sight, there is nothing obviously dierentiating ἀλλὰ Ζεῦ ‘but, O Zeus’ at 8.242
from Ζεῦ πάτερ ‘father Zeus’ (8.236 voc.) which was classied as T. The latter’s recurrence
34 times in the same metrical position makes all the dierence. Similarly, with ἐκ Διός
‘from Zeus’: it recurs 19 times in the corpus, but in several dierent positions, meaning it
24 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
was not particularly tied to any of them, though there is a prevalence after bucolic diaere-
sis (see Kelly 2007: 168–9 for the referential resonance of this expression). Nevertheless,
it bears repeating that this is a ‘spectrum’ of traditionality, and the available evidence is
frequently not sucient for strongly informed opinions. The matter is particularly acute
with the ‘metrical words’ of the ‘father Zeus’ type which (unlike Ζεῦ πάτερ) recur sporad-
ically, such as Ζεὺς δὲ πατήρ ‘but Zeus the father’ (T, see above). One should not exclude
that an expression like Διὸς ἄντα ‘against Zeus’ (NF) was in fact common, especially con-
sidering the importance of Olympian conict in the tradition (e.g., Yasumura 2011;Pucci
2018;Ballesteros, forthcoming). What seems certain is that the poet, by emphasizing the
expression through the short-distance repetition, made it sound traditional (Il. 8.423–8):25
ἀλλὰ σύ γ’ αἰνοτάτη, κύον ἀδεὲς, εἰ ἐτεόν γε
τολμήσεις Διὸς ἄντα πελώριον ἔγχος ἀεῖραι.
Ἣ μὲν ἄρ’ ὣς εἰποῦσ’ ἀπέβη πόδας ὠκέα Ἶρις, 425
αὐτὰρ Ἀθηναίην Ἥρη πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν·
ὢ πόποι αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς τέκος, οὐκέτ’ ἔγωγε
νῶϊ ἐῶ Διὸς ἄντα βροτῶν ἕνεκα πτολεμίζειν·
But most dread are you, you shameless dog, if truly
you will dare to raise your mighty spear against Zeus.’
And having said so swift-footed Iris went away 425
but Hera then said word to Athena:
‘O dear, daughter of Zeus who bears the aegis, no more shall I allow
that we two should ght for mortals’ sake against Zeus;
I shall return to borderline cases, but it is rst worth looking at Enlil’s naming in OB Atra-
hasis.
4.2. Enlil
Given the nature of Homeric poetry, epithets proved reliable witnesses to identify tradi-
tional (T) mention-types for Zeus. Noun-epithet expressions are also prominent with Enlil,
constituting almost half of the identied Tinstances. The formula qurādu Enlil ‘the warrior
Enlil’ (or, in the genitive, qurādi Enlil) recurs 10x in OB Atra-hasis, and it always concludes the
line (1.8 [≈ 125 = 137], 69, 92, 112, 2.v.27, vi.32, 3.vi.5, vi.12). The dierence with the Homeric
practice is striking: none of the Zeus noun-epithet expressions recurs as many times in the
equivalent space of Book 8; and Atra-hasis does not present a variety of epithets comparable
to that in Homer. A Parryan explanation for this would also be the simplest: it comes down
to the complexity of the hexameter, which obliged generations of poets to devise many
25 Il. 8.420–4 athetized by Aristarchus, 8.421–4 by West. But see Kelly (2007: 398–99).
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 25
ways (i.e. traditional expressions) to accommodate the rhythm and facilitate oral versi-
cation. Akkadian poets simply did not need to do so. Why is it, then, that qurādu/-i Enlil
always comes at the end of the line? The answer probably is that this epithet was tradition-
ally bound to larger-scale traditional forms, in which the noun-epithet came at the end.
This is certainly the case in eight out of the ten OB Atr. occurrences. Three times it comes
in the formulaic verse mālikšunu/-kunu qurādu Enlil ‘their/your (pl.) counsellor, the warrior
Enlil’ (cf. 3.viii 11 atta mālik ilī rabûti ‘you, counsellor of the great gods’ and OB Anzû 1.2 =
SB 1.85); and ve times it occurs when Enlil is the addressee in the speech-introduction
couplet of the type (OB Atr. 1.111–12 = 3.vi.11–12, cf. 1.91–2, 2.vi.31–2):
Anu pâšu īpušamma
issaqar ana qurādi Enlil
Anu made his mouth ready,
he spoke to the warrior Enlil
Study of these couplets in Atra-hasis discloses one traditional rule dictated by the metre,
namely that the speaker does not receive an epithet, whereas the addressee always does.
As one anonymous reviewer perceptively suggests, ‘presumably this rule follows from the
balanced structure of the OB verse: the speaker’s name is followed by several verbs and
nouns that convey the act of speaking, leaving no room for an epithet, whereas the ad-
dressee is introduced only by a brief preposition, which allows the poet to supplement the
name with an epithet and thereby to balance the couplet.’
The rule permits identifying a second type of Tnaming of Enlil (5x OB Atr.), when he is the
speaker in speech-introduction couplets and thus comes without an epithet (OB Atr. 1.85,
105, 2.v.22, 2.vi/vii (?) [= Schø. ii.16’], 3.vi.41).26 Here, the name is repeatedly connected to
a traditional turn of phrase and qualies as Tdespite standing without an epithet (compare
Tab. 3above). One similar case is Enlil illakā dimāšu ‘Enlil, his tears were owing down’ at
1.167, where the phrase illakā dimāšu/-ša is stereotypical in Akkadian poetry (Hecker 1974:
78–9; George 2003: 836; Jiménez 2017: 94–7; Ballesteros 2021a: 19–20; add Schø. Atr. iv.10’).
Tellingly, it came to interact with an equivalent expression in the Hurrian tradition that
we now nd in the Hittite version of Gilgamesh and in Hurro-Hittite poetry: ‘tears owing
forth like canals’, a formulaic simile not found in the Akkadian Vorlage (Klinger 2005: 119–
20). This is important evidence exemplifying the kind of transfer or adaptation that is
possible when two poetic idioms come into contact that share an underlying traditional
poetic syntax (cf. Ballesteros 2021a;forthcoming; above §1).
The one exception to the ‘epithet-less speaker’ rule is the fth occurrence of qurādu Enlil in
26 On speech-introductions in Akkadian poetry, see Sonnek (1940); Hecker (1974): 174–80; Vogelzang (1990).
26 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
speech-introductions. Here the narrative pace is unusually compressed and does not allow
for the full standard couplet of speech-introduction (2.v.24–7):27
⸢še⸣-na [ina?ma]-⸢ri⸣li-ib-[bi-ku-nim]
li-[še-ri]-⸢bu⸣-ni a-na ma-aḫ-⸢ri⸣-[ia] 25
⸢še⸣-na [ina?] ma-ri i-ib-bi-ku-⸢ni⸣-[iš-šu]
is-sà-qar-šu-nu-ši qu-ra-du d[en-líl]
’Let them br[ing to me] the two [comrades]
Let them [come] before me.’ 25
The two comrades were brought [to him],
And the warrior Enlil spoke to them
A closer look shows that the breaking of the rule is drawn by another traditional tendency.
To understand better the poetic technique behind these lines, we need to look at the third
Tway of naming Enlil, namely quatrains. A traditional quatrain can be dened as one com-
posed of two successive couplets (distichs) that are identical except for any grammatical
adjustments and one word in the rst distich which the second distich varies in the same
verse position (Hecker 1974: 146–51, naming this technique ‘d[ie] variiert[e] Wiederholung
eines Verspaares’). The reader of Sumero-Akkadian poetry, even in translation, will im-
mediately recognise this elegant feature, which has long been connected to performance
(West 1997a: 593–4). One example from the divine strike scene may suce (OB Atr. 1.70–3,
transl. Lambert and Millard):
mišil maṣṣarti mūšum ibašši 70
bītu lawi ilu ul īdi
mišil maṣṣarti mūšum ibašši
bītu lawi Enlil ul īdi
It was night, half-way through the watch, 70
the temple was surrounded, but the god did not know
It was night, half-way through the watch,
the temple was surrounded, but Enlil did not know!
These structures account for six Tmentions of Enlil in OB Atr. (1.44 = 59, 1.73, 1.83, 1.90,
1.96). Now, OB Atr. 2.v.24–7 (above) is not precisely a traditional quatrain, given the con-
siderable variation in the second line of the distichs. But a parallel at 1.87–90 suggests that
the same technique is in play. That quatrain likewise spans a direct order and its imple-
mentation, and displays the correspondence between maḫrīya (‘my presence’), which Enlil
27 The text is highly fragmentary (and thus transliterated); restored exempligratia with Klein (1990: 79 n. 4): ‘two of my
sons’, tr. Foster (2005: 245).
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 27
says of himself, and the narrator’s naming of the god. It reports Enlil’s rst reaction to the
news of the revolt (OB Atr. 1.87–90):
Nuska, edil bābka,
kakkīka liqi, izziz maḫrīya!’
Nuska idil bābšu
kakkīšu īlqi, ittaziz maḫar Enlil 90
Nuska, bar your gate,
take your weapons and stand before me!’
Nuska barred his gate,
took his weapons and stood before Enlil. 90
OB Atr. 2.v.24–7, then, appears to conate the techniques relating to the traditional
quatrain with those of the speech-introduction, with an unusually compressed version
of the latter in place of the expected quatrain closing. As seen above, standard speech-
introductions place the verb issaqar ‘(s)he spoke’ in the second line of the couplet, followed
by ana (‘to’) plus noun-epithet expression (e.g., issaqar ana qurādi Enlil). In OB Atr. 2.v.24–7,
the traditional speech-introduction legitimized the poet to preserve the noun-epithet
expression after issaqar. Meanwhile, the compression of the speech-introduction (drawn
by the ‘quatrain’ urge to be explicit about Enlil’s name in the second distich) made the
composer opt for an unusual nominative, resulting in the breaking of the epithetless
addresser rule.
To sum up: the 22 traditional (T) mentions of Enlil in OB Atr. (out of 38) include 10x qurādu
Enlil formulae, 5x Enlil as speaker in speech-introduction structures, 1x Enlil coupled with
a conventional expression (illakā dimāšu), and 6x in traditional quatrain structures.
As in our Greek sample, tradition-bound (TB) expressions are the least numerous of the
three categories (I count seven of them). Their identication invites comparison with the
uncertainties surrounding the Greek evidence, highlighting the spectral nature of both
systems. As observed above, brief (prepositional) phrases of the kind ‘from Zeus’ normally
oer no hint at traditionality in the sense of a recurring structure. But cases like ‘Father
Zeus’ (Ζεῦ πάτερ), ‘but father Zeus’ (Ζεὺς δὲ πατήρ), or ‘but Zeus me (acc.)’ (αὐτὰρ ἐμὲ Ζεύς),
whose traditionality is beyond question given the recurring metrical position (including
outside the Iliad), alert us to the possibility that a phrase like ‘against Zeus’ (Διὸς ἄντα) may
well have been traditional too, even if it recurs only twice and in the same passage. It was
certainly meant to sound traditional. The comparable case in Akkadian is the phrase itti
‘with’ + proper noun. In the case of ‘against Zeus’ (Διὸς ἄντα) the 2x short-range repetition
is insucient for us to classify it as traditional. And the same goes for itti Enlil ‘with Enlil’,
28 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
which recurs only 3x Atr. (1.152 = 1.165, 2.vii.47). But there is perhaps a case to be made that
itti + proper noun is an underlying traditional naming manner against whose background
itti Enlil resonates. One reason is the considerable brevity of the Akkadian line, meaning
that itti Enlil occupies one of three feet of the quick OB verse. This is in sharp contrast with
the prepositional phrases like Διὸς ἄντα, occupying less than a fth of a hexameter: the
Akkadian phrase receives far more emphasis. This impression is reinforced by looking at
other examples of this structure in OB Akkadian poetry, such as the sentence-end case in
the Literary letter to Ninmuga 5–7 (SEAL no. 1649):
ana annītim ḫiṭītim 5
ša ubl[â]m qātātīya
itti Išum leqea
For this sin 5
which I have committed
intercede for me with Išum
The same structure gives a solemn, inscriptional ring to the last lines of the Zimrī-līm Epic
(iv.11–12, cf. iii.27) (SEAL no. 1552):
balāṭam ḫegallam u danānam
itti Dagan Zimrī-līm īriš
A life of plenty and one of might
Zimrī-līm has asked from Dagan.
Two examples from OB Gilgamesh are also noteworthy. They come at a short distance, from
Gilgamesh’s famous heroic exhortation to Enkidu, where he contrasts a glorious ght with
the certainty of death and the impossibility of living like the gods (OB Gilg. 3.141–3, 148–50,
ed. George 2003):
ilūma itti Šamšim dāriš u[šbū]
awīlūtumma manû ūmūša
mimma ša īteneppušu šārūma 143
…
šumma amtaqut šumī lū ušziz 148
Gilgāmeš itti Huwāwa dapīnim
taqumtam ištu 150
The gods have [dwelled] forever in sunshine (lit. with the Sun-god Shamash)—
but mankind, its days are numbered,
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 29
whatever they might do, it is but wind. 143
…
If I fall, I should have made my name: 148
Gilgamesh—they’ll say—with Huwawa, the erce,
joined battle. 150
Rather than a casual use of plain ‘with someone’ expressions, these examples speak for
variations on a traditionally pointed—though not necessarily oral—template, which gained
strength by the fact that it occupied one of the three (or two, in the case of the Ninmuga
passage) feet of the line (also OB Gilg. 2.135–8, with the colon marked through line-division:
⸢itti⸣[Ša]mkatim /ippuš [u]lṣam /iššīma īnīšu / ītamar awīlam ‘[With Shamkat] / he (Enkidu)
was pleasuring himself / he lifted his eyes / he saw the man’). Even more striking is the
deployment of itti Enlil in OB Atr., for it contributes to a long-distance intratextual connec-
tion which encapsulates the rivalry between the chief god and the wisdom god Ea. The
occurrence at 2.vii.47, in the heated divine assembly where Ea refuses to cause the Flood,
Ea’s words look back to his own pre-eminence when it came to creating mankind. The de-
structive obnoxiousness of Enlil is contrasted with the benecent creative power of Ea (Atr.
OB 2.vii.47, 1.201):28
šipiršu ibašši it[ti Enlil]
This task (viz. the Flood) lies with Enlil!
(Ea speaking)
itti Eāma ibašši šipru
It’s with Ea that the task (viz. mankind’s creation) falls!
(Mami speaking)
As with ‘against Zeus’ (Διὸς ἄντα), there can be no demonstration that itti Enlil in Atra-
hasis can be taken as an inherited feature. Yet the metrical argument is stronger in the
Akkadian case, as is the (related) force and memorability of the phrase, suggested by the
quoted occurrences. Such elements seem sucient to classify itti Enlil as TB, though this
case again highlights that traditionality works as a spectrum rather than by xed bound-
aries. No hard-and-fast rules exist to exclude that itti + proper noun should just be treated
as non-formulaic (NF). Conversely, accepting it as a poetically-marked traditional expres-
sion might bring itti Enlil on a par with Tcases where the noun is connected to self-standing
structures such as speech introductions or quatrains.
28 Add this to Helle (2015); cf. Wilcke (1999: 83–85).
30 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
A dierent type of TB expression involves variations upon traditional quatrain patterns.
The poet utilizes this technique to express Enlil’s displeasure at mankind’s din which in-
duces him to devise destruction. Lines are repeated three times (one for every scourge,
except the nal Flood), arguably to mark out sections in performance, and contributing to
the crescendo eect (OB Atr. 1.354–7 = 2.i.3–6 = [2.ii.39–42], restored based on the parallels
OB 1.352–60 = 2.i.1-9; cf. NA S rev. iv.1–12, x rev.1-11, and SB Si 5.45–54; George and Al-Rawi
1996):
mā[tum kīma lī]’i išappu
ina [ḫubūrišina]ilu itta’dar 355
[Enlil ištēme]rigimšin
[issaqar]ana ilī rabûti
The [land] was bellowing like a [bull]
by [their noise] the god was disturbed 355
[Enlil heard] their outburst,
[he spoke] to the great gods:
The variation is elaborate, and again involves an overlap with speech-introduction struc-
tures (cf. above on 2.v.26–7). Since the subject is just called ‘the god’ (ilu) in the couplet
1.354–5, audiences would have expected a traditional quatrain, with the ensuing distich
substituting Enlil for ilu. Such a quatrain may well have been performed. What we do have
is an unorthodox—and, one may feel, highly eective—speech-introduction couplet. Tech-
nically, the position of the noun at the beginning of line 1.356 is attracted there by its
function as addresser (see above). Yet this also works as the second half of a traditional
quatrain in so far as (a) it resumes the content of the preceding distich and (b) satises
the audience’s expectation that the name be spelled out. Since it is repeated three times,
one cannot exclude this is in fact a Tformulation. But it seems best interpreted as a poet’s
creative elaboration specically designed to introduce Enlil’s reaction to noise in the Flood
poem.
One can interpret the couplet where Atra-hasis addresses the city-elders similarly. Here
the variation upon the expected repetition works within the compass of the couplet (as
opposed to the quatrain) and takes a chiastic form (OB Atr. 3.i.42–3):
[i]tti ilīkunu ilī ūl [magir]
ittezzizū Ea u [Enlil]
My god is [in a strife] with your (pl.) god,
[Enlil] and Ea are furious with one another.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 31
One may note the itti + noun foot at the beginning; there is little ground to suspect that Ea
u Enlil is a standardized expression, though it recurs at 2.vi.22 (otherwise illegible), which
is unlikely to have contained the same text as 3.i.43 since it precedes Enlil’s speech.
Homer is keen on variations marking decisive moments too. One TB mention of Zeus is
worth quoting (Il. 8.1–2):
Ἠὼς μὲν κροκόπεπλος ἐκίδνατο πᾶσαν ἐπ᾽ αἶαν,
Ζεὺς δὲ θεῶν ἀγορὴν ποιήσατο τερπικέραυνος
Dawn the saron-robed was spreading over the face of all the earth
and Zeus who delights in thunder summoned the gods’ assembly
(Ζεὺς τερπικέραυνος 4x Hom., verse-end, cf. above)
The striking—and unparalleled—hyperbaton (separation of two normally adjacent words)
emphasizes the epithet. As a new day begins, the line foreshadows that Zeus will at last
take steps towards a Greek defeat as he had promised, and will actively help the Trojan
leader Hector through an exceptional display of his thundering abilities (esp. Il. 8.68–77,
131–5, 169–71).29 This can protably be compared to how Enlil is named in the chief rebel’s
rallying speech to the assembly of the insurgent gods (Atr. OB I 43–6 ≈ 57–60; cf. SB Si I
49–51; George and Al-Rawi 1996: 158):
[ilam]mālik ilī qurādam
alkānim i nišši’a ina šubtīšu
Enlil mālik ilī qurādam
alkānim i nišši’a ina šubtīšu
[The god], the counsellor of the gods, the warrior,
let us go and remove him from his dwelling!
Enlil, the counsellor of the gods, the warrior,
let us go and remove him from his dwelling!
Here the resounding fullness of Enlil’s titles, highlighted by the disjunction, stresses the
daring of the rebels menacing the chief god. The eect is technically predicated on the
use of the traditional quatrain, which appears to determine the hyperbaton. Like in the
Iliad, this might have a foreshadowing resonance—though an ironicone, since the Enlil who
shuts himself in the palace, bursts into tears, and forsakes the divine assembly hardly acts
as ‘the warrior’ (for similar irony surrounding this epithet, see OB Anzû 1.2 = SB 1.85). The
29 It also looks back at the (equally ominous) thundering at 7.478–81. Nowhere else are thundering and lightning clus-
tered in this way (for occurrences, see Kelly 2007: 113).
32 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
foreshadowing disjunction of a noun-epithet expression makes this an excellent parallel to
Il. 8.2. And although Enlil mālik ilī qurādam, on account of the traditional quatrain, should
be classied as T(rather than TB as Ζεύς…τερπικέραυνος or Enlil ištēme rigimšin), all these
examples illustrate a cross-cultural analogy in the eects achieved by playfully varying
upon inherited patterns.
Does the analogy extend to the quantitative level viz. the relative percentages of use of
traditional, tradition-bound, or non-formulaic ways of naming characters? NF occurrences
of the name Enlil in OB Atra-hasis are nine (1.14, 84, 104, 168, 196, 2.viii.35, 3.i.48, 3.iii.39,
v.41). This makes the percentage dierence with NF occurrences of Zeus in Iliad Book 8
relatively negligible.
It is now worth returning to those percentages:
Tab. 6: Mentions of Zeus in Iliad 8 and Enlil in Atra-hasis (again).
T TB NF
Zeus in Il. 8 (34) 67.5% (23) 12% (4) 20.5% (7)
Enlil in OB Atr. (38) 58% (22) 18.5% (7) 23.5% (9)
The data are considerably more useful for comparing the ways in which each poetry is tra-
ditional than the degrees to which each one is so (and much less for comparing degrees of
orality). Traditionality in Homer is not the same as in OB Akkadian epic. The noun-epithet
formularity as tied to the hexameter system is probably the most evident dierential trait
here. Disparity in Tpercentages is not insignicant, but more important is the fact that,
in Homer, Tmentions are made up of 74% noun-epithet structures (17/23), but just 43%
(10/23) in Atra-hasis. In the context of noun-epithet expressions, as noted above, variability
is incomparably more pronounced in Homer, since there is only one noun-epithet structure
for Enlil. Again, this is predicated on the dierence between metrical systems and compo-
sition as a function of them. On the other hand, the larger proportion of Tcases that are
not noun-epithet structures makes the Akkadian technique a more varied one in the ways
it expresses traditionality generally.
Another major divergence lies in the degree of verbatim repetition, which is muchmore pro-
nounced in Akkadian poetry, and is also a major factor aecting percentages. (If one, for
instance, should not accept that 1.356 = 2.i.5 = [2.ii.41] counts as TB but consider it as NF,
the latter would shift from 23.5% to 31.5%). Homeric messenger speeches are routinely
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 33
repeated, often with crucial variations (Kelly 2007: 325–9; now Battezzato 2019;Ready
2019: 34–51, 75–97). But the range of repeated scenes in Akkadian poetry is incomparably
larger—most famously perhaps the fourfold repetition of Tiāmtu’s illegitimate enthroning
of Qingu in Enūma eliš, occupying much of tablets II and III (Enūma eliš 2.11–48 (with 2.15–48
= 1.129–62) = 3.15–52 = 3.73–110). This phenomenon increases with time: later versions of
OB poems augment or introduce repetition (Cooper 1977;Vogelzang 1986;1988: 192–234
on Anzû;Wisnom 2023). Repetition is helpful for memorization, but this dierence in scale
seems best attributed (however speculatively) to aesthetic preferences, perhaps dictated
by performance modes: recitation for Homer, higher musical variation and song in Atra-
hasis permitting audiences to enjoy equal or diverging musical arrangements of the same
line blocks (on song in Atr. see above §2; below §5 on Agushaya).
Nevertheless, fundamental commonalities—shared traditionality modes—remain and
should not be downplayed. The existence of common features such as noun-epithet
expressions, formulaic speech introductions, or typical situations such as assemblies has
long been acknowledged (albeit little studied). But the successful application of the same
taxonomy has shown that poets also had analogous ways of playing with traditionality.
Crucially, both Homeric and OB Akkadian poets were keen for poetry to sound traditional.
The next question is how representative our case study is. This is key not only from a quan-
titative perspective, but also because narrativepoetry is not a mechanic process, and how
characters are mentioned must be determined to at least some degree by their attributes
and actions, and generally by poets’ choices about them. Looking at other characters, and,
for OB Akkadian poetry, other poems, shows that the proposed taxonomy holds, and that
the traditional modalities identied in Atra-hasis were indeed so. They also strengthen the
impression of commensurability between the two corpora (for a synopsis see Tab. 8below
§4.3).
4.3. Ea, Diomedes, Hector, Ishtar, and Ea again
Nevertheless, the naming of Ea in Atra-hasis (after Enlil, the most frequently mentioned
character) may seem to strengthen the comparative divide.30 Out of 25 counted mentions,
only 14 can be taken as T(56%, compared to Zeus’ 67,5%). Again, one nds noun-epithet
expressions, speech-introductions, and traditional quatrain structures.
30 OB Atr. 2.iii.9 (and 2.vi.22) is too broken for inclusion; I do not consider 3.iii.25, where the missing subject may be Ea
(Lambert and Millard 1969: 94; Foster 2005: 205) or, more likely, Anu (Wilcke 1999: 89–90; Wasserman 2020: 26).
34 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
Tab. 7: Traditional mentions (Ea in OB Atr).
Lines Traditional expression Type
1.16, 3.vi.42 ana Ea naššīki/niššīki ‘to Ea the
prince’
noun-epithet/speech
introduction
(addressee)
1.204, 372, [2.vi.31] (=
Schø. ii.1), [2.viii.40]?
(= Schø. iv.11’), 3.i.15,
3.vi.16, 45
Ea pâšu īpušamma ‘Ea made his
mouth ready’
speech introduction
(addresser)
1.250 niššīku Ea ‘prince Ea’ noun-epithet
2.iii.9 Ea tamīma ‘he swore by Ea’ traditional quatrain
2.iii.29 išmēma Ea awassu ‘Ea heard his
word’
speech reception
2.vi.[17] Ea itašuš ašābam ‘Ea got fed up with
sitting’
traditional quatrain
2.vi.39 Ea niššīka ‘Ea the prince’ noun-epithet
The percentage of NF occurrences is 28% (7/25), higher than for Enlil (23,5%) and Zeus
(20,5%): 1.[18], 1.98, 1.100, 1.102, 1.254, 2.v.18, 3.i.45. TB cases (16%, 4/25) include the itti
Ea occurrence at 1.201 and the quatrain variation at 3.i.43 (both mentioned above §4.2); an
association of Ea with the root ’pš ‘to make’ with which he is traditionally linked (3.vi.14 ša
lā Ea īppuš ‘who but Ea could have done this?’);31 and a variation upon the quatrain pattern
whereby the god is mentioned in the rst distich rather than in the second as is usual
(1.364–7).32
Ea’s case-study consists of just 25 cases, and the dierence in percentages compared to
those for Enlil and Zeus should not be overemphasized. Nevertheless, the higher propor-
tion of NF seems to justify the impression that Akkadian naming patterns may be less de-
31 Apart from his (non-exclusive) epithet itpēšu ‘the eective one’, cf. Erra and Ishum 2.23 (K + IM 121299) aššu šipri šâšu
Ea ⸢d⸣[...] it?-peš ‘Concerning that work, Ea [...] is expert’, Anzû OB 1.31 [Ea]etpu⸢šum⸣,Enūma eliš 1.59–62.
32 u š[ū Atram-ḫasīs]/ ilšu Ea ub[assar] / ītamu i[tti ilīšu] / u šū ilšu itt[īšu ītamu]. ‘Now,that one, [Atra-hasis] / was informing
his god, Ea. / He spoke [with his god] / and that one, his god, [spoke with him].’ The repetition of ilšu (‘his god’) is
thematic (it is this connection that saves mankind), and contributes to the elevated style; this quatrain precedes a
traditional speech-introduction distich.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 35
pendent on tradition than the Greek. That impression is strengthened by looking at the
occurrences of Diomedes’ name in Iliad Book 5, where he is the protagonist. Book 5 is the
longest of the poem, and being largely about battle scenes it is among the most traditional
thematically (see Fenik 1968: 9–78; Krischer 1971: 23–7; and Andersen 1978: 47–94 on the
poet’s manipulation of conventions). In Book 5 Diomedes’ name occurs 25 times, the vast
majority of which are Tinstances (84%, 21/25), with both TB and NF scoring a meagre 8%
(2/25). Each of the 21 Tmentions is a noun-epithet formula,33 and both TB instances resem-
ble one considerably.34 These data are strongly suggestive of a high degree of traditionality
in Homer, one that appears distant from those concerning Ea in Atra-hasis.
Yet neither Diomedes’ nor Ea’s case should be taken as representative of their traditions.
Homeric naming can present balanced percentages (like those for Ea); and Akkadian
practice similarly unbalanced numbers (similar to those for Diomedes). Returning to Iliad
Book 8, Hector’s case is instructive. He is the human protagonist of the book. As among
Diomedes’ mentions, TB are hardly visible, with only two cases (7,5%) distinguishable
from Ton scant statistical grounds.35 More important for comparative purposes is that
traditional occurrences (T) are 16/26 (61,5%), but only seven of them are noun-epithet
formulae (27%), in contrast with Diomedes’ 21/25 (84%).36 Moreover, Hector is named in
33 κρατερὸς Διομήδης ‘mighty Diomedes’ (nom.) consistently recurs after the hephthemimeral caesura (19x Il.), but it
uniquely precedes the bucolic diaeresis at 5.151.
34 ὑπέρθυμος Διομήδης ‘high-spirited Diomedes’ (5.375, nom., after masculine caesura) recurs only once in epos (acc.
at 4.365), and relies on the traditional positioning of ὑπέρθυμος there (18x epos); similarly ὑπερφίαλον Διομήδεα
‘arrogant Diomedes’ (5.881, acc., after masculine caesura), with ὑπερφίαλος recurring 31x epos in that position. NF
instances: 5.124, 519.
35 For the following two (TB) cases, the possibility that the poet crafted and then reused ad hoc expressions (as op-
posed to inheriting them) should not be dismissed, as they recur only twice: (1) 8.153: σ’ Ἕκτωρ γε κακὸν καὶ
ἀνάλκιδα φήσει ‘Hector will call you bad and cowardly’, cf. 14.126: γε κακὸν καὶ ἀνάλκιδα φάντες; (2) 8.312–13: ἀλλ’
Ἀρχεπτόλεμον θρασὺνἝκτορος ἡνιοχῆα / ἱέμενον πόλεμόνδε βάλε στῆθος παρὰ μαζόν· ‘but Archeptolemus, the bold
charioteer of Hector, / as he hasted into battle he [Teukros] smote on the breast beside the nipple. Cf. 16.737–8: οὐδ’
ἁλίωσε βέλος, βάλε δ’ Ἕκτορος ἡνιοχῆα / Κεβριόνην νόθον υἱὸν ἀγακλῆος Πριάμοιο ‘Nor did he [Patroclus] throw
his dart in vain, but smote the charioteer of Hector / Kebriones, the illegitimate son of very glorious Priam’; though
for ἡνιοχῆα after bucolic diaeresis cf. 19.401.
36 Tnoun-epithet = (1) 8.160 (μέγας κορυθαίολος Ἕκτωρ ‘great Hector of the glancing helm’, after feminine caes. 12x
Il.), (2) 8.216 and (3) 356 (Ἕκτωρ Πριαμίδης ‘Hector son of Priam’, nom. before masculine caes. 7x Il., cf. 2.817), (4)
8.324 and (5) 377 (κορυθαίολος Ἕκτωρ ‘Hector of the glancing helm’, nom. after hephthemimeral caes. 37x Il.), (6)
473 (ὄβριμος Ἕκτωρ ‘mighty Hector’ nom. after bucolic diaeresis 4x Il.), (7) 489 (φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ ‘splendid Hector’
nom. after bucolic diaeresis 29x Il.). Attached to traditional phrases: (8) 8.88 (Ἕκτορος ὠκέες ἵπποι ‘Hector’s swift
horses’, last three feet 2x Il.; ὠκέες ἵπποι after bucolic diaeresis 12x epos); (9) 8.110 (ὄφρα καὶ Ἕκτωρ ‘so that Hector
too’, after bucolic diaeresis 2x Il., ὄφρα καὶ after bucolic diaeresis 12x epos); (10) 8.124–5 = (11) 316–7: Ἕκτορα δ’
αἰνὸν ἄχος πύκασε φρένας ἡνιόχοιο ‘Dread sorrow covered Hector in his midri for his charioteer, cf. 17.83 (Ἕκτορα
δ’ αἰνὸν ἄχος πύκασεφρένας ἀμφὶ μελαίνας ‘Dread sorrow covered Hector in his dark midri’, with αἰνὸνἄχος before
masculine caes. 7x Il.;(12) 8.158: ἐπὶ δὲ Τρῶές τε καὶ Ἕκτωρ ‘and on the Trojans and Hector (nom.)’, cf. 15.589, with
ἐπὶ δὲ Τρῶές after masculine caes. 4x Il. (13) 8.172 = 6.110 = 15.346: Ἕκτωρ δὲ Τρώεσσιν ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσας· ‘And
Hector called to the Trojans shouting aloud’; μακρὸν ἀΰσας after bucolic diaeresis 14x Il.; ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσας after
feminine caes. 9x Il.; (14) 8.337: Ἕκτωρ δ’ ἐν πρώτοισι ‘and Hector amid the foremost’, cf. 11.61, with ἐν πρώτοισι
before feminine caes. 7x Il.(15) 8.493 and (16) 542 τόν ῥ’/ ὥς Ἕκτωρ ἀγόρευε ‘to him/thus Hector spoke’, ἀγόρευε
36 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
aNF manner 8/26 (31%): 8.90, 117, 148, 235, 301 = 310 (Ἕκτορος ἀντικρύ ‘against Hector’
before masculine caesura, only here, compare Διὸς ἄντα ‘against Zeus’ discussed above
§4.1), 341, 348. This is a much higher percentage than with Zeus and Diomedes, but similar
to those for Enlil and Ea.
Further contextual study (and work on other Homeric books) is required to account pre-
cisely for such dierences between the ways Diomedes and Hector are mentioned. They
may well be caused by the specic actions in which Hector participates, rather than his
being a relative newcomer in the oral epic tradition about Troy, as some scholars have sug-
gested.37 Whatever the reason, this example illustrates that the proportion of NF mentions
can vary considerably in Greek epos too.
Hector’s mentions thus appear closer to observed Akkadian cases in the relatively high pro-
portion of NF. Equally important, the evidence exists in Akkadian for a relatively high pro-
portion of T. This can be seen by moving away from Atra-hasis and on to another classic of
OB Akkadian poetry, the Song of Agushaya, a narrative hymn for the goddess Ishtar (ed. SEAL;
Agushaya A+B refers to the two surviving tablets). Here Ishtar acts as the main character as
much as Ea does; for both names I count 12 occurrences.38 Both display a low percentage of
NF mentions: Ishtar 16,5%, 2/12; Ea: 8,5%, 1/12 (A.iv.21, vii.14’, B.vi.11). The dierence one
can see between T(Ishtar: 58,5%, 7/12; Ea: 83%, 10/12) and TB (Ishtar: 25%, 3/12; Ea: 8,5%,
1/12) is largely due to the classication of the two itti Ištar ‘with Ishtar’ instances (A.v.33’,
vii.13’) as TB rather than T(see above §4.2; third TB: variation on the quatrain responsion
pattern at A.ii.7–11). Tmentions of Ishtar include traditional quatrain contexts (A.i.5, iii.10,
B.ii.15’),39 the nal noun-epithet labbatu Ištar ‘the lioness Ishtar’ (B.vi.24; cf. CAD L 23), and
three cases of an intriguing performance-driven convention: in antiphons (see below), the
goddess’ name appears only as the rst word of the second line (A.ii.5, iii.5, iv.24). The lat-
ter form is evidenced for Ea too (A.vii.3’), and appears to be the basis of a TB variation when
Ea is mentioned in the rst antiphon line (rather than the second) at A.v.30’. Otherwise,
Tmentions of Ea include two speech-introduction cases (A.vi.14’, B.v.5’), and seven noun-
epithet expressions: niššīku Ea ‘prince Ea’ (A.iv.12, v.16’, v.28’, B.vi.17’), Ea eršum (A.iv.19,
v.23’, vii.10’).
Data for all the examined case-studies are below:
before feminine caes. 11x epos.
37 In Book 8, the battle depiction is relatively ‘untypical’: Fenik (1968: 219–28); Cook (2009). On Hector as a newcomer,
see Kullmann (1960: 182–85, 226); West (2011: 45); Bachvarova (2016: 191–95, 432–38), contra Metcalf (2017: 3–4).
38 A.iii.29, viii.10’, B.ii.9’ and iv.3’ are broken and have not been considered (though B.iv.3’ is possibly Ea’s speech intro-
duction). B.v.5’ can be safely reconstructed and included.
39 In these manuscripts, quatrains span eight lines of text.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 37
Tab. 8: General mention distribution.
T TB NF
Zeus in Il. 8 (34) 67,5% (23) 12% (4) 20,5% (7)
Diomedes in Il. 5 (25) 84% (21) 8% (2) 8% (2)
Hector in Il. 8 (26) 61,5% (16) 7,5% (2) 31% (8)
Enlil in OB Atr. (38) 58% (22) 18,5% (7) 23,5% (9)
Ea in OB Atr. (25) 56% (14) 16% (4) 28% (7)
Ishtar in Agushaya (12) 58,5% (7) 25% (3) 16,5% (2)
Ea in Agushaya (12) 83% (10) 8,5% (1) 8,5 (1)
The examined control cases conrm the fundamental tendencies outlined by the initial
Enlil/Zeus comparison. Greek epic tends to use more Texpression. The dierence is not
immense, however, and can be explained by the compositional importance of noun-epithet
formulae in the hexameter context. Variations, at any rate, exist in both traditions, as
the extremes Diomedes/Hector and Ea (in Atr.)/Ishtar (Agushaya) exemplify. The broader
picture also conrms the value of the proposed taxonomy in illuminating the peculiarities
of each corpus such as, again, the Greek noun-epithet formula, or the Akkadian traditional
quatrain.
This picture also has limitations. To distinguish between types of mentions, one relies on
statistics and on the extent of corpora which are limited by denition and cannot be trusted
to encompass the entirety of the tradition. Our percentages can therefore be partially
awed due to borderline cases (as repeatedly discussed) and should not be taken rigidly.
A further limitation is that much Akkadian poetry is missing from this research. Prelimi-
nary observation of the OB Gilgamesh, for example, shows a lower reliance on noun-epithet
structures, though traditional speech-introductions and quatrains are as prominent as one
could expect. Research should also be extended to later evidence: especially intriguing are
changes between OB and rst-millennium versions of the same poem. This will sharpen
understanding of the traditionality of epic diction, including its diachronic and synchronic
variations—an aspect that could also be important for Hellenists, since comparisons could
be protably made between Homeric epic and other archaic hexameter poetry.
Yet the work done indicates fundamental tendencies and an overarching homology. Per-
38 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
haps most importantly, the proposed taxonomy shows that in both contexts traditionality
worked as a spectrum, with the fundamental aesthetic implication that traditional items
were immensely valued by composers and audiences.
5. Concluding Remarks
The Agushaya Song was composed under the patronage of king Hammurabi of Babylon
(reign. 1792–1750), as evidenced by the following passage (Agushaya B v 23–9):40
u šarrum ša annâm zamāra[m]
idāt qurdīki
tanittāki išmūni 25
Ḫammurapi <ša>annâm zamā[ram]
ina palîšu tanit<tā>ki ⌈x x⌉
innepšū
lū šutlumšu addār balāṭ[u]
And the king who heard from me (viz. Ea/the performer) this song,
the sign of your (viz. Ištar’s) heroism,
and your praise, 25
Ḫammurabi, <who> (heard) this song
your praise, it is during his reign [...]
it was composed,
may he be granted life forever!
This composition can be dated precisely. But what matters here is that a song presented to
Hammurabi and meant to be used at a civic festival (Agushaya B v 11–22), arguably in Baby-
lon, was surely not an ‘oral composition’ of the improvised and illiterate type, however
unclear the institutional relationship between musicians, composers and scribes may be.41
Moreover, Agushaya yields positive evidence for its being a performance text—beyond, that
is, internal references such as that just quoted, and those occurring, in a much more cir-
cumscribed manner, in Atra-hasis (Finkel 2014: 298–308 deems the ‘Ark tablet’, possibly be-
longing to Atr., a performer’s aide-mémoire). The Agushaya manuscripts are accompanied
by scribal notations in Sumerian (rubrics) detailing the composition’s strophic structure
as a function of performance. Each rubric of the type ki-ru-gú 1/2-kam-ma ‘this is the
40 Text from SEAL (but insert the <-ta> at 27). For the diculties of these lines, see Groneberg (1981): 127–33; CAD T
170–1; Foster (1991): 24; Shehata (2010): 202–3.
41 Cf. above n. 12. On literacy in OB Mesopotamia, see Wilcke (2000); also Charpin (2010: 7–24); Van De Mieroop (2022:
1-35).
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 39
rst (/second etc.) song’ is matched by one ĝiš-gi4-ĝál-bi, ‘its antiphon’ (for kirugu ‘stro-
phes’ and ĝišgiĝal ‘antiphons’, see Shehata 2009: 344–9). Finding stylistic features entirely
comparable to those in Atra-hasis, and the same forms of traditionality, suggests that those
forms and features were integral to the texts’ performative dimension. This is so despite
stylistic dierences, for example in the shape of speech-introductory couplets and strophic
structure (there is less uniformity here than in the Greek hexameter corpus). It seems un-
likely, therefore, that we are confronting conventional ‘relics of orality’ in Hecker’s sense
(see above §2).
This evidence illustrates a point repeatedly made in this volume: evolutionary scenarios
leading from oral, illiterate, improvised to written and meditated composition can often
be inadequate, and sometimes misleading. They are of limited utility in assessing the type
of poetry addressed in this article, either for the mechanisms of composition or for the
aesthetic eects poets and audiences were after. Stylistic analysis alone is unlikely to de-
termine degrees of orality or literacy, even in the case of highly traditional poetry like the
Homeric. But comparison with the Babylonian practice, which this article has for the rst
time attempted, can be productive in several ways.
Starting from Homeric orality, the proposed model permits a commensurate accounting of
traditionality which respects cultural specicities. It may also highlight the importance of
reading Babylonian poetry by doing justice to its traditional diction and performative di-
mensions. For scholars (such as Homerists) involved in attempts to connect traditionality
and orality, the Babylonian comparandum is likely to be sobering. Fully developed literacy
in the urban Old Babylonian context is not a deterrent for high degrees of traditionality
meant for performance. In fact, this comparison may prompt reconsideration of Foley’s
category of ‘oral-derived’ poetry, as well as of Lord’s (not unrelated) concept of the ‘tran-
sitional text’ (especially Lord 1986;1995: 212–37). These have proved excellent models for
reading Homer and other narrative poetry conceived for performance. However, a con-
nection between the texts’ traditional features and their historical status as documents for
the passage between orality and literacy does not necessarily reect reality. In fact, these
models convey teleological views (from the oral to the written) which the Babylonian case
among many others, as this volume attests, simply disproves. Rather than of ‘oral-derived’,
we should now more accurately—and more productively—speak of ‘performance-directed’
texts, at least in the Old Babylonian case. This category needs to be explored through fur-
ther study, but it promises to have historically diagnostic advantages. At the same time, it
incorporates the major gain of Foley’s approach: it is useful for investigations of compara-
tive aesthetics, and for understanding interactions between composers and audiences.
The proposed classication reveals fundamental analogies in modes of composition and
poetic conception between early Greek and Babylonian poetry. Seemingly, the most im-
40 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
portant is the nexus between a performance context and the force of traditionality. For
ancient poets and audiences, a newly crafted phrase had to t pre-existing parameters
that qualied the expression as worthy of the epic medium. This had the eect of conceal-
ing the technical operation behind it. But we can assume that expert poets and audiences
would look beneath the surface, enjoying traditionality even more as a result. Modern read-
ers can presume to approximate that competence, and comparison has once again proved
as good an avenue as any for doing so.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Angus Bowie, James Parkhouse, Henry Spelman, and the journal’s anony-
mous reviewers for helping me improve this paper, though I remain responsible for any
shortcomings. I thank audiences in Rome, Munich, and Oxford, where I presented earlier
versions. This research was funded by a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship held at
the Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford, and completed at the University of Vienna.
Sigla
AP = Palatine Anthology
CAD: Chicago Assyrian Dictionary = Gelb, I.J. et al. 1956–2010 (eds): The Assyrian dictionary of
the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
FGE: Further Greek Epigrams = Page, D.L. 1981: Further Greek epigrams. Epigrams before A.D. 50
from the Greek Anthology and other sources, not included in ‘Hellenistic Epigrams’ or ‘The Garland of
Philip’. Edited by D.L. Page, revised and prepared for publication by R.D. Dawe and J. Diggle.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SEAL: Sources of Early Akkadian Literature = https://seal.huji.ac.il/
TLG: Thesaurus Linguae Graecae =https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 41
Works Cited
Allan, W. 2008: ‘Performing the will of Zeus: the Dios boulê and the scope of early
Greek epic’. In M. Revermann and P. Wilson (eds), Performance, iconography, recep-
tion: studies in honour of Oliver Taplin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 204–16. DOI:
10.1093/oso/9780199232215.003.0009.
Andersen, Ø. 1978: Die Diomedesgestalt in der Ilias. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Bachvarova, M.R. 2016: From Hittite to Homer: the Anatolian background of ancient Greek epic.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139048736.
Ballesteros, B. 2020: ‘Poseidon and Zeus in Iliad 7 and Odyssey 13: on a case of Homeric
imitation’. Hermes: Zeitschrift für Klassische Philologie 148: 259–77. DOI: 10.25162/hermes-
2020-0019.
——— 2021a: ‘On Gilgamesh and Homer: Ishtar, Aphrodite and the meaning of a parallel’.
The Classical Quarterly 71: 1–21. DOI: 10.1017/S0009838821000513.
——— 2021b: ‘Fashioning Pandora: ancient Near Eastern creation myths and Hesiod’. In
A. Kelly and C. Metcalf (eds), Gods and mortals in early Greek and Near Eastern mythology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 262–75. DOI: 10.1017/9781108648028.019.
——— 2023: ‘The relieved earth in Greek, Sanskrit and Babylonian myths of destruction’.
In I. Calini (ed.), Les récits de destruction en Méditerranée orientale ancienne. Paris: Clas-
siques Garnier, 71–93.
——— forthcoming: Divine assemblies in early Greek and Babylonian epic. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Battezzato, L. 2019: Leggere la mente degli eroi: Achille, Ettore e Zeus nell’Iliade. Pisa: Edizioni
della Normale.
Beck, D. 2018: ‘Odysseus polyonymous’. In J. Ready and C. Tsagalis (eds), Homer in perfor-
mance: rhapsodes, narrators, and characters. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 205–29.
DOI: 10.7560/316030-010.
Bowie, A. 2021: ‘Fate and authority in Mesopotamian literatureand the Iliad’. In A. Kelly and
C. Metcalf (eds), Gods and mortals in early Greek and Near Eastern mythology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 243–61. DOI: 10.1017/9781108648028.018.
Bowra, C.M. 1952: Heroic poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Buccellati, G. 1990: ‘On poetry—theirs and ours’. In T. Abusch (ed.), Lingering over words:
studies in ancient Near Eastern literature in honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 105–34. DOI: 10.1163/9789004369559_005.
Burkert, W. 1991: ‘Homerstudien und Orient’. In J. Latacz (ed.), Zweihundert Jahre
Homer-Forschung: Rückblick und Ausblick. Stuttgart: Teubner, 155–81. DOI:
10.1515/9783110974829-010.
——— 1992: The orientalizing revolution: Near Eastern inuence on Greek culture in the early
42 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
archaic age. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Calini, I. 2023: ‘L’envers de l’endroit: la destruction comme déchirement de la trame sociale
dans le poème d’Erra et les Travaux et les jours d’Hésiode’. In Les récits de destruction en
Méditerranée orientale ancienne. Paris: Classiques Garnier, 165–90.
Carr, D.M. 2005: Writing on the tablet of the heart: origins of Scripture and literature. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780195172973.001.0001.
Charpin, D. 2010: Writing, law and kingship in old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226101590.001.0001.
Civil, M. 1999: ‘Reading Gilgameš’. Aula Orientalis 17/18: 179–89.
Clarke, M. 2019: Achilles beside Gilgamesh: mortality and wisdom in early epic poetry. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108667968.
Čolaković, Z. 2019: ‘Avdo Međedović’s post-traditional epics and their relevance to Homeric
studies’. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 139: 1–48. DOI: 10.1017/S0075426919000016.
Cook, E. 2009: ‘On the “Importance” of Iliad Book 8’. Classical Philology 104: 133–61. DOI:
10.1086/605340.
Cooper, J.S. 1977: ‘Symmetry and repetition in Akkadian narrative’. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 97: 508–12. DOI: 10.2307/598632.
——— 1992: ‘Babbling on: recovering Mesopotamian orality’. In M.E. Vogelzang and H.L.J.
Vanstiphout (eds), Mesopotamian epic literature: oral or aural? Lampeter: Mellen Press,
103–21.
Currie, B. 2012: ‘The Iliad,Gilgamesh, and neoanalysis’. In F. Montanari et al. (eds), Homeric
contexts: neoanalysis and the interpretation of oral poetry. Berlin: De Gruyter, 543–80. DOI:
10.1515/9783110272017.543.
——— 2016: Homer’s allusive art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, T.H. 2023: ‘Beyond the parallel: the Iliad and the Epic of Gilgameš in their macro-
regional tradition’. Transactions of the American Philological Association 153: 1–42. DOI:
10.1353/apa.2023.a901015.
Delnero, P. 2015: ‘Texts and performance: the materiality and function of the Sumerian
liturgical corpus’. In P. Delnero and J. Lauinger (eds), Texts and contexts: the circula-
tion and transmission of cuneiform texts in social space. Berlin: De Gruyter, 87–118. DOI:
10.1515/9781614515371-004.
——— 2020: How to do things with tears: ritual lamenting in ancient Mesopotamia. Berlin: De
Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9781501512650.
Di Benedetto, V. 1998: Nel laboratorio di Omero. Turin: Einaudi.
Edmunds, L. 2016: ‘Intertextuality without texts in archaic Greek verse and the plan of
Zeus’. Syllecta Classica 27: 1–27. DOI: 10.1353/syl.2017.0000.
Edwards, M.W. 1986: ‘Homer and oral tradition: the formula. Part I’. Oral tradition 1: 171–
230.
——— 1988: ‘Homer and oral tradition: the formula. Part II’. Oral tradition 3: 11–60.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 43
Fenik, B. 1968: Typical battle scenes in the Iliad: studies in the narrative technique of Homeric battle
description. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Finkel, I. 2014: The ark before Noah: decoding the story of the ood. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Finkelberg, M. 2004: ‘Oral theory and the limits of formulaic diction’. Oral tradition 19: 235–
52. DOI: 10.1353/ort.2005.0004.
Foley, J.M. 1990: Traditional oral epic: the Odyssey, Beowulf and the Serbo-Croatian return song.
Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI: 10.1525/9780520914483.
——— 1991: Immanent art: from structure to meaning in traditional oral epic. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Foster, B. 1991: ‘On authorship in Akkadian literature’. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orien-
tale di Napoli 51: 17–32.
——— 2005: Before the muses: an anthology of Akkadian literature. Bethesda: Eisenbrauns.
Fränkel, H. 1960: ‘Der homerische und der kallimachische Hexameter’. In Wege und Formen
frühgriechischen Denkens: literarische und philosophiegeschichtliche Studien. Munich: Beck,
100–156.
Friedrich, R. 2019: Postoral Homer: orality and literacy in the Homeric epic. Stuttgart: Franz-
Steiner Verlag. DOI: 10.25162/9783515120500.
Gabbay, U. and Mirelman, S. 2020: ‘“Skipped Lines” (MU.MEŠ GU4.UD.MEŠ) in Balaĝ and
Eršema prayers’. In J. Baldwin and J. Matuszak (eds), Mu-zu an-za3-še3kur-ur2-še3ḫe2-ĝal2.
Altorientalistische Studien zu Ehren von Konrad Volk. Münster: Zaphon, 87–116.
Gabriel, G. 2014: Enūma eliš—Weg zu einer globalen Weltordnung. Pragmatik, Struktur und Se-
mantik des babylonisches ‘Lied auf Marduk’. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
George, A.R. 1994: ‘Marianna E. Vogelzang and Herman L. J. Vanstiphout (ed.):
Mesopotamian epic literature: oral or aural? xii, 320 pp. Lewiston, Queenston and Lam-
peter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992. £39.95’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 57: 459–60. DOI: 10.1017/S0041977X00025817.
——— 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic: introduction, critical edition, and cuneiform texts, 2
vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——— 2009: Babylonian literary texts in the Schøyen collection. Bethesda: CDL Press.
George, A.R. and Al-Rawi, F. 1996: ‘Tablets from the Sippar library VI: Atra-ḫasīs’. Iraq 58:
147–90. DOI: 10.1017/S0021088900003247.
Gilan, A. 2018: ‘Mary R. Bachvarova: From Hittite to Homer. The Anatolian Background
of Ancient Greek Epic. xxxviii, 649 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
£100. ISBN 978 0 521 50979 4’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 80: 372–
74. DOI: 10.1017/S0041977X17000763.
——— 2021: ‘“Let those important primeval deities listen”: the social setting of the Hurro-
Hittite song of emergence’. In A. Kelly and C. Metcalf (eds), Gods and mortals in early
Greek and Near Eastern mythology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–36. DOI:
44 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
10.1017/9781108648028.003.
Groneberg, B. 1981: ‘Philologische Bearbeitung des Agušayahymnus’. Revue d’Assyriologie et
d’Archéologie Orientale 75: 107–34.
Hainsworth, J.B. 1993: The Iliad: a commentary, ed. G.S. Kirk, vol. 3: Books 9–12. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511518386.
Haubold, J. 2002: ‘Greek epic: a Near Eastern genre?’ Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological
Society 48: 1–19. DOI: 10.1017/S006867350000081X.
——— 2013: Greece and Mesopotamia: dialogues in literature. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511863240.
——— 2020: ‘Poetic form and narrative theme in early Greek and Akkadian epic’. In C. Re-
itz and S. Finkmann (eds), Structures of epic poetry—Epische Bauformen. Berlin: De Gruyter,
vol. 3, 7–24.
——— 2021: ‘Catalogues in Greek and Akkadian epic: a comparative approach’. In R.
Laemmle et al. (eds), Lists and catalogues in ancient literature and beyond: towards a poetics
of enumeration. Berlin: De Gruyter, 211–28.
Haug, D. 2002: Les phases de l’évolution de la langue épique: trois études de linguistique homérique.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. DOI: 10.13109/9783666252419.
Haul, M. 2009: Stele und Legende: Untersuchungen zu den keilschriftlichen Erzählwerken über die
Könige von Akkade. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag. DOI: 10.17875/gup2009-508.
Hecker, K. 1974: Untersuchungen zur akkadischen Epik. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Ver-
lag.
Helle, S. 2014: ‘Rhythm and expression in Akkadian poetry’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
vorderasiatische Archäologie 104: 56–73. DOI: 10.1515/za-2014-0003.
——— 2015: ‘Contrast through ironic self-citation in Atra-ḫasīs’. Nouvelles Assyriologiques
Brèves et Utilitaires 2015, no. 95: 158–60.
Hess, C.W. 2010: ‘Towards the origins of the hymnic epic dialect’. KASKAL: Rivista di storia,
ambienti e culture del vicino oriente antico 7: 101–22.
——— 2020: ‘Standard Babylonian’. In R. Hasselbach-Andee (ed.), A companion
to ancient Near Eastern languages. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 473–89. DOI:
10.1002/9781119193814.ch25.
Heubeck, A. 1981: ‘Zum Problem der homerischen Kunstsprache’. Museum Helveticum 38:
65–80.
Horrocks, G.S. 1997: ‘Homer’s dialect’. In I. Morris and B. Powell (eds), A new companion to
Homer. Leiden: Brill, 191–217. DOI: 10.1163/9789004217607_009.
Janko, R. 1982: Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: diachronic development in epic diction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jiménez, E. 2017: The Babylonian disputation poems: with editions of the Series of the Poplar,
Palm and Vine, the Series of the Spider, and the Story of the Poor, Forlorn Wren. Leiden:
Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004336261.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 45
Johandi, A. 2015: ‘Public speaking in ancient Mesopotamia: speeches before earthly and
divine battles’. In M. Läänemets et al. (eds), When gods spoke: researches and reections on
religious phenomena and artefacts. Tartu: Tartu University Press, 71–106.
Jones, B. 2012: ‘Relative chronology and an “Aeolic phase” of epic’. In Ø. Andersen and D.
Haug (eds), Relative chronology of early Greek epic poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 44–64. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511921728.004.
Kelly, A. 2007: A referential commentary and lexicon to Homer, Iliad VIII. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
——— 2008: ‘The Babylonian captivity of Homer: the case of the ΔΙΟΣ ΑΠΑΤΗ’. Rheinisches
Museum für Philologie 151: 259–304.
——— 2021: ‘Sexing and gendering the succession myth in Hesiod and the ancient
Near East’. In A. Kelly and CMetcalf (eds), Gods and mortals in early Greek and
Near Eastern mythology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 276–91. DOI:
10.1017/9781108648028.020.
Kelly, A. and Metcalf, C. (eds) 2021: Gods and mortals in early Greek and Near Eastern mythology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108648028.
Kilmer, A. 1996: ‘Fugal features in Atra-ḫasīs: the birth theme’. In M.E. Vogelzang and
H.J.L. Vanstiphout (eds), Mesopotamian poetic language: Sumerian and Akkadian. Gronin-
gen: Brill, 127–39.
Klein, J. 1990: ‘Notes to Atram-Ḫasīs, tablet II: (b) the Old Babylonian version of the “mes-
senger” motif’. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, no. 99: 78–79.
Klinger, J.W. 2005: ‘Die hethitische Rezeption mesopotamischer Literatur und die Über-
lieferung des Gilgameš-Epos in Ḫattusa’. In D. Prechel (ed.), Motivation und Mechanismen
des Kulturkontaktes in der späten Bronzezeit. Florence, 103–27.
Krischer, T. 1971: Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Munich: Beck.
Kullmann, W. 1960: Die Quellen der Ilias. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Kutzer, E. 2018: ‘Musical performances in the context of feasting and festivals in
Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium BCE’. KASKAL: Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture
del vicino oriente antico 15: 201–18.
Lambert, W.G. 2013: Babylonian creation myths. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. DOI:
10.1515/9781575068619.
Lambert, W.G. and Millard, A. 1969: Atra-ḫasīs: the Babylonian story of the ood. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Lardinois, A. 2018: ‘Eastern myths for Western lies: allusion to Near Eastern mythology in
Homer’s Iliad’. Mnemosyne 71: 895–919. DOI: 10.1163/1568525X-12342384.
——— 2021: ‘Playing with traditions: the Near Eastern background to Hesiod’s story
of the ve human races’. In A. Kelly and C. Metcalf (eds), Gods and mortals in early
Greek and Near Eastern mythology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–25. DOI:
10.1017/9781108648028.008.
46 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
López-Ruiz, C. 2010: When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near-East. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
——— 2014: ‘Greek and eastern mythologies: a story of Mediterranean encounters’. In L.
Edmunds (ed.), Approaches to Greek Myth, 2nd edn. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press, 154–99.
Lord, A.B. 1960: The singer of tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
——— 1986: ‘The merging of two worlds: oral and written poetry as carriers of ancient
values’. In J.M. Foley (ed.), Oral tradition in literature: interpretation in context. Columbia:
University of Missouri Press, 19–64.
——— 1995: The singer resumes the tale. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ludwig, M.-C. 1990: Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Ishme-Dagan von Isin. Wiesbaden:
Harassowitz.
Matjevic, K. 2018: ‘Zur Beeinussung der homerischen Epen durch das Gilgamesch-Epos.
Mit einem Exkurs zu einer neuen Datierungsthese der Ilias’. Klio: Beiträge zur Alten
Geschichte 100: 599–625. DOI: 10.1515/klio-2018-0124.
Metcalf, C. 2015: The gods rich in praise: early Greek and Mesopotamian religious poetry. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
——— 2017: ‘The Homeric epics and the Anatolian context’. Classical Review 67: 3–5.
——— 2018: ‘Horn and ivory: dreams as portents in ancient Mesopotamia and beyond’.
In E.J. Hamori and J. Stökl (eds), Perchance to dream: dream divination in the Bible and the
ancient Near East. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 9–26.
——— 2019: Sumerian literary texts in the Schøyen collection, vol. 1: Literary sources on Old
Babylonian religion. Bethesda: CDL Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781646020119.
Michalowski, P. 1992: ‘Orality and literacy in early Mesopotamian literature’. In M.E. Vo-
gelzang and H.L.J. Vanstiphout (eds), Mesopotamian epic literature: oral or aural? Lam-
peter: Mellen Press, 227–45.
——— 2010: ‘Learning music: schooling, apprenticeship, and gender in early
Mesopotamia’. In R. Pruzsinszky and D. Shehata (eds), Musiker und Tradierung: Studien
zur Rolle von Musikern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von literarischen Werken. Vi-
enna: LIT Verlag, 199–239.
Mirelman, S. 2020: ‘Tradition and innovation in Mesopotamian textuality during the rst
millennium BCE: the case of Balaĝ and Eršema prayers’. In W. Sommerfeld (ed.), Dealing
with Antiquity—Past, Present, and Future. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 295–321.
Mondi, R. 1990: ‘Greek mythic thought in the light of the Near East’. In L. Edmunds (ed.),
Approaches to Greek myth, 1st edn. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 142–98.
Nünlist, R. 2015: ‘Homeric meter (M)’, trans. B.W. Millis, S. Strack. In A. Bierl et al. (eds),
Homer’s Iliad: the Basel Commentary. Prolegomena, English. Berlin: De Gruyter, 116–21.
DOI: 10.1515/9781501501746-008.
Pace, J. 2018: Mythopoeïa: ou l’art de forger les «mythes» dans l’«aire culturelle» Syro-
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 47
mésopotamienne, Méditerranéenne et Indo-européenne. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text
Corpus Project.
Parry, M. 1971 (1928): The making of the Homeric verse: the collected papers of Milman Parry, ed.
A. Parry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, J. 2021: ‘Christopher Metcalf: Sumerian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection,
Volume 1: Literary Sources on Old Babylonian Religion. (Cornell University Studies in
Assyriology and Sumerology 38). Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2019. 168 S. 22,0 × 28,0 cm.
ISBN 978-15-75-06730-8. Preis: $ 99.95’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie 111: 123–36. DOI: 10.1515/za-2020-0025.
Pruzsinszky, R. 2007: ‘Beobachtungen zu den Ur III-zeitlichen königlichen Sängern und Sän-
gerinnen’, ed. M. Köhbach. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 97: 329–52.
——— 2010: ‘Die königlichen Sänger der Ur III-Zeit als Werkzeug politischer Propaganda’.
In R. Pruzsinszky and D. Shehata (eds), Musiker und Tradierung: Studien zur Rolle von Musik-
ern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von literarischen Werken. Vienna: LIT Verlag,
95–118.
——— 2011: ‘Singers, musicians and their mobility in Ur III period cuneiform texts’. In
R. Dumbrill and I. Finkel (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference of Near Eastern
Archaeomusicology ICONEA 2009-2010. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 31–39.
——— 2013: ‘The social positions of nar-musicians of the Ur III period at the end of the
3rd millennium BC’. In S. Emerit (ed.), Le statut du musicien dans la Méditerranée ancienne:
Égypte, Mésopotamie, Grèce, Rome. Kairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 31–
46.
Pruzsinszky, R. and Shehata, D. (eds) 2010: Musiker und Tradierung: Studien zur Rolle von Musik-
ern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von literarischen Werken. Vienna: LIT Verlag.
Pucci, P. 2018: The Iliad: the poem of Zeus. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110602456.
Ready, J.L. 2018: The Homeric simile in comparative perspectives: oral traditions
from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:
10.1093/oso/9780198802556.001.0001.
——— 2019: Orality, textuality, and the Homeric epics: an interdisciplinary study of
oral texts, dictated texts, and wild texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:
10.1093/oso/9780198835066.001.0001.
Reynolds, F. 2021: ‘Politics, cult, and scholarship: aspects of the transmission history of
Marduk and Ti’amat’s battle’. In A. Kelly and C. Metcalf (eds), Gods and mortals in early
Greek and Near Eastern mythology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58–79. DOI:
10.1017/9781108648028.005.
Rodda, M.A. 2021: ‘A corpus study of formulaic variation and linguistic productivity in early
Greek epic’. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.
Rutherford, I. (ed.) 2016: Graeco-Egyptian interactions: literature, translation
and culture, ca. 500 BC–AD 300. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:
48 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656127.001.0001.
——— 2018: ‘Kingship in heaven in Anatolia, Syria and Greece: patterns of convergence
and divergence’. In L. Audley-Miller and B. Dignas (eds), Wandering myths: transcultural
uses of myth in the ancient world. Berlin: De Gruyter, 3–22.
——— 2020: Hittite texts and Greek religion: contact, interaction, and comparison. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199593279.001.0001.
Scodel, R. 2002: Listening to Homer: tradition, narrative and audience. Ann Arbor: The Univer-
sity of Michigan Press.
Shehata, D. 2001: Annotierte Bibliographie zum altbabylonischen Atramḫasīs Mythos Inūma ilū
awīlum. Göttingen: Seminar für Keilschriftforschung Göttingen.
——— 2009: Musiker und ihr vokales Repertoire: Untersuchungen zu Inhalt und Organisation von
Musikerberufen und Liedgattungen in altbabylonischer Zeit. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag
Göttingen. DOI: 10.17875/gup2009-509.
——— 2010: ‘Selbstbewusste Dichter der Hammurabi-Dynastie’. In D. Shehata et al. (eds),
Von Göttern und Menschen. Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des alten Orients. Festschrift
für Brigitte Groneberg. Leiden: Brill, 197–24. DOI: 10.1163/9789004187474_013.
——— 2018: ‘Religious poetry and music performance under King Hammurāpi and his
successors’. In R. Eichmann et al. (eds), Music and Politics in the Ancient World: exploring
identity, agency, stability and change through the records of music archaeology. Berlin: Edition
Topoi, 157–81.
Sider, D. 2020: Simonides: epigrams and elegies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sonnek, F. 1940: ‘Die Einführung der direkten Rede in den epischen Texten’. Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 46: 225–35. DOI: 10.1515/zava.1940.46.1.225.
Spar, I. and Lambert, W.G. 2005: Cuneiform texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art II. New York:
The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Streck, M.P. 2021: ‘Old Babylonian’. In J.P. Vita (ed.), History of the Akkadian language. Leiden:
Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004445215_014.
Tonietti, M.V. 2018: ‘Music, a central aspect of religious and secular festivals: information
from the Ebla archives’. KASKAL: Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del vicino oriente antico
15: 155–69.
Van De Mieroop, M. 2022: Before and after Babel: writing as resistance in ancient Near Eastern
empires. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vita, J.P. (ed.) 2021: History of the Akkadian language, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. DOI:
10.1163/9789004445215.
Vogelzang, M.E. 1986: ‘“Kill Anzû”: on a point of literary evolution’. In K. Hecker and W.
Sommerfeld (eds), Keilschriftliche Literaturen: Ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, 8-12.7.1985. Berlin: Reimer, 61–70.
——— 1988: BIN ŠAR DADMĒ: edition and analysis of the Akkadian Anzû poem. Groningen:
University of Groningen Publications.
BERNARDO BALLESTEROS 49
——— 1990: ‘Patterns introducing direct speech in Akkadian literary texts’. Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 42: 50–70. DOI: 10.2307/1359873.
Vogelzang, M.E. and Vanstiphout, H.L.J. (eds) 1992: Mesopotamian epic literature: oral or aural?
Lampeter: Mellen Press.
von Soden, W. 1931: ‘Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen (Teil I)’. Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete 41: 163–227. DOI: 10.1515/zava.1931.40.3-4.163.
——— 1933: ‘Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen (Teil II)’. Zeitschrift für Assyri-
ologie und Verwandte Gebiete 41: 90–183. DOI: 10.1515/zava.1933.41.1-4.90.
——— 1981: ‘Untersuchungen zur babylonischen Metrik (Teil I)’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 71: 161–204. DOI: 10.1515/zava.1981.71.2.161.
——— 1984: ‘Untersuchungen zur babylonischen Metrik (TeilII)’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 74: 213–84. DOI: 10.1515/zava.1984.74.2.213.
Wachter, R. 2012: ‘The other view: focus on linguistic innovation in the Homeric epics’. In
Ø. Andersen and D. Haug (eds), Relative Chronology of Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 65–79. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511921728.005.
——— 2015 (2000): ‘Grammar of Homeric Greek’, trans. B.W. Millis, S. Strack, S.D. Olson.
In A. Bierl and J. Latacz (eds), Homer’s Iliad: the Basel Commentary. Prolegomena, English
edn. Berlin: De Gruyter, 65–115. DOI: 10.1515/9781501501746-007.
Wasserman, N. 2003: Style and form in Old Babylonian literary texts. Leiden: Brill. DOI:
10.1163/9789004496668.
——— 2020: The ood: the Akkadian sources. A new edition, commentary, and a literary discus-
sion. Leuven: Peeters. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv1q26r79.
West, M.L. 1997a: The east face of Helicon: West-Asiatic elements in Greek poetry and myth. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198150428.001.0001.
——— 1997b: ‘Akkadian poetry: metre and performance’. Iraq 59: 175–87. DOI:
10.2307/4200442.
——— 2011: The making of the Iliad: disquisition and analytical commentary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199590070.001.0001.
Wilcke, C. 1999: ‘Weltuntergang als Anfang: Theologische, anthropologische, politisch-
historische und ästetische Ebenen der Interpretation der Sintutgeschichte im baby-
lonischen Atram-ḫasīs-epos’. In A. Jones (ed.), Weltende, Beiträge zur Kultur- und Religion-
swissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz Verlag, 63–112.
——— 2000: Wer las und schrieb in Babylonien und Assyrien: Überlegungen zur Literalität im
alten Zweistromland. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
——— 2012: The Sumerian poem Enmerkar and En-suḫkeš-ana: epic, play, or? Stage craft at the
turn of the third to the second millennium B.C. With a score-edition and a translation of the text.
New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Willi, A. 2011: ‘Homeric language’. In M. Finkelberg (ed.), The Homer-Encyclopedia. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, vol. 3, 458–64.
50 TRADITIONAL VERSE-MAKING IN HOMER AND OLD BABYLONIAN AKKADIAN POETRY
Wisnom, S. 2015: ‘Stress patterns in Enūma eliš: a comparative study’. KASKAL: Rivista di
storia, ambienti e culture del vicino oriente antico 12: 485–502.
——— 2023: ‘Dynamics of repetition in Akkadian poetry’. In S. Helle and G. Konstantopou-
los (eds), The shape of stories: narrative structures in cuneiform literature. Leiden: Brill, 112–
43. DOI: 10.1163/9789004539761_007.
Yakubovich, I. 2017: ‘From Hittite to Homer. The Anatolian Background of Ancient Homeric
Epic. By Mary R. Bachvarova. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Pp. xxxix
+ 649 + 4 tables + 26 gures + 3 maps. £100 (hardback)’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 76:
363–66. DOI: 10.1086/693863.
Yasumura, N. 2011: Challenges to the power of Zeus in early Greek poetry. London: Bristol Clas-
sical Press.
Ziegler, N. 2007: Les musiciens et la musique d’après les archives de Mari. Paris: Société pour
l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien.
——— 2011: ‘Music: the work of professionals’. In K. Radner and E. Robson (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 288–312. DOI:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557301.013.0014.
——— 2013: ‘Le statut social des musiciens à l’époque paléo-babylonienne’. In S. Emerit
(ed.), Le statut du musicien dans la Méditerranée ancienne: Égypte, Mésopotamie, Grèce, Rome.
Kairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 47–68.