In this article, I shall analyse, from the perspective of the history of religions, the myth of Nergal and Ereškigal. In my view, it exemplifies some of the concerns of cosmogonic myths, specifical...
Gods and Power in Mesopotamia: Nergal English Français Deutsch Italiano Share Facebook Twitter Google+ "> Home Catalogue of 625 journals OpenEdition Search All OpenEdition English Français Deutsch Italiano A digital resources portal for the humanities and social sciences OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries and institutions OpenEdition Freemium Our services OpenEdition Search Newsletter Follow us HomeNuméros96/4Gods and Power in Mesopotamia: Ne... Skip to navigation – Site map Revue des sciences religieuses Search Contents - Next document 96/4 | 2022Varia Gods and Power in Mesopotamia: Nergal A Study in Comparative Mythology Dieux et pouvoir en Mésopotamie : Nergal. Une étude de mythologie comparée Paola Corrente p. 339-357 https://doi.org/10.4000/rsr.12774 Abstract | Index | Outline | Text | Notes | References | About the author Abstracts Français English Cet article concerne le dieu mésopotamien Nergal et le mythe Nergal et Ereškigal. Il s’agit d’une exploration de la mythologie, car, de l’avis de l’autrice, ce mythe provient de thèmes récurrents dans les mythes d’origine, comme la création et l’organisation du cosmos et de la société divine, le pouvoir et la succession entre les dieux. Les mythes cosmogoniques, et la typologie des divinités qui leur sont liées, existent partout dans le monde, ce qui fait de la comparaison une méthodologie applicable. De même, compte tenu de la nature spécifique de ces mythes, plusieurs questions de nature théorique, englobant la mythologie, la religion et la littérature, doivent être abordées. L’objectif de l’article est de proposer une lecture originale du Nergal et Ereškigal, en abordant les questions majeures de l’étude historique des religions et en s’appuyant sur la comparaison avec d’autres mythes de Mésopotamie, d’Ougarit et de Grèce. This article is about the Mesopotamian god Nergal and the myth Nergal and Ereškigal. It is an exploration of mythology, because, in the author’s view, this myth originates from recurrent themes in origin myths, like the creation and organization of the cosmos and divine society, and power and succession among gods. Cosmogonic myths and the typology of deities related to them exist all around the world, which makes comparison a viable methodology. Equally, considering the specific nature of this kind of myths, several issues of a theoretical nature, encompassing mythology, religion and literature, need to be addressed. The goal of this article is to offer an original reading of the Nergal and Ereškigal poem, by dealing with major issues in the historical study of religions and drawing on comparisons with other myths from Mesopotamia, Ugarit and Greece. Top of page Index terms Index de mots-clés : Nergal, royauté, cosmogonies, mythologie, histoire des religions, comparaison, politique, Grèce, Ougarit Index by keyword: Nergal, kingship, cosmogonies, mythology, history of religions, comparison, politics, Greece, UgaritTop of page Outline I. The Nergal and Ereškigal and the poetry of power Nergal, Inanna/Ištar and Ereškigal Nergal, Enlil and Ninurta vs Ea Ugarit and Greece II. The Nergal in the mythology of kingshipTop of page Full text PDF 311kOpen Access FreemiumInfoPDF and ePub files are available to readers via institutions subscribing to OpenEdition Freemium for Journals. Has your institution subscribed to the Freemium programme for Journals? Send by e-mail 1In this article, I shall analyse, from the perspective of the history of religions, the myth of Nergal and Ereškigal. In my view, it exemplifies some of the concerns of cosmogonic myths, specifically the important question of succession among gods. 1 Comparison in the history of religion is a much debated topic, with a number of studies. See the r (...) 2As a comparative investigation on mythological texts, my study is fraught with theoretical problems, mainly concerning the nature of comparison as a method, a matter yet to be tackled in depth. I cannot exhaustively engage here with such challenging issues,1 so I will refer to the points of concern in this work. 3Myths involve various hermeneutic strategies because they have multiple levels of interpretation. This means that also the ways of comparing them are innumerable. Hence, the first step is to delimit the investigation, as for the object and methodology: in this article, my focus is the comparative research on the literary-mythological motif of power as found in Mesopotamian, Ugaritic and Greek sources. 2 See V. Propp, Morphology of the Folktale, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1968; C. Booker, The (...) 3 G. S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Function, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1998, p. 172 (...) 4The analysis of narrative contents, that harks back to the studies on myth, folklore and fairy tales, reveals that similarities in plots are very common.2 For my take on the Nergal, an observation by Geoffrey S. Kirk has been particularly enlightening. From his comment on the fact that mythological motifs are limited, simple, and therefore subject to re-elaboration,3 I understand that if a single theme is developed in various stories, myths with similar content should not be read in isolation. With more variants of the same story available, a greater number of interpretations will result. I propose, thus, that the Nergal, as a variation on the theme of kingship, has a specific function within the group of the Mesopotamian myths on it. 4 See W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1992, p. 88. 5 O. Freiberger, “Elements of a Comparative Methodology in the Study of Religion”, Religions 9, 2018 (...) 5In my study, I am not looking for textual correspondences nor historical relations, but for specific similarities (overall structure; details in scenes; characterization of deities) in the stories on divine power.4 My approach, as far as comparison is concerned, is structural and contextual. I borrow the definition of contextual comparison, as “studies that compare in a cultural milieu that can be delineated both spatially and temporally”, from Oliver Freiberger.5 Since the myths on power lie at the foundations of Mediterranean polytheism, my context will be that of the ancient cultures of this area during the Bronze Age. 6The delimitation of terms is necessary, because the topic of divine royal power has been treated both in contextual and intertextual studies. 6 See S. Wisnom, Weapons of Words: Intertextual Competition in Babylonian Poetry, Leiden, Brill, 201 (...) 7 The most recent work on the intertextual interpretation on those topics is Wisnom, Weapons of Word (...) 8 See Kirk, Myth: its Meaning and Function, p. 213-226; G. Casadio, “A proposito di un recente volum (...) 7Intertextuality, as a technique that explores the types of relations among texts, is a growing approach in Assyriology,6 and has in the Enūma eliš, the poem about the rise to power of Marduk of Babylon, a source of connections with other Sumerian-Akkadian masterpieces, such as Anzû, Erra and Išum, or Lugal-e, all of which revolve around the storyline of a warrior god seeking supremacy.7 Likewise, this poem has been a favorite one in comparative studies, because it shares the so-called “kingship in heaven” theme with other poems from the Mediterranean area.8 9 A status quaestionis in Penglase, Greek Myths, chap. 1 and J. Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia. Dia (...) 10 Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, p. 3. 11 Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, p. 18-19. 12 Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, p. 181. 8On the contextual side, Mesopotamian literature was primarily brought to the attention of classicists by Walter Burkert and Martin L. West, who stressed the influence it exerted on Homer and Hesiod. A very promising path was opened, but, despite programmatic declarations on the necessity of comparison, it is seldom followed. For sure, the task of juggling two or more mythologies is far from easy and is plagued with problems. In one of the few contributions specifically devoted to the Greek-Mesopotamian connection,9 Johannes Haubold comments on some of them, while admitting that “neither Assyriology nor Classics have favored comparative works”.10 He recommends a methodological systematization of the specific parallels and rightly points out that, when scholars concentrate on historical links (i.e. which culture has inspired which culture), they take the attention away from the story itself and the broader cultural context where these stories were told:11 in his own words, “establishing literary history” has become more important than “reading literature”.12 13 O. Freiberger, Considering Comparison, p. 4 and 10, talks of “description” and “redescription”. 9Ultimately, I argue that the Nergal and Ereškigal is a myth on power belonging to the typology of heavenly kingship, as parallelisms with other texts lead to believe. For the comparison, my references will be the Baal Cycle, Greek materials and Sumerian-Akkadian poems. My argumentation will have two phases: the comparison and the formulation of an overall explanation of how the Nergal fits into that genre (§ I), thanks to new elements highlighted by comparison (§ II).13 I. The Nergal and Ereškigal and the poetry of power 14 The older version, from Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, dates to the 14th century BC. The more recent one (...) 10The myth Nergal and Ereškigal, in Akkadian, exists in two versions: one older and shorter, and another longer and more detailed.14 The story begins in the sky, with the gods having a banquet. Since Ereškigal cannot join it, her vizier Namtar goes to collect her food: when the gods see him, all but Nergal show their respect by rising and bowing. Ereškigal feels offended by such misconduct and orders Nergal’s death. In the longest version, Nergal goes back and forth from the sky and the netherworld, begins a relationship with Ereškigal and eventually marries her; in the shortest, Nergal plans to kill her, but relents with the offer of kingdom and marriage. 15 A complex god known in Mesopotamia over three millennia, Nergal is connected to vegetation and dea (...) 16 The latest edition and commentary of the myth is S. Ponchia ‒ M. Luukko, The Standard Babylonian M (...) 17 See Wiggerman, “Nergal”, p. 218-219 and Ponchia ‒ Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xxi-xxi (...) 11This is an aetiological myth, as it explains how Nergal becomes the god of the underworld,15 where he rules together with Ereškigal.16 Historically, the Nergal unifies, through the marriage of the two gods, two older traditions (3rd-2nd millennium) on the infernal world, one from the south, focused on Ereškigal and her court, and one from the north, around Nergal of Cutha.17 18 See Ponchia ‒ Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xxxv-xxxix. 12But, as Simonetta Ponchia and Mikko Luukko point out, the late version is a complex text where several traditional literary motifs are re-elaborated and harmonized in an original and entertaining narration. Their analysis is not limited strictly to the text or to the specific timeframe of its composition (synchrony), but encompasses the relation between genres, theological thoughts and the religious-mythological repertoire.18 13As for comparison, the diachronic approach is unpopular, although not utterly incorrect: few gods have a plain and static profile, because they are shaped through long and diverse historical and geographical occurrences. Thus, looking at the aspects of Nergal in a variety of texts and contexts can result in a better understanding of his figure and his myth as a whole. 19 See Ponchia – Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xvi and xviii. See n. 23 and 30. 14For instance, Ponchia ‒ Luukko give space to the uranic facet of Nergal as a son of Enlil and consider him a dual god who can go to the underworld while retaining his prominence in the sky.19 20 See Ponchia ‒ Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xxii-xxvii and xl-lxix. 15For the same reason, they stress his martial nature and his links to the ideology of kingship. The royal inscriptions from Assyria attest that, from the Middle-Assyrian period, Nergal enjoyed the favours of the court because, as a young and strong god, he was a perfect emblem for the military feats and political aspirations of Assyrian kings. Actually, the fortune of Nergal with monarchy goes back to the late 3rd millennium, when Naram-Sîn of Akkad promoted his worship.20 21 See A. Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, Helsinki (...) 22 Ninurta and Nergal were even identified with Enlil. Other deities (Nabû, Marduk) faced this proces (...) 16Another deity cherished by Mesopotamian royalty was Ninurta,21 and several studies have highlighted the various connections that Nergal and Ninurta have, in first place, as warrior sons of Enlil.22 23 Nergal and Erra alternate in the Nergal, too. See S. Chiodi in Pettinato, Nergal ed Ereškigal, p. (...) 24 See Ponchia – Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xvi, lxvi, lxxiv and xc. In Wisnom, Weapons (...) 17Ponchia ‒ Luukko uncover two important aspects in the overall mythology of Nergal that add to the Nergal another nuance: 1) the legitimacy of Nergal’s rulership in the underworld as an heir of Enlil, 2) the correspondence between the ideology of kingship of the hymns and the order/disorder topic of the myths, where young gods (Ninurta, Nergal, Nabû, Marduk) defend the current order fighting against the forces of disorder. The authors mention the Anzû, Enūma Eliš and Erra and Išum (the last contemporary to the Nergal and starring Nergal as his double Erra),23 which, at a different degree, develop this cosmogonic theme.24 18I would go further. The order/disorder issue is tied to succession: de facto, as the Enūma eliš narrates, the victorious warrior who saves the universe and his godly family becomes king. In the light of these observations, I would say that in the Nergal a major subplot revolves around leadership, because Nergal acquires the domain of the underworld, and succession, because, as Enlil’s heir, he is entitled to power. 19The combination of these two elements is present in the mythology of other gods, offspring of Enlil, that have claims to power, but also in myths and deities outside Mesopotamia. Let us look at the parallels the Nergal has with them as for motifs and characterization of gods in Mesopotamia (first and second instance) and foreign cultures (third instance). Nergal, Inanna/Ištar and Ereškigal 20These three gods engage in the game of power that ensues from their status as Enlil’s children and heirs. 25 I cannot deal here with Inanna/Ištar’s tradition. See P. Corrente, Dioniso e gli dèi morenti: stor (...) 21Particularly, Inanna/Ištar is a war goddess, like her brothers, and is very much involved in the search for power at the expense of the great gods.25 26 For a discussion see Corrente, Dioniso e gli dèi morenti, p. 169-185. See n. 32. 22In the Descent, she does a catabasis, a journey to the underworld, with the clear intention of seizing the reign from her sister.26 Many Mesopotamian myths talk of a traveling deity, but not always the journey’s aim is power. 27 See Corrente, Dioniso e gli dèi morenti, p. 237-248. An exception could be Enlil because, in Enlil (...) 28 See Annus, The God Ninurta, p. 24-39 and Penglase, Greek Myths, chap. 3. Here, the author studies, (...) 29 For Ningišzida who, like Nergal, goes to the underworld to become an official at Ereškigal’s court (...) 30 The tight correlation between these two gods’ myths is not casual, as they match in many details, (...) 23Some describe journeys to the underworld that have the vegetation as scene and the dying gods as protagonists, where the power is not present.27 In others, the journey is not towards the netherworld, but it is motivated by power, as for Ninurta.28 With Inanna/Ištar and Nergal29 the two features match, since they make a catabasis for the high position in the hands of Ereškigal,30 whom they confront. 31 ETCSL 1.8.1.4 (https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.1.4#). 32 Inanna/Ištar is killed. This is a controversial issue: see Corrente, Dioniso e gli dèi morenti, p. (...) 33 This marriage works brilliantly given the two gods’ complementary characteristics: Ereškigal, who (...) 24On her part, Ereškigal is the only among Enlil’s offspring to have inherited from the reigning gods, according to the Sumerian text Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld, where she is said to have received the underworld as a gift.31 And, in the Nergal and the Descent, she protects her position against the prospective usurpers. In the Descent, she prevails in a dramatic way,32 while in the Nergal her victory is more subtle. Up to the end she plays the part of an insecure queen and a sad woman who longs for love, but what she really obtains with the final marriage is how to prevent Nergal from killing her and taking away her kingdom.33 Nergal, Enlil and Ninurta vs Ea 34 See B. Foster, Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, Bethesda (MD), Pennsylvania (...) 25Earlier we have seen the identification of gods with regard to royalty. This similarity also appears in their representation in the myths on power, alongside the presence of Enki/Ea in his typical role of the good genius who solves issues. This combination of themes and gods could be simply considered typical for this kind of narrative, however, a cross-reading of myths where authority is at stake suggests a particular interpretation of Enki/Ea’s behavior that puts emphasis on his motivations; particularly, in the Nergal he appears to have strong reasons for wanting Nergal in the underworld.34 35 The oldest version, instead, looks like an actual military expedition. See J. Bottéro ‒ S. N. Kram (...) 26In his myth, Nergal shows no martial attribute and is heedless and fearful:35 he is a “cowardly” war god, so to speak, a depiction that evokes the characterization of his father, the “confused” chief god of the Anzû and Atraḫasīs. In these stories, both gods cannot deal with problems until Ea intervenes. 36 See Annus, The God Ninurta, chap. 3. 27Enki/Ea is very active in the Sumerian myths of Ninurta as well. Ninurta is the god most connected to kingship and has an actual mythological cycle on it: the Lugal-e and Anzû develop the narrative nucleus of order/disorder and the Angim and Ninurta’s visit to Enki the theme of the victorious hero’s investiture.36 But, in the Ninurta and the turtle, Enki humiliates Ninurta when he asks him for a fairer recompense (the supreme power?) after his exploits against Anzû. 37 Enki/Ea is a master of magic, and magic is a way of tricking. On this god, see § II. 28In these cases, Enki/Ea’s actions trigger the disgrace of Enlil, the fall of Ninurta and the banishing of Nergal, revealing the less pleasant side of a god who is usually deemed good, when he is in fact a naturally ambiguous deity.37 38 The patron god of Babylon, Marduk in origin had a blurred personality, and he probably shared the (...) 29Enki/Ea’s help turns quickly into manipulation for his own advantage once we consider it with the asset of the Enūma eliš in mind. In it, Marduk becomes king in a curious move, at least, as he is not Enlil’s son and originally does not have the features of a warrior,38 two of the requirements for succession. 39 Possibly, Nergal’s epithets “junior Enlil” and “Enlil of the underworld” are the best proof of this (...) 40 Nergal and Ninurta are among the few deities who has an “exaltation”, the celebration for reaching (...) 30The unfortunate events of our myths, then… truncated (41,123 more characters in archive)