« Is Your Horse Constipated or Suffering from Ischuria?
Main
Helena Zheng »
July 28, 2007
A Horse in Pain or Just a Painful Text?
I continue my look at the Ugaritic veterinary text KTU 1.85 with lines 12-17.
[If you see squares, rectangles or something else that doesn't look right, please install the Charis SIL font.]
12) [k . yi]ḫd . akl . śśw . št . mkšr
13) grn . w . št . aškrr
14) w . pr . ḥḏrt . . ydk . {aḥdh} w . yṣq . b . aph
-------------------------------------------------------
15) w . k . y{i}ḫd . akl . śśw . št . nni
16) w . št . mkšr . grn . w . št
17) irģn . ḥmr . ydk . {aḥdh} w . yṣq . b . aph
In these two sections, we meet our first significant text critical problems. KTU 1.85:15 begins w . k . yaḫd. Notice the "a" in yaḫd. But KTU 1.72:21 reads k . yiḫd . ar(!)l ś[św]. Now notice the "i" in yiḫd. KTU 1.72 is one of the fragmentary copies of this same veterinary document. KTU 1.85 is the most complete of four tablets that contain at least some of the text. KTU 1.72 has its own set of scribal errors. See, for example, arl for akl in KTU 1.72.21. Another fragment, KTU 1.97:2, also reads yiḫd at this location. The evidence from KTU 1.72, KTU 1.97 and the restored KTU 1.85:12 assures the "original" reading yiḫd. Note: the restoration of KTU 1.85:12 is also based on KTU 1.72. While Pardee, 22, reads yaḫd in his presentation of the KTU 1.85 text, at 57, he notes that it is always written yiḫd on the other tablets.
Cohen and Sivan, 9, correctly restore aḥdh in lines 14 and 17 of the composite text. They, 47, list these errors under "omissions." KTU 1.72:20, 24 confirms both restorations.
Now for my translation:
When pain (or ravishing hunger?) grips a horse, one crushes a measure of average quality (?) leak(?), a measure of AŠKRR (henbane ?) and lettuce seeds together, and pours it into its nose.Alternatively, when pain (or ravishing hunger?) grips a horse, one crushes a measure NNI plant, a measure of average quality (?) leak (?) together and a measure of donkey (?)IRĠN plant, and pours it into its nose.
Starting with the symptom itself, every technical expression in these two sections is a matter of uncertainty and controversy. While I won't rehearse every issue, a few of them must be mentioned. If one relies on the highest frequency definitions of the words yiḫd . akl . śśw in lines 12 and 15 one might translate the symptom, "food seizes a horse, or less likely "a horse seizes food," or the passive equivalents of these two translations. On the one hand, Pardee, 57-58, builds on one of the "obvious" translations and suggests that horses over eating some specific food that may get colic or the like. He cites Greek βούιμοσ, "ravenous hunger," and Latin bulimus as ailments needing treatment. Pardee understands akl as some kind of cereal, the object of this ravenous hunger. On the other hand, Cohen and Savin, 25-27 take akl to mean "pain." They cite Akkadian akālu, which in some contexts, connotes being consumed with pain. Their best example comes from a Neo-Assyrian medical text. I don't think one can be too dogmatic in selecting between these two suggestions. I have followed Cohen and Sivan because I see considerable influence from Akkadian medical texts in this document and because of how I understand aškrr in line 13. I do recognize considerable circularity in second part of this reasoning. See below. But neither Cohen and Savin's nor Pardee's suggestion can be ruled out. I do tend to agree with Cohen and Sivan, 27, that de Moor's, 178, n 34, translation "the larva of a gadfly has seized" is unlikely.
I have taken up the suggestion of Cohen and Sivan that grn in lines 13 and 16, means "of average quality." This would indicate a different root than the common grn meaning "threshing-floor." See Akkadian gurnu, "of average quality." Also, note that grn, meaning "threshing floor," is always preceded by a preposition. But I am not so sure that such a meaning extends to ḥmr in line 17. Cohen and Sivan translate irģn . ḥmr, "ḥmr quality irģn." I do agree with them that ḥmr, qualifies irģn in some way. "ḥmr" "normally" means one of two things in Ugaritic: "donkey" and a dry measure (homer). The preceding št excludes "homer" in this context. Despite a suggestion that it might mean "semen," irģn is very likely some kind of plant. I think there are only two real possibilities here. One might simply read "donkey irģn" (i.e. a specific kind of irģn plant), as I do or "irģn fit for a donkey." The latter is closer to Cohen and Sivan's interpretation. Anyone interested in a full recital of all the possibilities and impossibilities for the phrase should consult Cohen and Savin, 30-31, and Pardee, 60-62.
Then there is aškrr in line 13. Can this possibly be a Semitic word? Dietrich and Lorenz, 39, think it might be Hurrian. Cohan and Savin, 27, note Akkadian šakirû meaning which may mean henbane. Henbane has anesthetic and psychoactive properties. While the identification of šakirû with henbane is at best tentative (as is the identification of šakirû with aškrr), Akkadian medical texts do mention šakirû. If this word does indeed mean henbane, it might strengthen the argument that the symptom being treated is pain. Pardee, 59, cites Akkadian ašqulālu. ašqulālu appears in jungbabylonisch as a marine plant of some kind with possible medicinal value. Despite a few minor problems, I like Pardee's suggestion at the etymological level. But I believe Cohan and Sivan's suggest has more explanatory power in the current context.
Pardee, 60, even worries about pr . ḥḏrt, "fruit of lettuce" in line 14, although it seems clear enough to me. Cohen and Savin, 29 note Akkadian zēr ḫassī, "lettuce seeds."
References:
de Moor, Johannes Cornelius, 1980 "El, the Creator," Gary Rendsburg, et al eds. The Bible World: essays in honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, New York: Institute of Hebrew Culture and Education of New York University, 1980, 171-187
Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Lorenz, "Zur Ugaritischen Lexikographie XII," Ugarit Forschungen 6, Münster: Verlag Butzon and Bercher Keverlaer, 1974, 39-46.
Pardee, Dennis, Les Textes Hippiatriques, Ras Shamra-Ougarit II, Paris: Editons Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985
Posted by Duane Smith at July 28, 2007 6:56 PM | Read more on Ugarit |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2198
Comments
Do you really think that CAT 1.72, 1.85 and 1.97 are all copies (in whatever genetic order), or are they all part of the same series?
The reason I ask is that I haven't really run across any true copies of alphabetic texts at Ugarit. (Even CAT 1.41 and 1.87 aren't true copies. They both use the same monthly ritual but append different rites to the end.)
Posted by: Jim Getz at July 28, 2007 9:27 PM
Jim,
It's hard to say. You are correct that there aren't many if any identical copies of anything, even mundane exercises. I've often wandered about that. And there are obvious differences between the four fragments. I have a theory about all this and near the end of this series, if I think I can maintain it, I just may do a post on the issue. Having said that, there is considerable commonality between the four fragments as far as they over lap and many of the differences can be explained as stenographic errors and scribal errors.
Posted by: Duane at July 28, 2007 10:02 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.