The Rhetoric of the Kilamuwa Inscription M. O'Connor Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 226. (Apr., 1977), pp. 15-29. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-097X%28197704%290%3A226%3C15%3ATROTKI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is currently published by The American Schools of Oriental Research.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/asor.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org Thu Mar 29 15:27:38 2007
The Rhetoric of the Kilamuwa Inscription
M. O'CONNOR Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Introduction The Kilamuwa Inscription (KAI 24) from 9th century Anatolia has been known and studied for over 70 years. Nonetheless, this record of royal braggadocio, one of the firmest foundations for our knowledge of the dialect of Phoenician spoken in Tyre and Sidon and a major textbook for political propaganda of the period, is still not entirely understood and The problematic features the text be discussed in this paper with a special view to refuting Collins' thesis (1971) is a poem. At the Outset, that the however, it should be noted that Collins' treatment is the first to take serious account of the structure of the text Though we cannot say that the inscription is a poem, we must own that its verbal sophistication is unequaled in the Phoenician corpus, perhaps even in the entire ancient Near Eastern inscriptions, aside from the Akkadian royal hymns and epics. In the first part of the paper, a close review of Collins' arguments is provided. There follows the text, a translation and a commentary on some points of philological interest neglected by KA Iand Collins. The third section presents a structural analysis of the text with some discussion of the traditional character of Kilamuwa's rhetoric. The Supposed Poetic Character of the Text The recent development of the study of Canaanite poetry hardly has been smooth, and there is no reason to suppose it will become so in the near future. Indeed, all considerations of the subject will be given pause by the recognition of two Neo-Punic texts as poems written in rhyme by Krahmalkov (1975); the texts are the Great Mactar Lintel (KAI 145) and the more recently discovered lintel from Mactar published by Fevrier and Fantar (1963-64). While Greek, Latin, or even Berber influences
cannot be excluded in these cases, it is striking that the Neo-Punic texts are structured around a poetic device which, though previously unknown in Northwest Semitic dialects, is important for Semitic poetics as a whole. It is largely because of developments like this one that there is no scholarly consensus on such elementary matters as the role which line length a n d structure, organization, and alliteration play in the poetry of the Hebrew Bible and of the Ugaritic texts. This lack of consensus makes the evaluation of proposals like Collins, difficult, but it seems necessary to accept the deficiency and assert that to describe a text in a dialect related to Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic but distinct from them as a poem, using the criteria of those bodies of poetry, is to generalizein advance of a clear appreciation of the data, Collins. arguments, nonetheless, deserve to be reviewed in some detail, His paper is marred by consideration of several spurious and misleading Dhenomena which should be removed from consideration before dealing with its more substantive parts. It is my purpose then to deal with an important source of confusion in the study of Northwest Semitic poetry generally, the evaluation of alliteration patterns.
Arguments Dealing with Verse Structure and Related Matters Collins begins by laying out what he takes to be the lines of the supposed verse. These lines simply reflect basic syntactic facts about the language. If a sentence is fairly short, Collins makes it stand by itself as a half-line; if it is long, he divides it up with caesuras or line breaks at a variety of major syntactic cuts. The cuts used are quite diverse and they are utilized rather arbitrarily. Any arguments based on the results of this approach are only artifacts of the theory. Collins sets out I I lines in the top half of the inscription, after lopping off the first line as "a general heading to the whole text . . .
16
M. O'CONNOR
balanced by the picture of the king whose name [it] announce[s]." He claims that these 11 lines "group naturally according to sense" into couplets and tercets (Collins 1971: 185). Whatever little we know about Northwest Semitic poetry, we may feel free to assume that there was nothing natural about it, any more than there is anything natural about any other poetry. The grouping "according to sense," i.e., presumably according to syntactic form and topic, merely reflects Collins' assumptions and is not therefore to be taken as an independent argument. The same is true of the suggestion that the line count of the text, 22, reflects in some meaningful way the number of letters in the Canaanite alphabet (Collins 1971: 188). He refers to these sentences as chiastic: mikbm '1 ykbd Ibcrrm wb7rrm ' I ykbd Imikbm "May the mikbm not honor the bcrrm.And may the bcrrm not honor the mikbm" (lines 14-15). He is using chiasm in a way unrelated to either Greek rhetorical or ordinary modern usage (Brown: 1965). The Question of Alliteration The last of Collins' extrinsic arguments concerns what he calls "unified pattern[s] of key letters" (Collins 1971: 185). I want to show that the patterns to which Collins refers do not exist as such; furthermore, arguments of this variety need to be reconsidered as a whole. There are two patterns, both in the first half of the text; the absence of any in the second half should in itself make us suspicious. The first pattern is that of the b's which are positioned at or near the start of the second halves of his first six lines; the words in question are bl(five times) and br. This pattern is in fact the result of word repetition and cannot be separated from that phenomenon, a subject which Collins treats well and to which we shall return below. The second pattern is like the first. It is associated with the four k's at or near the start of the first six lines, three of which are in the word kn. Again, the question is one of word repetition. Collins then suggests the possibility of reading br tm Rm3i in line 4, the conjectured k being at the start of one of his lines. He comments apropos of both the b and k patterns: "There can be no doubt that the poet has intentionally included an artistic arrangement of significant letters" (Collins 1971: 185). On the contrary, one would have doubts even if the patterns were not largely lexical. We shall return to these presently. Collins later extends the k pattern to include three more lines. Out of the total of nine
BASOR 226
lines in the first half of the text, seven have k in or near the initial positioni, if we allow the dubious textual emendation suggested. Of these, four are in the word kn and two in the word km. The question remains one of word repetition. The larger problem of alliteration raised by Collins and more recently by Fitzgerald (1974) deserves more attention, since these scholars are far from being alone in trying to advance the case for the distinctiveness of alliteration in Northwest Semitic poetry. Neither Collins nor Fitzgerald deals with the basic questions concerning the status of the phenomenon of alliteration and of the possible varieties of alliteration to be expected. In characterizing a body of poetry, it is customary to isolate certain features as being of such high frequency as to be more or less definitional. It seems clear that Northwest Semitic poetry is not so frequently alliterative that anyone would claim that such patterning was definitional. Alliteration must be relegat-ed, it seems, to the category of devices used to undergird poetic structure. It is also obvious that it verges on folly to speak of any alliteration beyond the consonantal in a dead language. This is a point which Collins and Fitzgerald both appreciate. What neither does appreciate is that the variety of alliteration usable in a language is related to facts about that language: first, the nature of the linguistic-prosodic system of the language ("Alliteration . . . is more prominent in the poetry of languages with stress accent . . . whereas in languages with tone systems or quantitative structures it is completely absent . . . or used rarely." [Goldsmith: 19651) and second, the structure of the phonological system. As soon as one claims the existence of perceptible alliteration patterns in a language, he is making claims about these and related facts in the language, which in the case of a dead language need to be made as explicit as possible. The second of these points, phonological structure, is easier to discuss than the first, because the data are somewhat more accessible. One of the basic features of the structure of the phonological system of the West Semitic languages (as in all languages with affixing word structure), is that the sounds used in the affixes form a proper subset of the sounds common to the languages. The sounds in this subset are in some sense the simplest of the phonological subgroups to which they belong and the commonest sounds in the languages. The phenomenon is in fact a scalar one. Some sounds have an unimpeachable membership in the group,
1977
THE RHETORIC O F THE KILAMUWA INSCRIPTION
while others belong to it more or less clearly, depending on the nature of their use as affixes. I shall proceed, however, as if the group were strictly definable since that is sufficient for our purposes. The subset of the sounds of the West Semitic languages involved could be defined in a purely inductive fashion, based on frequency counts. Indeed, it will have to be if this line of inquiry is to be pursued, but that definition would sidetrack us too long here. 1 suggest as a first approximation of this subset, all vowels (which we will otherwise leave aside) and all consonants characteristic of verbal and nominal inflection, the elements of the major pronoun series, and the monographic prepositions. I use these terms as an approach to the approximation. Having defined the set in this way, it is easy to show further that these consonants are responsible for almost all variations in verb-stem shape in inflection and that they make up the root structure of all the so-called bi-radical and monoradical nouns in the languages. We have two excellent native-speaker analyses of the consonantal systems of the West Semitic dialects which have a partial phonological base and which tend to confirm this cursory examination; these are the alphabets. If we underscore all consonants of the affixional subset, we note certain patterns in the alphabet orders directly: Northwest Semitic
Southwest Semitic
Since the analyses which underlie these orders are graphic as well as phonological, the division is not complete. However, the fact that both alphabets use only four groups is striking. What I want to suggest is that in further examination of the question of the existence of poetic alliteration in the ancient Northwest Semitic languages, alliterative patterns dealing with only these most common sounds be regarded as secondary to those involving other sounds. In other words, groups of identical emphatics warrant investigation; groups of glides do not. Any such examination would have to be coupled with consideration of the linguistic-prosodic questions already mentioned. Having laid out these guidelines, we may look at the cases presented by Collins and Fitzgerald.
17
Collins' cases, even apart from our strictures about word repetition, fall under the suggested ban, as do Fitzgerald's, for the most part. Fitzgerald contends that "the whole of Psalm 29 in substantially its present form was written by a Canaanite, that the original divine name in the psalm was 'Baal,' and the Israelite adaptation of the psalm involved simply the substitution of 'Yahweh' for 'Baal'," since "requently enough the alliterative pattern of a piece of poetry fits the divine name that appears therein" (Fitzgerald 1974: 61). The plan is sound but the fact that two of the three consonants in bcl fall into the affixional subset weakens the argument severely. Further, of the 22 lines in Fitzgerald's breakdown of the poem, only six show one 'ayin with which the one safe consonant in bcl could alliterate (w Ib, 3b, c, 9b, lob, 1lb) and only one shows two 'ayin's (v Ila). Fitzgerald's argument has two parts: first, that Baal "fits" the poem and second, that Yahweh does not. The first part of his argument is defective, as I have shown. Judgment on the second part must await reconsideration of the phonological framework outlined above. Structured Word Repetition Having reviewed these problematic features of his presentation, we are left with the core of Collins' argument: structured word repetition. The following are the cases he recognized: I. yd (line 6 bis) 2. mlkm (lines 5, 6) 3. mlk (lines 7, 8) 4. 'lv (lines 7, 8) 5. 'nk (lines 9, 10, 13) 6. my (lines 11, 12, 13, 15) 7. mikbm (lines 13, 14, 15) 8. gbr (lines 2, 15) 9. bmh (lines 3, 16) Three preliminary points about his treatment may be mentioned. He reads the two cases in #4 as suffixed differently, and so they should be excluded from his list; they probably are suffixed identically, however, and so we retain them here. Apropos of #6, he says, "In particular there is an alliterative (though not of course morphological) echo in the repetitions of wmy and lmy" (Collins 1971: 188). As far as present knowledge extends, there is morphological identity of all the occurrences of the personal indefinite pronoun. Finally, he notes that the last two cases are distinctive, since they form a structurally important ring around the text.
M. O'CONNOR The contribution of Collins' paper is its recognition of the significance of these repetitions. We hope here to give that significance its due, but first we must emphatically reject Collins' use of the designation "poetry." As he himself points out, the features of Northwest-Semitic poetry traditionally recognized by moderns are absent-there is no regularity of syllable count or stress pattern-or represented only in attenuated form-"Parallelism is present, but does not dominate. . . .Antithetical parallelism is more frequent" (Collins 1971: 188). More significantly, Collins' line breakdown does not exhibit the syntactic regularities characteristic of Northwest-Semitic poetry. Indeed, it exhibits none at all. His lines are of widely varying structures, whereas Northwest Semitic poetic lines, as a result of a constraint on poetic form, exhibit significantly few syntactic structures. To put the argument on a more immediate base, we may say that there is no sequence of three sentences in either the Hebrew Bible or the Ugaritic corpus with structures like those in the following sentences which any scholar would choose to call a single line of poetry: w'nk Imy kt ' b w1m.y kt ' m wlmy kt ' h , "To some I was a father. And to some I was a mother. And to some I was a brother" (lines 10-1 I). However, Collins treats this as a single line. Further, his lines vary in the number of caesuras they contain and, given that the existence of the caesura in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry is not clear, it seems unwise to introduce such a free variable into the analysis of the writing of a less wellknown dialect. Finally, the cases of parallelism adduced by Collins do not seem to correspond to the phenomena usually designated by that term. Another feature of Hebrew poetry, which, though not a necessary condition for it, verges on being a sufficient one, is verb gapping. This is the syntactic feature which is responsible for the difference between the following two English sentences: Niqmaddu spoke Ugaritic, David spoke Hebrew, and Esarhaddon spoke Akkadian. Niqmaddu spoke Ugaritic, David Hebrew, and Esarhaddon Akkadian. In Biblical Hebrew, the following sentences might well have occurred: *mn 'rm ~xhnyblq. mlk mw'b j-hnl?mhrrl, qdm, "Balaq brought me from Aram. The king of Moab brought me from the eastern hill country." As it happens, the following does occur:
BASOR 226
mn 'rm yhny blq mlk mw'b mhrry qdm (Num 23:7b). What I am contending is that the first of these would be Biblical Hebrew prose, while the second is surely poetry, and that the absence of a verb in the second line of the second example illustrates an important feature of Biblical Hebrew poetry. To be sure, there are many cases of Biblical Hebrew poetry in which this feature is not present and at least a few cases of prose in which it is. Now, there is a single case of verb gapping in this text, our S19 (see below). Collins does not comment on the syntax of this line, but he does appreciate its import. Although a great deal is said about the sentence below, no explanation of this feature of its syntax is offered. Rosenthal (1965: 654) also recognizes the problem and classifies the line as a proverb. The scaffolding of Collins' argument remains standing, but after the supporting buttresses have been pushed away and a close scrutiny has been applied to what remains, it is dubious that the original edifice is still upright. The Kilamuwa inscription cannot be called poetry in any usable sense of the term. We must call it what we call the best political propaganda in any language: brilliant rhetorical prose. Were it to come to our attention as a contemporary document, we would dismiss it as a flat, ephemeral pamphlet; it is of interest to us only because the times in which it was written are of concern. Since there are points of philological interest which deserve reconsideration, we proceed next to a review of the text and then to a consolidation of Collins' contribution in an overall survey of how this antique flyer was designed to persuade some 1st millennium B.C.E. southern Anatolians of a small number of statements which are probably simply false. It may be heartening to speculate beforehand on how few people could read and be taken in by a text written in a prestige dialect spoken chiefly in far southern lands. Text, Translation, and Commentary Text The text is divided here into sentences, i.e., grammatically self-contained units; the sentential breakdown is for the most part self-evident. In using this approach, I am following Andersen (1966). The reader will immediately realize the questionable points in this breakdown: is it correct to separate S10 and S I I ; S14, S15, and S16; S20 and S21; and S31, S32, and S33? In the absence of a complete
1977
T H E RHETORIC O F T H E KILAMUWA INSCRIPTION
study of Northwest Semitic syntax, any definitive answer is impossible. I can only say that virtually all of my observations on the structure of the text would retain their validity even if all these pairs of sentences are combined t o form single sentences. The proposals of Poebel (1932: 40-43) regarding
19
the syntax of the opening lines are unnecessary, though they are still defended by Gelb (1962: 204). Controversial restorations and readings are discussed in t h e c o m m e n t a r y ; t h e text is substantially that of KAI. Line numbers of the original are given in parentheses.
Translation S l . (1)'nk klmw br hy['] S2. (2)mlk gbr C ly'dy S3. ~ b l p [ ~ l ] S4. ( 3 ) k n b m h S5. w b l p c l S6. w k n ' b hy' S7. w b l p c l S8. w k n ' h (4) S'l S9. wbl pCl S10. w'n[k] klmw br tmS 1 I. m'S p Clt (5) bl p cl hlpnjlhm S12. k n bt ' b y b m t k t m l k m 'd(6)rm S 13. wkl Slh yd ll[h]m S14. wkt byd m l k m S15. km's' ' k l t (7) zqn S 16. w k m ' i ' k l t yd S17. w'dr '119 mlk d [ n ] n y m S18. wSkr (8) ' n k '1v mlk 's'r S19. ' l m t ytn bS wgbr bswt
S20. (9)'nk klmw br h?~' S21. ySbt ' 1 ks' 'b?] S22. Ipn h m ( l 0 ) l k m hlpnym ytlwn mSkbm k m klbm S23. w'nk lmy k t ' b S24. wlmy k t ' m S25. (1l)wlmy k t ' h S26. w m y bl h z p n S Sty bcl ' d r S27. wmy bl h z p n ' l p Sty bcl (12) bqr wbcl ksp wbClhrs
S28. w m y bl h z k t n Imn ' r y wbym?] ks.v b ( 1 3 ) ~ S29. w'nk tmkt mSkbm Iyd S30. whmt St nbS k m nbS vtm b'm
S 1. I am Kilamuwa bir Haya.
S2. Gabbar ruled Ya'diya.
S3. And he did nothing.
S4. BMH also ruled Ya'diya.
S5. And he did nothing.
S6. My father Haya' also ruled Ya'diya.
S7. And he did nothing.
S8. My brother S'L also ruled Ya'diya.
S9. And he did nothing.
S10. And I am Kilamuwa bir TM-.
S11. (My) predecessors did not d o all that I
have done. S12. My father's house was in the midst of mighty kings. S 13. And each stretched forth his hand to fight. S14. And I was in the hand of th(os)e kings. S15. Like a fire I consumed the beard. S16. And like a fire I consumed the hand. S17. The king of the Danunians was more powerful than me. S 18. But I engaged against him the king of Assyria. S19. One had to pay a young woman for a sheep and a man for a garment.
S20. I am Kilamuwa bir Haya'.
S21. I reign on my father's throne.
S22. Before the preceding kings, the mSkbm
cringed like dogs. S23. T o some (of them), I was a father. S24. And to some, I was a mother. S25. And to some, I was a brother. S26. I made a man who had never seen a sheep's face lord of a flock. S27. I made a man who had never seen an ox's face lord of a herd and a lord of silver and a lord of gold. S28. A man who had not seen linen since his childhood in my days wore byssos. S29. And I took the mSkhm by the hand. S30. And they showed (me) affection like the affection of a fatherless child toward (his) mother.
20
M. O'CONNOR S3 1. wmy bbn(l4)y 'S yib thtn wyzq bspr z S32. ms'kbm 'I ykbd Ibcrrm S33. wbcrr(15)m 'I ykbd lmikbm S34. wmy y$zt hspr z viht r3Sbcl smd 'S lgbr S35. (16)wy$ztr's'bCI hmn 'ilbmh wrkb'lbcl bt
Commentary S4. kn. Although there can be no doubt that kn here is the Phoenician verb "to be," it is interesting to note that the form was taken as cognate to BH kFn, "thus," by Gressman (19 12:442),Torrey (191517: 365), HalCvy (1912: 25), Littmann (191 1: 979), Miiller (1912: 2l),and Bauer (1913: 384). This misunderstanding offers interesting testimony to the strangeness of the construction. Similarly, Landsberger (1948: 53) renders "es war BMH (da)" and Poebel (1932: 34), "es war (darauf) X." Accentuating the difficulty even more, Jean and Hoftijzer translate "B. rkgna" (DISO: 117.18). The problem is that the simple existential use of an "existential" verb seems out of place in Phoenician. The Hebrew existentials hyh and yi, when they stand alone, are most often used to predicate that something is the case or is at hand. In the grammar of GKC, the possibility of the simple existential use (i.e., "X is") of hyh or yidoes not even seem to be considered (see $5 365-66,377,477). BDBdoes attribute such a sense to hyh, but only in 1 Sam 1:28 and Gen 1:3 (etc.) does hyh seem to behave as a simple existential, and even in those cases it may well serve only as a temporal marker (see BDB, s. v. hyh, 111.I). BDBalso seems to attribute such a sense to yS, but in none of its examples does yS function correspondingly. For example, in 1 Sam 9:12, yS clearly does not predicate Samuel's existence (which would do Saul no good at all), but rather his being at hand, in fact, up the road a piece (see BDB, s.v. yS, zl is "some2a). Gordon's comment that Ugaritic ' times to be translated 'exists' (49: III.3,9,21)" is not convincing (UT 19.418). The speaker in the passage cited is asking for a token of Bacal's availability as lord of the cosmos, rather than proof of something so abstract as existence. It is possible that kn functions here as an auxiliary (parallel to its use in the so-called pluperfect) and that S4 and S5, for example, should be rendered together, "It was the case that BMH did nothing." Another possibility is that it serves as a marker reflecting a Verb Phrase deletion transformation
BASOR 226
S31. And whoever of my sons who shall reign in my place and damage this inscriptionS32. May the mfkbm not honor the bcrrm. S33. And may the bcrrm not honor the ms'kbm. S34. And whoever expunges this inscription -may Gabbar's bclsmdsmash his head. S35. And may BMH's bcl hmn, and rkb'l, the dynastic deity, smash his head. which would rewrite the verb phrase of a sentence as kn on condition of identity with the verb phrase of a sentence higher in the discourse, the equivalent of English did so, too. It is noteworthy that in this variety of elevated prose, another sentence (wbl p 4) is allowed to intervene; the reason that it is not subject to the deletion is presumably one of focus. Some such understanding of the syntax seems to be reflected in the Jean and Hoftijzer translation. The three possibilities are, then, that kn is a simple existential, an auxiliary, or a marker of a Verb Phrase deletion transformation. I cannot present here any data which would help settle the question; I prefer the last possibility. S8. 'h. The orthography and morphology of the Tyrian-Sidonian Phoenician (=TSP) suffixes are well understood. The contention of Rollig (KAI:11, 32) and Collins (197 1: 184) that 'h here could stand for "his brother" is wrong. Cross and Freedman point out that the proper vocalization is *'ahi and that "a reading 'his brother' is not permissible. The latter would appear as 'hy in the orthography of this period" (Cross and Freedman 1952: 16; also Cross and Freedman: 1951). The most recent general discussion is by Krahmalkov (1970; cf. Teixidor [1971]). S11. hlpnyhm. This form has never been explained adequately. The principal approaches to the form regard it as a mason's error or as a morphological aberration. Littmann (191 1: 98081) first proposed "normalizing" hlpnyhm to hlpnym (cf. S22). Herrmann (1953) more recently observed that this "normalization" can be carried out in such a way as to resolve another supposed crux, llhm (S13) with only a single textual change: "die umstrittene h [of lpnyhm] exakt uber den beiden Lamed, die in Zeile 6 zur Form llhm gehoren, auf Lucke steht. Die Vermutung scheint mir nahezuliegen, dass dieuberschussige h in Zeile 5 urspriinglich zwischen den beiden Lamed der Zeile 6 gestanden hat, so dass sich dort die vorgeschlagene Form lhlhm [i.e., a NipCalInfinitive
1977
THE RHETORIC O F THE KILAMUWA INSCRIPTION
of Ihm, 'bekriegen'] ergabe. . . .Am leichtesten ware die Irrtum zu verstehen, wenn wir annehmen, dass der Steinmetz das h der Form lhlhm in seine Vorlage hineinkorrigiert fand und es auf falsch bezog." This elegant explanation has been accepted by Rollig (KAI: 11, 32). The explanations by appeal to morphology may be cited: Haltvy (1912: 26), Torrey (1915- 17: 366) Montgomery (1928: 197), Poebel(1932: 36), Cross and Freedman (1952: 16-17), and Jean and Hoftijzer (DISO: 139.9). The difficulty of these is clear: all demand that an otherwise unattested T S P morphological element be recognized here. There can be littledoubt that the third person independent pronoun in TSP was hmt (GPL: 47; PPG: 110) and that the suffixed pronoun of the same person was -m--nm (Krahmalkov: 1970). Resorting to an emendation of an inscriptional text, although certainly within the realm of possibility, seems unwise. The treatment of the form in Lidzbarski (1915: 227) is probably still the best: "Der Sinnvon hlpnyhm . . . ist nach dem Zusammenhange gesichert . . . 'die friiheren.' Auch die Form kann nicht zweifelhaft sein: es ist ein von ltpanim gebildetes Adjectiv. Aber das zweite h . . . ist mir unerklarlich." S13. Ilhm. Herrmann (1953) has guaranteed this reading: "Reste eine h sind erkennbar, besonders gut, wenn der Blick schrag gegen das Licht auf den Stein fallt." Harris has suggested that the form is a Qal infinitive (GPL: 114). If Herrmann's suggested emendation, which yields the form lhlhm, is correct then the form is a Nipcal infinitive. Other alternatives are discussed in DISO (137.18). Lidzbarski's argument (1915: 228) that the root Ihm, "to eat/food," is indicated here by the occurrence of 'kl shortly after is bizarre; of course, quite the opposite is indicated. S15. ' 5 . Although many scholars have understood this form as a relative pronoun in the conjunction km'S (Littmann 1911: 977, 981; Lidzbarski 1915: 237; Torrey 1915- 17: 365; Gressman 1912: 442; Landsberger 1948: 5 1; GPL: 82; and PPG: 258), the ready analogy of the Hebrew idiom and the sense of the passage make this interpretation difficult. It is read as a substantive by Haltvy (19 12: 23-24); Lagrange (1912: 255); Bauer (1913: 686); and DupontSommer (1944-45: 46), in a note on 'Sh 'klthm "un feu les a dtvorb" (KA1233: 17). On the mythic
21
backdrop of the image, note Miller (1965) and references. It must be admitted that the other three cases of the subordinator km'S discussed in PPG: 258a d o not present a clear enough profile of usage to exclude that reading there; it is the possibility of the other rendering and its fluency in context that decides the case. The other instances of km's' are KAI 19: 9 (Tyrian-Sidonian dialect), KAI 10: 7, and KAI 11 (both Byblian dialect). We note the dialect distribution of the data and the difficulty of the last text (I[mlkj~t]is problematic in any rendering). It is hard to see, further, how km'S in KAI 10: 7 differs from km or ky. Given these difficulties, we may leave discussion of the conjunction's force aside. 'klt. This form is somewhat problematic. The two possibilities are a Qal suffixing 1 c.s. form or a Qal active participle fem. The former is accepted by Friedrich and Rollig (PPG: 131, 156) and Jean and Hoftijzer (DISO: 12.44), and yields the rendering given above. The latter would require that S14-S16 be treated as a single sentence: "And I was in the hand of th(os)e kings like a fire that utterly consumes the beard and like a fire that utterly consumes the hand." This rendering was suggested to me by C. R. Krahmalkov. HalCvy (1912: 23-24), Lagrange (1912: 255), Bauer (1913: 686) and Dupont-Sommer (1944-45: 46) read the form as a Qal Suffixing 3 f.s.; such a form would be anomalous in TSP, in which the Qal Suffixing 3 m.s. and 3 f. s. are homographous (see GPL: 39 and PPG: 131-32). S 17. 'dr could be either a verb (so DISO: 5.40) or an adjective (so GPL: 74; KAIIII, 1; PPG: 319b). The interpretation of Jean and Hoftijzer, "avoir de l'empire sur, dominer," is as likely as the one proposed here (cf. PPG: 284). For a clear example of the comparative force of = I , see KA136:A:III, 2-4 (cf. DISO: 209.49; compare Qoh 1:16 with 2:7, 9, etc.; cf. Poebel 1932: 35). S 18. Clyalso may mean "for myself, on my own behalf." Note the rendering of Held (1961: 24) and his references to Akkadian and Hebrew usage: "The king of the Danonites was too powerful for me, so I hired the king of Assyria against him." Skr. The infinitive (absolute) plus personal pronoun construction exemplified here is best known from the Azitawadda text (KAI 26). Some of the major discussions are by Moran (1952;
22
M. O'CONNOR
1961: 61-62) and Sola-Sol6 (1961: 104-18). For a contrary opinion, see Hammershaimb (1963: 91 92). The verb usage is reminiscent of the difficult line almnt Skr tSkr (Krt 1.95, 183). On the sense of the verb, contrast the interpretation of Dahood (1960: 404-6). S 19. ytn is probably a Qal Suffixing 3 m.pl. form, with the impersonal or passive sense such forms often have in Hebrew. Dahood (1972: 3 16) suggests that the form is a Qal Passive, pointing to "the frequency of the qal passive conjugation in Ugaritic," and translates "A maid was exchanged for a sheep and a lad for a garment." The difficulty with the Qal Passive explanation is that the 3 m.s. Qal Passive (if it existed in Phoenician; there is no unambiguous evidence) would be homographous with the 3 m.pl. Qal Active. A good example of the usage here is found in Joel 4:3, where the verb wytnw is used, exactly as here. This important parallel, pointed out by both Van Dijk (1968: 76) and Collins (1971: 186), will be discussed further below. The nuance of the verb is obscure. Commentators refer either to treaty barter-the barter described in S18 (thus Lagrange says the subject of ytn is Kilamuwa, 1912: 255) or to that which followed the battle, somewhat improbably thought to be described in S18 (according to these commentators, the subject of ytn is either the Danunian king, Haltvy 1912: 28; Bauer 1913: 686; or the Assyrian king[!], Littmann depressed economic conditions 191 1 : 977)-or within Ya'diya. The latter seems most likely, though only Torrey is explicit enough to be sure that he takes the verb this way: "A girl was sold for a sheep . . ." (1915-17: 365). Poebel (1932: 3 9 , Lidzbarski (1915: 237), Gressmann (1912: 442), Landsberger (1948: 53), PPG: 158, and DISO. 133.33 all treat the verb as a plural form, most without specifying the subject. s u ~ . Landsberger (1948: 52) says that the translation "garment" is uncertain, but he does not explain why. As Cross and Freedman point out, the vocalization of the form is unsure, but the waw must be consonantal (cf. De Moor 1965: 361). S21. ySb. The sense "to reign" is now generally recognized. Van Dijk (1948: 68) cites in this connection KA1 18 1.8; perhaps KAI 14.17 should be added. The verb here may be inchoative. S22. hlpnytn is more straightforward than its near twin in SI 1. Some of the commentators who resort
BASOR 226
to morphological aberration to explain the latter have trouble with the former (see Poebel 1932: 36, Montgomery 1928: 197, and Cross and Freedman 1952: 17). ytlwn. Despite the fact that Herrmann (1953: 97), on the basis of an examination of the original, says that "palaographisch besitzt jedoch ytlnn die grosste Wahrscheinlichkeit," the reading ytlwn is preferred here. The letter form of the waw is quite clear on the plate ( K A t 111, pl. 27), even if the stance is somewhat unusual for this inscription. The correct sense was first appreciated by Van Arendonk (apud Bauer 1914: 227-28) who based his proposal on Arabic talawwfi. Albright (1926: 84-85) some years later made the same suggestion independently and observed that "the existence of the stem in Hebrew is established by liwyatan (liwyathn?), 'encircling (earth) serpent'." Albright cites some Akkadian occurrences of the topos of writhing like dogs, which unfortunately cannot be discussed here (cf. GPL: 114 and Cross and Freedman 1952: 180). PPG: 149, 166 follows Herrmann, thus reversing the first edition of that work. The form is a Prefixing form, used in a Durative sense; it is the only Prefixing form in S I S30. On the -iin ending which marks the Indicative mood in Prefixing forms, see GPL: 40. S23. my. It may be that my here means not "some (of the mikbm)," but simply "some (of the people at large)." S26. hz is probably to be taken literally. Landsberger (1948: 52) suggests that h z pn, like Akkadian dagalu pan?, means "to possess" (cf. DISO 229: 54 and ref., to which the discussion of CAD s.v. dagalu may be added). S28. ksy is almost certainly a Picel. The subject could be either an unspecified group or bs; the first is preferable, since in the Northwest Semitic languages personal subjects are much more common than non-personal ones. The step from the literal "they clothed him" to the intended "he was clothed" is a short and commonplace one in Hebrew and its congeners. The form is Piceland the subject is bs, according to Lidzbarski (1915: 237), Gressmann (1912: 443), Poebel (1932: 37), Cross and Freedman (1952: 18), and DISO: 69.23. The form is a Pice/ and the subject is my according to Lagrange (1912: 237) although his term "pie1 ancien" is mysterious. The form is a Pucalaccording to Torrey (1915-17: 365) and Harris (GPL: 112),
1977
THE RHETORIC O F THE KILAMUWA INSCRIPTION
who is followed by Goodwin (1969: 131). Friedrich and Rollig allow for the possibility of both Pice/ *kissii6 (from *kissiia-hu), "er bedeckte ihn," or PuCuZ*kussiia, "er bedeckte sich," (PPG: 65, cf. 145, 174, 176b, 187). Dahood (1968: 44, n. 34) suggests a "qal or pual preterite passive with original third radical -y preserved." The hard evidence for the internal passive system in Phoenician is negligible, if not non-existent. The whole question deserves to be considered in the larger framework of the Northwest Semitic dialects' historical shift from internal to external passive. Recall that Mishnaic Hebrew, a dialect whose antiquity is now generally recognized, has shifted some of the burden of the Pucu/ to the Nitpace/ (Segal 1927: 62, 67). Krahrnalkov points out to me the interesting possibility that ksy is a Picel Suffixing 3 m.s. with they suffix referring to the subject of the verb. Pice/ plus self-referential object suffix would then be a substitute for the Biblical Hebrew Hitpacel, rare at best in Phoenician (see GPL: 42). We note further that Harris' examples of that stem both refer to "religious" actions: ytlwn (our text, S22) and htqds' (see GPL: 143 for ref.). The Hitpacel may have been frozen in such usages, as were the Hi,ftapcel in Biblical Hebrew and presumably the Gt in Moabite. It is axiomatic in historical linguistics that "religious vocabulary" often changes in distinctive ways. The only sure Biblical Hebrew Gt form, m a n "pisser," illustrates the other half of the axiom, which extends the distinction to "dirty" words. ktn, bs. On ktn, see Freedman and O'Connor (forthcoming); on bs, see Masson (1967: 20-22), Lambdin (1953: 147-48), Gradwohl (1963: 49-50, 58, 100)' Oppenheim (1967: 248-51), Hurvitz (1967), and Sabottka (1972: 119-21). S29. l ~ d As . Jean and Hoftijzer observe, there is little reason to champion either of the standard translations: "et moi, j'assistais les M., me trouvant a leur cbte," and "je saissisais les M., chez la main" (DISO: 104.25). S30. 'm. Jean and Hoftijzer treat this as a suffixed form; this cannot be, since the noun is in genitive position (i.e., it follows a preposition) and the suffixed form would have to be 'my (DISO: 15.44, cf. 183.50, 298.22; cf. the form l'my in KAI 34.3). S31. This sentence fragment is probably an aposiopesis and thus does not require the plastic
23
surgery necessary to make it flow into S32 and S33 which most commentators bestow on it; e.g., Lidzbarski (1915: 238) translates: Wenn jemand van meinen Nachkommen, der an meiner Statt (auf dem Throne) sitzen wird, diese Inschrift beschadigen sollte, so sollen die MuSkab nicht die Bacrir und die Bacrir nicht die MuSkab ehren.
Wenn, sollte, and so are bits of tape used to stick together what simply need not belong together. Another king uses the same rhetorical device in cursing his successors: No, you unnatural hags, I will have revenges on you both That all the world shall-I will do such thingsWhat they are yet I know not, but they shall be The terrors of the earth! (LPar 2.4.274-78)
It is, of course, possible that the orthography conceals the operation of modal usages and modal congruence rules similar to those known in Amarna Canaanite (Moran: 1960), but it would be silly to hypothesize such usages and rules in the absence of direct evidence. Torrey (1915-17: 365), Gevirtz (1961: 141-42), and Collins (1971: 187) are among the scholars who have implicitly recognized the aposiopesis. yzq is a Yipcil Prefixing 3 m.s. (DISO: 176.29; PPG: 151). Lidzbarski (1915: 235) and Gevirtz (1961: 141) unnecessarily regard the b(spr) as anomalous. The proposals of Landsberger (1948: 5253) are superfluous. S32. kbd. Gevirtz (1961: 141) has observed that the Qal of kbd in Biblical Hebrew can mean "to be rich" (e.g., in Gen 13:2) and the Pice/, "to pay, enrich" (e.g., inNum 22:17); suchmay be the nuance of the verb here.
The Rhetoric and Structure of the Text The text of the inscription is divided into two approximately equal portions by a double line across the stela and both portions begin with the same sentence. Each portion of the text can be divided into two sections. The two sections of the first portion are roughly equal. In the first (Sl-Sl I), Kilamuwa introduces himself and highlights the uniqueness of his political achievement in a large view of recent history of Ya'diya. In the next section (S12-S19), he describes
24
M. O'CONNOR
the course of the realm's external affairs during his reign. The first section is surely a case study in ideological history lessons. After Kilamuwa presents himself, he recites a bleak and boring catechism. The nature of his predecessors' failure need not be specified: it is clear from the rest of the text that they were unable to integrate Ya'diya into the political dispensation of Cilicia on the one hand and on the other to integrate the m3kbm into the social fabric of the land. Kilamuwa then mentions himself again and summarizes the data necessary t o appreciate his work. In the second section (S 12-S19), Kilamuwa explains how bad things were for Ya'diya as a whole and how he improved them. The politics of Cilicia were not favorable to Ya'diya's continued existence as a n independent power. In fact, it seems that Kilamuwa was at one time in thrall t o some of his neighbors; whether with or without his consent he does not say, but there can be no doubt that his servitude was the heritage of his royal predecessors (S 12-S 14). This position of political subservience created a n intolerable economic situation in Ya'diya; this is the subject of S19. I shall return t o this point below. Within this framework (in which S 12-S 14 balances S 19), Kilamuwa describes what he did (S15-S16) and how he did it (S17-S18): he threw off his oppressors by giving them a n oppressor. The second portion's two sections are not equal in length. The second of them, the curse formula (S3 1S35), is much shorter than the first, which describes the internal affairs of Ya'diya in Kilamuwa's reign (S20-S30). The separate quality of the curse formula is in part marked by the distribution of verb forms: all the clear verb forms before S31 are suffixing forms (except for j9tlwn in S22); all in the curse section, prefixing forms. The king begins the second portion of the text by introducing himself again. He then describes the resolution of a situation which had created internal political strife prior to his reign. The exact nature of the situation cannot be specified. A framework similar to the one in the preceding section is at work here; it is, however, somewhat clearer. S23-S25 balance S26-S28 within the frame, which is made up of S2 1-S22 at the start and S29-S30 at the end of the section. The last section is fairly rote and remarkably short in light of the curse sections of roughly contemporary documents. The shrinkage of the blessing sections of such documents is widely recog-
BASOR 226
nized; here the blessing section is dispensed with altogether. The overall structure of the text is elegant: the introduction (S I -S I 1) balances the curse formula (S3 1-S35) and the description of external affairs (S 12-S19) counterposes the story ofdomestic policy (S20-S30). The first and last sections of the text are linked together by their references to the rulers of Ya'diya: Gabbar is mentioned in S2 and S34, bmh in S4 and S35, and themembers of Kilamuwa's own dynasty, Haya', 3'1 and Kilamuwa himself, (mentioned singly in S6, S8, S1, and S10) are alluded to jointly under the rubric of the dynasty in S35. The pointed contrast of the two sections is m o r e obvious: t h e introduction refers t o Kilamuwa's predecessors and the curse formula to his successors. The middle sections both revolve around the common notion of the boundary line as the fundamental principle of political life. In S12-S14, Ya'diya is a closed system on which foreign powers act; in S23-S30, it is a closed system within which relations are regarded as familial. In both these sections, Kilamuwa himself is the focal point. In the former, he is the one with whom the foreign powers deal and the one who deals with them in their turn. In the latter, he is the mediator of relationships among the troubled mikbm and the source of general prosperity. In S12, his realm is called a house in standard Oriental fashion; in S23-S25 and in S30, it is treated as a family. For those beyond the pale, Paterfamilias Kilamuwa is a source of terror (S15-S16); to those within it, he is a fount of gentleness (S30). One of the most striking links between the two middle sections is the use of livestock and clothing imagery in both. At the end of the second section, Kilamuwa tells us that in the time of direst need, the cost of a sheep was a young woman and the cost of a garment, a man. He later tells us that in the period of prosperity which followed his diplomatic machinations with Assyria, men who had never seen sheep or oxen became owners of flocks and herds and that men who had never seen linen wore byssos. The symmetry of these images was first noted by Littmann (191 1: 982), although few commentators have referred t o it since. The images are basic to many descriptions of prosperity and attendant joy. Pope's "Ode to Solitude," a poem written in earliest youth, isan interesting expression of a tradition that runs from Horace's second epode bearus ille to Auden's "City Without Walls," a poem written in old age:
T H E RHETORIC O F T H E KILAMUWA INSCRIPTION
Happy the man, whose wish and care
A few paternal acres bound,
Content to breathe his native air,
In his own ground. Whose herds with milk, whose fields with bread,
Whose flocks supply him with attire,
Whose trees in summer yield him shade,
In winter fire.
One of the striking features of the trope in S26S28 is that the other occurrences of it noted in ancient Near Eastern literature refer to periods of social disintegration, rather than those of renewed social coherence. Thus, for example, in the Erra Epic we find: [ f a ]ina fim ruh[diJ irbD
ina fim summ? iqab[birfifu]
fa uruh mC iNiku
harran turba'i [utarrfifu]
He who grew up in a time of plenty will be buried in a time of hunger. He who set out on a well-watered path will be brought back along a dusty road. (Erra II.C.19-20)
(Roberts 1971-72: 14, n. 38; Cagni 1969: 88-89). The turn of phrase is common in the Admonitions of Ipu- Wer (of the 1st Intermediate Period); for example: "Behold, the owners of robes are (now) in rags. (But) he who never wove for himself is (now) the owner of fine linen" (Wilson 1969: 422d; other examples occur in Col. 2. 4-5; 2.9; 3.6; 6.5; 7.2; 7.1 1; 8.3; 8.5; 9.5). The import of this apparent reversal in usage of the trope is not clear to me. This jargon of livestock and clothing appears in the Bible, in Gen 49:11, the only biblical passage in which swt is used: 'sry Igpn 'yrh
wlirqh bn): 'tnw
kbs byyn Ibfw
wbdm 'nbym swth
He tethers his donkey to the vine, His purebred ass t o the best stem. He washes his garments in wine, His robe in the blood of grapes.
The use of the word gpn here reminds us of many other biblical passages in which the vine is associated with stability and prosperity, preeminently Mic 4:4. When Joel describes the moral depravity of Judah's enemies, he uses the same construction as
our text does in S19 (Joel 4:2b-3):
For they scatter (them) among nations
And dibide up my land.
And they cast lots for my people.
And they gibe a boy for a whore
And a girl they sell for wine they drink.
Yahweh's charge of high-handed treatment of Judah apparently has three facets: her enemies emptied the land and dispersed the population; they treated the citizens of Judah as a whole in a n arbitrary and unjust fashion; and they imposed particularly humiliating terms of service on some individual Judahites. Collins (1971: 186) says that Joel here describes "how the nations bartered over the spoils of Jerusalem," evidently regarding the casting of lots as a more general designation of the processing of giving and selling. It seems rather that the crimes are described in roughly chronological order and that the giving and selling together make up a crime distinct from the casting of lots. This would require that bzwnh mean not "for (the person of) a whore," but "for (the hire of) a whore," a n understanding surely suggested by the next line. Doubtless some will urge that S19 refers to treaty conditions o r to the outcome of the Assyrian action against the Danunites. This interpretation is indeed more consistent with my reading of the general import of S12-S19 than the one I have proposed. The latter involves supposing that S19 is out of chronological sequence. T h a t supposition, however, is not nearly as demanding as the contrary one. To suppose that S 19 belongs with S12-S14 is t o give the former a fairly clear meaning. Any link with S 17-S 18 would be difficult, since ifjltn is singular, it could only refer to the Assyrian king (who had not been poor for several hundred years and would not be again for about the same length of time) or to the Danunian king. In either case, the style would have to be judged lapidary, though that is certainly possible. If j,tn is plural, and the subject is not indefinite, as 1 propose, then it must be the two kings, which makes n o sense at all. If the subject of ytn is the Danunian king, what events are concealed in the gap between S 18 and S 19? Some sequence like the following would have to be hypothesized: Kilamuwa engages the Assyrian king (S18); the Assyrian king as a result fights the Danunian king,
26
M. O'CONNOR
imposes outrageous tribute demands on him, and thereby destroys the economy of the Danunian realm, thus creating a situation in which S19 is true. Other schemes are possible: could it be suggested that S and swt refer to the actual process of treatymaking and 'lmt and gbr are used collectively to describe large-scale deportations? It is certainly true that there is no clear explanation beside the one I have proposed, though others remain possible. There is another link between the two middle sections of our text. The occurrences of yd in S13 and S14 bind those sentences together and they in turn are bound to S29 where yd occurs again. The rhetorical organization of our text on a level below that of overall structure deserves some attention. In the first section, all the sentences except the last are short, compared to the average sentence length of the text. In the center of the third section, three short sentences (S23-S25) balance three long ones (S26-S28). The use of large-scale repetition is also noteworthy. Most obvious is the four-fold repetition, "And he did nothing" (S3, S5, S7, S9). The virtually anaphoric organization of S23-S25 (revolving around . . . Imy kt . . . ) and S26-S28 (wm.y bl h z ) is crucial to the third section. The most important repetition is that of the theme sentence in S 1, S 10, and S20. It introduces the text, binds up the beginning and end of the first section, and links the incipits of the first and second portions of the text. The parallel sentences S15 and S16 are
BASOR 226
an important clue to the framework of the second section. The use of a similar device in the curse section (S32 and S33) requires no comment. Maps of these rhetorical features may prove helpful (see below). The distinction between structural and thematic features is made largely for sake of convenience. Conclusion The Kilamuwa Inscription is a cornerstone of our understanding of Tyrian-Sidonian Phoenician. I hope 1 have been able to suggest that certain aspects of both the text and the dialect demand further study and that not least of these is the rhetorical prowess of the "author" of our text. It need not be said that the necessary prolegomenon to any further study of that knack is a full scale essay on Northwest Semitic syntax. In conclusion, we may mention two contemporary works of art in part inspired by the artifacts of Kilamuwa's home: Tom Clark's poem "The Sinjerli Variations" (1970: 8) and Frank Stella's Sinjerli series (1967), the second of which is given in a black and white illustration in Rosenblum (1971: 46). * I want to thank Professor Charles R. Krahmalkov, University of Michigan, for some remarks o n Phoenician morphology quoted herein. The paper was originally drafted in January 1974 and revised for publication in May 1976.
1977
THE RHETORIC O F THE KILAMUWA INSCRIPTION
Structural Organization
Thematic Organization
S1 S2
'nk. . .
Portion I
Section I The Past
S3
Portion 11
Section 2 External Affairs
S12 S13 S 14 515 516
Section 3 Internal Affairs
S20 S21 S22
:;$-l 527 528 529 S30
Section 4 The Future
S31
S 34 S35
bmh
I
535
]
;]
M. O'CONNOR
BASOR 226
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albright, W. F. 1926 Notes on Early Hebrew and Aramaic Epigraphy. Journalof the Palestine Oriental Society 6: 75- 102. Andersen, F. 1. 1966 Moabite Syntax. Orientalia 35: 8 1- 120. Bauer, H. 19 13 Die Klmw lnschrift aus Sendschirli. Zeitschrift .fur deutsche morgenlandische Gesellschaft 67: 648-91. 1914 Nachtrag zu meinem Aufsatze iiber die KlmwInschrift. Zeitschrftfiir deutsche morgenlandische Gesellschaft 68: 227-28. Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, C. A. 1907. A BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon. Brown, H. 1965 Chiasmus. P. 116 in Preminger, Warnke, and Hardison. CAD Gelb, I. J. et 01. 1955-. The Chicago Ass.vrian Dictionar,)). Chicago: The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago. Cagni, L. I969 L'epopea di Erra. Studisemitici 34. Roma: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente. Clark, T. 1970 Air. New York: Harper and Row. Collins, T. 1971 The Kilamuwa Inscription-a Phoenician Poem. Welt des Orients 6: 183-88. Cross, F. M., and Freedman, D. N. 1951 The Pronominal Suffixes of the Third Person Singular in Phoenician. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10: 228-30. 1952 Earljl Hebre~' 0rtkograph.v: A Studjl o f the Epigraphic Evidence. American Oriental Series 36. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Dahood, M. 1960 Textual Problems in Isaiah. Catholic Biblical Quarterlv 22: 400-9. 1968 Ugaritic and the Old Testament. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 44: 35-59. 1972 Review of Friedrich and Rollig: 1970 (PPG). Orientalia 41: 3 15-17. de Moor, J. 1965 Frustula Ugaritica. Journalof Near Eastern Studies 24: 355-64. van Dijk, H. J. 1968 Ezekiel's Prophecy on Tvre. Biblica et Orientalia 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Jean, C. -F., and Hoftijzer, J. 1960. Dictionnairedes DlSO inscriptions sCrnitiques de l'ouest. Leiden: Brill. Cited by page number followed by line number of onlv the first relevant line on the page. Dupont-Sommer, A. 1944-45 L'ostracon arameen d'Assour. Svria 24: 24-6 1. Ftvrier, J . -G., and Fantar, M. 1963-64 Les nouvelles inscriptions monumentales ntopuniques de Mactar. Karthago 12: 43-59. Fitzgerald, A. 1974 A Note on Psalm 29. Bullerin of the American Schools o f Oriental Research 2 15: 61-63.
Freedman, D. N., and O'Connor, M. forth- kutt6net. Theologisches Worterbuch des Altes Testcoming ament, ed. G. J . Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Gelb, I. J . 1962 Review of Emmanuel Laroche. Les hiCrogljphes hittites. Language 38: 196-206. Gevirtz, S. 1961 West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law. Vetus Testarnentum l I: 137-58. Kautzsch, E., ed. 1910. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, GKC trans. A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon. Goldsmith, U. K. 1965 Alliteration. Pp. 15- 16 in Preminger, Warnke and Hardison. Goodwin, D. W. 1969 Text-Restoration Methods in Contemporary U. S.A. Biblical Scholarship. Pubblicazioni del seminario di semitistica, Ricerche V. Naples: Istituto Orientali di Napoli. GPL Harris, Z. S . 1936. Grarnmar of the Phoenician Language. American Oriental Series 8. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Gradwohl, R. 1963 Die Farben im Alten Testament. Beiheft zu Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gressmann, H. 1912 Inschrift des Kilamu aus Zendschirli. Pp. 442-43 in Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament. ed. H. Gressman. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haltvy, J. 1912 Les inscriptions du roi Kalumu. Revue sCmitique 20: 19-30. Hammershaimb, E. 1963 On the so-called Infinitivus Absolzrtus in Hebrew. Pp. 85-94 in Hebrew and Semitic StudiesPresented to G. R. Driver, ed. D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy. Oxford: Clarendon. Held, M. 1961 A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15: 1-26. Herrmann, S. 1953 Bemerkungen zur Inschrift des Konigs Kilamuwa von Sengirli. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 48: 295-97. Hurvitz, A. 1967 The Use of Siand bws in the Bible and its Implication for the Date of P. Harvard Theological Review 60: 117-21. KAI Donner, H., and Rollig, W. 1962-64. Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Vol. 1 cited by text and line number only; Vols. 11 and 111 cited by volume and page. Krahmalkov, C. R. 1970 Studies in Phoenician and Punic Grammar. Journal of Semitic Studies 15: 181-88. 1975 Two Neo-Punic Poems in Rhymed Verse. Rivista di studi fenici 3: 169-205.
THE RHETORIC O F THE KILAMUWA INSCRIPTION
Lagrange, M. J. 1912 La nouvelle inscription de Sendjirly. Revue biblique 9: 253-59. Lambdin, T. 0 . 1953 Egyptian Loan Words in t h e o l d Testament. Journal of the American Oriental Society 73: 145-55. Landsberger, B. 1948 Sam'al I. Veroffentlichungen der Tiirkischen Historischen Gesellschaft. Series 7, Number 16. Ankara: Tiirkischen Historischen Gesellschaft. Lidzbarski, M. 19 15 Ephemeris fur semitische Epigraphik 111. Giessen: Richer. Littmann, E. 1911 Die Inschriften des Kanigs Kalumu. Sitrung.\berichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 976-85. Masson, E. 1967 Recherches sur les plus anciens empruntes semitiques en Grec. Paris: Klincksieck. Miller, P. D. 1965 Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel. Catholic Biblical Quarterlv 27: 256-61. Montgomery, J. A. 1928 Two Notes on the Kalamu Inscription. Journal of Biblical Literature 47: 196-97. Moran, W. 1952 Does Amarna Bear o n Karatepe?-An Answer. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 6: 76-80. 1960 Early Canaanite ,vaqtula. Orientalia 29: 1 - 19. 1961 The Hebrew Language in its Northwest Semitic Background. Pp. 54-72 in The aibleandthe Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor o f William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. Ernest Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Miiller, D. H. 1912 [Translation of Kilamuwa Inscription, place of publication unknown]. Quoted apud Halevy 1912: 21-22. Oppenheim, A. L. 1967 Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21: 236-54.
Poebel, A. 1932 Das appositionell bestimmre Pronomen der I. Per.\. Sing. in den ~~estsemitischen lnschrifren und im AIten Testament. Assyriological Studies 3. Chicago: University of Chicago. PPG Friedrich, J., and Rollig, W. 1970. PhonizischPunische Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 46. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Cited by paragraph. Preminger, A,; Warnke, F. J . ; and Hardison, O.B., eds. 1965 Princeton Enc.vc1opedia o f Poetrv and Poetics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Pritchard, J . B., ed. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Te.;ts re la tin^ to the Old Testament. 3rd. ed. with Supplement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Roberts, J. J. M. 1971-72 Erra-Scorched Earth. Journal ofCune;form Studies 24: 11-16. Rosenthal, F., trans. 1969 Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions. Pp. 653-62 in Pritchard: 1969. Rosenblum, R. 1971 Frank Stella. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sabottka, L. 1972 Zephania. Biblica et Orientalia 25. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Segal, M. H. 1927 A Grammar o f Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon. Sola-Sole, J. M. 1961 L'infinitif sbrnitique. Bibliotheque de I'ecole pratique des hautes etudes 315. Paris: Honore Champion. Teixidor, J. 1971 Quelques remarques sur le suffix phenicien. Swia 48: 454-56. Torrey, C. C. 1915-17 The Zakar and Kalamu Inscriptions. Journal o f the American Oriental Society 35: 353-69. Gordon, C. H. 1965. U~ariticTe.utbook. Analecta UT Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Cited by paragraph. Wilson, J. A,, trans. 1969 Egyptian Instructions. Pp. 412-27 in Pritchard: 1969.
