Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters Part 33

(M786) Here is a letter reminding a father of a broken promise:(848)

To my father say, thus saith Elmeshu: Shamash and Marduk fill with well-being the days of my father perpetually. My father, be thou well, flourish; the G.o.d that preserves my father direct my father's source of grace. I have sent to greet my father. May my father's peace endure before Shamash and Marduk. From the time that Sin Amurru named my father's name, and I answered for my fault, thou, my father, didst say, "When I shall go to Dur-Ammi-zaduga, which is on the River Shar?u, I will forward a sheep and five minas of silver, in a little while, to thee." This thou saidest, my father, and my expectation was from my father.

But thou hast not sent; and now, my father, thou hast returned to the presence of Taribu, the Queen. I have sent a note to my father's presence. My father, thou shalt not ask the purport of my note, until Lasher has brought me my father's note. My father has not sent one to bring even a single shekel, in accordance with thy promise. Like Marduk and Sin Amurru, who hearken to my father, my ears are attentive. Let my father send and let not my heart be vexed. Before Shamash and Marduk, may I pray for my father.

The letter suggests that the father was king, by the phrase so common in the historical inscriptions, "named his name," usually equivalent to "nominated" to rule. The word rendered "fault" is _sardu_, which may be for _sartu_. There is nothing to show whether Elmeshu is a man or woman.

There was an Elmeshu (the name means "Diamond") who was daughter of Ammi-ditana.(849) But the mention of Dur-Ammi-zaduga seems to demand a date at least as late as that in which this wall or city was built. But Ammi-zaduga succeeded Ammi-ditana. Unless the latter built Dur-Ammi-zaduga and called it after his son, we can hardly identify this Elmeshu with the daughter of Ammi-ditana. The mention of Sin Amurru is not quite clear. We may suppose two G.o.ds, Sin and Amurru, or take the latter name as an epithet, "Sin of the Amorites." To have "the ears attentive," is to be in a state of expectation. In the last sentence, Elmeshu seems to hint that, if she does not have a favorable answer, she will not be able to pray for her father. This may be regarded as an un-Christian att.i.tude, but people then thought more of the efficacy of prayer; and it was a threat, if so meant, likely to have great weight with the father. But it may mean that Elmeshu being vowed to a religious life, yet needed material means to maintain her alive, and she merely hopes, by her father's continued sustenance of her, to be long spared to pray for him.

(M787) Another letter is apparently from a tenant, or serf, to his landlord:(850)

To my lord say, thus saith Ibgatum thy servant: As, my lord, thou hast heard, the enemy has carried off my oxen. Never before have I sent to thee, my lord. Now I have caused a letter to be brought to thee, my lord. Do thou, my lord, send me one young cow. I will weigh out and send five shekels of silver to thee, my lord. My lord, what thou sayest, under the command of Marduk, thy protector, what pleases thee, no one can hinder thee, my lord. My lord, do thou make her worth the five shekels of silver that I have weighed out and sent to thee. Do thou, my lord, treat seriously this request, do not trifle with my wish. Let my lord not wonder at this request, which I send my lord. I am thy servant. I will do thy will, my lord. As to the young cow, which thou, my lord, dost send, let her be on credit, and either to Ba?u, or wherever is convenient to my lord, do thou send. With Ili-i?isham, my brother, let the young cow come. And I, in order that my lord should quickly consent and send the young cow, will forthwith weigh out and send fifteen shekels of silver to thee, my lord.

Evidently, the wise man sent only five shekels on deposit with his brother, holding back the rest of the price, till he had seen what sort of a cow he was to get for his money. It was from this letter that Winckler(851) deduced a meaning for _?amadu_ something like "weigh out,"

"pay," whence a better meaning for _?imittu_ than "yoke" was readily obtained. As Dr. Peiser pointed out, the word is also used in the Cappadocian tablets in a way that leaves small doubt of its meaning. It may have come to mean simply "pay," but must have ordinarily meant "measure," or "weigh," according as it was applied to grain, or money.

(M788) Here is a very interesting example showing how the merchants of those days transacted business at a distance:(852)

To Erib-Sin say, thus saith Ibni-Nabu, I am here (?): As to the case of Ardi-ilishu, son of Ibni-Dibbara, I gave him two-thirds of a mina of silver, and it was acknowledged in writing, in the presence of my witnesses. He went to a.s.syria. He did not give the money to Shamaiatu. I and Shamaiatu met in Daganna and disputed over the affair. Said I, "I sent thee money by Ardi-ilishu." He said, "If Ardi-ilishu has paid the money, let him [_here come some uncertain signs_]." And concerning what thou didst send about Shamash-bel-ilani's fourteen shekels, I did not give him the money. There is two-thirds of a mina due from Ardi-ilishu; take Ardi-ilishu and cause him to weigh out the money, and its interest, more or less, and from that take the fourteen shekels and send the surplus.

The two, Erib-Sin and Ibni-Nabu, are either partners, or agents. The former had asked the latter to pay over fourteen shekels to a certain Shamash-bel-ilani, either because the latter had money of his, or had promised to honor his order. But this particular order was not honored.

Ibni-Nabu had intrusted a sum of forty shekels to one Ardi-ilishu, with which to pay Shamaiatu. But Ardi-ilishu had gone off to a.s.syria without discharging the obligation. So Shamaiatu had demanded payment and perhaps the doubtful signs express the fact that Ibni-Nabu had to pay a second time. Fortunately, he could prove that Ardi-ilishu had had the money, having taken a receipt. He seems to think that Erib-Sin can find Ardi-ilishu. Was the former resident in a.s.syria? If so, this must be a copy of the letter sent him. But perhaps Erib-Sin was to arrest the defaulter on his return to Sippara. At any rate, this was a warrant for so doing. That, perhaps, is why the letter was kept. If Erib-Sin could get forty shekels and the interest, he had a fair margin from which to pay the fourteen shekels, due to him from Ibni-Nabu. But he had to take risks. If Shamash-bel-ilani had given Erib-Sin consideration for his order on Ibni-Nabu for fourteen shekels, he was badly served.

(M789) Here is a letter, warning a man of a suit brought against him in his absence:

To my lord, say, thus saith Sin-taiar: May Shamash and Marduk give thee health. As to the case of the field about which thou didst send, belonging to the sons of Sin-remeni, which is in Bitutu, which my lord sold me for five minas of silver; Sin-a?am-iddinam, Marduk-taiar, and Nabu-malik, have gone about to the king, and have turned over this t.i.tle to Nur-parim. Hasten, come, save thy t.i.tle from Nur-parim.

The word of most difficulty is _nistu_, rendered "t.i.tle." It may mean something different, but the "t.i.tle" seems the most likely thing to be disputed.

(M790) A letter to a father from an absent son(853) is interesting for its personal character:

To my father say, thus saith Zimri-era?, may Shamash and Marduk give thee health forever. Be thou well. I have sent for thy health. Tell me how thou art. I am located at Dur-Sin on the ca.n.a.l Kashtim-sikirim. There is no meat fit to eat. Now I have made them bring two-thirds of a shekel of silver to thee. For this money send some nice fish and something to eat.

(M791) The following is what may be fairly described as a love-letter, though the real relation between the correspondents is not certain:(854)

To Bibea say, thus saith Gimil-Marduk: May Shamash and Marduk for my sake preserve thy health forever. I have sent for thy health.

Tell me how thou art. I went to Babylon and did not see thee. I was greatly disappointed. Send me the reason of thy leaving, and let me be cheered. In Marchesvan do thou come. For my sake keep well always.

It is certain that Bibea was a lady, perhaps the writer's wife.

(M792) The interest which these ancient letters inspire in us was felt in the seventh century B.C., for there are two a.s.syrian copies of early Babylonian letters, preserved in the remains of Ashurbanipal's library.

One was a letter from the Babylonian King Adadi-shum-u?ur to Ashur-nirari and Nabudaian, kings of a.s.syria, about B.C. 1250.(855) It is too fragmentary to translate. Another(856) is a letter from a King of a.s.syria to his father, who is King of Babylon. The names are lost, and its contents cannot now be made out. It was a copy made for Ashurbanipal, and has his "library mark."(857)

V. Sennacherib's Letters To His Father, Sargon

(M793) Among the Ninevite collections we can single out several periods where the history is supplemented by the letters. Thus Sennacherib's letters to his father, Sargon, chiefly deal with events in Armenia, which must have transpired during Sargon's last few years, when his annals and other historical inscriptions are silent. This view of them was first worked out by the present writer,(858) and later with increased material by R. C. Thompson.(859) Briefly put, the argument from them is this: a person called Sennacherib, who might be any officer from the times of Sargon onward, writes to the king, whom he does not address as his father, on the reports which have reached him from a number of officials, concerning events in Armenia. We have, however, two letters which refer to the same events, naming the same officials and certainly from the same Sennacherib. In one of them he is twice referred to as the king's son. The officials named are all found in doc.u.ments of the reign of Sargon, or the early part of Sennacherib's reign. The King of Armenia is named Argista in one of these reports to the king, which belongs to the same group. The King of a.s.syria himself is said to be at Babylon at the time. One report quoted comes from Tabal, and is brought by the major-domo of the Princess A?at-abisha, probably the daughter of Sargon, who was married by him to the King of Tabal. We have independent copies of these reports, quoted by Sennacherib, which enlarge our knowledge of the events. Hence, there can be no doubt that we have here Sennacherib's letters to his father, Sargon, while that king was absent in Babylonia. We are, therefore, able to reconstruct a chapter of a.s.syrian history, on which the historical monuments have nothing to say. The first letter reads thus:(860)

(M794)

To the king, my lord, thy servant Sennacherib. Peace be to the king, my lord. There is peace in a.s.syria, peace in the temples, peace in all the fortresses of the king. May the heart of the king, my lord, be abundantly cheered. The land of the Ukkai has sent to me, saying, when the King of Armenia came to the land of Gamir, his forces were utterly defeated; he, his commanders, and their forces were driven off; [_then comes a broken s.p.a.ce from which the few traces left refer to __"__two commanders,__"__ someone who __"__came,__"__ someone or something __"__was captured,__"__ someone __"__came to me,__"__ something __"__of his country,__"__ something __"__he appointed.__"_] This was the news from the land of the Ukkai. Ashur-ri?ua has sent, saying, "News from Armenia. What I sent before, that is so. A great slaughter took place among them. Now his land is quiet. His n.o.bles are dead.

He has come into his own land. ?a??adanu, his tartan, is taken, and the King of Armenia is in the land of Uazaun." This is the news from Ashur-ri?ua. Nabu-li', the commander of ?al?u, has sent to me, saying, "Concerning the garrisons of the fortresses which are on the border, I sent to them for news of the King of Armenia.

They report that when he came to the land of Gamir, his forces were all slain, three of his n.o.bles together with their forces were killed, he himself fled and entered into his own land; but that as yet his camp is not attacked." This is the news from Nabu-li'. The King of Mu?a?ir, his brother, and his son, have gone to greet the King of Armenia. A messenger from ?upushkia has gone to greet him. The garrisons of the fortresses which are on the boundary all send news like this. The letter of Nabu-li', the major-domo of A?at-abisha, brought from Tabal; to the king, my lord, I have sent it on.

(M795) The second letter(861) began in exactly the same way, so far as one can judge from the traces of the first seven lines. As before, Sennacherib quotes reports, which he has received, in the sender's own words. From what is left of the first report we learn that the King of Armenia had ordered the forces at his command to capture the commanders of the King of a.s.syria and bring them alive to him. The city of k.u.mai is named as the place where these commanders were. As yet the sender "is cut off" and has not withdrawn from his post. But, as he has heard, so he has sent to the king's son:

"Now let him quickly send forces. This is the news from Arie: On the fourteenth of Elul, a letter came to me from Ashur-ri?ua, saying that the King of Armenia, when the Zikirtai brought things to him, at least obtained nothing, they returned empty-handed; that he went to the city Uesi with his forces and entered it, that his forces are in the city Uesi, that he and his forces are few, that they are with him with their possessions."

This seems to be the end of Ashur-ri?ua's news. A few traces refer to news from the Mannai concerning some "letter," "as yet" something has "not"

happened.

"As I have heard I have sent, that the commander in the district, in the midst of the city Uesi, he and his forces are a.s.sembled; that with his troops he has set out and driven him out of Uesi, that he has not seen the roads (to some place), that he has made good the bridges, that as he has heard, whatever takes place, whether he comes with his forces, or whether he goes off free, I will quickly send to the king's son."

These fragments of the report are difficult to disentangle, as the person referred to seems sometimes to be the King of Armenia, sometimes another person. But all may be news sent from the Mannai to Ashur-ri?ua.

This is the news from Ashur-ri?ua: The land of Arzabia sends word, saying, The land of the Ukkai has broken away from me (?), that now they are killing me; you care for yourselves. I have sent my body-guards to the Ukkai. The messengers of Arzabia said, ...

Then follow a few traces from which we gather that a messenger came to the writer and brought a present; that the "Mannai said" something, someone "returned" and "I appointed him" something, that a messenger from the land of Sadudai came to Kala?, that "I received and sealed" something, and "I appointed" something. Again we have a reference to the month of Elul, a letter, and the word "brought."

(M796) This letter is very obscure from the many lacunae. We naturally turn to the letters of Ashur-ri?ua. This man may well be the same as the witness, _sha?u_, and scribe of the queen, at Kala? in B.C. 709. We have nine letters of his referring to Armenian affairs. In one of them(862) he announces that "at the commencement of Nisan the King of Armenia set out from ?urushpia and went to Eli?ada, that ?a??adanu, his tartan, went into the city Uesi, that all the forces of Armenia have gathered to Eli?ada."

The rest of the letter is obscure. At the end of another(863) he says: "I have heard, saying, 'the king has come into the midst of Uesi, as yet he has not left.' " In the same letter he reports that "three thousand foot-soldiers, with their officers, belonging to Setini, his military commander, have set out to Mu?a?ir, crossed the river by night, that Setini has camels with him, and that Suna, who is in command among the Ukkai, has started with his troops for Mu?a?ir." It is clear from these that the movements here refer to the beginning of the year after that in which, in Elul, the King of Armenia was in Uesi, and before the defeat of Armenia by the Gimirri.

A mere glance at the contents of his other letters will show their connection with these events. In one,(864) he sends Narage, a colonel, with twenty men who had plotted against the king and were caught. He mentions the capture of a second tartan, Ur?ini, in ?urushpia and the mission of Ur?ini's brother, Apli-uknu, to see him there. The King of Armenia had entered ?urushpia with a number of restless men. In another,(865) he reports the return to a.s.syria of a messenger from the Ukkai, who had gone up into Armenia; and mentions Mu?a?ir. In a third,(866) he reports that "Gurania, Nagiu, the fortresses of Armenia and Gimirri, are giving tribute to Armenia." But that "when the Armenians went to Gimirri, they were badly defeated." The rest is so injured as to give little sense. In another,(867) he names Arie and Ari?a, Dur-Shamash, Barzanishtun, the city of Ishtar-duri, and Shulmu-bel-lashme; but the text is so defective that one cannot discern what he had to say about them. In another,(868) he acknowledges the king's order to send scouts into the neighborhood of ?urushpia. In another,(869) he writes that "the Mannai in the cities of Armenia on the coast of the sea rebelled, that Apli-uknu, the commander of Mu?a?ir, and ?unnaun, the commander of Kar-Sippar, went to the borders of the Mannai, to garrison Armenia and made a slaughter there, that all the commanders are present." But these are not the only references to him. ?ab-shar-Ashur(870) writes to the king that he has received a letter from Ashur-ri?ua: "Thus it is written in it, saying, a messenger of the Ukkai went to Armenia, he has sent a letter to the palace, and these are the contents of the letter, on the morning of the sixth, this letter came to me; he sent, saying, the Ukkai have heard concerning Arie that he went against him (the king of Armenia) and his city." Then the letter becomes very defective, but we hear again of k.u.mai and Eli? (clearly the Eli?ada above). ?ab-shar-Ashur again mentions Ashur-ri?ua,(871) saying that a letter of his was brought, which referred to the King of Armenia entering some city. But too little is preserved to make out the message. In a report(872) about beams of wood, collected by Ashur-ri?ua, he is a.s.sociated with Arie, and Uri?a, evidently the Ari?a above, and the city k.u.mai. Finally, on a letter by Gabbu-ana-Ashur he is mentioned in a most significant way. The writer says: "Concerning the news which the king gave me about the garrisons of Armenia, from the time that I entered the city Kurban, my messengers went to Nabu-li', to Ashur-bel-danan, to Ashur-ri?ua; they came to me." After a break he goes on, "Like this I have heard; the Armenian (king) has not gone out of ?urushpia." After some more uncertain traces, he adds: "On the twenty-third of Tammuz I entered into Kurban, on the twentieth of Ab I sent a letter to the king, my lord." It is evident that Nabu-li', Ashur-bel-danan, and Ashur-ri?ua were the commanders most concerned in these events. Nabu-li', we have already seen, sent reports to Sennacherib; no letters of Ashur-bel-danan, yet published, seem to refer to these events. But clearly the king was concerned to hear from other quarters than Kala?, where Sennacherib evidently was. Ashur-ri?ua is also named elsewhere on fragments not yet published.

We may now pursue the clew given by the fact that Uesi was the city which seems to have been the bone of contention. Thus Urzana, whose name recalls that of the King of Mu?a?ir, who may have been reinstated as a va.s.sal by Sargon, writes(873) to the _nagiru_ of the palace: