Crime and Testament: Enemy Direct Speech in Inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal

IF 0.3
Eva Miller
{"title":"Crime and Testament: Enemy Direct Speech in Inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal","authors":"Eva Miller","doi":"10.1515/janeh-2018-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions are always narrated in the first-person voice of the king. Within this framing narrative, the device that we would call ‘direct speech’ is used only rarely, and judiciously. The texts that make the greatest use of this literary device both come from a period of particular innovation and experimentation in royal text forms: Esarhaddon’s Nineveh A and Ashurbanipal’s narratives about his campaign against Elamite king Teumman. In these examples, and in other texts of the time including Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, the words of enemies stand out as particularly threatening – and yet also particularly useful, as a literary device employed to further Assyrian agendas. Royal narratives use enemy speech for one of two purposes: either to document criminality, or to show enemies, in defeat and despair, testifying to the might and rightness of their Assyrian conquerors. Looking at all examples of speech – from enemies, gods, and the Assyrian king – I distinguish between ‘direct speech’ (as a literary device) and ‘quotation’ (as a practice). Most, though not all, direct speech in the sources considered here is also quotation, in that it seeks to document and preserve speech made in some other prior form (a verbal statement, a letter, an omen on an animal’s liver). Quotations demonstrate royal legitimacy and enemy culpability, while literary invention allows enemy voices to be turned to new purposes, as forced testament to Assyrian supremacy.","PeriodicalId":174647,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History","volume":"123 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/janeh-2018-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions are always narrated in the first-person voice of the king. Within this framing narrative, the device that we would call ‘direct speech’ is used only rarely, and judiciously. The texts that make the greatest use of this literary device both come from a period of particular innovation and experimentation in royal text forms: Esarhaddon’s Nineveh A and Ashurbanipal’s narratives about his campaign against Elamite king Teumman. In these examples, and in other texts of the time including Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, the words of enemies stand out as particularly threatening – and yet also particularly useful, as a literary device employed to further Assyrian agendas. Royal narratives use enemy speech for one of two purposes: either to document criminality, or to show enemies, in defeat and despair, testifying to the might and rightness of their Assyrian conquerors. Looking at all examples of speech – from enemies, gods, and the Assyrian king – I distinguish between ‘direct speech’ (as a literary device) and ‘quotation’ (as a practice). Most, though not all, direct speech in the sources considered here is also quotation, in that it seeks to document and preserve speech made in some other prior form (a verbal statement, a letter, an omen on an animal’s liver). Quotations demonstrate royal legitimacy and enemy culpability, while literary invention allows enemy voices to be turned to new purposes, as forced testament to Assyrian supremacy.
罪与遗嘱:以撒哈顿和亚述巴尼拔铭文中的敌人直接言语
摘要:新亚述王室铭文总是以国王的第一人称叙述。在这种框架叙事中,我们称之为“直接引语”的手段很少被使用,而且是明智的。最大程度地利用这种文学手段的文本,都来自一个特殊的时期,在皇家文本形式的创新和实验:以撒哈顿的《尼尼微a》和亚述巴尼拔关于他对埃兰国王特乌曼的战役的叙述。在这些例子中,以及当时的其他文本中,包括以撒哈顿的继承条约,敌人的话特别具有威胁性,但也特别有用,作为一种文学手段,被用来推进亚述议程。王室叙事使用敌人的言论有两个目的:要么记录犯罪行为,要么展示敌人在失败和绝望中证明他们的亚述征服者的强大和正义。看看所有的言语例子——从敌人、神和亚述国王——我区分了“直接言语”(作为一种文学手段)和“引用”(作为一种实践)。这里所考虑的来源中的大部分直接引语(虽然不是全部)也是引用,因为它试图记录和保存以其他某种先前形式(口头陈述、信件、动物肝脏上的预兆)发表的言论。引文证明了皇室的合法性和敌人的罪责,而文学发明允许敌人的声音转向新的目的,作为亚述霸权的强制证明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书