• 1  Comparison in the history of religion is a much debated topic, with a number of studies. See the r (...)

2As a comparative investigation on mythological texts, my study is fraught with theoretical problems, mainly concerning the nature of comparison as a method, a matter yet to be tackled in depth. I cannot exhaustively engage here with such challenging issues,1 so I will refer to the points of concern in this work.

• 2  See V. Propp, Morphology of the Folktale, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1968; C. Booker, The (...)
• 3  G. S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Function, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1998, p. 172 (...)

4The analysis of narrative contents, that harks back to the studies on myth, folklore and fairy tales, reveals that similarities in plots are very common.2 For my take on the Nergal, an observation by Geoffrey S. Kirk has been particularly enlightening. From his comment on the fact that mythological motifs are limited, simple, and therefore subject to re-elaboration,3 I understand that if a single theme is developed in various stories, myths with similar content should not be read in isolation. With more variants of the same story available, a greater number of interpretations will result. I propose, thus, that the Nergal, as a variation on the theme of kingship, has a specific function within the group of the Mesopotamian myths on it.

• 4  See W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1992, p. 88.
• 5  O. Freiberger, “Elements of a Comparative Methodology in the Study of Religion”, Religions 9, 2018 (...)

5In my study, I am not looking for textual correspondences nor historical relations, but for specific similarities (overall structure; details in scenes; characterization of deities) in the stories on divine power.4 My approach, as far as comparison is concerned, is structural and contextual. I borrow the definition of contextual comparison, as “studies that compare in a cultural milieu that can be delineated both spatially and temporally”, from Oliver Freiberger.5 Since the myths on power lie at the foundations of Mediterranean polytheism, my context will be that of the ancient cultures of this area during the Bronze Age.

• 6  See S. Wisnom, Weapons of Words: Intertextual Competition in Babylonian Poetry, Leiden, Brill, 201 (...)
• 7  The most recent work on the intertextual interpretation on those topics is Wisnom, Weapons of Word (...)
• 8  See Kirk, Myth: its Meaning and Function, p. 213-226; G. Casadio, “A proposito di un recente volum (...)

7Intertextuality, as a technique that explores the types of relations among texts, is a growing approach in Assyriology,6 and has in the Enūma eliš, the poem about the rise to power of Marduk of Babylon, a source of connections with other Sumerian-Akkadian masterpieces, such as Anzû, Erra and Išum, or Lugal-e, all of which revolve around the storyline of a warrior god seeking supremacy.7 Likewise, this poem has been a favorite one in comparative studies, because it shares the so-called “kingship in heaven” theme with other poems from the Mediterranean area.8

• 9  A status quaestionis in Penglase, Greek Myths, chap. 1 and J. Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia. Dia (...)
• 10 Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, p. 3.
• 11 Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, p. 18-19.
• 12 Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, p. 181.

8On the contextual side, Mesopotamian literature was primarily brought to the attention of classicists by Walter Burkert and Martin L. West, who stressed the influence it exerted on Homer and Hesiod. A very promising path was opened, but, despite programmatic declarations on the necessity of comparison, it is seldom followed. For sure, the task of juggling two or more mythologies is far from easy and is plagued with problems. In one of the few contributions specifically devoted to the Greek-Mesopotamian connection,9 Johannes Haubold comments on some of them, while admitting that “neither Assyriology nor Classics have favored comparative works”.10 He recommends a methodological systematization of the specific parallels and rightly points out that, when scholars concentrate on historical links (i.e. which culture has inspired which culture), they take the attention away from the story itself and the broader cultural context where these stories were told:11 in his own words, “establishing literary history” has become more important than “reading literature”.12

• 13  O. Freiberger, Considering Comparison, p. 4 and 10, talks of “description” and “redescription”.

9Ultimately, I argue that the Nergal and Ereškigal is a myth on power belonging to the typology of heavenly kingship, as parallelisms with other texts lead to believe. For the comparison, my references will be the Baal Cycle, Greek materials and Sumerian-Akkadian poems. My argumentation will have two phases: the comparison and the formulation of an overall explanation of how the Nergal fits into that genre (§ I), thanks to new elements highlighted by comparison (§ II).13

• 14  The older version, from Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, dates to the 14th century BC. The more recent one (...)

10The myth Nergal and Ereškigal, in Akkadian, exists in two versions: one older and shorter, and another longer and more detailed.14 The story begins in the sky, with the gods having a banquet. Since Ereškigal cannot join it, her vizier Namtar goes to collect her food: when the gods see him, all but Nergal show their respect by rising and bowing. Ereškigal feels offended by such misconduct and orders Nergal’s death. In the longest version, Nergal goes back and forth from the sky and the netherworld, begins a relationship with Ereškigal and eventually marries her; in the shortest, Nergal plans to kill her, but relents with the offer of kingdom and marriage.

• 15  A complex god known in Mesopotamia over three millennia, Nergal is connected to vegetation and dea (...)
• 16  The latest edition and commentary of the myth is S. Ponchia ‒ M. Luukko, The Standard Babylonian M (...)
• 17  See Wiggerman, “Nergal”, p. 218-219 and Ponchia ‒ Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xxi-xxi (...)

11This is an aetiological myth, as it explains how Nergal becomes the god of the underworld,15 where he rules together with Ereškigal.16 Historically, the Nergal unifies, through the marriage of the two gods, two older traditions (3rd-2nd millennium) on the infernal world, one from the south, focused on Ereškigal and her court, and one from the north, around Nergal of Cutha.17

• 18  See Ponchia ‒ Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xxxv-xxxix.

12But, as Simonetta Ponchia and Mikko Luukko point out, the late version is a complex text where several traditional literary motifs are re-elaborated and harmonized in an original and entertaining narration. Their analysis is not limited strictly to the text or to the specific timeframe of its composition (synchrony), but encompasses the relation between genres, theological thoughts and the religious-mythological repertoire.18

• 19  See Ponchia – Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xvi and xviii. See n. 23 and 30.

14For instance, Ponchia ‒ Luukko give space to the uranic facet of Nergal as a son of Enlil and consider him a dual god who can go to the underworld while retaining his prominence in the sky.19

• 20  See Ponchia ‒ Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xxii-xxvii and xl-lxix.

15For the same reason, they stress his martial nature and his links to the ideology of kingship. The royal inscriptions from Assyria attest that, from the Middle-Assyrian period, Nergal enjoyed the favours of the court because, as a young and strong god, he was a perfect emblem for the military feats and political aspirations of Assyrian kings. Actually, the fortune of Nergal with monarchy goes back to the late 3rd millennium, when Naram-Sîn of Akkad promoted his worship.20

• 21  See A. Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, Helsinki (...)
• 22  Ninurta and Nergal were even identified with Enlil. Other deities (Nabû, Marduk) faced this proces (...)

16Another deity cherished by Mesopotamian royalty was Ninurta,21 and several studies have highlighted the various connections that Nergal and Ninurta have, in first place, as warrior sons of Enlil.22

• 23  Nergal and Erra alternate in the Nergal, too. See S. Chiodi in Pettinato, Nergal ed Ereškigal, p. (...)
• 24  See Ponchia – Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xvi, lxvi, lxxiv and xc. In Wisnom, Weapons (...)

17Ponchia ‒ Luukko uncover two important aspects in the overall mythology of Nergal that add to the Nergal another nuance: 1) the legitimacy of Nergal’s rulership in the underworld as an heir of Enlil, 2) the correspondence between the ideology of kingship of the hymns and the order/disorder topic of the myths, where young gods (Ninurta, Nergal, Nabû, Marduk) defend the current order fighting against the forces of disorder. The authors mention the Anzû, Enūma Eliš and Erra and Išum (the last contemporary to the Nergal and starring Nergal as his double Erra),23 which, at a different degree, develop this cosmogonic theme.24

• 25  I cannot deal here with Inanna/Ištar’s tradition. See P. Corrente, Dioniso e gli dèi morenti: stor (...)

21Particularly, Inanna/Ištar is a war goddess, like her brothers, and is very much involved in the search for power at the expense of the great gods.25

• 26 For a discussion see Corrente, Dioniso e gli dèi morenti, p. 169-185. See n. 32.

22In the Descent, she does a catabasis, a journey to the underworld, with the clear intention of seizing the reign from her sister.26 Many Mesopotamian myths talk of a traveling deity, but not always the journey’s aim is power.

• 27  See Corrente, Dioniso e gli dèi morenti, p. 237-248. An exception could be Enlil because, in Enlil (...)
• 28  See Annus, The God Ninurta, p. 24-39 and Penglase, Greek Myths, chap. 3. Here, the author studies, (...)
• 29  For Ningišzida who, like Nergal, goes to the underworld to become an official at Ereškigal’s court (...)
• 30  The tight correlation between these two gods’ myths is not casual, as they match in many details, (...)

23Some describe journeys to the underworld that have the vegetation as scene and the dying gods as protagonists, where the power is not present.27 In others, the journey is not towards the netherworld, but it is motivated by power, as for Ninurta.28 With Inanna/Ištar and Nergal29 the two features match, since they make a catabasis for the high position in the hands of Ereškigal,30 whom they confront.

• 31 ETCSL 1.8.1.4 (https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.1.4#).
• 32  Inanna/Ištar is killed. This is a controversial issue: see Corrente, Dioniso e gli dèi morenti, p. (...)
• 33  This marriage works brilliantly given the two gods’ complementary characteristics: Ereškigal, who (...)

24On her part, Ereškigal is the only among Enlil’s offspring to have inherited from the reigning gods, according to the Sumerian text Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld, where she is said to have received the underworld as a gift.31 And, in the Nergal and the Descent, she protects her position against the prospective usurpers. In the Descent, she prevails in a dramatic way,32 while in the Nergal her victory is more subtle. Up to the end she plays the part of an insecure queen and a sad woman who longs for love, but what she really obtains with the final marriage is how to prevent Nergal from killing her and taking away her kingdom.33

• 34  See B. Foster, Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, Bethesda (MD), Pennsylvania (...)

25Earlier we have seen the identification of gods with regard to royalty. This similarity also appears in their representation in the myths on power, alongside the presence of Enki/Ea in his typical role of the good genius who solves issues. This combination of themes and gods could be simply considered typical for this kind of narrative, however, a cross-reading of myths where authority is at stake suggests a particular interpretation of Enki/Ea’s behavior that puts emphasis on his motivations; particularly, in the Nergal he appears to have strong reasons for wanting Nergal in the underworld.34

• 35  The oldest version, instead, looks like an actual military expedition. See J. Bottéro ‒ S. N. Kram (...)

26In his myth, Nergal shows no martial attribute and is heedless and fearful:35 he is a “cowardly” war god, so to speak, a depiction that evokes the characterization of his father, the “confused” chief god of the Anzû and Atraḫasīs. In these stories, both gods cannot deal with problems until Ea intervenes.

• 36 See Annus, The God Ninurta, chap. 3.

27Enki/Ea is very active in the Sumerian myths of Ninurta as well. Ninurta is the god most connected to kingship and has an actual mythological cycle on it: the Lugal-e and Anzû develop the narrative nucleus of order/disorder and the Angim and Ninurta’s visit to Enki the theme of the victorious hero’s investiture.36 But, in the Ninurta and the turtle, Enki humiliates Ninurta when he asks him for a fairer recompense (the supreme power?) after his exploits against Anzû.

• 37 Enki/Ea is a master of magic, and magic is a way of tricking. On this god, see § II.

28In these cases, Enki/Ea’s actions trigger the disgrace of Enlil, the fall of Ninurta and the banishing of Nergal, revealing the less pleasant side of a god who is usually deemed good, when he is in fact a naturally ambiguous deity.37

• 38  The patron god of Babylon, Marduk in origin had a blurred personality, and he probably shared the (...)

29Enki/Ea’s help turns quickly into manipulation for his own advantage once we consider it with the asset of the Enūma eliš in mind. In it, Marduk becomes king in a curious move, at least, as he is not Enlil’s son and originally does not have the features of a warrior,38 two of the requirements for succession.

• 39 Possibly, Nergal’s epithets “junior Enlil” and “Enlil of the underworld” are the best proof of this (...)
• 40  Nergal and Ninurta are among the few deities who has an “exaltation”, the celebration for reaching (...)

30The unfortunate events of our myths, then, come from the same idea: the elimination of Marduk’s contenders for the supreme leadership. Nergal and Ninurta have the favourable genealogy and profile to aspire to the “Enlilship”,39 yet neither reaches the highest position, losing it to Marduk.40

• 41  On the Cycle of Baal see D. Pardee, “Ugaritic Myths”, in: W. W. Hallo ‒ K. L. Younger Jr. (ed.), T (...)
• 42  Ponchia ‒ Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. xiv, see in the Egyptian version of the Nergal (...)
• 43  It is not possible to comment exhaustively these two myths or to compare in detail Nergal and Baal (...)

33The Baal Cycle is about the struggle the storm god sustains with Yam, the god of the sea, and Mot, the god of death, to become king of the gods.41 Considering the Nergal a variation on the topos of a god-seeking power, it is very akin to the Baal,42 as the comparison of five points that form the backbone of the myths’ structure illustrates.43

• 46  See A. Tugendhaft, Baal and the Politics of Poetry, London, Routledge, 2018. For the author the st (...)

34There is no consensus on the cosmogonic interpretation of the Baal. Aaron Tugendhaft, for example, maintains that Baal does not substitute El but becomes a king among others: because he and Yam are of the same generation, their fight is political, not cosmogonic.46 The temporal frame is pertinent for our Nergal, who belongs to the younger generation, the same of other gods involved in the struggle for lordship.

• 47  For W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution, p. 90-91, the Greek scene comes directly from Atraḫa (...)

35Further exegetic suggestions come from Greece. Here the stories that take place in the underworld originate from the cosmogonies, given that Hades, the Hellenic analogous of Nergal, receives the subterranean realm after the division of the universe (Iliad XV, 186-193).47 Their mythological parables mirror each other: they are gods of the uranic family; they end up ruling the underworld and sharing the same epithet: Hades is the “Zeus of the underworld” (Iliad IX, 457) and Nergal the “Enlil of the netherworld” (for example, in Death of Ur-Namma 90); and they are coupled with a goddess linked to the subterranean realm, Persephone and Ereškigal, respectively.

• 48  For Ponchia ‒ Luukko, The Standard Babylonian Myth, p. lxxvii and lxxxix, the special devotion the (...)

36To recapitulate. In an effort to explore the reason why Nergal, born in the celestial divine family, was cast into the underworld, I turned to the interpretation of some details (the descent; the characters) of the Nergal that seem to create a narrative arc stemming from kingship, a subject that entails power and succession, and revolves around the fate of the heirs presumptive.48

• 49  Enlil, since Sumerian times the chief of the assembly, and his children are missing from the epic. (...)

39My hypothesis is that in the Nergal there is a leitmotiv that ties it to other poems: the seed of Nergal’s story is grafted in the (in)famous rivalry between Enlil and Enki/Ea that results in the celebration of Marduk in the Enūma eliš (which implies not only the elevation of Marduk but also the cancellation of Enlil)49 and that, in my opinion, is crucial for the Nergal’s central idea on leadership.

• 50  A discussion in P. Espak, The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology, Tartu, University (...)

40The theory of the contrasting theologies of Enki/Ea and Enlil has consequently to be abandoned, given that no text talks explicitly of a conflict between the two.50 This is on the ground of a concrete but not irrefutable argument, because this animosity can be an underlying motif and not the central theme of a particular myth and, above all, because the written sources from the 4th and early 3rd millennium cannot clarify the conceptions of the more archaic phases of Mesopotamian religion. In all fairness, we should recognize that the texts give no certainty either that the two gods were hostile to each other or that they were not, and all rests on interpretation.

• 51  Atraḫasīs is the myth in which this antagonism is most evident. It is not the place here to discus (...)

41Similarly, in the cosmogonic myths a narrative strand around a conflictive situation between the two gods does exist, primarily because Enlil (= authority) and Enki/Ea (= demiurgy) are different types of gods, hence their way of administrating the universal affairs is different, no matter if they end up in agreement.51

• 52  On Enki/Ea see H. D. Galter, Der Gott Ea/Enki in der akkadischen Überlieferung: eine Bestandsaufna (...)

42Besides, the god of Eridu has the traits of a trickster, and a trickster, while not utterly evil, rejoices in disrupting the major gods’ activities: Enlil decides to do something and Enki/Ea spoils his plans. Finally, in the myths about power, Enki/Ea lets Enlil make doomed decisions as if he wanted to diminish him.52

• 53  Enlil and Zeus are the chief gods and Enki/Ea and Poseidon are associated with water and earth. At (...)
• 54  In Greece, we can only speculate on the situation after Zeus’s enthronement, because he himself in (...)

43The comparison adds more insights. For their role and position in the pantheon, Enlil and Enki/Ea resemble Zeus and Poseidon,53 and in Greece53 their animosity has links to succession:54 in Theogony 454-556, Zeus is the last son of Cronus, which affected the norm of succession as a rule based on primogeniture; both wanted to marry Thetis, but eventually decided to give up because she would bear a son mightier than the father (Pindar, Isthmian VIII, 26-57), destined to replace him; and in the conspiracy of the Iliad (I, 396-406), Poseidon, with Hera, Athena, and Apollo, tries to bind Zeus, an attack with symbolical implications, as ligatures represent political impotence.

• 55 See Espak, The God Enki, p. 227.

44Whether the theological schools from Eridu and Nippur were behind it or not, the conflict of their patron gods functions very well as a source of narrative ideas for diversifying the old stories on gods and power.55 I suspect that the Nergal was the elaboration of one of those (thus, there was not necessarily a theology behind his “elevation” in the underworld), in that his infernal vicissitudes may have been a consequence of the scheme to prepare the ascent of Marduk.

• 56  On the scribal environment of Babylonian literature see Wisnom, Weapons of Words, p. 23-29.

45The proclamation of Marduk as the first of the gods was motivated by the political and historical rise of Babylon in the 2nd millennium. A political move that, for legitimacy, took advantage of the mythological repertoire,56 such as the classical feud Enlil-Enki/Ea, a very promising story framework.

• 57  For N. Ayali-Darshan, “Baal, Son of Dagan: in Search of Baal’s Double Paternity”, Journal of the A (...)

46By putting his son on the throne, Ea finally wins over Enlil. In every myth on power examined here, Ea imposes his will over Enlil’s, demonstrates his superior intelligence and actually handles more power, although his brother is the one nominally holding it, given that, in the Sumero-Akkadian cosmos, supremacy belongs to Enlil and his family. This was reworked in the Enūma eliš, which marks a shift in dynasties because Ea’s family displaces Enlil’s. At Ugarit there is a similar situation as for the families in charge. In the Baal, Dagan and not El is often indicated as Baal’s father, and El sustains his children, the dreadful Yam and Mot, against him: perhaps, the Ugaritic divine family senses a change in the dynasty, should Baal become king.57

• 58  See A. R. George, “The Poem of Erra and Ishum: A Babylonian Poet’s View of War”, in: H. Kennedy (e (...)

49Andrew R. George, for instance, sees in the philosophical questions they take on (meaning of life, relation between men/gods/universe and war respectively) the thread connecting The Epic of Gilgameš, the Enūma eliš and the Erra and Išum.58

• 59 See Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, p. 11-12.
• 60 See Wisnom, Weapons of Words, p. 16-18.

50Comparing Greek and Akkadian epics, Haubold talks of “awareness of narrative alternatives” produced by the similar perception on the functioning of the universe and the place of the gods the ancients had.59 This brings us to the consciousness of the author.60 When writing a specific story, he could choose from a pool of ideas the variant closer to his intentions; and occasionally, a particular brilliant author would come up with a particular brilliant work.

• 61  Freiberger, Elements of a Comparative Methodology, p. 3, in his classification of comparative appr (...)

54A study of Nergal according to these lines can be profitable in a twofold way:61 on the one hand, by establishing its relation with the mythology of kingship, it helps enrich our knowledge of this narrative and, on the other, it tests some important reflections on theory of mythology and literature with some methodological implications.

• 62  See G. Cerri, “Che cosa fu il mito per i Greci: una messa a punto”, La rivista di Engramma 128, 20 (...)

62It could appear that comparison obfuscates the specific traits of different cultures and creates hierarchies among them, when in fact it is a way of promoting and better understanding them, especially when we do not have enough material to work with. This concern with preserving the “authenticity” of a culture can lead to a rejection of a comparative perspective and hinder the feedback that can come from other cultural contexts: although I am aware that this is a very controversial subject,62 I dare to say that myth is a universal tool that humans use to illustrate the world they know and live in, as well as the world they imagine.