M., the author of the book under review, works on ancient Greek and Near Eastern languages, literature and religions. He co-edited Gods and Mortals in Early Greek and Near Eastern Mythology (2021) with A. Kelly and wrote The Gods Rich in Praise: Early Greek and Mesopotamian Religious Poetry (2015). This reviewer agrees with M.’s view that ancient Near Eastern texts and literary traditions can illuminate early Greek ones and vice versa.
Over recent decades M.L. West (The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry [1997]), W. Burkert (‘Near Eastern Connections’, in: J.M. Foley [ed.], A Companion to Ancient Epic [2005], pp. 291–301; M.’s bibliography omits this reference and the collective volume) and J. Haubold (Greece and Mesopotamia: Dialogues in Literature [2013]) have initiated a convergence of the disciplines of ancient Near East studies and Classics in a number of areas and from various perspectives. M. associated himself with this line of research in his 2015 book and continues this exploration in the volume under review.
The ancient texts covered in the book are pleasingly rich and varied. Although most are in Sumerian, Akkadian and ancient Greek, the sources also include Hittite, Hebrew and more. This list presents a representative sample: Gilgamesh; the Hebrew Bible; Sumerian and Akkadian writings concerning Sargon, Dumuzi/Tammuz and Inanna; the Iliad (particularly Book 1); the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite; Herodotus, Histories (especially the sections on Gyges and Cyrus the Great); Ctesias, Persika; Sophocles, Oedipus Rex; and Euripides, Ion (see also the BM text on Inanna edited by M.-C. Ludwig and M., ‘The Song of Innana and Išme-Dagan: An Edition of BM 23820+23831’, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 107 [2017], 1–21).
M. delineates and analyses three narrative archetypes in early Greek and ancient Near Eastern myths pertaining to kingship, utilising a comparative perspective. The three narrative archetypes are: servant; lover; fool. A helpful introduction discusses the overarching questions of the volume: ‘(i) What … is meant by the terms “myth” and “story-pattern”? (ii) What is a “king”? (iii) On what basis is it possible to juxtapose texts from such a wide range of ancient cultures?’ (p. 2).
To explain the terminology as well as to clarify his methodology and assumptions, M. refers to the work of C. Zgoll (Tractatus mythologicus [2019], pp. 25–41). For M., Zgoll provides both a comprehensive summary of prior approaches to ancient mythology and a practical strategy for the analysis of literature founded on mythology. The first important point is that ‘myth’ must always be separated from ‘text’ because texts (and other media, including visual art) only reflect a myth. The Iliad and the Odyssey, for instance, are both based on the story of the Trojan War, but are not the same. Literary sources are selective and imaginative in their approach to legendary stories. For instance, the Homeric poet expands some Trojan myth tales and compresses others, while omitting some characters and episodes that appear in other Greek sources. Thus, it can be assumed that an ancient source does not detail every stage of a mythical story-pattern, but rather a selection. While the idea that a word or image is not a myth but rather a partial reflection of one is not new, Zgoll expounds it very clearly.
At this point, it will be helpful to define mythos and mythologeîn: ‘In Greek, mythos designates a formulated verbal expression, whether it is a story, a dialogue, or the announcement of a project. Mythos, therefore, belongs to the same order as legeîn, as the compounds mythologeîn and mythología indicate. Legeîn, initially, is not in contrast to lógoi, whose semantic values are close to it, referring to the different forms of what is said’ (Piccin, BMCR 2017.10.61 , with bibliography in nn. 2 and 3). This type of introspection is absent from the text of this book. A quick review of the vocabulary for myth across the various languages involved would have been beneficial.
Chapter 1 focuses on the myth of the servant. The origins of this myth can be found in the reign of Sargon of Akkad, who, in the third millennium bce, established what is now termed the Old Akkadian kingdom. Subsequent periods witnessed the emergence of enigmatic rulers such as David of Israel and Judah (Hebrew Bible), Gyges of Lydia, Cyrus of Persia and Semiramis of Assyria (recorded by Greek historians), who established significant royal dynasties. Certain ancient Near Eastern regions adopted the myth of the servant to legitimise royal authority by explaining it as situated among deities.
The story-pattern of the myth of the servant depicts future rulers being born amid upheaval and separation from their biological parents (see I. Rutherford, Hittite Texts and Greek Religion [2020], pp. 144–62, and A. Fries, ‘The Mountain in Labour: A possible Graeco-Anatolian Myth’, GRBS 61 [2021], 423–45). Following rescue and adoption by a royal servant, they embark on a career at court and encounter the king’s close entourage. Ultimately, they ascend to the throne. According to the narrative, the abrupt reversal of fortunes of the deposed king and the new ruler is contingent upon divine intervention.
Chapter 2 focuses on the lover. It explores how the mythological narrative of the deity and the herdsman underscores royal legitimacy as gained through a sexual relationship with a potent, divine female figure (e.g. Inana or Ištar in Mesopotamia, Aphrodite or Venus in Graeco-Roman antiquity). M. shows that this relationship forms the focal point of a broader narrative. While the tale commences with sexual union, it advances to the male lover’s transgression and subsequent divine retribution. This punishment causes weeping, ultimately leading to a reconciliatory resolution achieved through divine intervention.
M.’s study utilises Mesopotamian cuneiform texts from the late third millennium bce, ancient Near Eastern evidence and Greek literature concerning the legendary rulers of Cyprus and Troy. Within the Graeco-Roman context the union of the Trojan prince Anchises and the goddess Aphrodite (which yielded the future Trojan leader Aeneas) was regarded as the mythical foundation for Augustus’ claim to sovereignty as the first Roman emperor. While kings are frequently depicted in Mesopotamian, Near Eastern and eastern Mediterranean literature, the texts were predominantly authored by external figures like poets, priests, prophets or philosophers. Just as human rulers asserted divine backing, these individuals founded their authority on their capacity to convey and actualise divine will. Inevitably, tension between rulers and divine intermediaries ensued.
Chapter 3 focuses on the fool. It uncovers a recurring pattern in ancient sources: the king initiates conflict, frequently within a military context; although not considered impious, the king neglects divine will despite knowledge obtained from a trustworthy conduit. Negative effects inevitably follow, but ultimately these repercussions fall on those whom the king was supposed to lead, not the king himself. This third story-pattern is first documented in Sumerian records from early Mesopotamia. Other sources include the Hebrew Bible and early Greek epics authored by Homer and Hesiod.
The evidence discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 supports a historical link between the narratives of Greek authors and those of ancient Near Eastern sources. The Mesopotamian and Hebrew evidence set out in Chapter 3 helps to identify a story-pattern in the Greek texts that may have emerged independently, but has been generally overlooked until now.
The reviewer appreciates M.’s efforts in both the interpretation and the translation of texts. While not concurring with all the proposed solutions, one cannot deny the remarkable work accomplished. The volume is well edited; there are analytical indexes, a list of abbreviations and an index locorum; and the biography is rich, comprising 39 pages. Overall, this is a publication that deserves a broad readership. The book offers a wealth of intriguing material for scholars of antiquity, especially those specialising in its numerous and diverse ancient languages, as well as comparativists and aficionados of literature.
