Due Jan 28
Sacred Performance in Babylon
Reading: Enuma Elish (Blackboard: EnumaElish.pdf)
Writing: Respond to ONE of the following prompts. Keep your response short, and post as a reply under the appropriate heading in the comments section:
- Marduk proves himself the equal of Tiamat when he kills her. But does this mean he is simply her replacement? Or is he different from her, qualitatively? Quote or paraphrase a moment that strikes you as presenting these two characters as similar or as strikingly different entities.
- In the introduction I wrote to the Enuma Elish, I suggested that this epic is a political as well as a cosmic myth of creation. Quote or paraphrase a moment when the action strikes you as foregrounding the creation of a political order.
Responses contrasting Marduk with Tiamat
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I believe that after Marduk kills Tiamat he proves that he isn’t a simple replacement, but is different from her. This is because Marduk is not a primordial force, but a chosen ruler, whose power comes from Authority, order, and law. As opposed to Tiamat’s that just comes from generative chaos. Marduk as a leader creates a new world from the chaos left by Tiamet emphasizing how he wants to be different and better than Tiamat as a ruler. In my opinion Marduk is presented as a new ruler who establishes his own way of rule, instead of as a simple replacement.
I agree with you that just because Marduk defeated Tiamat doesn’t mean he is simply going to replace her. This is in part because Marduk never intended to battle Tiamat as a way of overthrowing her and assuming her position, rather it was for the protection of himself and his fellow gods. Right before their battle Marduk tells Tiamat, “Why art thou risen, art haughtily exalted, Thou hast charged thine own heart to stir up conflict, … sons reject their own fathers, Whilst thou, who hast born them, hast foresworn love”, essentially letting Tiamat know that he’s only doing this because she has turned on her own kids and so the very basis of their leadership is different. Tiamat held power simply because she was primordial and the one “who bore them all”, whereas Marduk resembles more of a unanimously chosen leader like George Washington, they both provided an extraordinary service to their people that ensured their liberty and safety. In doing so, Marduk is entirely different to Tiamat.
I don’t believe that Marduk is Tiamat’s replacement. Tiamat is initially portrayed as a “water god” who incited “primal chaos”, while Marduk is explained as having “kingship over the entire universe”. In some ways it’s chaos in relation to the fierce sea in stark contrast with order in the cosmos. Creation vs destruction. Tiamat is this shapeshifting amalgamation that attempts to “consume” Marduk, while Marduk is a seemingly divine and renowned figure who is intentional, deliberate, and decisive when it comes to constructing babylon. He isn’t taking her place as a chaotic deity, he is is the opposite from her as a divine figure.
Responses regarding the politics of the Enuma Elish
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The main plot of this entire myth is inherently political. Tiamat wages a war against the younger gods to both allow the older gods to sleep and to avenge Apsu’s death. Every war in the history of the world has been political because war in and of itself is political. When Marduk kills Tiamat, he is essentially killing the leader of the gods. The assassination of a ruling figure is another political event that occurs in this story.
I do think that your interpretation of this story is valid, however in my opinion I disagree that it is inherently political. Sure, the whole concept of a war between gods is political, but I still believe that the overall messaging of this story is about morals. Tiamats intentions behind her uprising seemed to be a bit self-centered and the lack of love and attention she was giving her children implies that she was in the wrong throughout the whole story. I saw strong connections between this story and the tale of Adam and eve, where the apple acted as temptation and sin for them but in this case power was the tempting force that caused Tiamat to start a war.
Yes, I agree with Sophia’s point on that the myth is inherently political. Not only because of the wars that they were putting themselves in, the settings of the myth are also representing some political aspects. Marduk has been told to have the great power to command and his command is “unimpeachable.” This suggests a strict hierarchy that, similar to ghat of a royal family in a political society. Power is controlled by the one who holds the throne, which is a great representation of political authority.
I believe that many parallels are able to be drawn between the Enuma Elish and political themes. One of elements of politics that stood out to me from the beginning was the emphasis on the bureaucracy. From the onset, of the story, the other Great Gods were singing Marduk’s praises and blessing him with holy vows. These other gods, despite being divine, and having otherworldly influence, seem to operate in a certain system, with very powerful gods and warriors being at the top of the heavenly caste. I noticed this when Marduk was addressing Kingu, the consort of Tiamat and a chieftan–whom, because of his godly influence and loyalty to Tiamat was given particularly harsh treatment. This is encapsulated by the excerpt “He bound and accounted him to Uggae. He took from him the Tablets of Fate, not rightfully his, Sealed them with a seal and fastened them on his breast.” To me, I liken this to a political enemy in high power being castrated and reduced to nothing as a show of strength by the opposing party. In a much more tame sense, on page 5, The Elish states how Marduk constructed stations for each of the gods, similar to how governments “construct” or envelop bureaucrats into rigid systems of power.
Before fighting Tiamat, Marduk declares how he has supreme authority over all gods—promoting political hierarchy: “We have granted thee kingship over the universe entire. When in Assembly thou sittest, thy word shall be supreme.” This moment reads less mythic necessity and more so political. Marduk isn’t granted a hero, he had to be formally granted kingship. This goes to show that earthly gods show their authority through oaths, assemblies and especially public recognition. Overall, this quote makes it shown obvious that it’s not just how the world was created, but the political steps in place to be enforced.
I believe that there are moments in the story that are able to be drawn between Enuma Elish and political themes. One element of politics that I saw was the emphasis on the sovereignty. Throughout the story, the other Great Gods were singing Marduk’s praises and blessing him with holy vows, saying “Let his sovereignty be surpassing, having no rival” These other gods seem to recognize power systems, seeing who is the most powerful and picking them as their leader. This has also been shown throughout history, with many following the leader who showed the greatest display of strength.
I think Enuma Elish is political in the way that when Marduk demands that he become king if he saves the younger gods from Tiamat using the situation as leverage and so when the several younger gods deemed him “king” he is in a way getting elected as the most powerful man. He isn’t born with that power or was just given it but is actually elected. This is further conveyed by the feast/meeting they have which could be seen as a “political election process” which reflects our world where power is gained through negotiation and leadership during crisis rather than just being inherited or something we are born with.