Etana

Etana
(Lu-Nanna, 22nd century BC)

Notes

• Etana is quasi-historical in that he does appear on later king lists of Kish.
• An early cylinder (24th century BC) has been discovered which depicts a scene from the story.
  

Synopsis

After the gods design and build the city of Kish, Ishtar seeks a king to rule it and finds Etana. Once he is established on the throne, a poplar tree grows near the palace which soon houses a serpent at its base and an eagle in its top. The serpent and the eagle swear an oath of friendship to each other, and work together to provide food for themselves and their families. After a while, the eagle conspires to devour the children of the serpent, and despite a warning from one of his own sons, does so. The serpent then calls upon Shamash, god over oaths, to help him avenge this act of treachery. Shamash instructs the serpent to crawl inside a dead bull and wait for the eagle to come eat. When the eagle comes, again despite a warning from his son, the snake strikes, and throws the eagle into a pit to die. From the pit, the eagle cries out for help to Shamash, who decides to send Etana to help the eagle get out of the pit. In return for this deed, the eagle helps Etana seek a special plant which will help him produce an heir. At the end of the surviving text, Etana reports on a dream where he ascends into heaven. The eagle encourages him to make another ascension, which they do, and then the text cuts off.

Commentary

The gods, rather than men, are credited with creating the city of Kish, as well as establishing the kingship too. In particular, the Annunaki create the "four quarters of the earth" a general reference implying the entire world, used by later kings to designate "worldwide" rule. Is all this simply a royal legitimation tale, or is it a symbolic nod to a divine nurturing of their civilization?

Mesopotamian royal emblems include a two part crown (reminiscent of Egypt's united crown of Upper and Lower Egypt - any connection?), a sceptre decorated with lapis lazuli, and a raised throne (called a throne-dais). The king is, as in both Hammurabi's Law Code and the Gilgamesh Epic, equated to a shepherd of his people.

The oath between the eagle and the serpent is made "in the presence of Shamash." This suggests an interesting divine aspect to oath making: it is a god, specifically Shamash, who has the power to enforce oaths and punish oath-breakers. Note that the agreement is not a legal/contractual thing, but more of a divinely-based covenant. It recalls to my mind the swearing on relics during the Peace of God movement in medieval Europe. What is perhaps even more striking, though, is that it is not Shamash who actually acts to punish the oath-breaker. The text says that he would deliver the oath-breaker to the Smiter, but in this case, he simply advises the serpent on how to avenge himself. Later, the serpent informs the eagle that were he to relent in exacting the required punishment, he himself would be punished by Shamash. In the end, Shamash has pity on the eagle, sending a human to help him out.

In most other mythology I know, the eagle is a positive symbol. Think of Romulus seeing a flight of eagles (at least in some versions), or the use of the eagle symbol in Byzantine imperial iconography or American republican iconography. Here, the eagle is an oath-breaker, equated with Anzu, who is described as a notorious criminal.

It is striking that the eagle's son is noted for his wisdom, as usually wisdom is associated with maturity. Is this meant to stand out to the reader as odd or different?

One curiosity of the text was that before the eagle partakes of the bull, the text clearly says that the eagle was aware of the danger and would not eat the food like the other birds. But then, we see him heading down there, ignoring the advice of his son who seems to be real one to see the danger. The lines don't seem to fit with what follows.

When the serpent seizes upon the eagle, the latter tries to compensate the serpent for his loss. The offer is, curiously, related to a payment usually made by or to one's betrothed. Is this possibly related to the cutting off of the serpent's heirs? It seems to resemble medieval feuding composition - a payment to avert a vendetta. Hammurabi's Law Code certainly bases much of its punishment schedule on the payment of fines like this.

One gets the sense that Shamash is quite whimsical in his dealings with men. He seems to help the serpent, the eagle, and Etana, suggesting a genuine concern for mortal beings - in fact the very beginning of the poem seems to suggest this, with the creation of cities and kings. However, when we focus on his dealings with the eagle, he first arranges his punishment, and then later seems moved by pity for the creature, and finally, arranges to help Etana by helping the eagle. The question is, how whimsical, or how concerned, is Shamash towards men?

7 is definitely a magic number here. Kish is guarded by 7 warrior-gods. Etana nourishes the eagle for 7 months before he can escape the pit.

Etana is in search of secret knowledge: the knowledge of where to find the plant that will provide him with an heir - in a dream, he has seen the consequences of not providing Kish with an heir (presumably civil war). When the eagle cannot find the plant, he takes Etana to heaven. This suggests the Etana seeks knowledge directly from the source: the gods. Etana debates within himself, as he looks down on earth like a god in heaven, whether it is appropriate for a human to ascend to heaven. In a dream Etana is shown how he must act in order to pass the gate into heaven.

Reflection

At first, this seems to be a story about political legitimacy. The gods create the city and the kingship. Etana's great concern is to provide a legitimate heir to the kingship. However, most of the story has little to do with Etana, and focuses instead on the eagle and his friend/adversary the serpent.

So, what are to make of this eagle? He is an oath-breaker, but also a source of pity and aid. Are we to see the eagle and the serpent as stand-ins for humans? Is this a metaphor for two peoples or families living in a symbiotic relationship, strengthened by official ties of alliance?

For me, the real point of this story is the active role of the gods in mortal life. The gods are the source of civilization and order. The gods act to preserve that order, in the form of oaths. If the gods do not organize all this, humans will be forced to eke out an existence without these benefits. But these are not clockmaker gods who set up the world and then let it go. Shamash can and must act to enforce the oaths - the oath-makers have brought the god into this essentially mortal agreement. Likewise, when Etana cannot produce an heir, he must turn to the gods for help, or to be enlightened. Only through their intervention can he hope to find the plant that will enable his wife to get pregnant. In the end, he must ascend to heaven, or seek direct revelation, in order to procure what he needs. I find this story to be much more positive than some of the others I've read towards the gods' relationship with men.