I. M. Konstantakos, Akicharos. The Tale of Ahiqar in Ancient Greece. Vol.

1: Origins and Narrative Material, Athens: Stigmi Publications, 2008. SUMMARY The Tale of Ahiqar is one of the oldest international books in world literature: from early on it circulated widely in the Near East and was translated in various languages, including Greek. An adaptation of Ahiqar has been incorporated in the Aesop Romance (ch. 101-123). But the work had started to infiltrate the Greek world from much earlier times: a Greek translation of it was apparently known to Theophrastus, at the beginning of the Hellenistic period; it has been claimed that already Democritus transcribed the Tale of Ahiqar in Greek, while some of its elements (episodes, narrative motifs, sayings) seem to have influenced Greek texts of the archaic and classical age. The purpose of the present study is to examine the introduction and reception of the Tale of Ahiqar in the Greek world, thus contributing to a broader understanding of the encounter and the exchanges between Greece and the ancient cultures of the East. The first part of the study (The Tale of Ahiqar: origins, content and structure) begins with some preliminary remarks on Ahiqar. The oldest known version of this work, in Aramaic, is preserved in a fragmentary papyrus (late 5th c. B.C.), which was discovered in Elephantine (Egypt), among the remains of the Jewish mercenary colony there. The text consists of two parts: a narrative about Ahiqars adventures and the instructions of the sage (a miscellaneous collection of various kinds of sayings, gathered together at the end). These two parts are separated by a lacuna of four papyrus columns, which presumably contained the end of the narrative (with the rehabilitation of the unjustly persecuted hero) and the beginning of the instructions. The collection of the sayings was most probably presented as Ahiqars tuition for his adoptive son Nadin, and was loosely connected with the narrative. Some scholars date the composition of the original Ahiqar around 550-500 B.C., quite some time after the end of the NeoAssyrian state, but without sufficient reason. In fact, nothing
1

opposes the dating of the work during the last years of the NeoAssyrian empire (late 7th c. B.C.). The narrative part (written in regular Imperial Aramaic, with some loans from Akkadian) comes from Mesopotamia and reproduces fairly accurately the conditions of the Neo-Assyrian court. The instructions, on the other hand, do not point to a specifically Mesopotamian context, and their language (Western Aramaic containing archaic elements and affinities with Canaanite languages) suggests rather an origin from northern Syria. Apparently, a collection of sayings, compiled in a northern Syrian kingdom early in the 1st millennium B.C., was subsequently transported to Assyria (presumably after the Assyrian conquest of Syria in the 8th c.); there it was re-edited and combined with the narrative about Ahiqars adventures (itself based on earlier legends). The original Tale of Ahiqar was most probably composed in Aramaic, which had gradually imposed itself in the Assyrian state by the 7th c. as the common everyday language. The Elephantine text (the oldest known version of Ahiqar, written in the original language of the work) must represent the original form of Ahiqar, or at least the form closest to the original among all surviving versions. Luzzattos theory, that the Elephantine version is an abridgement or an anthology of excerpts from a more extensive original work, is not supported by convincing arguments. From early on Ahiqar was translated into other languages. Fragments of a Demotic Egyptian translation are preserved in 1st c. A.D. papyri; the translation itself may be considerably older. During the Middle Ages and the beginning of modern times a great number of versions were circulating in various languages (Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Ethiopian, Old Church Slavonic, and later Old Turkish, Georgian, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Rumanian). These later versions are more expanded than the Elephantine text and contain many new episodes and details, which were presumably added with the passing of time; some of them had become part of Ahiqar already in the Hellenistic period. The most pristine among all later versions seem to be the Syriac and the various Armenian versions (which probably descend from a Syriac original): these possibly go back to late antiquity. Chapter 1.3 (Content and plot of the Tale), after a synopsis of the plot, offers an analysis of the riddle contest between Ahiqar and
2

Pharaoh (a capital part of the story, at least in the later versions and in the Aesop Romance). The types of problems set by Pharaoh to the hero are examined in detail. The first problem is a simile riddle: Ahiqar must find the aptest simile for the appearance of Pharaoh and his courtiers. The second riddle is an unanswerable question: Ahiqar must say something that Pharaoh and his entourage have never heard of. The third problem (building a castle in the air) is an adynaton, an impossible task, which is here solved by means of a counter-adynaton (so also the seventh problem, sewing up a broken millstone). The fourth problem (why do the mares of Egypt miscarry, when they hear the Assyrian kings stallion neighing in Nineveh?) is another adynaton, though of a different type (paradoxical statement, cf. similar adynata in ancient Egyptian and Hittite stories). The fifth riddle is an enigma proper, the famous riddle of the year, which occurs in several variants and in many ancient peoples. The sixth problem (again an adynaton: making ropes of sand) is solved by means of a clever technical device, which produces an illusory sand-rope. In the various versions of Ahiqar the sequence of these riddles differs, while some problems are omitted. Ch. 1.4 (Structure of the Tale: Narrative part and instructions) examines the layout of the work. Unlike the Elephantine version (and presumably the original Ahiqar), in the later versions the instructions are split in two collections, both of them incorporated in the narrative: the first one (made up chiefly of commandments) is placed near the beginning and presented as Ahiqars teaching for the education of Nadin; the second one (consisting mainly of parables) comes at the end, as Ahiqars indictment of his ungrateful adoptive son. Apparently, as time passed, the need arose to integrate the instructions into the narrative part (see also below, vol. 2). The primary nucleus of the instructions (originating from northern Syria) must have existed as an independent collection at least for a century before its incorporation into Ahiqar, while particular single sayings may have had an even longer history. A Hurrian collection of parables on the subject of ingratitude, which comes from northern Syria and dates from the 17th c. B.C., suggests that there was a long relevant gnomological tradition in that area. Some maxims of the Elephantine text find parallels in Biblical works (Proverbs, Psalms and other wisdom and prophetic books),
3

while sayings of the later versions occur already in old Akkadian texts (2nd/1st millennium B.C.). This means that the sayings of Ahiqar were also disseminated as separate maxims or as parts of other wisdom collections. Their autonomous circulation may have continued even after their incorporation into the instructions of the Tale of Ahiqar. Possibly, the entire collection of Ahiqars instructions could be detached from the narrative part and circulate independently (as happened later in the Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Russian tradition). The extensive second part of the study (Narrative material of the Tale: The riddle contest and the wise counsellor) is devoted to the examination of the two main themes of Ahiqar, riddle contest of the kings and disgrace and rehabilitation of the wise counsellor; these two themes were widespread in antiquity, both in the East and in Greece. The relevant ancient stories are discussed in detail, so as to place the Tale of Ahiqar (and its derivative Aesop Romance) within the broader context of the narrative traditions of the ancient Near East. At the same time, the relationship between the Greek stories and their Asiatic or Egyptian models is also investigated. A. The riddle contest of the kings (ch. 2.1-2.2). General survey of the riddle contest theme (2.1), its basic characteristics (opponents, outcome, prize) and its variants: one-way (only one phase, in which one of the kings propounds problems to the other) and reciprocal (two phases, with each one of the participants setting in turn riddles to his opponent); simple (with the two kings as sole protagonists) and expanded (with assistants offering help and advice to the kings). There follows the analysis of the various local tales: a) The Mesopotamian tradition. The oldest surviving example of the riddle contest occurs in a Sumerian poem (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta = ELA) composed at the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur (21st c. B.C.), presumably on the basis of older legends. Despite some peculiarities (e.g. no clear victory of the challenged king), the contest already displays the fundamental features which will be standardized in later traditions. The opponents contact each other by messenger and written epistle. The contest has the simple form, but Enmerkar finds the solutions of the riddles thanks to
4

inspiration from certain gods (who thus foreshadow the wise counsellors of later stories). The prize (precious materials and workmen of Aratta) has a deeper political meaning (subjugation of the loser, who will be obliged to pay tribute). The intellectual contest is a substitute for armed battle: cf. other Sumerian epics about the dispute between Enmerkar and Aratta (Lugalbanda I and II), in which the conflict takes the form of a real war. The contest of kings seems to have been a favourite theme in Sumerian tradition: another epic of the same period (Enmerkar and Ensukedanna = E&E) contains a comparable confrontation, this time in the form of a contest in magic instead of an exchange of riddles; but the climactic structure of the magical contest recalls riddle-games of similar layout. In E&E the contest is undertaken by the assistants on behalf of their kings (cf. the Tale of Ahiqar). The theme of the riddle contest remained productive in Mesopotamia for a very long time: many centuries later the Tale of Ahiqar must have taken over this theme from current narrative tradition. b) Hebrew and Phoenician stories. Stories about the riddle contests of Solomon with the queen of Sheba and with Hiram are contained in Biblical and in ancient Greek sources (see my detailed study in 54 [2004]). The legend about Hiram may have been influenced, to some extent, by the old Mesopotamian tradition which starts with the Sumerian epics. Both ELA and the story of Solomon and Hiram are based on the same characteristic combination of motifs (riddle contest and exchange of materials for the construction of temples) and display a series of detailed similarities. In the story of Elisha and Naaman (2 Kings 5.1-19, part of a cycle of stories presumably created by followers or disciples of Elisha in the late 8th or the 7th c. B.C.) the king of Aram (i.e. the Syrian-Aramaic kingdom of Damascus) proposes to the king of Israel an adynaton (to cure a leper), and the prophet Elisha accomplishes the task by virtue of his miraculous powers. The task is not overtly propounded as a challenge by the Aramaean king, but it is regarded as such by the Israelite monarch. The very fact that the Aramaean sends the leper to the Israelite king, and not directly to the renowned healer-prophet, indicates some influence from the pattern of the riddle contest of kings. Such an influence is also suggested by other details (despair of the challenged king, sudden
5

appearance of the assistant-saviour). The solution of the adynaton is achieved by means of the assistants supernatural powers, in accordance with the magical motifs which are dominant throughout the story-cycle about Elishas miraculous feats (cf. Setne II below). In the story of Amaziah and Jehoash (2 Kings 14.8-14) one monarch propounds to the other an allegorical parable (i.e. a sort of riddle to solve) as an alternative to war. In this story many of the typical elements of the riddle contest are reversed (e.g. it is the propounder of the riddle, and not the addressee, that wins the contest and gains the prize). c) Further diffusion in Asia. The riddle contest theme remained productive until much later times and can be traced in many stories (Persian, Syriac, and Arabic). Firdawsi, in the hnma, describes the riddle contest of Bahrm Gr with the Byzantine emperor (reciprocal and expanded with assistants the Persian High Priest and a Byzantine envoy) and two contests of Khusrau I Anirvn (with the king of India and with the Byzantine emperor); these episodes are also known from other sources. In both cases Khusrau wins thanks to the help of his wise vizier, Buzurjmihr. These Persian legends must have been formed during the Sasanian period, most probably under the influence of Ahiqar (although the reciprocal form of the contests suggests a possible additional influence from other Asiatic narratives). The tale of ims from the Arabian Nights is also modelled on Ahiqar, as indicated by many common elements (combination of the riddle contest with the theme of the disgraced counsellor, similar riddles). The same holds true also of a brief narrative found in Syriac manuscripts; the latter, however, simplifies the riddle contest by eliminating the role of the assistant. d) The Egyptian tradition. In Egypt the riddle contest of kings occurs first in a fragmentary narrative (The Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre) on a 13th c. B.C. papyrus. The Hyksos king Apophis propounds to the Theban sovereign Seqenenre an adynaton of the type of paradoxical statement (cf. above). Seqenenres prestige is at stake in this contest: the Theban sovereign will be humiliated if unable to give an answer. In the lost ending of the story Seqenenre must have won the contest by finding an appropriate counterstatement (counter-adynaton) for Apophis sophism; the story is written from the viewpoint of the Egyptians, while the Hyksos are
6

depicted as impious oppressors. The Theban sovereign may have found the solution by himself, aided by his patron god Amon-Re (cf. ELA): indeed, the narrative emphasizes the religious dissent between the opponents, and behind their conflict we may clearly discern a struggle for power between their patron deities (Amon-Re and Seth/Sutekh). An alternative possibility is that a wise assistant pointed out the solution to Seqenenre (cf. other Egyptian stories below). Amon-Re may still have played a part, by sending the assistant to Seqenenre or by inspiring the helper with the solution. This second possibility is supported by internal indications of the story, e.g. the need for symmetry in the narrative (Apophis similarly has a team of counsellors who invent the problem for his sake) and the well-known motif of the incompetent courtiers (in numerous Eastern tales this motif standardly prepares the way for the appearance of a more capable counsellor-saviour). The riddle contest theme probably came to Egypt from West Asia, where the relevant tradition was much older. During the New Kingdom there were close contacts between the Egyptians and the peoples of West Asia, resulting in copious exchanges of mythological and other narrative material. The Quarrel contains another typically West-Asiatic theme (the impious king and his punishment, see below, vol. 2), which is closely intertwined with the riddle contest: perhaps both themes were derived from an Asiatic narrative tradition, in which they were similarly combined. Later, the riddle contest occurs again in a Demotic Egyptian tale (Story of Setne Khaemwaset and his son Siosiris = Setne II) preserved in a 1st c. A.D. papyrus but going back at least to the Ptolemaic (if not to the Saite) period. A stranger from Kush (Nubia) propounds to Pharaoh Ramesses and his courtiers an adynaton (to read a sealed letter, cf. the adynaton of the closed casket in the hnma), and young Siosiris solves it by virtue of his divinatory powers. The letter, instead of being the means of communicating the question (as in other stories of this type), is now itself the riddle. The stranger is not expressly introduced as an envoy of the Nubian king (as the typical pattern would require); but the formulation of his challenge clearly shows that the contest is not simply a personal single combat but a confrontation between two kingdoms (Egypt and Kush). Moreover, the stranger has acted in the past as the representative of the Nubian king in another conflict
7

against Pharaoh, and the present competition is a continuation and extension of that past conflict. The riddle contest is combined with a contest in magic and enriched with many fantasy motifs, in compliance with the Egyptian literary taste of that period, which adored tales about magic and the supernatural. Setne II carries on the old Egyptian tradition of the Quarrel: apparently, the theme of the riddle contest took roots in Egypt, remaining there too alive and productive over many centuries. One story from the long interval in-between (the riddle contest between Amasis and the king of Kush) can be reconstructed from its Greek adaptation (in Plutarchs Banquet of the Seven Sages, see my detailed studies in C&M 55 [2004] and WJA N.F. 29 [2005]). Many of the above stories reflect historical circumstances, viz. the relations or conflicts between the creator people and a neighbouring or enemy state; these are symbolically expressed through the intellectual contest of the kings. For example: a) The Sumerian epics echo the quarrels of the Sumerians with the mountain populations of western and north-western Iran during the Third Dynasty of Ur. The objective of those wars was, among other things, to safeguard the trade routes towards the East, through which valuable raw materials were imported to Mesopotamia (it is such materials that Enmerkar is ardently seeking in the epics). This conclusion is supported by other correspondences too: e.g. ulgi and his successors took particular care of the temples of Inana in Uruk and Enki in Eridu the very same temples that Enmerkar wishes to build and decorate. b) The stories about the contests of Solomon are inspired by the diplomatic and commercial relations of Israel with Arabic and Phoenician kingdoms, whether in Solomons own age or in later periods (see my study in 54 [2004]). The story about Elisha reflects the conflicts between Israel and Aram-Damascus during the 9th and the first half of the 8th c. B.C. c) The Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre reflects the struggle of the sovereigns of Thebes against the Asiatic Hyksos conquerors, who dominated Lower Egypt (16th c. B.C.). The historical king Seqenenre Tao was slain in battle, while fighting against the Hyksos, and his successors continued the war, finally expelling the Hyksos from Egypt. In the fictionalized story the historical war is turned into a riddle contest; it is not necessary to suppose that the
8

lost ending of the narrative described an actual war between the two kings. d) Setne II is set in the court of Ramesses II (whose son was the historical Khaemwaset), while the embedded tale of the sealed letter takes place in the time of Thutmose III. But the rivalry with an independent Kush points rather to the period of the 26th (Saite) Dynasty, when relations between Egypt and the Nubian kingdom were very tense (see in detail my study in C&M 55 [2004]). The historical circumstances of the Saite period are projected back to the glorious times of Ramesses II and Thutmose III, because those Pharaohs had become legendary in the Egyptian tradition and because they had particularly connected their names with Nubia, through large-scale conquests and building activity there. The same historical circumstances are reflected also in the contest between Amasis and the king of Kush. The following chapter (2.2. The riddle contest in the Tale of Ahiqar) examines the contest of Ahiqar in greater detail. Some scholars maintain that the riddle contest was not included in the Elephantine text (from which all the relevant part of the narrative has been lost); they claim that the folktale character of the contest does not fit the sober and realistic tone of the Aramaic version. However, Ahiqars final restoration must have had a rationale, as in all ancient tales of disgrace and rehabilitation (in such tales the condemned sage is standardly restored because the king faces some unexpected problem and needs the sages intellectual abilities to solve it). The remains of the Elephantine narrative (in which various personages predict that king Esarhaddon will need again Ahiqars counsel) foreshadow an episode which must have resembled the spiritual contest of the later versions. Esarhaddons problem must have been of an intellectual nature, not e.g. a real war with Egypt (so Hausrath), because Ahiqar is not a military officer but a court sage. The later versions contain many additions by comparison to the Elephantine text, but all their expansions can be traced back to a primary nucleus of the Aramaic composition (see e.g. the childlessness motif, the intrigues of Nadin and the hiding of the condemned sage). The later versions never replace an element of the older Aramaic text with something entirely different. So, it seems probable that a rudimentary form of the riddle contest (brief enough, so as to be accommodated within the four lost papyrus
9

columns) was included in the Elephantine version. The later adaptations expanded the contest with picturesque details and fantastic elements. The contest of the original Ahiqar may have contained only one problem (cf. some derivative Persian and Indian narratives), e.g. the very old adynaton about the stallion and the mares (a variant of which occurs in the Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre) or the popular riddle of the year (but not the castle in the air, which seems to derive from an independent tradition). Ahiqars journey to Egypt probably belongs to the adventurous additions of the later versions: it would have been hardly economical for the hero to travel only for one riddle; in addition, there does not seem to have been space enough on the papyrus for a description of the journey. Another possibility is that the original Ahiqar made only an indefinite mention of riddles, without any specific example (cf. the Biblical narrative about the queen of Sheba and the Hellenistic stories about Solomon and Hiram). More recent versions of Ahiqar (Old Turkish, Armenian) contain an abridged form of the contest, which is described in a few sentences, without examples of riddles. This summary is clearly the product of a secondary abridgement of the full version; but it may give us an idea about the possible form of the brief contest in the original text. The expansion of the riddle contest (as also of the rest of the narrative) began from early on. In the Aesop Romance (late 1st c. B.C.-2nd c. A.D.) the contest has acquired the fully developed form of the later versions. The fragments of the Demotic Egyptian translation contain one of the additional episodes (concerning Nadins intrigues). Already the version of Ahiqar used by the author of Tobit (3rd/2nd c. B.C.) included Ahiqars underground hiding-place and possibly two collections of instructions, just like the later versions. Tobit also mentions a journey of Ahiqar to Elymais (2.10): this may be identical with the sages journey to the opponents land for the riddle contest (in the later versions the destination of this journey is Egypt). In Ahiqar both Egypt and Elam (= Gk. Elymais) are presented as enemies of Assyria. So, perhaps in the Tobit version the Assyrian kings opponent in the riddle contest was not the Pharaoh of Egypt but the king of Elam. The historical circumstances of the Neo-Assyrian state would equally justify both these scenarios.
10

In the contest of Ahiqar (a frame-narrative for a long series of riddles) the assistant plays the leading role, taking his kings place in the contest, while the king himself remains marginal to the main action. This fits the overall plot and structure of the narrative: the riddle contest is entwined with the central theme of the disgrace and rehabilitation of the vizier, who is the protagonist of the whole work. For this reason, the predominance of the assistant seems to be an innovation of Ahiqar (although the Sumerian E&E is an forerunner in this respect). Later contest narratives characterized by the same phenomenon (Setne II, stories about Buzurjmihr, recent folktales) have been directly or ultimately influenced by the Tale of Ahiqar. The prize of the contest varies in the different versions of Ahiqar: usually it consists in tribute paid by the loser to the winner (a clear demonstration of political submission). In certain versions (Armenian, Old Turkish) Pharaoh threatens to invade Assyria, if his riddles are not solved. In this manner the political nature of the confrontation is markedly brought out: the intellectual contest is a substitute of war (cf. ELA and later Jewish and Muslim reworkings of the story about the queen of Sheba). The Tale of Ahiqar reproduces fairly accurately the Assyrian court environment (historical conditions, personal names and titles etc.). Ahiqar may be based on a historical official of the NeoAssyrian state, e.g. the court sage Mannu-kima-Enlil-atin (with whom Ahiqar is identified in a tablet, dated A.D. 165 but of questionable historical value) or the Grand Exorcist Adad-umuuur. In the same way, the riddle contest of Ahiqar reflects historical tensions between Assyria and Egypt (under the reign of the Kushite kings of the 25th Dynasty) in the years of Sennacherib and his successors, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. Egyptian forces helped the cities of Philistia and Phoenicia in their rebellion against Sennacherib. Afterwards, Esarhaddon invaded Egypt, occupying Memphis, imposing tribute and taking much booty. The Kushite monarchs resisted the Assyrian invaders, and Ashurbanipal continued the war, finally conquering the whole of Egypt and putting an end to the reign of the Kushite Dynasty. The contest of Ahiqar is a fictionalization of those historical conflicts. Ahiqars expedition to Egypt and his triumph there (which had become part of the Tale of Ahiqar by the Hellenistic period) probably echo the Assyrian invasions and battle victories in Egypt. The tribute and the
11

other riches gained by the winner of the riddle contest recall the tribute and the booty taken by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal from the conquered Egyptian land. The kings of the 25th Dynasty (actually Nubian conquerors of Egypt), who were the opponents of the Assyrian kings, are not styled Pharaohs or kings of Egypt in Assyrian sources, but kings of (Egypt and) Kush (emphasis is placed on their foreign origins for reasons of propaganda). Possibly in the original Ahiqar too Esarhaddons opponent would have been called king of Egypt and Kush, as in the historical Assyrian sources. The later redactors, who had no knowledge of Egyptian history, did not understand this term and transformed the opponent into plain Pharaoh, giving to their narrative the historical indetermination of a folktale. B. Disgrace and rehabilitation of the counsellor (ch. 2.3). By contrast to earlier narratives, in which the riddle contest is the sole or the main theme, in Ahiqar the contest is entwined with other themes within a broader and more complex narrative whole. The most important of these themes, the disgrace and rehabilitation of the counsellor, serves as the narrative backbone of Ahiqar: with this theme are bound the other two main themes of the work, the ungrateful beneficiary (cause of the disgrace) and the riddle contest (cause of the rehabilitation). Since both in the contest and in the disgrace and rehabilitation theme the protagonist is a wise counsellor, the connection of the two themes was easy. The present study offers a survey of the disgrace and rehabilitation theme in ancient traditions: a) The Mesopotamian tradition. A Sumerian saying (from a bilingual tablet with Akkadian translation), which most probably goes back to the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., seems to presuppose a known narrative (as a moral presupposes its fable): a wise counsellor loses the favour of his king (perhaps because of his unpleasant admonitions), but later he wins the royal favour back, because he offers to the monarch useful advice in a difficult situation. An ungrateful person may have contributed to the fall of the sage (just as in Ahiqar the disgrace is caused by the ungrateful beneficiary). Later, in the Akkadian Poem of the righteous sufferer (16th-12th c. B.C.), the heros misfortunes include the loss of the royal favour, which seems to be due to the machinations of other
12

courtiers; in the end, however, the hero regains his privileges and honours. Here the disgrace and rehabilitation theme is not the main focus of attention but one of the constituents of the heros adventures. b) Hebrew stories. In the story of Joseph (Genesis 37 and 3941) the sage is initially sold as a slave to a royal official and falls into disfavour with this official, not with the king; this adaptation of the disgrace theme is necessary, in order to integrate the theme into the broader narrative about Josephs adventures. Afterwards, however, the king comes to the fore and the theme resumes its regular form: Pharaoh faces a problem (enigmatical dreams) which only Joseph is capable of solving, and so the sage is released from prison and achieves high office. This story bears striking similarities to the Tale of Ahiqar with regard both to the cause of the disgrace (slander from a treacherous person the ungrateful adoptive son in Ahiqar, the scorned wife of the master in the story of Joseph) and to the rationale of the rehabilitation: Joseph interprets prophetic dreams, which are much like riddles (they belong to the type of pictureriddle or visual enigma), and thus saves Egypt from disaster, just as Ahiqar saves Assyria by solving Pharaohs riddles. The story of Joseph is older than Ahiqar (if going back already to the 10th/9th c. B.C.) or approximately contemporary with it (if formed during the 7th/6th c.), but no direct relation seems to exist between the two narratives: rather, they both draw on a common narrative tradition. This indicates that the combination of the disgrace and rehabilitation theme with the solving of riddles or similar problems was widespread in the ancient traditions of the East. In the stories about the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 37-38) the king needs the advice of the imprisoned prophet concerning the war against the Babylonians (cf. the Egyptian threat of war in some versions of Ahiqar). The prophets imprisonment is again due to the false accusations of court officials, and his rehabilitation takes simply the form of more humane conditions of confinement. These stories, formed in the period after the fall of Jerusalem (587/6 B.C.), are not much later than the Tale of Ahiqar; they have presumably grown from the same, widely diffused narrative substratum. Later on, the theme becomes popular in stories of the Persian and the Hellenistic period, which narrate the adventures of Jewish sages under foreign (Babylonian or Persian) rule. In Daniel 1-2 the
13

title-hero is in danger of being put to death together with Nebuchadnezzars other court sages, because the latter were unable to interpret an enigmatic dream of the king; but Daniel manages to interpret it and gains many honours. This episode strongly recalls the story of Joseph (the dream is again a kind of picture riddle). The sequence of disgrace and rehabilitation is repeated in Daniels career under other monarchs (Darius, Daniel 6; Cyrus or an unnamed Babylonian king, Bel and the dragon): but in these latter cases the restoration is due not to any service to the king but to a divine miracle, which saves the condemned sage and provokes the awe of the monarch (a variant presumably created for theological purposes). The story of Mordecai in Esther offers another variation of the typical pattern (generalized disfavour, which extends to an entire group of people, as in Daniel 1-2). In Tobit 1-2 the fall of the hero is combined with a change of monarch (the sage served successfully the father, but falls into disfavour with his son and successor); this is clearly an imitation of the Tale of Ahiqar. The same motif is used to explain Tobits rehabilitation, which is brought about by a new change of monarch and the consequent amnesty. The author of Tobit duplicated the initial motif of Ahiqar in order to replace the riddle contest, which did not suit the context of his own story. Other intertextual games or allusions to Ahiqar also indicate the debt of Tobit to that work. As for the other Jewish stories (Daniel, Mordecai), they too present similarities with Ahiqar, but need not have been influenced by it; they derive from an old Hebrew tradition of similar narratives, which begins with the story of Joseph. A saying in Ecclesiastes (4.13-14) is apparently based on a current narrative of the same kind. c) Egyptian echoes. The disgrace and rehabilitation theme occurs in Egyptian literary works of Ptolemaic and Roman times, probably under the influence of Ahiqar (which seems to have been fairly widely known in Late Period Egypt). In the Instructions of Onchsheshonqy, which end with a collection of maxims addressed to the sages son, just like the Tale of Ahiqar, the theme has been curtailed: the rehabilitation is omitted, because the incident of the disgrace is by itself sufficient as a narrative frame for the maxims. The Story of Hihor the magician combines the disgrace and rehabilitation theme with the adventures of a sorcerer; in this way, it enriches the traditional theme with fantasy motifs, which were
14

popular in the Egyptian literature of that period (cf. the similar treatment of the riddle contest in Setne II). d) Greek stories. The disgrace and rehabilitation theme occurs also in Greek tales, which bear significant similarities to the eastern examples: possibly the theme came to Greece from the East. The story of Melampus the seer first appears in full form in Pherecydes (and then in later mythographers and scholiasts), but it was doubtless fully fledged already in the 8th c., since the Odyssey presupposes it as well-known to the audience (cf. the Hesiodic poems Melampodia, Greater Heoiai and Catalogue of Women). Melampus is initially an independent seer, not a counsellor of the king of Phylace, and he is thrown in gaol because he attempted to steal the kings oxen. This variation is produced in order to accommodate the theme into the broader cycle of Melampus adventures, which already included the very old story about the stealing of the oxen (cf. a similar process in the story of Joseph). In the following parts of the story, the theme resumes its regular form: difficult situation and dire need of the king, service rendered by the sage, rehabilitation and honours for the wise saviour. The story of Melampus is older than Ahiqar, but it presents many striking analogies to eastern narratives, especially to the story of Joseph. In both these tales the sage becomes useful to the monarch thanks to his divinatory powers, by means of which he deals with a kind of infertility (barrenness of the land in the story of Joseph, impotence and sterility of the king in that of Melampus). The demonstration of the abilities of both sages follows a similar bipartite pattern: a first display in gaol, thanks to which the king becomes aware of the sages powers, is followed by a second chance before the king himself, as a result of the first demonstration. In both tales the imprisoned hero is well looked after by a kind guardian. Perhaps some eastern narrative similar to the story of Joseph became known to the Greek world from early times and influenced the formation of the Greek tale of Melampus. In the novella of Democedes in Herodotus (3.125, 129-132) the disgrace and rehabilitation theme has once again been adapted in the beginning, so as to be connected with the heros previous adventures. Initially a doctor at the service of the great Polycrates, Democedes suddenly becomes a slave of a satrap of Darius (instead of a fall into disgrace with the monarch, we have
15

here a fall from prosperity into misfortune), but in the end he is acquired by the Persian king himself; he helps the king in a difficult situation and becomes the kings intimate (cf. Joseph). The monarchs problem is a sickness (cf. Melampus), which Democedes cures thanks to his medical and pharmaceutical knowledge (by contrast to Melampus, who cured it by divinatory and magical means: the story of Democedes rationalizes the myth of Melampus, in accordance with the realistic character of the mature Greek novella). In this case too there are many analogies to the Asiatic narratives about disgrace and rehabilitation. The saviour appears after all the other wise men of the king have failed (cf. Joseph, Daniel, Ahiqar), because someone remembers him by chance (cf. Joseph), and finally convinces the king to pardon the incompetent counsellors (cf. Daniel 2). The sages fall into misfortune is combined with a change of master (cf. the change of monarch in Ahiqar and Tobit) and is due to the intrigues of an official (cf. Ahiqar, Mordecai, Daniel). Democedes appears before the king in a miserable state, because of his long captivity (cf. Ahiqar, Joseph). Especially striking are the similarities between the novella of Democedes and the Egyptian narrative about the magician Merire (preserved on a 6th/5th c. B.C. papyrus but presumably composed around the 8th-6th c. on the basis of late Ramesside legends). Both tales display a common sequence of events and many similar points of detail. It is difficult to prove a direct influence of the tale of Merire on that of Democedes; but both stories may well have drawn on a common stock of narrative material, which was widely diffused in the eastern Mediterranean. Herodotus narrative about Democedes is full of novelistic and folktale elements. Herodotus must have heard the story in South Italy (several details betray indeed a South-Italian origin), probably from descendants or colleagues of Democedes. Griffiths has argued that the story was formed after Democedes death, in the years after the Persian wars, with the purpose of clearing the famous doctors name from the suspicion of a pro-Persian attitude. If so, the creators of the story must have introduced into it the disgrace and rehabilitation theme, imitating other tales of the same kind, which had presumably spread over the Greek world from old times. However, Griffiths arguments are not binding and his theory is marred by contradictions (e.g. the story supposedly
16

exonerating Democedes from the suspicion of being pro-Persian ends up presenting him as the prime instigator of the Persian wars). It cannot be excluded that the core of the story goes back to Democedes himself, who narrated his adventures, after his homecoming, in a sensational manner, enriching them with imaginary episodes. In that case, Democedes himself will have modelled his story on tales of disgrace and rehabilitation, which he could easily have heard during his sojourn in the East. It is precisely people like Democedes, i.e. people who remained and worked for a long time in the Achaemenid empire, that must have played a crucial part in the introduction of eastern narrative material into the Greek world. The final chapter (2.4. The Tale of Ahiqar and Indian stories) examines the relationship between Ahiqar and some similar Persian and Indian narratives. The legends about Buzurjmihr must have been formed in the late Sasanian period. The riddle contest between Khusrau and the Byzantine emperor is combined with the disgrace and rehabilitation theme, providing the occasion for Buzurjmihrs rehabilitation (as in Ahiqar). The same combination is found in the story about the Indian king Nanda and the wise akala (in the Sanskrit collection ukasaptati) and in other Indian tales. Formerly, some scholars (Benfey and his followers) believed that the original homeland of all stories of this type is India, that the Tale of Ahiqar was modelled on an Indian narrative, and more generally that the riddle contest of the kings, as a narrative theme, is of Indian provenance. But their arguments have been severely criticized. The parallels between later versions of Ahiqar and Buddhist or Jainist stories concern motifs which were introduced into Ahiqar at later times, and thus have no significance with regard to the provenance of the original work. The fact that the story of the ukasaptati is simpler does not make it necessarily the primary one: it may well have been produced by simplification of an originally more complex narrative the purpose being to adapt this narrative to the peculiar context and character of the ukasaptati collection. The name of king Nanda itself recalls that of Ahiqars ungrateful adoptive son (Nadin/Nadan) and thus betrays the dependence of the Indian story on the Tale of Ahiqar. The political situation in India was no more favourable to the
17

development of the riddle contest theme than the conditions in other parts of Asia or in Egypt. Moreover, all three themes, which make up the basic framework of Ahiqar (riddle contest, disgrace and rehabilitation, ungrateful beneficiary), were present in the Mesopotamian tradition from very early times (late 3rd millennium B.C.), enjoyed a long and rich life in West Asia, and needed only to be combined in a particular manner in order to form the plot of Ahiqar. Therefore, it seems much more probable that Ahiqar was formed in West Asia, making use of this age-old native narrative material. From there the story of Ahiqar travelled eastward to India, with Iran as an intermediary station: the Persian legend of Buzurjmihr is also modelled on Ahiqar, as indicated both by its combination of themes and by various details (e.g. Buzurjmihrs young relative, who reproduces and reverses the figure of Nadin). Appendix 1 examines the coupling of a king with a wise vizier or counsellor, a pattern widespread in the narrative traditions of the East; it was under the influence of this well-known pattern that the expanded form of the riddle contest must have arisen from the simple one. The pattern may take two forms: a) The king is connected with a single counsellor. Examples are given from the Mesopotamian, Hebrew and Egyptian tradition: E&E, Sumerian and Babylonian sayings, Mesopotamian king-lists and chronicles, Westcar Papyrus, Prophecies of Neferti, Prophecies of Ipuwer, Famine Stela, Egyptian collections of instructions attributed to viziers or courtiers etc. b) The king is surrounded by a council of courtiers: again, examples are traced in Sumerian and Akkadian poetry (ELA, E&E, epics about Gilgamesh), in Hebrew tradition (Ahab, David, Hezekiah, Rehoboam, Saul, foreign monarchs depicted in the Old Testament), and in Egyptian texts, both fictional (Prophecies of Neferti, Tale of the two brothers, Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre, Bentresh Stela, story of Merire, Demotic tales about Amasis, Setne II) and historical or chronographical (royal inscriptions and chronicles, which narrate Pharaohs exploits in a literary manner full of novelistic motifs). The couple of king and counsellor occurs also in the Greek tradition, e.g. in epic, tragedy and Herodotus (see in detail my study in Eikasmos 18 [2007]).
18

Appendix 2 investigates the relationship between the Tale of Ahiqar and Setne II. Ahiqar could easily have spread from the Jewish community of Elephantine to the broader Egyptian population already in pre-Christian times. If so, it could have influenced the Demotic narrative about Setne, whether in the early stages of its development (during the Saite period) or in its final formation (during the Ptolemaic age). The riddle contest of Setne II carries on an old tradition of Egyptian narratives, but it may also have incorporated exogenous elements (the same applies to other episodes of the Demotic narrative: e.g. the description of the World of the Dead contains the Greek motifs of Tantalus and Ocnus). Two features in particular indicate the influence of Ahiqar. Firstly, the riddle contest is combined with other important narrative themes and used as a constituent within a greater narrative whole (this is precisely the difference between Setne II and the older Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre). In addition, the contest provides the framework for the second part of the narrative and is combined with the motif of childlessness at the beginning, just as in Ahiqar. Secondly, the kings assistant is the protagonist of the entire work and plays also the main part in the riddle contest, while the king remains in the margin of the action (again by contrast to the older Egyptian tradition and in accordance with the Tale of Ahiqar).

19