This book is classified by the publishers under 'history of religion', and as I shall explain, I am glad to leave it in this category. Political and other forms of history are told, either fully or mostly, by the victors. The historian is always delighted to get the underdog's view, as this is always obtained with difficulty, if at all. And so it is with the history of Ugarit, the ancient Canaanite port of Northern Syria, which flourished c.2000-1200BC. While the city's general background can be found in several texts (eg, see Gordon & Rendsburg's short chapter in 'The Bible and the Ancient Near East), a specialist work on the religious literary texts is welcome, it being by far the most fascinating thing about them. Just fifteen of the thousands of clay tablets found there give us the few tales translated here.
Click here to see the rest of this review...
The main reason that Ugaritic literature died and was forgotten until twentieth century archaeology recovered it, is that it was bad. Lest I be misunderstood as a dull pendant and moralist, is hasten to say that by bad I mean that this literature is leaden, dull, and repetitious, as well as crude, bestially perverted, sadistic, and bloodthirsty. Its value lies in what history we can glean from it, and the accident of history per se, that these literary underdogs went to the wall. I am happy to read the Egyptian 'Tale of Sinuhe', or the Babylonian 'Epic of Gilgamesh' as interesting and even moving stories in themselves - four thousand years on - and I cannot even mention Genesis, the Psalms, or the Iliad without a feeling of unfair competition; the Ugaritic pantheon and their hapless devotees went unmourned into oblivion. A clear-cut case of literary Darwinism: survival of the fittest fable. Should any putative postmodern disagree with me, so be it. They themselves are but a relativistic product of their own culture-bound cynicism and political correctness, and I fear will not be missed in their turn. In general they lack a sense of proportion and common sense, and would not recognise a classic if it bit them on the leg. If there is a good literary case for the defence (and no sociological mumbling), I welcome it. If I turn out to be no more than a reactionary culture-bound conservative, then I humbly confess that it is true.
As to the content, Coogan's translations of the story of Aqhat and the story of Baal read very well. The fragmented story of Kirta, and the fragments of the Healers make less sense but the lines are there to read, and read between. Many of the original text features are preserved, such as the form of the dual-name of the important figure Kothar-wa-Hasis (skilful-and-wise), who was the Ugarit equivalent of the Greek Hephaistos (who made magical weapons). There is a good introduction to the whole book and to each story or fragment.
As an example of the excellent gleanings to be had, those who consider Abraham's camels to be anachronistic (you know who you are) will find that the story of Baal mentions them twice. The first mention is as a beast of burden for jewellery traders, the second is as bad-tempered beasts who butt each other in fights. These clay tablets were penned c.1400BC. The stories were already a few centuries old at that time, the oral tradition maybe takes this story back several centuries more. So, carbon-dating of artefacts aside, the more literature we find, the more the camel dates move back. And of course they will move back, not forward.
The review of this Book prepared by Michael JR Jose
