^{page 583 note 1} The catchline of VR. 50, 51 (which is perhaps a bît rimki tablet) is also the beginning of an incantation of this type = Šurpu ix, 1.

^{page 583 note 2} Cf. ASKT. No. 12, rev. 1 and 16. The bít rimki is mentioned also in Šurpu, v, 36–7.

^{page 584 note 1} Cf. BBR., No. 26, iii, 35–iv, 12.

^{page 584 note 2} Cf. BBR., No. 26, iv, 73, 74, 75, 78; v, 32, 33, 44, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78 f., 81; vi, 23, 25, 50.

^{page 584 note 3} Cf. BBR., No. 26, v, 73–9. Line 73 is to be restored ana [ššî ṭipara ṣalmānēšunu aḳallḪ] = MaqlḪ, i, 135.

^{page 588 note 1} Restored from A, 1. 18; D, 1. 15.

^{page 588 note 2} D i-ziz-za-am-ma.

^{page 588 note 3} 11. 3–5 are omitted in D.

^{page 588 note 4} The usual formula omits ina. A has . . . ittāti limnēti lā ṭâbā[ti].

^{page 588 note 5} The usual formula has mâti-iă. So A.

^{page 588 note 6} 11. 5 and 6 form one line in A.

^{page 588 note 7} D -in.

^{page 588 note 8} D šu-tam-ṣa-am-ma.

^{page 588 note 9} So also A.

^{page 588 note 10} UŠ-an-ni. D ri-[ta]-da-[an]-ni.

^{page 588 note 11} D šú.

^{page 588 note 12} D mar-ṣa-ku.

^{page 589 note 13} D ilu man-ma.

^{page 589 note 14} D- ú

^{page 589 note 15} D Šu-nam-erima-ku.

^{page 589 note 16} D iṣbatan-ni-ma.

^{page 589 note 17} irtedan-[ni].

^{page 589 note 18} D sag-ḫúl-ḫa-za-ku.

^{page 589 note 19} D ša mu-ša u ur-ra.

^{page 589 note 20} D omits the line drawn across the tablet after 1. 10.

^{page 589 note 21} D lu.

^{page 589 note 22} E -iă.

^{page 589 note 23} DE lu.

^{page 589 note 24} D -šù.

^{page 589 note 25} D omits this line but adds to the preceding line u [sa-la-ti-ia]. E reads [el-l]a-ti-ia sa-la-ti-ia.

^{page 589 note 26} In D, 1. 15 occupies two lines. E omits 1. 15b.

^{page 589 note 27} D lā.

^{page 589 note 28} D -li.

^{page 589 note 29} D -bil.

^{page 589 note 30} DE transpose 11. 16, 17.

^{page 589 note 31} D -e. E . . . . . .u kip-pi-e.

^{page 589 note 32} D lu ma-mit ili u nîš ili. E omits this line.

^{page 589 note 33} DE lu ma-mit ṣêri u ú-ma-mi, lu [ma-] mit [tuppi(?)] u iṣu ú-il- [ti].

^{page 589 note 34} D šammê.

^{page 589 note 35} D i-na.

^{page 590 note 36} This line seems to have no parallel in Šurpu, Tablet III. 1. 127 is not parallel. But cf. perhaps K. 14719, 1. 5 = Šurpu, iii, 31a (King, Cat. Kouy. Coll. Suppl., No. 1270) ma-mit ta(?)-ḫi(?)- . . . . D reads [lu ma-mit ma-an]- ṣi-e u li-[li-si], [lu ma-mit] . . u a-ṣa- . .; cf. Šurpu, iii, 84.

^{page 590 note 37} Or -r[im]-; or -l[it]-.

^{page 590 note 38} D [lu ma-mit] ḳani [ina išikti] ina išikti- (GI-HI-A) ina išikti (ZUK) ḫa-ṣa-pu.

^{page 590 note 39} So probably restore, cf. note ³⁸. In Deimel, Šum. Lexilcon, 522, 4, ZUK (= a-a) = išihtum ša iṣu suklum. iššikku = “marsh”, cf. Thompson, Reports, No. 207, rev. 3 f. (“the empty marshes will be full”). Cf. also IM-KALAG-GA = išikku, a kind of mud (Deimel, Šum. Lex., 399, 155b).

^{page 589 note 40} Not a new line in D. DE šâru bêram lis-si i-na zumri-ia. After this line E has a line drawn across the tablet.

^{page 590 note 41} B [iṣu] bi-nu.

^{page 590 note 42} šam DIL-BAT. BDE Šam IN-NU- UŠ. This begins a new line in B and perhaps in C.

^{page 590 note 43} Perhaps BC omitted this line.

^{page 590 note 44} DE lit-bu-uk.

^{page 590 note 45} B -tim. Restored from KAR. 267, rev. 21.

^{page 590 note 46} E -ṣu-ra.

^{page 590 note 47} A new line begins here in E.

^{page 590 note 48} C me-lám-šá-ma. D mi-lam-ma-ša-ma.

^{page 590 note 49} Or -kas-.

^{page 590 note 50} Or -ki. B . . . BI-SU-KI! C. . . -KI! DE . . . [S]U-KI

^{page 590 note 51} E -ni.

^{page 590 note 52} KI.

^{page 590 note 53} D . . . -ú. E li-te-nu-ú.

^{page 590 note 54} DE add a line . . . lim-ḫu-ru-nin-ni. D adds after this TÙ;-ÉN

^{page 591 note 55} So also C. B has [inim]-inim-ma IN-NU-UŠ (= maštakal)-[kam]. D has [inim-inim-ma nam]-erim búr-ru-da-kám. E . . . [izakka-a]r (?).

^{page 591 note 56} From rev. 14 onwards D diverges from the Nineveh texts; see note ⁶³ below.

^{page 591 note 57} BAD probably = pitû, cf. D libbi-Šá-ḪAL-ḪAL where ḪAL probably = pitû. Cf. Deimel, Šum. Lex. 69, 54, and 2, 4.

^{page 591 note 58} Not a new line in B . C runs together II. 15, 16 in to one line.

^{page 591 note 59} A. B A-meš

^{page 591 note 60} B begins a new line here.

^{page 591 note 61} So also B !

^{page 591 note 62} = bît rimki, Tablet VI, 1. 1 (= OECT. vi, 52, 2). But PBS. i, 1, No. 15, rev. 2, quotes instead in this place the prayer beginning [én] d. Babbar an-šag-ta-è which in the Nineveh recension of bît rimki = Tablet V, 1. 1, being the opening line on the obverse of our variant C (i.e. Sm. 690, obv. 1 = OECT. vi, 50, 1). The differences between the Nineveh and the Southern recensions are noted and discussed in Kunstmann, , LSS., NF. ii, 76 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 591 note 3} The ceremony in D is as follows:—

obv. 20. [ḳiḳiṭṭa-šu ṣalam ma-mit teppu]-uš libbi-šá-ḪAL-ḪAL

21. . . . . GI-[GAB(?)] . . . . limmalû(1) amēlu marṣu i-na pān ilu Šamaš

22. [^kanpatupur]sīta i-na ḳāti-šu inššî-ma

23. [ina paṭar ^iṣu b]i(?)-ni (?) libba-šá i-pat-taḫ III-šù mê

24. [u šikara pî-šù imis-s] i (?) muḫḫi-šá ú-raḳ

25. [kiâm iḳ]abbî [šu (?)]-ṣi ta-di-ra-ti-ia

26. [lu-ba (?)]-di-ia u ta-ni-ḫi-ia ana muḫḫi-ki ú-raḳ.

^{page 592 note 1} Probably supply: “I am afraid, distressed, and oast into gloom”; cf. the full formula in JRAS. 1929, 5, 39–42.

^{page 592 note 2} Var. “Cause (me) to find”.

^{page 592 note 3} Practically = “restore me to health”.

^{page 592 note 4} = “the disease,” viewed as a curse (1. 9) and as a demon (1. 10).

^{page 592 note 5} Var. “Or the curse of a god or of an oath by a god”.

^{page 592 note 6} Some thorny plant.

^{page 592 note 7} Var. “Or the curse of field or beast, or the curse of tablet or contract.”

^{page 592 note 8} Or perhaps “rump”.

^{page 593 note 1} Or “a sacrificial offering” (tarîmtu). Scarcely “offspring” (talîttu). Var. “Or the curse of tambourine (?) or kettledrum . . . . .”

^{page 593 note 2} Literally “A double-hour's journey”. Or, perhaps, “3,600 doublehours' journeys.” Cf. Ebeling, , Tod und Leben, p. 142, note bGoogle Scholar.

^{page 593 note 3} Literally “turn backward its breast”.

^{page 593 note 4} Very doubtful.

^{page 593 note 5} Literally “with”.

^{page 593 note 6} Var. adds “may . . . . receive me. Incantation. Spell”.

^{pagae 593 note 7} Var. “It is an incantation for the mandrake (?)(plant)”.

^{page 593 note 8} i.e. an image representing the general idea of “curse” or violated tabu, probably in female form.

^{page 593 note 9} Very doubtful. We should expect “its heart” (libbi-šá) to be construed with the following line.

^{page 593 note 10} Or perhaps “hollow (it) out”.

^{page 594 note 1} i.e. the king.

^{page 594 note 2} i.e. the image.

^{page 594 note 3} Presumably the wall of the bît rimki. No wall is mentioned in BBR. No. 26. The ceremony on D reads as follows: “(This is) its ritual. Thou shalt make an image of the ‘Curse’. Its heart thou shalt open up (?). . . Let. . . be filled with . . . . The sick man shall lift up a puraītu- vessel in his hand before Shamash” (or “before the sun”), “and with a sword of tamarisk wood he shall pierce its heart. Thrice (with ?) water and beer he shall wash his mouth, upon it he shall spit. Thus shall he speak: ‘Remove my gloom, my disease and my weariness. Upon thee I spit.’”