The composition known as the Dialogue of Pessimism is social satire commonly dated to the first half of the first millennium bce.95 The author stages a young man of the upper class who discusses with his servant the pros and cons of various courses of action. The protagonist possesses influence and wealth; he has access to the royal palace, lives a life of leisure, is sufficiently rich to consider investing and acts of munificence, and is the owner of a slave. The latter acts as the ever obliging counsellor of his lord, ready to recommend the one course of action as warmly as its opposite.
The master cannot make up his mind. Should he drive in his chariot to the palace or not; should he wine and dine or be content to eat and drink as his appetite prompts him; should he go hunting in the open country or prefer the safety of the city; should he start a family or remain in his unmarried state; should he lead a revolution or comply with the rule of the powers in place; should he love a woman or beware of the pitfalls of love; should he bring sacrifice or minimise his devotions; should he
95For an edition and translation see Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Lit-
erature, 139-49. J. Bott´ero offers a translation and commentary in his M´esopotamie: L’´ecriture, la raison et les dieux, Paris 1987, 303-22. For other translations and studies see G. Buccelati, ‘Tre saggi sulla sapienza mesopot- amica, II: Il Dialogo del pessimismo: la scienza degli opposti come ideale sapi- enziale’, OrAnt 11 (1972), 81-100; W. von Soden, ‘Ein pessimistischer Dialog’, in: TUAT, Bd. 3/1, G¨utersloh 1990, 158-63; Foster, Before the Muses, vol. 1, 815-8; Denning-Bolle, Wisdom in Akkadian Literature, 165-175 (suggests the 12th cent. bce as date of origin, see p. 165); F. D’Agostino, Testi umoristici babilonesi e assiri, Brescia 2000, 79-108.
82 K. van der Toorn
invest his money or save it; should he earn immortality by acts of munificence or be satisfied with the pleasures of the present? To none of these questions the servant can offer a conclusive answer; he comes up with an appropriate line to justify any course of action.
The humorous intent of the author is obvious. His protagonist is a man with too much time and money on his hands, and the servant who counsels him is a cunning man who will condone any whim of his master. The servant uses expressions and images, moreover, that will not fail to raise a smile with the audience of the piece. Note the following examples:
‘No, slave, I will by no means sacrifice to my god.’ ‘Do not sacrifice, sir, do not sacrifice.
You would train your god to follow you around like a dog, He will require of you rites, or a figurine, or what have you.’
(Dialogue of Pessimism, 58-61)96 ‘No, slave, I will be no means make loans as a creditor.’ ‘Do not make loans, sir, do not make loans.
Making loans is like loving [a woman;] getting them back is like having children.’
(Dialogue of Pessimism, 65-67)
None of his should be taken too seriously, it would seem. The Dialogue of Pessimism is not a treatise on the meaning of life or the futility of all human endeavour; its wit is more in the vein of The Poor Man of Nippur, the story of the poor man’s cunning and the king’s susceptibility to fraud.
The principal reason why the Dialogue of Pessimism is often discussed in the context of the theodicy problem is the content of the final stanza of the composition. The master, frustrated because his slave acts like a yes-man, challenges his servant to name one thing that is unambiguously good. The servant can only think of suicide.
‘Slave, listen to me!’ ‘Yes, sir, yes!’ ‘What, then, is good?’
‘To break my neck and your neck, and throw us in the river is good.
Who is so tall as to ascend the heaven,
Who is so broad as to encompass the underworld?’ ‘No, slave, I will kill you and let you go first.’
‘Then my master would certainly not outlive me by even three days.’ (Dialogue of Pessimism, 79-86)
These lines have little to do with the theodicy issue, were it not for the fact that the servant quotes a proverb, harking back to Sumerian times, that stresses the incommensurability of gods and humans. Heaven and the underworld are the habitat of the gods; ordinary humans do not embrace these realms, and are therefore doomed to live in ignorance of the ultimate good. Variations of the proverb are also found in the Babylonian Theodicy (lines 82- 83, 256-257, see above) and Ludlul ii (lines 33-38, see above). A biblical variant is found in Job 11:8, and it is quoted in support of the concept of Book of the Torah as a divine revelation in Deut. 30:11-14. In the context of the Dialogue of Pessimism, as well as that of the Babylonian Theodicy and Ludlul, the proverb establishes the bankruptcy of the similarity principle underlying the doctrine of retribution. By the same token, the established canon of moral values loses its legitimacy.
The closing lines of the Dialogue of Pessimism strike a note of humour as the servant declares that his master would be so desperate by the loss of his servant, should he kill him, that he would not outlive him for even three days. This line confirms the satirical character of the composition: the protagonist, for all his riches, is helpless without his servant. The point the ser- vant makes about the remoteness of heaven and underworld is nonetheless serious. If the Dialogue of Pessimism is a piece of social satire, it encapsulates at the same time the message that the ultimate good is beyond human knowledge. The relevance of this conclusion to the theodicy problem is marginal inasmuch as the Dialogue addresses another issue, yet crucial inasmuch as it corrodes the very principle on which the retribution doctrine is built.