This eBook was produced by Jeroen Hellingman.





						  Yale Oriental Series

							   Researches

							   Volume IV

								Part III

   Published from the fund given to the university in memory of Mary
							Stevens Hammond




			Yale Oriental Series. Researches, Volume IV, 3.

			An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic

			   On the Basis of Recently Discovered Texts


								   By

					Morris Jastrow Jr., Ph.D., LL.D.
	   Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Pennsylvania

								  And

				 Albert T. Clay, Ph.D., LL.D., Litt.D.
  Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature, Yale University





			   Copyright, 1920, by Yale University Press




							  In Memory of
						   William Max Müller
							  (1863-1919)
			Whose life was devoted to Egyptological research
					   which he greatly enriched
						 by many contributions





PREFATORY NOTE


The Introduction, the Commentary to the two tablets, and the
Appendix, are by Professor Jastrow, and for these he assumes the sole
responsibility. The text of the Yale tablet is by Professor Clay. The
transliteration and the translation of the two tablets represent
the joint work of the two authors. In the transliteration of the two
tablets, C. E. Keiser's "System of Accentuation for Sumero-Akkadian
signs" (Yale Oriental Researches--VOL. IX, Appendix, New Haven, 1919)
has been followed.




INTRODUCTION.


I.


The Gilgamesh Epic is the most notable literary product of Babylonia as
yet discovered in the mounds of Mesopotamia. It recounts the exploits
and adventures of a favorite hero, and in its final form covers twelve
tablets, each tablet consisting of six columns (three on the obverse
and three on the reverse) of about 50 lines for each column, or a total
of about 3600 lines. Of this total, however, barely more than one-half
has been found among the remains of the great collection of cuneiform
tablets gathered by King Ashurbanapal (668-626 B.C.) in his palace
at Nineveh, and discovered by Layard in 1854 [1] in the course of his
excavations of the mound Kouyunjik (opposite Mosul). The fragments of
the epic painfully gathered--chiefly by George Smith--from the _circa_
30,000 tablets and bits of tablets brought to the British Museum were
published in model form by Professor Paul Haupt; [2] and that edition
still remains the primary source for our study of the Epic.

For the sake of convenience we may call the form of the Epic in the
fragments from the library of Ashurbanapal the Assyrian version,
though like most of the literary productions in the library it not
only reverts to a Babylonian original, but represents a late copy of
a much older original. The absence of any reference to Assyria in
the fragments recovered justifies us in assuming that the Assyrian
version received its present form in Babylonia, perhaps in Erech;
though it is of course possible that some of the late features,
particularly the elaboration of the teachings of the theologians or
schoolmen in the eleventh and twelfth tablets, may have been produced
at least in part under Assyrian influence. A definite indication
that the Gilgamesh Epic reverts to a period earlier than Hammurabi
(or Hammurawi) [3] i.e., beyond 2000 B. C., was furnished by the
publication of a text clearly belonging to the first Babylonian
dynasty (of which Hammurabi was the sixth member) in _CT_. VI, 5;
which text Zimmern [4] recognized as a part of the tale of Atra-hasis,
one of the names given to the survivor of the deluge, recounted on
the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. [5] This was confirmed
by the discovery [6] of a fragment of the deluge story dated in the
eleventh year of Ammisaduka, i.e., c. 1967 B.C. In this text, likewise,
the name of the deluge hero appears as Atra-hasis (col. VIII, 4). [7]
But while these two tablets do not belong to the Gilgamesh Epic and
merely introduce an episode which has also been incorporated into the
Epic, Dr. Bruno Meissner in 1902 published a tablet, dating, as the
writing and the internal evidence showed, from the Hammurabi period,
which undoubtedly is a portion of what by way of distinction we may
call an old Babylonian version. [8] It was picked up by Dr. Meissner
at a dealer's shop in Bagdad and acquired for the Berlin Museum. The
tablet consists of four columns (two on the obverse and two on the
reverse) and deals with the hero's wanderings in search of a cure
from disease with which he has been smitten after the death of his
companion Enkidu. The hero fears that the disease will be fatal and
longs to escape death. It corresponds to a portion of Tablet X of
the Assyrian version. Unfortunately, only the lower portion of the
obverse and the upper of the reverse have been preserved (57 lines
in all); and in default of a colophon we do not know the numeration
of the tablet in this old Babylonian edition. Its chief value,
apart from its furnishing a proof for the existence of the Epic
as early as 2000 B. C., lies (a) in the writing _Gish_ instead of
Gish-gi(n)-mash in the Assyrian version, for the name of the hero,
(b) in the writing En-ki-du--abbreviated from dug--"Enki is
good" for En-ki-dú in the Assyrian version, [9] and (c) in the
remarkable address of the maiden Sabitum, dwelling at the seaside,
to whom Gilgamesh comes in the course of his wanderings. From the
Assyrian version we know that the hero tells the maiden of his grief
for his lost companion, and of his longing to escape the dire fate of
Enkidu. In the old Babylonian fragment the answer of Sabitum is given
in full, and the sad note that it strikes, showing how hopeless it
is for man to try to escape death which is in store for all mankind,
is as remarkable as is the philosophy of "eat, drink and be merry"
which Sabitum imparts. The address indicates how early the tendency
arose to attach to ancient tales the current religious teachings.


	"Why, O Gish, does thou run about?
	The life that thou seekest, thou wilt not find.
	When the gods created mankind,
	Death they imposed on mankind;
	Life they kept in their power.
	Thou, O Gish, fill thy belly,
	Day and night do thou rejoice,
	Daily make a rejoicing!
	Day and night a renewal of jollification!
	Let thy clothes be clean,
	Wash thy head and pour water over thee!
	Care for the little one who takes hold of thy hand!
	Let the wife rejoice in thy bosom!"


Such teachings, reminding us of the leading thought in the Biblical
Book of Ecclesiastes, [10] indicate the _didactic_ character given to
ancient tales that were of popular origin, but which were modified
and elaborated under the influence of the schools which arose in
connection with the Babylonian temples. The story itself belongs,
therefore, to a still earlier period than the form it received in this
old Babylonian version. The existence of this tendency at so early a
date comes to us as a genuine surprise, and justifies the assumption
that the attachment of a lesson to the deluge story in the Assyrian
version, to wit, the limitation in attainment of immortality to those
singled out by the gods as exceptions, dates likewise from the old
Babylonian period. The same would apply to the twelfth tablet, which
is almost entirely didactic, intended to illustrate the impossibility
of learning anything of the fate of those who have passed out of this
world. It also emphasizes the necessity of contenting oneself with the
comfort that the care of the dead, by providing burial and food and
drink offerings for them affords, as the only means of ensuring for
them rest and freedom from the pangs of hunger and distress. However,
it is of course possible that the twelfth tablet, which impresses
one as a supplement to the adventures of Gilgamesh, ending with his
return to Uruk (i.e., Erech) at the close of the eleventh tablet, may
represent a _later_ elaboration of the tendency to connect religious
teachings with the exploits of a favorite hero.



II.


We now have further evidence both of the extreme antiquity of the
literary form of the Gilgamesh Epic and also of the disposition to
make the Epic the medium of illustrating aspects of life and the
destiny of mankind. The discovery by Dr. Arno Poebel of a Sumerian
form of the tale of the descent of Ishtar to the lower world and her
release [11]--apparently a nature myth to illustrate the change of
season from summer to winter and back again to spring--enables us to
pass beyond the Akkadian (or Semitic) form of tales current in the
Euphrates Valley to the Sumerian form. Furthermore, we are indebted
to Dr. Langdon for the identification of two Sumerian fragments in the
Nippur Collection which deal with the adventures of Gilgamesh, one in
Constantinople, [12] the other in the collection of the University
of Pennsylvania Museum. [13] The former, of which only 25 lines are
preserved (19 on the obverse and 6 on the reverse), appears to be a
description of the weapons of Gilgamesh with which he arms himself
for an encounter--presumably the encounter with Humbaba or Huwawa,
the ruler of the cedar forest in the mountain. [14] The latter deals
with the building operations of Gilgamesh in the city of Erech. A
text in Zimmern's _Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit_
(Leipzig, 1913), No. 196, appears likewise to be a fragment of the
Sumerian version of the Gilgamesh Epic, bearing on the episode of
Gilgamesh's and Enkidu's relations to the goddess Ishtar, covered in
the sixth and seventh tablets of the Assyrian version. [15]

Until, however, further fragments shall have turned up, it would
be hazardous to institute a comparison between the Sumerian and the
Akkadian versions. All that can be said for the present is that there
is every reason to believe in the existence of a literary form of the
Epic in Sumerian which presumably antedated the Akkadian recension,
just as we have a Sumerian form of Ishtar's descent into the nether
world, and Sumerian versions of creation myths, as also of the
Deluge tale. [16] It does not follow, however, that the Akkadian
versions of the Gilgamesh Epic are translations of the Sumerian,
any more than that the Akkadian creation myths are translations of
a Sumerian original. Indeed, in the case of the creation myths,
the striking difference between the Sumerian and Akkadian views
of creation [17] points to the independent production of creation
stories on the part of the Semitic settlers of the Euphrates Valley,
though no doubt these were worked out in part under Sumerian literary
influences. The same is probably true of Deluge tales, which would
be given a distinctly Akkadian coloring in being reproduced and
steadily elaborated by the Babylonian _literati_ attached to the
temples. The presumption is, therefore, in favor of an independent
_literary_ origin for the Semitic versions of the Gilgamesh Epic,
though naturally with a duplication of the episodes, or at least of
some of them, in the Sumerian narrative. Nor does the existence of a
Sumerian form of the Epic necessarily prove that it originated with
the Sumerians in their earliest home before they came to the Euphrates
Valley. They may have adopted it after their conquest of southern
Babylonia from the Semites who, there are now substantial grounds for
believing, were the earlier settlers in the Euphrates Valley. [18]
We must distinguish, therefore, between the earliest _literary_ form,
which was undoubtedly Sumerian, and the _origin_ of the episodes
embodied in the Epic, including the chief actors, Gilgamesh and his
companion Enkidu. It will be shown that one of the chief episodes,
the encounter of the two heroes with a powerful guardian or ruler
of a cedar forest, points to a western region, more specifically to
Amurru, as the scene. The names of the two chief actors, moreover,
appear to have been "Sumerianized" by an artificial process, [19]
and if this view turns out to be correct, we would have a further
ground for assuming the tale to have originated among the Akkadian
settlers and to have been taken over from them by the Sumerians.



III.


New light on the earliest Babylonian version of the Epic, as well
as on the Assyrian version, has been shed by the recovery of two
substantial fragments of the form which the Epic had assumed in
Babylonia in the Hammurabi period. The study of this important new
material also enables us to advance the interpretation of the Epic
and to perfect the analysis into its component parts. In the spring
of 1914, the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania acquired by
purchase a large tablet, the writing of which as well as the style
and the manner of spelling verbal forms and substantives pointed
distinctly to the time of the first Babylonian dynasty. The tablet
was identified by Dr. Arno Poebel as part of the Gilgamesh Epic; and,
as the colophon showed, it formed the second tablet of the series. He
copied it with a view to publication, but the outbreak of the war which
found him in Germany--his native country--prevented him from carrying
out this intention. [20] He, however, utilized some of its contents in
his discussion of the historical or semi-historical traditions about
Gilgamesh, as revealed by the important list of partly mythical and
partly historical dynasties, found among the tablets of the Nippur
collection, in which Gilgamesh occurs [21] as a King of an Erech
dynasty, whose father was Â, a priest of Kulab. [22]

The publication of the tablet was then undertaken by Dr. Stephen
Langdon in monograph form under the title, "The Epic of
Gilgamish." [23] In a preliminary article on the tablet in the
_Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, pages 29-38, Dr. Langdon took the
tablet to be of the late Persian period (i.e., between the sixth
and third century B. C.), but his attention having been called to
this error of some _1500 years_, he corrected it in his introduction
to his edition of the text, though he neglected to change some of
his notes in which he still refers to the text as "late." [24] In
addition to a copy of the text, accompanied by a good photograph,
Dr. Langdon furnished a transliteration and translation with some
notes and a brief introduction. The text is unfortunately badly
copied, being full of errors; and the translation is likewise very
defective. A careful collation with the original tablet was made with
the assistance of Dr. Edward Chiera, and as a consequence we are in a
position to offer to scholars a correct text. We beg to acknowledge
our obligations to Dr. Gordon, the Director of the Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania, for kindly placing the tablet at our
disposal. Instead of republishing the text, I content myself with
giving a full list of corrections in the appendix to this volume
which will enable scholars to control our readings, and which will,
I believe, justify the translation in the numerous passages in which
it deviates from Dr. Langdon's rendering. While credit should be given
to Dr. Langdon for having made this important tablet accessible, the
interests of science demand that attention be called to his failure to
grasp the many important data furnished by the tablet, which escaped
him because of his erroneous readings and faulty translations.

The tablet, consisting of six columns (three on the obverse and three
on the reverse), comprised, according to the colophon, 240 lines
[25] and formed the second tablet of the series. Of the total, 204
lines are preserved in full or in part, and of the missing thirty-six
quite a number can be restored, so that we have a fairly complete
tablet. The most serious break occurs at the top of the reverse, where
about eight lines are missing. In consequence of this the connection
between the end of the obverse (where about five lines are missing)
and the beginning of the reverse is obscured, though not to the extent
of our entirely losing the thread of the narrative.

About the same time that the University of Pennsylvania Museum
purchased this second tablet of the Gilgamesh Series, Yale University
obtained a tablet from the same dealer, which turned out to be a
continuation of the University of Pennsylvania tablet. That the two
belong to the same edition of the Epic is shown by their agreement
in the dark brown color of the clay, in the writing as well as in
the size of the tablet, though the characters on the Yale tablet
are somewhat cramped and in consequence more difficult to read. Both
tablets consist of six columns, three on the obverse and three on the
reverse. The measurements of both are about the same, the Pennsylvania
tablet being estimated at about 7 inches high, as against 7 2/16 inches
for the Yale tablet, while the width of both is 6 1/2 inches. The
Yale tablet is, however, more closely written and therefore has a
larger number of lines than the Pennsylvania tablet. The colophon to
the Yale tablet is unfortunately missing, but from internal evidence
it is quite certain that the Yale tablet follows immediately upon
the Pennsylvania tablet and, therefore, may be set down as the third
of the series. The obverse is very badly preserved, so that only a
general view of its contents can be secured. The reverse contains
serious gaps in the first and second columns. The scribe evidently
had a copy before him which he tried to follow exactly, but finding
that he could not get all of the copy before him in the six columns,
he continued the last column on the edge. In this way we obtain for the
sixth column 64 lines as against 45 for column IV, and 47 for column V,
and a total of 292 lines for the six columns. Subtracting the 16 lines
written on the edge leaves us 276 lines for our tablet as against 240
for its companion. The width of each column being the same on both
tablets, the difference of 36 lines is made up by the closer writing.

Both tablets have peculiar knobs at the sides, the purpose of which
is evidently not to facilitate holding the tablet in one's hand while
writing or reading it, as Langdon assumed [26] (it would be quite
impracticable for this purpose), but simply to protect the tablet in
its position on a shelf, where it would naturally be placed on the
edge, just as we arrange books on a shelf. Finally be it noted that
these two tablets of the old Babylonian version do not belong to the
same edition as the Meissner tablet above described, for the latter
consists of two columns each on obverse and reverse, as against
three columns each in the case of our two tablets. We thus have
the interesting proof that as early as 2000 B.C. there were already
several editions of the Epic. As to the provenance of our two tablets,
there are no definite data, but it is likely that they were found by
natives in the mounds at Warka, from which about the year 1913, many
tablets came into the hands of dealers. It is likely that where two
tablets of a series were found, others of the series were also dug up,
and we may expect to find some further portions of this old Babylonian
version turning up in the hands of other dealers or in museums.



IV.


Coming to the contents of the two tablets, the Pennsylvania tablet
deals with the meeting of the two heroes, Gilgamesh and Enkidu,
their conflict, followed by their reconciliation, while the Yale
tablet in continuation takes up the preparations for the encounter of
the two heroes with the guardian of the cedar forest, Humbaba--but
probably pronounced Hubaba [27]--or, as the name appears in the old
Babylonian version, Huwawa. The two tablets correspond, therefore,
to portions of Tablets I to V of the Assyrian version; [28] but,
as will be shown in detail further on, the number of _completely_
parallel passages is not large, and the Assyrian version shows an
independence of the old Babylonian version that is larger than we
had reason to expect. In general, it may be said that the Assyrian
version is more elaborate, which points to its having received its
present form at a considerably later period than the old Babylonian
version. [29] On the other hand, we already find in the Babylonian
version the tendency towards repetition, which is characteristic
of Babylonian-Assyrian tales in general. Through the two Babylonian
tablets we are enabled to fill out certain details of the two episodes
with which they deal: (1) the meeting of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and
(2) the encounter with Huwawa; while their greatest value consists
in the light that they throw on the gradual growth of the Epic until
it reached its definite form in the text represented by the fragments
in Ashurbanapal's Library. Let us now take up the detailed analysis,
first of the Pennsylvania tablet and then of the Yale tablet. The
Pennsylvania tablet begins with two dreams recounted by Gilgamesh
to his mother, which the latter interprets as presaging the coming
of Enkidu to Erech. In the one, something like a heavy meteor falls
from heaven upon Gilgamesh and almost crushes him. With the help of
the heroes of Erech, Gilgamesh carries the heavy burden to his mother
Ninsun. The burden, his mother explains, symbolizes some one who,
like Gilgamesh, is born in the mountains, to whom all will pay homage
and of whom Gilgamesh will become enamoured with a love as strong as
that for a woman. In a second dream, Gilgamesh sees some one who is
like him, who brandishes an axe, and with whom he falls in love. This
personage, the mother explains, is again Enkidu.

Langdon is of the opinion that these dreams are recounted to
Enkidu by a woman with whom Enkidu cohabits for six days and seven
nights and who weans Enkidu from association with animals. This,
however, cannot be correct. The scene between Enkidu and the woman
must have been recounted in detail in the first tablet, as in the
Assyrian version, [30] whereas here in the second tablet we have the
continuation of the tale with Gilgamesh recounting his dreams directly
to his mother. The story then continues with the description of the
coming of Enkidu, conducted by the woman to the outskirts of Erech,
where food is given him. The main feature of the incident is the
conversion of Enkidu to civilized life. Enkidu, who hitherto had
gone about naked, is clothed by the woman. Instead of sucking milk
and drinking from a trough like an animal, food and strong drink are
placed before him, and he is taught how to eat and drink in human
fashion. In human fashion he also becomes drunk, and his "spree" is
naïvely described: "His heart became glad and his face shone." [31]
Like an animal, Enkidu's body had hitherto been covered with hair,
which is now shaved off. He is anointed with oil, and clothed "like
a man." Enkidu becomes a shepherd, protecting the fold against wild
beasts, and his exploit in dispatching lions is briefly told. At this
point--the end of column 3 (on the obverse), i.e., line 117, and the
beginning of column 4 (on the reverse), i.e., line 131--a gap of 13
lines--the tablet is obscure, but apparently the story of Enkidu's
gradual transformation from savagery to civilized life is continued,
with stress upon his introduction to domestic ways with the wife
chosen or decreed for him, and with work as part of his fate. All
this has no connection with Gilgamesh, and it is evident that the
tale of Enkidu was originally an _independent_ tale to illustrate the
evolution of man's career and destiny, how through intercourse with
a woman he awakens to the sense of human dignity, how he becomes
accustomed to the ways of civilization, how he passes through the
pastoral stage to higher walks of life, how the family is instituted,
and how men come to be engaged in the labors associated with human
activities. In order to connect this tale with the Gilgamesh story,
the two heroes are brought together; the woman taking on herself,
in addition to the rôle of civilizer, that of the medium through
which Enkidu is brought to Gilgamesh. The woman leads Enkidu from
the outskirts of Erech into the city itself, where the people on
seeing him remark upon his likeness to Gilgamesh. He is the very
counterpart of the latter, though somewhat smaller in stature. There
follows the encounter between the two heroes in the streets of Erech,
where they engage in a fierce combat. Gilgamesh is overcome by Enkidu
and is enraged at being thrown to the ground. The tablet closes with
the endeavor of Enkidu to pacify Gilgamesh. Enkidu declares that the
mother of Gilgamesh has exalted her son above the ordinary mortal,
and that Enlil himself has singled him out for royal prerogatives.

After this, we may assume, the two heroes become friends and together
proceed to carry out certain exploits, the first of which is an attack
upon the mighty guardian of the cedar forest. This is the main episode
in the Yale tablet, which, therefore, forms the third tablet of the
old Babylonian version.

In the first column of the obverse of the Yale tablet, which is badly
preserved, it would appear that the elders of Erech (or perhaps the
people) are endeavoring to dissuade Gilgamesh from making the attempt
to penetrate to the abode of Huwawa. If this is correct, then the
close of the first column may represent a conversation between these
elders and the woman who accompanies Enkidu. It would be the elders
who are represented as "reporting the speech to the woman," which is
presumably the determination of Gilgamesh to fight Huwawa. The elders
apparently desire Enkidu to accompany Gilgamesh in this perilous
adventure, and with this in view appeal to the woman. In the second
column after an obscure reference to the mother of Gilgamesh--perhaps
appealing to the sun-god--we find Gilgamesh and Enkidu again face to
face. From the reference to Enkidu's eyes "filled with tears," we may
conclude that he is moved to pity at the thought of what will happen to
Gilgamesh if he insists upon carrying out his purpose. Enkidu, also,
tries to dissuade Gilgamesh. This appears to be the main purport of
the dialogue between the two, which begins about the middle of the
second column and extends to the end of the third column. Enkidu
pleads that even his strength is insufficient,


	"My arms are lame,
	My strength has become weak." (lines 88-89)


Gilgamesh apparently asks for a description of the terrible tyrant
who thus arouses the fear of Enkidu, and in reply Enkidu tells
him how at one time, when he was roaming about with the cattle, he
penetrated into the forest and heard the roar of Huwawa which was
like that of a deluge. The mouth of the tyrant emitted fire, and his
breath was death. It is clear, as Professor Haupt has suggested, [32]
that Enkidu furnishes the description of a volcano in eruption, with
its mighty roar, spitting forth fire and belching out a suffocating
smoke. Gilgamesh is, however, undaunted and urges Enkidu to accompany
him in the adventure.

"I will go down to the forest," says Gilgamesh, if the conjectural
restoration of the line in question (l. 126) is correct. Enkidu replies
by again drawing a lurid picture of what will happen "When we go
(together) to the forest......." This speech of Enkidu is continued on
the reverse. In reply Gilgamesh emphasizes his reliance upon the good
will of Shamash and reproaches Enkidu with cowardice. He declares
himself superior to Enkidu's warning, and in bold terms says that
he prefers to perish in the attempt to overcome Huwawa rather than
abandon it.


	"Wherever terror is to be faced,
	Thou, forsooth, art in fear of death.
	Thy prowess lacks strength.
	I will go before thee,
	Though thy mouth shouts to me: 'thou art afraid to approach,'
	If I fall, I will establish my name." (lines 143-148)


There follows an interesting description of the forging of the
weapons for the two heroes in preparation for the encounter. [33]
The elders of Erech when they see these preparations are stricken
with fear. They learn of Huwawa's threat to annihilate Gilgamesh if
he dares to enter the cedar forest, and once more try to dissuade
Gilgamesh from the undertaking.


	"Thou art young, O Gish, and thy heart carries thee away,
	Thou dost not know what thou proposest to do." (lines 190-191)


They try to frighten Gilgamesh by repeating the description of
the terrible Huwawa. Gilgamesh is still undaunted and prays to his
patron deity Shamash, who apparently accords him a favorable "oracle"
(_têrtu_). The two heroes arm themselves for the fray, and the elders
of Erech, now reconciled to the perilous undertaking, counsel Gilgamesh
to take provision along for the undertaking. They urge Gilgamesh to
allow Enkidu to take the lead, for


	"He is acquainted with the way, he has trodden the road
	[to] the entrance of the forest." (lines 252-253)


The elders dismiss Gilgamesh with fervent wishes that Enkidu may track
out the "closed path" for Gilgamesh, and commit him to the care of
Lugalbanda--here perhaps an epithet of Shamash. They advise Gilgamesh
to perform certain rites, to wash his feet in the stream of Huwawa and
to pour out a libation of water to Shamash. Enkidu follows in a speech
likewise intended to encourage the hero; and with the actual beginning
of the expedition against Huwawa the tablet ends. The encounter itself,
with the triumph of the two heroes, must have been described in the
fourth tablet.



V.


Now before taking up the significance of the additions to our
knowledge of the Epic gained through these two tablets, it will be
well to discuss the forms in which the names of the two heroes and
of the ruler of the cedar forest occur in our tablets.

As in the Meissner fragment, the chief hero is invariably designated
as dGish in both the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets; and we may
therefore conclude that this was the common form in the Hammurabi
period, as against the writing dGish-gì(n)-mash [34] in the Assyrian
version. Similarly, as in the Meissner fragment, the second hero's
name is always written En-ki-du [35] (abbreviated from dúg) as
against En-ki-dú in the Assyrian version. Finally, we encounter in
the Yale tablet for the first time the writing Hu-wa-wa as the name
of the guardian of the cedar forest, as against Hum-ba-ba in the
Assyrian version, though in the latter case, as we may now conclude
from the Yale tablet, the name should rather be read Hu-ba-ba. [36]
The variation in the writing of the latter name is interesting
as pointing to the aspirate pronunciation of the labial in both
instances. The name would thus present a complete parallel to the
Hebrew name Howawa (or Hobab) who appears as the brother-in-law
of Moses in the P document, Numbers 10, 29. [37] Since the name
also occurs, written precisely as in the Yale tablet, among the
"Amoritic" names in the important lists published by Dr. Chiera,
[38] there can be no doubt that Huwawa or Hubaba is a West Semitic
name. This important fact adds to the probability that the "cedar
forest" in which Huwawa dwells is none other than the Lebanon district,
famed since early antiquity for its cedars. This explanation of the
name Huwawa disposes of suppositions hitherto brought forward for an
Elamitic origin. Gressmann [39] still favors such an origin, though
realizing that the description of the cedar forest points to the Amanus
or Lebanon range. In further confirmation of the West Semitic origin of
the name, we have in Lucian, _De Dea Syria_, § 19, the name Kombabos
[40] (the guardian of Stratonika), which forms a perfect parallel to
Hu(m)baba. Of the important bearings of this western character of the
name Huwawa on the interpretation and origin of the Gilgamesh Epic,
suggesting that the episode of the encounter between the tyrant and
the two heroes rests upon a tradition of an expedition against the
West or Amurru land, we shall have more to say further on.

The variation in the writing of the name Enkidu is likewise
interesting. It is evident that the form in the old Babylonian
version with the sign du (i.e., dúg) is the original, for it furnishes
us with a suitable etymology "Enki is good." The writing with dúg,
pronounced du, also shows that the sign dú as the third element in the
form which the name has in the Assyrian version is to be read dú, and
that former readings like Ea-bani must be definitely abandoned. [41]
The form with dú is clearly a _phonetic_ writing of the Sumerian name,
the sign dú being chosen to indicate the _pronunciation_ (not the
ideograph) of the third element dúg. This is confirmed by the writing
En-gi-dú in the syllabary _CT_ XVIII, 30, 10. The phonetic writing
is, therefore, a warning against any endeavor to read the name by
an Akkadian transliteration of the signs. This would not of itself
prove that Enkidu is of Sumerian _origin_, for it might well be that
the writing En-ki-dú is an endeavor to give a Sumerian _aspect_ to
a name that _may_ have been foreign. The element dúg corresponds to
the Semitic _tâbu_, "good," and En-ki being originally a designation
of a deity as the "lord of the land," which would be the Sumerian
manner of indicating a Semitic Baal, it is not at all impossible
that En-ki-dúg may be the "Sumerianized" form of a Semitic BA`L TZOB
"Baal is good." It will be recalled that in the third column of the
Yale tablet, Enkidu speaks of himself in his earlier period while
still living with cattle, as wandering into the cedar forest of
Huwawa, while in another passage (ll. 252-253) he is described as
"acquainted with the way ... to the entrance of the forest." This
would clearly point to the West as the original home of Enkidu. We
are thus led once more to Amurru--taken as a general designation of
the West--as playing an important role in the Gilgamesh Epic. [42] If
Gilgamesh's expedition against Huwawa of the Lebanon district recalls
a Babylonian campaign against Amurru, Enkidu's coming from his home,
where, as we read repeatedly in the Assyrian version,


	"He ate herbs with the gazelles,
	Drank out of a trough with cattle," [43]


may rest on a tradition of an Amorite invasion of Babylonia. The
fight between Gilgamesh and Enkidu would fit in with this tradition,
while the subsequent reconciliation would be the form in which the
tradition would represent the enforced union between the invaders
and the older settlers.

Leaving this aside for the present, let us proceed to a consideration
of the relationship of the form dGish, for the chief personage
in the Epic in the old Babylonian version, to dGish-gi(n)-mash in
the Assyrian version. Of the meaning of Gish there is fortunately
no doubt. It is clearly the equivalent to the Akkadian _zikaru_,
"man" (Brünnow No. 5707), or possibly _rabû_, "great" (Brünnow
No. 5704). Among various equivalents, the preference is to be given
to _itlu_, "hero." The determinative for deity stamps the person so
designated as deified, or as in part divine, and this is in accord
with the express statement in the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh
Epic which describes the hero as


	"Two-thirds god and one-third human." [44]


Gish is, therefore, the hero-god _par excellence_; and this shows
that we are not dealing with a genuine proper name, but rather with a
descriptive attribute. Proper names are not formed in this way, either
in Sumerian or Akkadian. Now what relation does this form Gish bear to


                            [FIGURE]


as the name of the hero is invariably written in the Assyrian version,
the form which was at first read dIz-tu-bar or dGish-du-bar by
scholars, until Pinches found in a neo-Babylonian syllabary [45]
the equation of it with Gi-il-ga-mesh? Pinches' discovery pointed
conclusively to the popular pronunciation of the hero's name as
Gilgamesh; and since Aelian (_De natura Animalium_ XII, 2) mentions
a Babylonian personage Gilgamos (though what he tells us of Gilgamos
does not appear in our Epic, but seems to apply to Etana, another
figure of Babylonian mythology), there seemed to be no further reason
to question that the problem had been solved. Besides, in a later
Syriac list of Babylonian kings found in the Scholia of Theodor bar
Koni, the name GLMGVM with a variant GMYGMVS occurs, [46] and it
is evident that we have here again the Gi-il-ga-mesh, discovered by
Pinches. The existence of an old Babylonian hero Gilgamesh who was
likewise a king is thus established, as well as his identification with


                            [FIGURE]


It is evident that we cannot read this name as Iz-tu-bar or
Gish-du-bar, but that we must read the first sign as Gish and the
third as Mash, while for the second we must assume a reading Gìn or
Gi. This would give us Gish-gì(n)-mash which is clearly again (like
En-ki-dú) not an etymological writing but a _phonetic_ one, intended
to convey an _approach_ to the popular pronunciation. Gi-il-ga-mesh
might well be merely a variant for Gish-ga-mesh, or _vice versa_,
and this would come close to Gish-gi-mash. Now, when we have a name
the pronunciation of which is not definite but approximate, and which
is written in various ways, the probabilities are that the name is
foreign. A foreign name might naturally be spelled in various ways. The
Epic in the Assyrian version clearly depicts dGish-gì(n)-mash as a
conqueror of Erech, who forces the people into subjection, and whose
autocratic rule leads the people of Erech to implore the goddess
Aruru to create a rival to him who may withstand him. In response
to this appeal dEnkidu is formed out of dust by Aruru and eventually
brought to Erech. [47] Gish-gì(n)-mash or Gilgamesh is therefore in
all probability a foreigner; and the simplest solution suggested by the
existence of the two forms (1) Gish in the old Babylonian version and
(2) Gish-gì(n)-mash in the Assyrian version, is to regard the former
as an abbreviation, which seemed appropriate, because the short name
conveyed the idea of the "hero" _par excellence_. If Gish-gì(n)-mash
is a foreign name, one would think in the first instance of Sumerian;
but here we encounter a difficulty in the circumstance that outside of
the Epic this conqueror and ruler of Erech appears in quite a different
form, namely, as dGish-bil-ga-mesh, with dGish-gibil(or bìl)-ga-mesh
and dGish-bil-ge-mesh as variants. [48] In the remarkable list of
partly mythological and partly historical dynasties, published by
Poebel, [49] the fifth member of the first dynasty of Erech appears
as dGish-bil-ga-mesh; and similarly in an inscription of the days of
Sin-gamil, dGish-bil-ga-mesh is mentioned as the builder of the wall
of Erech. [50] Moreover, in the several fragments of the Sumerian
version of the Epic we have invariably the form dGish-bil-ga-mesh. It
is evident, therefore, that this is the genuine form of the name in
Sumerian and presumably, therefore, the oldest form. By way of further
confirmation we have in the syllabary above referred to, CT, XVIII,
30, 6-8, three designations of our hero, viz:


	dGish-gibil(or bíl)-ga-mesh
	_muk-tab-lu_ ("warrior")
	_a-lik pa-na_ ("leader")


All three designations are set down as the equivalent of the Sumerian
Esigga imin i.e., "the seven-fold hero."

Of the same general character is the equation in another syllabary:
[51]


	Esigga-tuk and its equivalent Gish-tuk = "the one who is
	a hero."


Furthermore, the name occurs frequently in "Temple" documents of the Ur
dynasty in the form dGish-bil-ga-mesh [52] with dGish-bil-gi(n)-mesh
as a variant. [53] In a list of deities (_CT_ XXV, 28, K 7659)
we likewise encounter dGish-gibil(or bíl)-ga-mesh, and lastly in a
syllabary we have the equation [54]


	dGish-gi-mas-[si?] = dGish-bil-[ga-mesh].


The variant Gish-gibil for Gish-bil may be disposed of readily, in view
of the frequent confusion or interchange of the two signs Bil (Brünnow
No. 4566) and Gibil or Bíl (Brünnow No. 4642) which has also the value
Gi (Brünnow 4641), so that we might also read Gish-gi-ga-mesh. Both
signs convey the idea of "fire," "renew," etc.; both revert to the
picture of flames of fire, in the one case with a bowl (or some
such obiect) above it, in the other the flames issuing apparently
from a torch. [55] The meaning of the name is not affected whether
we read dGish-bil-ga-mesh or dGish-gibil(or bíl)-ga-mesh, for the
middle element in the latter case being identical with the fire-god,
written dBil-gi and to be pronounced in the inverted form as Gibil
with _-ga_ (or _ge_) as the phonetic complement; it is equivalent,
therefore, to the writing bil-ga in the former case. Now Gish-gibil
or Gish-bíl conveys the idea of _abu_, "father" (Brünnow No. 5713),
just as Bil (Brünnow No. 4579) has this meaning, while Pa-gibil-(ga)
or Pa-bíl-ga is _abu abi_, "grandfather." [56] This meaning may be
derived from Gibil, as also from Bíl = _isatu_, "fire," then _essu_,
"new," then _abu_, "father," as the renewer or creator. Gish with Bíl
or Gibil would, therefore, be "the father-man" or "the father-hero,"
i.e., again the hero _par excellence_, the original hero, just as in
Hebrew and Arabic _ab_ is used in this way. [57] The syllable _ga
_being a phonetic complement, the element _mesh_ is to be taken
by itself and to be explained, as Poebel suggested, as "hero"
(_itlu_. Brünnow No. 5967).

We would thus obtain an entirely artificial combination, "man (or
hero), father, hero," which would simply convey in an emphatic manner
the idea of the _Ur-held_, the original hero, the father of heroes as
it were--practically the same idea, therefore, as the one conveyed
by Gish alone, as the hero _par excellence_. Our investigation thus
leads us to a substantial identity between Gish and the longer form
Gish-bil(or bíl)-ga-mesh, and the former might, therefore, well be used
as an abbreviation of the latter. Both the shorter and the longer forms
are _descriptive epithets _based on naive folk etymology, rather than
personal names, just as in the designation of our hero as  _muktablu_,
the "fighter," or as _âlik pâna_, "the leader," or as _Esigga imin_,
"the seven-fold hero," or _Esigga tuk_, "the one who is a hero," are
descriptive epithets, and as Atra-hasis, "the very wise one," is such
an epithet for the hero of the deluge story. The case is different with
Gi-il-ga-mesh, or Gish-gì(n)-mash, which represent the popular and
actual pronunciation of the name, or at least the _approach_ to such
pronunciation. Such forms, stripped as they are of all artificiality,
impress one as genuine names. The conclusion to which we are thus led
is that Gish-bil(or bíl)-ga-mesh is a play upon the genuine name,
to convey to those to whom the real name, as that of a foreigner,
would suggest no meaning an interpretation _fitting in with his
character_. In other words, Gish-bil-ga-mesh is a "Sumerianized"
form of the name, introduced into the Sumerian version of the tale
which became a folk-possession in the Euphrates Valley. Such plays
upon names to suggest the character of an individual or some incident
are familiar to us from the narratives in Genesis. [58] They do not
constitute genuine etymologies and are rarely of use in leading to a
correct etymology. Reuben, e.g., certainly does not mean "Yahweh has
seen my affliction," which the mother is supposed to have exclaimed
at the birth (Genesis 29, 32), with a play upon _ben_ and _be'onyi_,
any more than Judah means "I praise Yahweh" (v. 35), though it does
contain the divine name (_Ye_hô) as an element. The play on the
name may be close or remote, as long as it fulfills its function of
_suggesting_ an etymology that is complimentary or appropriate.

In this way, an artificial division and at the same time a
distortion of a foreign name like Gilgamesh into several elements,
Gish-bil-ga-mesh, is no more violent than, for example, the explanation
of Issachar or rather Issaschar as "God has given my hire" (Genesis
30, 18) with a play upon the element _se_char, and as though the
name were to be divided into _Yah_ ("God") and _se_char ("hire");
or the popular name of Alexander among the Arabs as _Zu'l Karnaini_,
"the possessor of the two horns." with a suggestion of his conquest
of two hemispheres, or what not. [59] The element Gil in Gilgamesh
would be regarded as a contraction of Gish-bil or gi-bil, in order
to furnish the meaning "father-hero," or Gil might be looked upon
as a variant for Gish, which would give us the "phonetic" form in
the Assyrian version dGish-gi-mash, [60] as well as such a variant
writing dGish-gi-mas-(si). Now a name like Gilgamesh, upon which we
may definitely settle as coming closest to the genuine form, certainly
impresses one as foreign, i.e., it is neither Sumerian nor Akkadian;
and we have already suggested that the circumstance that the hero of
the Epic is portrayed as a conqueror of Erech, and a rather ruthless
one at that, points to a tradition of an invasion of the Euphrates
Valley as the background for the episode in the first tablet of the
series. Now it is significant that many of the names in the "mythical"
dynasties, as they appear in Poebel's list, [61] are likewise foreign,
such as Mes-ki-in-ga-se-ir, son of the god Shamash (and the founder
of the "mythical" dynasty of Erech of which dGish-bil-ga-mesh is
the fifth member), [62] and En-me-ir-kár his son. In a still earlier
"mythical" dynasty, we encounter names like Ga-lu-mu-um, Zu-ga-gi-ib,
Ar-pi, E-ta-na, [63] which are distinctly foreign, while such names as
En-me(n)-nun-na and Bar-sal-nun-na strike one again as "Sumerianized"
names rather than as genuine Sumerian formations. [64]

Some of these names, as Galumum, Arpi and Etana, are so Amoritic
in appearance, that one may hazard the conjecture of their western
origin. May Gilgamesh likewise belong to the Amurru [65] region, or
does he represent a foreigner from the East in contrast to Enkidu,
whose name, we have seen, may have been Baal-Tôb in the West, with
which region he is according to the Epic so familiar? It must be
confessed that the second element _ga-mesh_ would fit in well with
a Semitic origin for the name, for the element impresses one as
the participial form of a Semitic stem G-M-S, just as in the second
element of Meskin-gaser we have such a form. Gil might then be the
name of a West-Semitic deity. Such conjectures, however, can for the
present not be substantiated, and we must content ourselves with the
conclusion that Gilgamesh as the real name of the hero, or at least
the form which comes closest to the real name, points to a foreign
origin for the hero, and that such forms as dGish-bil-ga-mesh and
dGish-bíl-gi-mesh and other variants are "Sumerianized" forms for which
an artificial etymology was brought forward to convey the idea of the
"original hero" or the hero _par excellence_. By means of this "play"
on the name, which reverts to the compilers of the Sumerian version
of the Epic, Gilgamesh was converted into a Sumerian figure, just as
the name Enkidu may have been introduced as a Sumerian translation
of his Amoritic name. dGish at all events is an abbreviated form of
the "Sumerianized" name, introduced by the compilers of the earliest
Akkadian version, which was produced naturally under the influence
of the Sumerian version. Later, as the Epic continued to grow, a
phonetic writing was introduced, dGish-gi-mash, which is in a measure
a compromise between the genuine name and the "Sumerianized" form,
but at the same time an _approach_ to the real pronunciation.



VI.


Next to the new light thrown upon the names and original character
of the two main figures of the Epic, one of the chief points of
interest in the Pennsylvania fragment is the proof that it furnishes
for a striking resemblance of the two heroes, Gish and Enkidu, to one
another. In interpreting the dream of Gish, his mother. Ninsun, lays
stress upon the fact that the dream portends the coming of someone
who is like Gish, "born in the field and reared in the mountain"
(lines 18-19). Both, therefore, are shown by this description to
have come to Babylonia from a mountainous region, i.e., they are
foreigners; and in the case of Enkidu we have seen that the mountain
in all probability refers to a region in the West, while the same may
also be the case with Gish. The resemblance of the two heroes to one
another extends to their personal appearance. When Enkidu appears on
the streets of Erech, the people are struck by this resemblance. They
remark that he is "like Gish," though "shorter in stature" (lines
179-180). Enkidu is described as a rival or counterpart. [66]

This relationship between the two is suggested also by the Assyrian
version. In the creation of Enkidu by Aruru, the people urge the
goddess to create the "counterpart" (_zikru_) of Gilgamesh, someone who
will be like him (_ma-si-il_) (Tablet I, 2, 31). Enkidu not only comes
from the mountain, [67] but the mountain is specifically designated as
his birth-place (I, 4, 2), precisely as in the Pennsylvania tablet,
while in another passage he is also described, as in our tablet, as
"born in the field." [68] Still more significant is the designation of
Gilgamesh as the _talimu_, "younger brother," of Enkidu. [69] In accord
with this, we find Gilgamesh in his lament over Enkidu describing
him as a "younger brother" (_ku-ta-ni_); [70] and again in the last
tablet of the Epic, Gilgamesh is referred to as the "brother" of
Enkidu. [71] This close relationship reverts to the Sumerian version,
for the Constantinople fragment (Langdon, above, p. 13) begins with the
designation of Gish-bil-ga-mesh as "his brother." By "his" no doubt
Enkidu is meant. Likewise in the Sumerian text published by Zimmern
(above, p. 13) Gilgamesh appears as the brother of Enkidu (rev. 1, 17).

Turning to the numerous representations of Gilgamesh and Enkidu on
Seal Cylinders, [72] we find this resemblance of the two heroes to each
other strikingly confirmed. Both are represented as bearded, with the
strands arranged in the same fashion. The face in both cases is broad,
with curls protruding at the side of the head, though at times these
curls are lacking in the case of Enkidu. What is particularly striking
is to find Gilgamesh generally _a little taller_ than Enkidu, thus
bearing out the statement in the Pennsylvania tablet that Enkidu is
"shorter in stature." There are, to be sure, also some distinguishing
marks between the two. Thus Enkidu is generally represented with
animal hoofs, but not always. [73] Enkidu is commonly portrayed with
the horns of a bison, but again this sign is wanting in quite a number
of instances. [74] The hoofs and the horns mark the period when Enkidu
lived with animals and much like an animal. Most remarkable, however,
of all are cylinders on which we find the two heroes almost exactly
alike as, for example, Ward No. 199 where two figures, the one a
duplicate of the other (except that one is just a shade taller), are in
conflict with each other. Dr. Ward was puzzled by this representation
and sets it down as a "fantastic" scene in which "each Gilgamesh
is stabbing the other." In the light of the Pennsylvania tablet,
this scene is clearly the conflict between the two heroes described
in column 6, preliminary to their forming a friendship. Even in the
realm of myth the human experience holds good that there is nothing
like a good fight as a basis for a subsequent alliance. The fragment
describes this conflict as a furious one in which Gilgamesh is worsted,
and his wounded pride assuaged by the generous victor, who comforts his
vanquished enemy by the assurance that he was destined for something
higher than to be a mere "Hercules." He was singled out for the
exercise of royal authority. True to the description of the two heroes
in the Pennsylvania tablet as alike, one the counterpart of the other,
the seal cylinder portrays them almost exactly alike, as alike as two
brothers could possibly be; with just enough distinction to make it
clear on close inspection that two figures are intended and not one
repeated for the sake of symmetry. There are slight variations in the
manner in which the hair is worn, and slightly varying expressions
of the face, just enough to make it evident that the one is intended
for Gilgamesh and the other for Enkidu. When, therefore, in another
specimen, No. 173, we find a Gilgamesh holding his counterpart by the
legs, it is merely another aspect of the fight between the two heroes,
one of whom is intended to represent Enkidu, and not, as Dr. Ward
supposed, a grotesque repetition of Gilgamesh. [75]

The description of Enkidu in the Pennsylvania tablet as a parallel
figure to Gilgamesh leads us to a consideration of the relationship
of the two figures to one another. Many years ago it was pointed
out that the Gilgamesh Epic was a composite tale in which various
stories of an independent origin had been combined and brought into
more or less artificial connection with the _heros eponymos_ of
southern Babylonia. [76] We may now go a step further and point out
that not only is Enkidu originally an entirely independent figure,
having no connection with Gish or Gilgamesh, but that the latter is
really depicted in the Epic as the counterpart of Enkidu, a reflection
who has been given the traits of extraordinary physical power that
belong to Enkidu. This is shown in the first place by the fact that
in the encounter it is Enkidu who triumphs over Gilgamesh. The entire
analysis of the episode of the meeting between the two heroes as given
by Gressmann [77] must be revised. It is not Enkidu who is terrified
and who is warned against the encounter. It is Gilgamesh who, during
the night on his way from the house in which the goddess Ishhara
lies, encounters Enkidu on the highway. Enkidu "blocks the path"
[78] of Gilgamesh. He prevents Gilgamesh from re-entering the house,
[79] and the two attack each other "like oxen." [80] They grapple
with each other, and Enkidu forces Gilgamesh to the ground. Enkidu
is, therefore, the real hero whose traits of physical prowess are
afterwards transferred to Gilgamesh.

Similarly in the next episode, the struggle against Huwawa, the Yale
tablet makes it clear that in the original form of the tale Enkidu
is the real hero. All warn Gish against the undertaking--the elders
of Erech, Enkidu, and also the workmen. "Why dost thou desire to do
this?" [81] they say to him. "Thou art young, and thy heart carries
thee away. Thou knowest not what thou proposest to do." [82] This part
of the incident is now better known to us through the latest fragment
of the Assyrian version discovered and published by King. [83] The
elders say to Gilgamesh:


	"Do not trust, O Gilgamesh, in thy strength!
	Be warned(?) against trusting to thy attack!
	The one who goes before will save his companion, [84]
	He who has foresight will save his friend. [85]
	Let Enkidu go before thee.
	He knows the roads to the cedar forest;
	He is skilled in battle and has seen fight."


Gilgamesh is sufficiently impressed by this warning to invite Enkidu
to accompany him on a visit to his mother, Ninsun, for the purpose
of receiving her counsel. [86]

It is only after Enkidu, who himself hesitates and tries to dissuade
Gish, decides to accompany the latter that the elders of Erech
are reconciled and encourage Gish for the fray. The two in concert
proceed against Huwawa. Gilgamesh alone cannot carry out the plan. Now
when a tale thus associates two figures in one deed, one of the
two has been added to the original tale. In the present case there
can be little doubt that Enkidu, without whom Gish cannot proceed,
who is specifically described as "acquainted with the way ... to the
entrance of the forest" [87] in which Huwawa dwells is the _original_
vanquisher. Naturally, the Epic aims to conceal this fact as much
as possible _ad majorem gloriam_ of Gilgamesh. It tries to put the
one who became the favorite hero into the foreground. Therefore, in
both the Babylonian and the Assyrian version Enkidu is represented
as hesitating, and Gilgamesh as determined to go ahead. Gilgamesh,
in fact, accuses Enkidu of cowardice and boldly declares that he
will proceed even though failure stare him in the face. [88] Traces
of the older view, however, in which Gilgamesh is the one for whom
one fears the outcome, crop out; as, for example, in the complaint of
Gilgamesh's mother to Shamash that the latter has stirred the heart
of her son to take the distant way to Hu(m)baba,


	"To a fight unknown to him, he advances,
	An expedition unknown to him he undertakes." [89]


Ninsun evidently fears the consequences when her son informs her
of his intention and asks her counsel. The answer of Shamash is not
preserved, but no doubt it was of a reassuring character, as was the
answer of the Sun-god to Gish's appeal and prayer as set forth in
the Yale tablet. [90]

Again, as a further indication that Enkidu is the real conqueror of
Huwawa, we find the coming contest revealed to Enkidu no less than
three times in dreams, which Gilgamesh interprets. [91] Since the
person who dreams is always the one to whom the dream applies, we may
see in these dreams a further trace of the primary rôle originally
assigned to Enkidu.

Another exploit which, according to the Assyrian version, the two
heroes perform in concert is the killing of a bull, sent by Anu at
the instance of Ishtar to avenge an insult offered to the goddess
by Gilgamesh, who rejects her offer of marriage. In the fragmentary
description of the contest with the bull, we find Enkidu "seizing"
the monster by "its tail." [92]

That Enkidu originally played the part of the slayer is also shown
by the statement that it is he who insults Ishtar by throwing a
piece of the carcass into the goddess' face, [93] adding also an
insulting speech; and this despite the fact that Ishtar in her rage
accuses Gilgamesh of killing the bull. [94] It is thus evident that
the Epic alters the original character of the episodes in order to
find a place for Gilgamesh, with the further desire to assign to the
latter the _chief_ rôle. Be it noted also that Enkidu, not Gilgamesh,
is punished for the insult to Ishtar. Enkidu must therefore in the
original form of the episode have been the guilty party, who is
stricken with mortal disease as a punishment to which after twelve
days he succumbs. [95] In view of this, we may supply the name of
Enkidu in the little song introduced at the close of the encounter
with the bull, and not Gilgamesh as has hitherto been done.


	"Who is distinguished among the heroes?
	Who is glorious among men?
	[Enkidu] is distinguished among heroes,
	[Enkidu] is glorious among men." [96]


Finally, the killing of lions is directly ascribed to Enkidu in the
Pennsylvania tablet:


	"Lions he attacked
	*     *     *     *     *
	Lions he overcame" [97]


whereas Gilgamesh appears to be afraid of lions. On his long search
for Utnapishtim he says:


	"On reaching the entrance of the mountain at night
	I saw lions and was afraid." [98]


He prays to Sin and Ishtar to protect and save him. When, therefore,
in another passage some one celebrates Gilgamesh as the one who
overcame the "guardian," who dispatched Hu(m)baba in the cedar forest,
who killed lions and overthrew the bull, [99] we have the completion
of the process which transferred to Gilgamesh exploits and powers
which originally belonged to Enkidu, though ordinarily the process
stops short at making Gilgamesh a _sharer_ in the exploits; with the
natural tendency, to be sure, to enlarge the share of the favorite.

We can now understand why the two heroes are described in the
Pennsylvania tablet as alike, as born in the same place, aye, as
brothers. Gilgamesh in the Epic is merely a reflex of Enkidu. The
latter is the real hero and presumably, therefore, the older
figure. [100] Gilgamesh resembles Enkidu, because he _is_ originally
Enkidu. The "resemblance" _motif_ is merely the manner in which
in the course of the partly popular, partly literary transfer, the
recollection is preserved that Enkidu is the original, and Gilgamesh
the copy.

The artificiality of the process which brings the two heroes together
is apparent in the dreams of Gilgamesh which are interpreted by
his mother as portending the coming of Enkidu. Not the conflict is
foreseen, but the subsequent close association, naïvely described as
due to the personal charm which Enkidu exercises, which will lead
Gilgamesh to fall in love with the one whom he is to meet. The two
will become one, like man and wife.

On the basis of our investigations, we are now in a position to
reconstruct in part the cycle of episodes that once formed part of
an Enkidu Epic. The fight between Enkidu and Gilgamesh, in which
the former is the victor, is typical of the kind of tales told of
Enkidu. He is the real prototype of the Greek Hercules. He slays
lions, he overcomes a powerful opponent dwelling in the forests of
Lebanon, he kills the bull, and he finally succumbs to disease sent
as a punishment by an angry goddess. The death of Enkidu naturally
formed the close of the Enkidu Epic, which in its original form may,
of course, have included other exploits besides those taken over into
the Gilgamesh Epic.



VII.


There is another aspect of the figure of Enkidu which is brought
forward in the Pennsylvania tablet more clearly than had hitherto been
the case. Many years ago attention was called to certain striking
resemblances between Enkidu and the figure of the first man as
described in the early chapters of Genesis. [101] At that time we had
merely the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh Epic at our disposal,
and the main point of contact was the description of Enkidu living
with the animals, drinking and feeding like an animal, until a woman
is brought to him with whom he engages in sexual intercourse. This
suggested that Enkidu was a picture of primeval man, while the
woman reminded one of Eve, who when she is brought to Adam becomes
his helpmate and inseparable companion. The Biblical tale stands,
of course, on a much higher level, and is introduced, as are other
traditions and tales of primitive times, in the style of a parable
to convey certain religious teachings. For all that, suggestions
of earlier conceptions crop out in the picture of Adam surrounded
by animals to which he assigns names. Such a phrase as "there was no
helpmate corresponding to him" becomes intelligible on the supposition
of an existing tradition or belief, that man once lived and, indeed,
cohabited with animals. The tales in the early chapters of Genesis
must rest on very early popular traditions, which have been cleared
of mythological and other objectionable features in order to adapt
them to the purpose of the Hebrew compilers, to serve as a medium for
illustrating certain religious teachings regarding man's place in
nature and his higher destiny. From the resemblance between Enkidu
and Adam it does not, of course, follow that the latter is modelled
upon the former, but only that both rest on similar traditions of
the condition under which men lived in primeval days prior to the
beginnings of human culture.

We may now pass beyond these general indications and recognize in the
story of Enkidu as revealed by the Pennsylvania tablet an attempt
to trace the evolution of primitive man from low beginnings to the
regular and orderly family life associated with advanced culture. The
new tablet furnishes a further illustration for the surprisingly early
tendency among the Babylonian _literati_ to connect with popular tales
teachings of a religious or ethical character. Just as the episode
between Gilgamesh and the maiden Sabitum is made the occasion for
introducing reflections on the inevitable fate of man to encounter
death, so the meeting of Enkidu with the woman becomes the medium
of impressing the lesson of human progress through the substitution
of bread and wine for milk and water, through the institution of
the family, and through work and the laying up of resources. This
is the significance of the address to Enkidu in column 4 of the
Pennsylvania tablet, even though certain expressions in it are
somewhat obscure. The connection of the entire episode of Enkidu and
the woman with Gilgamesh is very artificial; and it becomes much more
intelligible if we disassociate it from its present entanglement in
the Epic. In Gilgamesh's dream, portending the meeting with Enkidu,
nothing is said of the woman who is the companion of the latter. The
passage in which Enkidu is created by Aruru to oppose Gilgamesh [102]
betrays evidence of having been worked over in order to bring Enkidu
into association with the longing of the people of Erech to get rid
of a tyrannical character. The people in their distress appeal to
Aruru to create a rival to Gilgamesh. In response,


	"Aruru upon hearing this created a man of Anu in her heart."


Now this "man of Anu" cannot possibly be Enkidu, for the sufficient
reason that a few lines further on Enkidu is described as an offspring
of Ninib. Moreover, the being created is not a "counterpart"
of Gilgamesh, but an animal-man, as the description that follows
shows. We must separate lines 30-33 in which the creation of the "Anu
man" is described from lines 34-41 in which the creation of Enkidu is
narrated. Indeed, these lines strike one as the proper _beginning_
of the original Enkidu story, which would naturally start out with
his birth and end with his death. The description is clearly an
account of the creation of the first man, in which capacity Enkidu
is brought forward.


	"Aruru washed her hands, broke off clay,
	threw it on the field [103]
	... created Enkidu, the hero, a lofty
	offspring of the host of Ninib." [104]


The description of Enkidu follows, with his body covered with hair
like an animal, and eating and drinking with the animals. There
follows an episode [105] which has no connection whatsoever with
the Gilgamesh Epic, but which is clearly intended to illustrate how
Enkidu came to abandon the life with the animals. A hunter sees Enkidu
and is amazed at the strange sight--an animal and yet a man. Enkidu,
as though resenting his condition, becomes enraged at the sight of
the hunter, and the latter goes to his father and tells him of the
strange creature whom he is unable to catch. In reply, the father
advises his son to take a woman with him when next he goes out on
his pursuit, and to have the woman remove her dress in the presence
of Enkidu, who will then approach her, and after intercourse with
her will abandon the animals among whom he lives. By this device he
will catch the strange creature. Lines 14-18 of column 3 in the first
tablet in which the father of the hunter refers to Gilgamesh must be
regarded as a later insertion, a part of the reconstruction of the
tale to connect the episode with Gilgamesh. The advice of the father
to his son, the hunter, begins, line 19,


	"Go my hunter, take with thee a woman."


In the reconstructed tale, the father tells his son to go to Gilgamesh
to relate to him the strange appearance of the animal-man; but there
is clearly no purpose in this, as is shown by the fact that when the
hunter does so, Gilgamesh makes _precisely the same speech_ as does
the father of the hunter. Lines 40-44 of column 3, in which Gilgamesh
is represented as speaking to the hunter form a complete _doublet_
to lines 19-24, beginning


	"Go, my hunter, take with thee a woman, etc."


and similarly the description of Enkidu appears twice, lines 2-12
in an address of the hunter to his father, and lines 29-39 in the
address of the hunter to Gilgamesh.

The artificiality of the process of introducing Gilgamesh into
the episode is revealed by this awkward and entirely meaningless
repetition. We may therefore reconstruct the first two scenes in the
Enkidu Epic as follows: [106]

Tablet I, col. 2, 34-35: Creation of Enkidu by Aruru.

36-41: Description of Enkidu's hairy body and of his life with the
animals.

42-50: The hunter sees Enkidu, who shows his anger, as also his woe,
at his condition.

3, 1-12: The hunter tells his father of the strange being who pulls
up the traps which the hunter digs, and who tears the nets so that
the hunter is unable to catch him or the animals.

19-24: The father of the hunter advises his son on his next expedition
to take a woman with him in order to lure the strange being from his
life with the animals.

Line 25, beginning "On the advice of his father," must have set forth,
in the original form of the episode, how the hunter procured the
woman and took her with him to meet Enkidu.

Column 4 gives in detail the meeting between the two, and naïvely
describes how the woman exposes her charms to Enkidu, who is captivated
by her and stays with her six days and seven nights. The animals see
the change in Enkidu and run away from him. He has been transformed
through the woman. So far the episode. In the Assyrian version there
follows an address of the woman to Enkidu beginning (col. 4, 34):


	"Beautiful art thou, Enkidu, like a god art thou."


We find her urging him to go with her to Erech, there to meet Gilgamesh
and to enjoy the pleasures of city life with plenty of beautiful
maidens. Gilgamesh, she adds, will expect Enkidu, for the coming
of the latter to Erech has been foretold in a dream. It is evident
that here we have again the later transformation of the Enkidu Epic
in order to bring the two heroes together. Will it be considered too
bold if we assume that in the original form the address of the woman
and the construction of the episode were such as we find preserved in
part in columns 2 to 4 of the Pennsylvania tablet, which forms part
of the new material that can now be added to the Epic? The address
of the woman begins in line 51 of the Pennsylvania tablet:


	"I gaze upon thee, Enkidu, like a god art thou."


This corresponds to the line in the Assyrian version (I, 4, 34)
as given above, just as lines 52-53:


	"Why with the cattle
	Dost thou roam across the field?"


correspond to I, 4, 35, of the Assyrian version. There follows in both
the old Babylonian and the Assyrian version the appeal of the woman
to Enkidu, to allow her to lead him to Erech where Gilgamesh dwells
(Pennsylvania tablet lines 54-61 = Assyrian version I, 4, 36-39);
but in the Pennsylvania tablet we now have a _second_ speech (lines
62-63) beginning like the first one with _al-ka_, "come:"


	"Come, arise from the accursed ground."


Enkidu consents, and now the woman takes off her garments and clothes
the naked Enkidu, while putting another garment on herself. She takes
hold of his hand and leads him to the sheepfolds (not to Erech!!),
where bread and wine are placed before him. Accustomed hitherto
to sucking milk with cattle, Enkidu does not know what to do with
the strange food until encouraged and instructed by the woman. The
entire third column is taken up with this introduction of Enkidu
to civilized life in a pastoral community, and the scene ends with
Enkidu becoming a guardian of flocks. Now all this has nothing to
do with Gilgamesh, and clearly sets forth an entirely different
idea from the one embodied in the meeting of the two heroes. In the
original Enkidu tale, the animal-man is looked upon as the type of a
primitive savage, and the point of the tale is to illustrate in the
naïve manner characteristic of folklore the evolution to the higher
form of pastoral life. This aspect of the incident is, therefore,
to be separated from the other phase which has as its chief _motif_
the bringing of the two heroes together.

We now obtain, thanks to the new section revealed by the Pennsylvania
tablet, a further analogy [107] with the story of Adam and Eve,
but with this striking difference, that whereas in the Babylonian
tale the woman is the medium leading man to the higher life, in the
Biblical story the woman is the tempter who brings misfortune to
man. This contrast is, however, not inherent in the Biblical story,
but due to the point of view of the Biblical writer, who is somewhat
pessimistically inclined and looks upon primitive life, when man went
naked and lived in a garden, eating of fruits that grew of themselves,
as the blessed life in contrast to advanced culture which leads
to agriculture and necessitates hard work as the means of securing
one's substance. Hence the woman through whom Adam eats of the tree
of knowledge and becomes conscious of being naked is looked upon as
an evil tempter, entailing the loss of the primeval life of bliss in
a gorgeous Paradise. The Babylonian point of view is optimistic. The
change to civilized life--involving the wearing of clothes and the
eating of food that is cultivated (bread and wine) is looked upon as an
advance. Hence the woman is viewed as the medium of raising man to a
higher level. The feature common to the Biblical and Babylonian tales
is the attachment of a lesson to early folk-tales. The story of Adam
and Eve, [108] as the story of Enkidu and the woman, is told _with
a purpose_. Starting with early traditions of men's primitive life
on earth, that may have arisen independently, Hebrew and Babylonian
writers diverged, each group going its own way, each reflecting the
particular point of view from which the evolution of human society
was viewed.

Leaving the analogy between the Biblical and Babylonian tales aside,
the main point of value for us in the Babylonian story of Enkidu
and the woman is the proof furnished by the analysis, made possible
through the Pennsylvania tablet, that the tale can be separated
from its subsequent connection with Gilgamesh. We can continue this
process of separation in the fourth column, where the woman instructs
Enkidu in the further duty of living his life with the woman decreed
for him, to raise a family, to engage in work, to build cities and
to gather resources. All this is looked upon in the same optimistic
spirit as marking progress, whereas the Biblical writer, consistent
with his point of view, looks upon work as a curse, and makes Cain,
the murderer, also the founder of cities. The step to the higher
forms of life is not an advance according to the J document. It is
interesting to note that even the phrase the "cursed ground" occurs
in both the Babylonian and Biblical tales; but whereas in the latter
(Gen. 3, 17) it is because of the hard work entailed in raising the
products of the earth that the ground is cursed, in the former (lines
62-63) it is the place in which Enkidu lives _before_ he advances to
the dignity of human life that is "cursed," and which he is asked
to leave. Adam is expelled from Paradise as a punishment, whereas
Enkidu is implored to leave it as a necessary step towards _progress_
to a higher form of existence. The contrast between the Babylonian
and the Biblical writer extends to the view taken of viniculture. The
Biblical writer (again the J document) looks upon Noah's drunkenness
as a disgrace. Noah loses his sense of shame and uncovers himself
(Genesis 9, 21), whereas in the Babylonian description Enkidu's jolly
spirit after he has drunk seven jars of wine meets with approval. The
Biblical point of view is that he who drinks wine becomes drunk;
[109] the Babylonian says, if you drink wine you become happy. [110]

If the thesis here set forth of the original character and import
of the episode of Enkidu with the woman is correct, we may again
regard lines 149-153 of the Pennsylvania tablet, in which Gilgamesh
is introduced, as a later addition to bring the two heroes into
association. The episode in its original form ended with the
introduction of Enkidu first to pastoral life, and then to the still
higher city life with regulated forms of social existence.

Now, to be sure, this Enkidu has little in common with the Enkidu
who is described as a powerful warrior, a Hercules, who kills lions,
overcomes the giant Huwawa, and dispatches a great bull, but it is
the nature of folklore everywhere to attach to traditions about
a favorite hero all kinds of tales with which originally he had
nothing to do. Enkidu, as such a favorite, is viewed also as the
type of primitive man, [111] and so there arose gradually an Epic
which began with his birth, pictured him as half-animal half-man,
told how he emerged from this state, how he became civilized, was
clothed, learned to eat food and drink wine, how he shaved off the
hair with which his body was covered, [112] anointed himself--in short,


	"He became manlike." [113]


Thereupon he is taught his duties as a husband, is introduced to
the work of building, and to laying aside supplies, and the like. The
fully-developed and full-fledged hero then engages in various exploits,
of which _some_ are now embodied in the Gilgamesh Epic. Who this Enkidu
was, we are not in a position to determine, but the suggestion has
been thrown out above that he is a personage foreign to Babylonia,
that his home appears to be in the undefined Amurru district, and
that he conquers that district. The original tale of Enkidu, if this
view be correct, must therefore have been carried to the Euphrates
Valley, at a very remote period, with one of the migratory waves that
brought a western people as invaders into Babylonia. Here the tale
was combined with stories current of another hero, Gilgamesh--perhaps
also of Western origin--whose conquest of Erech likewise represents
an invasion of Babylonia. The center of the Gilgamesh tale was Erech,
and in the process of combining the stories of Enkidu and Gilgamesh,
Enkidu is brought to Erech and the two perform exploits in common. In
such a combination, the aim would be to utilize all the incidents of
_both_ tales. The woman who accompanies Enkidu, therefore, becomes
the medium of bringing the two heroes together. The story of the
evolution of primitive man to civilized life is transformed into the
tale of Enkidu's removal to Erech, and elaborated with all kinds of
details, among which we have, as perhaps embodying a genuine historical
tradition, the encounter of the two heroes.

Before passing on, we have merely to note the very large part taken
in both the old Babylonian and the Assyrian version by the struggle
against Huwawa. The entire Yale tablet--forming, as we have seen,
the third of the series--is taken up with the preparation for the
struggle, and with the repeated warnings given to Gilgamesh against
the dangerous undertaking. The fourth tablet must have recounted the
struggle itself, and it is not improbable that this episode extended
into the fifth tablet, since in the Assyrian version this is the
case. The elaboration of the story is in itself an argument in favor
of assuming some historical background for it--the recollection of
the conquest of Amurru by some powerful warrior; and we have seen
that this conquest must be ascribed to Enkidu and not to Gilgamesh.



VIII.


If, now, Enkidu is not only the older figure but the one who is the
real hero of the most notable episode in the Gilgamesh Epic; if,
furthermore, Enkidu is the Hercules who kills lions and dispatches
the bull sent by an enraged goddess, what becomes of Gilgamesh? What
is left for him?

In the first place, he is definitely the conqueror of Erech. He builds
the wall of Erech, [114] and we may assume that the designation of
the city as _Uruk supûri_, "the walled Erech," [115] rests upon this
tradition. He is also associated with the great temple Eanna, "the
heavenly house," in Erech. To Gilgamesh belongs also the unenviable
tradition of having exercised his rule in Erech so harshly that the
people are impelled to implore Aruru to create a rival who may rid
the district of the cruel tyrant, who is described as snatching sons
and daughters from their families, and in other ways terrifying the
population--an early example of "Schrecklichkeit." Tablets II to
V inclusive of the Assyrian version being taken up with the Huwawa
episode, modified with a view of bringing the two heroes together,
we come at once to the sixth tablet, which tells the story of how
the goddess Ishtar wooed Gilgamesh, and of the latter's rejection
of her advances. This tale is distinctly a nature myth. The attempt
of Gressmann [116] to find some historical background to the episode
is a failure. The goddess Ishtar symbolizes the earth which woos the
sun in the spring, but whose love is fatal, for after a few months
the sun's power begins to wane. Gilgamesh, who in incantation hymns
is invoked in terms which show that he was conceived as a sun-god,
[117] recalls to the goddess how she changed her lovers into animals,
like Circe of Greek mythology, and brought them to grief. Enraged at
Gilgamesh's insult to her vanity, she flies to her father Anu and cries
for revenge. At this point the episode of the creation of the bull is
introduced, but if the analysis above given is correct it is Enkidu
who is the hero in dispatching the bull, and we must assume that the
sickness with which Gilgamesh is smitten is the punishment sent by Anu
to avenge the insult to his daughter. This sickness symbolizes the
waning strength of the sun after midsummer is past. The sun recedes
from the earth, and this was pictured in the myth as the sun-god's
rejection of Ishtar; Gilgamesh's fear of death marks the approach
of the winter season, when the sun appears to have lost its vigor
completely and is near to death. The entire episode is, therefore,
a nature myth, symbolical of the passing of spring to midsummer and
then to the bare season. The myth has been attached to Gilgamesh as
a favorite figure, and then woven into a pattern with the episode
of Enkidu and the bull. The bull episode can be detached from the
nature myth without any loss to the symbolism of the tale of Ishtar
and Gilgamesh.

As already suggested, with Enkidu's death after this conquest
of the bull the original Enkidu Epic came to an end. In order to
connect Gilgamesh with Enkidu, the former is represented as sharing
in the struggle against the bull. Enkidu is punished with death,
while Gilgamesh is smitten with disease. Since both shared equally
in the guilt, the punishment should have been the same for both. The
differentiation may be taken as an indication that Gilgamesh's disease
has nothing to do with the bull episode, but is merely part of the
nature myth.

Gilgamesh now begins a series of wanderings in search of
the restoration of his vigor, and this _motif_ is evidently a
continuation of the nature myth to symbolize the sun's wanderings
during the dark winter in the hope of renewed vigor with the coming
of the spring. Professor Haupt's view is that the disease from which
Gilgamesh is supposed to be suffering is of a venereal character,
affecting the organs of reproduction. This would confirm the position
here taken that the myth symbolizes the loss of the sun's vigor. The
sun's rays are no longer strong enough to fertilize the earth. In
accord with this, Gilgamesh's search for healing leads him to the
dark regions [118] in which the scorpion-men dwell. The terrors of
the region symbolize the gloom of the winter season. At last Gilgamesh
reaches a region of light again, described as a landscape situated at
the sea. The maiden in control of this region bolts the gate against
Gilgamesh's approach, but the latter forces his entrance. It is the
picture of the sun-god bursting through the darkness, to emerge as
the youthful reinvigorated sun-god of the spring.

Now with the tendency to attach to popular tales and nature myths
lessons illustrative of current beliefs and aspirations, Gilgamesh's
search for renewal of life is viewed as man's longing for eternal
life. The sun-god's waning power after midsummer is past suggests
man's growing weakness after the meridian of life has been left
behind. Winter is death, and man longs to escape it. Gilgamesh's
wanderings are used as illustration of this longing, and accordingly
the search for life becomes also the quest for immortality. Can the
precious boon of eternal life be achieved? Popular fancy created
the figure of a favorite of the gods who had escaped a destructive
deluge in which all mankind had perished. [119] Gilgamesh hears of
this favorite and determines to seek him out and learn from him the
secret of eternal life. The deluge story, again a pure nature myth,
symbolical of the rainy season which destroys all life in nature,
is thus attached to the Epic. Gilgamesh after many adventures finds
himself in the presence of the survivor of the Deluge who, although
human, enjoys immortal life among the gods. He asks the survivor
how he came to escape the common fate of mankind, and in reply
Utnapishtim tells the story of the catastrophe that brought about
universal destruction. The moral of the tale is obvious. Only those
singled out by the special favor of the gods can hope to be removed
to the distant "source of the streams" and live forever. The rest of
mankind must face death as the end of life.

That the story of the Deluge is told in the eleventh tablet of the
series, corresponding to the eleventh month, known as the month of
"rain curse" [120] and marking the height of the rainy season, may
be intentional, just as it may not be accidental that Gilgamesh's
rejection of Ishtar is recounted in the sixth tablet, corresponding to
the sixth month, [121] which marks the end of the summer season. The
two tales may have formed part of a cycle of myths, distributed
among the months of the year. The Gilgamesh Epic, however, does
not form such a cycle. Both myths have been artificially attached
to the adventures of the hero. For the deluge story we now have the
definite proof for its independent existence, through Dr. Poebel's
publication of a Sumerian text which embodies the tale, [122] and
without any reference to Gilgamesh. Similarly, Scheil and Hilprecht
have published fragments of deluge stories written in Akkadian and
likewise without any connection with the Gilgamesh Epic. [123]

In the Epic the story leads to another episode attached to Gilgamesh,
namely, the search for a magic plant growing in deep water, which has
the power of restoring old age to youth. Utnapishtim, the survivor of
the deluge, is moved through pity for Gilgamesh, worn out by his long
wanderings. At the request of his wife, Utnapishtim decides to tell
Gilgamesh of this plant, and he succeeds in finding it. He plucks it
and decides to take it back to Erech so that all may enjoy the benefit,
but on his way stops to bathe in a cool cistern. A serpent comes along
and snatches the plant from him, and he is forced to return to Erech
with his purpose unachieved. Man cannot hope, when old age comes on,
to escape death as the end of everything.

Lastly, the twelfth tablet of the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh
Epic is of a purely didactic character, bearing evidence of having
been added as a further illustration of the current belief that there
is no escape from the nether world to which all must go after life has
come to an end. Proper burial and suitable care of the dead represent
all that can be done in order to secure a fairly comfortable rest for
those who have passed out of this world. Enkidu is once more introduced
into this episode. His shade is invoked by Gilgamesh and rises up out
of the lower world to give a discouraging reply to Gilgamesh's request,


	"Tell me, my friend, tell me, my friend,
	The law of the earth which thou hast
	experienced, tell me,"


The mournful message comes back:


	"I cannot tell thee, my friend, I cannot tell."


Death is a mystery and must always remain such. The historical
Gilgamesh has clearly no connection with the figure introduced into
this twelfth tablet. Indeed, as already suggested, the Gilgamesh Epic
must have ended with the return to Erech, as related at the close of
the eleventh tablet. The twelfth tablet was added by some school-men of
Babylonia (or perhaps of Assyria), purely for the purpose of conveying
a summary of the teachings in regard to the fate of the dead. Whether
these six episodes covering the sixth to the twelfth tablets, (1) the
nature myth, (2) the killing of the divine bull, (3) the punishment
of Gilgamesh and the death of Enkidu, (4) Gilgamesh's wanderings,
(5) the Deluge, (6) the search for immortality, were all included
at the time that the old Babylonian version was compiled cannot, of
course, be determined until we have that version in a more complete
form. Since the two tablets thus far recovered show that as early as
2000 B.C. the Enkidu tale had already been amalgamated with the current
stories about Gilgamesh, and the endeavor made to transfer the traits
of the former to the latter, it is eminently likely that the story of
Ishtar's unhappy love adventure with Gilgamesh was included, as well
as Gilgamesh's punishment and the death of Enkidu. With the evidence
furnished by Meissner's fragment of a version of the old Babylonian
revision and by our two tablets, of the early disposition to make
popular tales the medium of illustrating current beliefs and the
teachings of the temple schools, it may furthermore be concluded that
the death of Enkidu and the punishment of Gilgamesh were utilized for
didactic purposes in the old Babylonian version. On the other hand,
the proof for the existence of the deluge story in the Hammurabi
period and some centuries later, _independent_ of any connection
with the Gilgamesh Epic, raises the question whether in the old
Babylonian version, of which our two tablets form a part, the deluge
tale was already woven into the pattern of the Epic. At all events,
till proof to the contrary is forthcoming, we may assume that the
twelfth tablet of the Assyrian version, though also reverting to a
Babylonian original, dates as the _latest_ addition to the Epic from
a period subsequent to 2000 B.C.; and that the same is probably the
case with the eleventh tablet.



IX.


To sum up, there are four main currents that flow together in the
Gilgamesh Epic even in its old Babylonian form: (1) the adventures of
a mighty warrior Enkidu, resting perhaps on a faint tradition of the
conquest of Amurru by the hero; (2) the more definite recollection
of the exploits of a foreign invader of Babylonia by the name of
Gilgamesh, whose home appears likewise to have been in the West; [124]
(3) nature myths and didactic tales transferred to Enkidu and Gilgamesh
as popular figures; and (4) the process of weaving the traditions,
exploits, myths and didactic tales together, in the course of which
process Gilgamesh becomes the main hero, and Enkidu his companion.

Furthermore, our investigation has shown that to Enkidu belongs the
episode with the woman, used to illustrate the evolution of primitive
man to the ways and conditions of civilized life, the conquest of
Huwawa in the land of Amurru, the killing of lions and also of the
bull, while Gilgamesh is the hero who conquers Erech. Identified with
the sun-god, the nature myth of the union of the sun with the earth and
the subsequent separation of the two is also transferred to him. The
wanderings of the hero, smitten with disease, are a continuation of
the nature myth, symbolizing the waning vigor of the sun with the
approach of the wintry season.

The details of the process which led to making Gilgamesh the favorite
figure, to whom the traits and exploits of Enkidu and of the sun-god
are transferred, escape us, but of the fact that Enkidu is the _older_
figure, of whom certain adventures were set forth in a tale that
once had an independent existence, there can now be little doubt in
the face of the evidence furnished by the two tablets of the old
Babylonian version; just as the study of these tablets shows that
in the combination of the tales of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, the former
is the prototype of which Gilgamesh is the copy. If the two are
regarded as brothers, as born in the same place, even resembling one
another in appearance and carrying out their adventures in common,
it is because in the process of combination Gilgamesh becomes the
_reflex_ of Enkidu. That Enkidu is not the figure created by Aruru to
relieve Erech of its tyrannical ruler is also shown by the fact that
Gilgamesh remains in control of Erech. It is to Erech that he returns
when he fails of his purpose to learn the secret of escape from old
age and death. Erech is, therefore, not relieved of the presence of
the ruthless ruler through Enkidu. The "Man of Anu" formed by Aruru
as a deliverer is confused in the course of the growth of the Epic
with Enkidu, the offspring of Ninib, and in this way we obtain the
strange contradiction of Enkidu and Gilgamesh appearing first as bitter
rivals and then as close and inseparable friends. It is of the nature
of Epic compositions everywhere to eliminate unnecessary figures by
concentrating on one favorite the traits belonging to another or to
several others.

The close association of Enkidu and Gilgamesh which becomes one of
the striking features in the combination of the tales of these two
heroes naturally recalls the "Heavenly Twins" _motif_, which has been
so fully and so suggestively treated by Professor J. Rendell Harris
in his _Cult of the Heavenly Twins_, (London, 1906). Professor Harris
has conclusively shown how widespread the tendency is to associate
two divine or semi-divine beings in myths and legends as inseparable
companions [125] or twins, like Castor and Pollux, Romulus and Remus,
[126] the Acvins in the Rig-Veda, [127] Cain and Abel, Jacob and
Esau in the Old Testament, the Kabiri of the Phoenicians, [128]
Herakles and Iphikles in Greek mythology, Ambrica and Fidelio in
Teutonic mythology, Patollo and Potrimpo in old Prussian mythology,
Cautes and Cautopates in Mithraism, Jesus and Thomas (according to
the Syriac Acts of Thomas), and the various illustrations of "Dioscuri
in Christian Legends," set forth by Dr. Harris in his work under this
title, which carries the _motif_ far down into the period of legends
about Christian Saints who appear in pairs, including the reference
to such a pair in Shakespeare's Henry V:


	"And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by
	From that day to the ending of the world."--(_Act, IV,
	3, 57-58._)


There are indeed certain parallels which suggest that Enkidu-Gilgamesh
may represent a Babylonian counterpart to the "Heavenly Twins." In
the Indo-Iranian, Greek and Roman mythology, the twins almost
invariably act together. In unison they proceed on expeditions to
punish enemies. [129]

But after all, the parallels are of too general a character to be of
much moment; and moreover the parallels stop short at the critical
point, for Gilgamesh though worsted is _not_ killed by Enkidu,
whereas one of the "Heavenly Twins" is always killed by the brother,
as Abel is by Cain, and Iphikles by his twin brother Herakles. Even
the trait which is frequent in the earliest forms of the "Heavenly
Twins," according to which one is immortal and the other is mortal,
though applying in a measure to Enkidu who is killed by Ishtar, while
Gilgamesh the offspring of a divine pair is only smitten with disease,
is too unsubstantial to warrant more than a general comparison between
the Enkidu-Gilgamesh pair and the various forms of the "twin" _motif_
found throughout the ancient world. For all that, the point is of some
interest that in the Gilgamesh Epic we should encounter two figures who
are portrayed as possessing the same traits and accomplishing feats in
common, which suggest a partial parallel to the various forms in which
the twin-_motif_ appears in the mythologies, folk-lore and legends
of many nations; and it may be that in some of these instances the
duplication is due, as in the case of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, to an
actual transfer of the traits of one figure to another who usurped
his place.



X.


In concluding this study of the two recently discovered tablets of
the old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic which has brought us
several steps further in the interpretation and in our understanding
of the method of composition of the most notable literary production
of ancient Babylonia, it will be proper to consider the _literary_
relationship of the old Babylonian to the Assyrian version.

We have already referred to the different form in which the names
of the chief figures appear in the old Babylonian version, dGish as
against dGish-gì(n)-mash, dEn-ki-du as against dEn-ki-dú, Hu-wa-wa
as against Hu(m)-ba-ba. Erech appears as _Uruk ribîtim_, "Erech of
the Plazas," as against _Uruk supûri_, "walled Erech" (or "Erech
within the walls"), in the Assyrian version. [130] These variations
point to an _independent_ recension for the Assyrian revision; and
this conclusion is confirmed by a comparison of parallel passages in
our two tablets with the Assyrian version, for such parallels rarely
extend to verbal agreements in details, and, moreover, show that the
Assyrian version has been elaborated.

Beginning with the Pennsylvania tablet, column I is covered in the
Assyrian version by tablet I, 5, 25, to 6, 33, though, as pointed out
above, in the Assyrian version we have the anticipation of the dreams
of Gilgamesh and their interpretation through their recital to Enkidu
by his female companion, whereas in the old Babylonian version we
have the dreams _directly_ given in a conversation between Gilgamesh
and his mother. In the anticipation, there would naturally be some
omissions. So lines 4-5 and 12-13 of the Pennsylvania tablet do not
appear in the Assyrian version, but in their place is a line (I, 5,
35), to be restored to


	"[I saw him and like] a woman I fell in love with him."


which occurs in the old Babylonian version only in connection with
the second dream. The point is of importance as showing that in the
Babylonian version the first dream lays stress upon the omen of
the falling meteor, as symbolizing the coming of Enkidu, whereas
the second dream more specifically reveals Enkidu as a man, [131]
of whom Gilgamesh is instantly enamored. Strikingly variant lines,
though conveying the same idea, are frequent. Thus line 14 of the
Babylonian version reads


	"I bore it and carried it to thee"


and appears in the Assyrian version (I, 5, 35_b_ supplied from 6, 26)


	"I threw it (or him) at thy feet" [132]


with an additional line in elaboration


	"Thou didst bring him into contact with me" [133]


which anticipates the speech of the mother


	(Line 41 = Assyrian version I, 6, 33).


Line 10 of the Pennsylvania tablet has _pa-hi-ir_ as against _iz-za-az_
I, 5, 31.

Line 8 has _ik-ta-bi-it_ as against _da-an_ in the Assyrian version I,
5, 29.

More significant is the variant to line 9


	"I became weak and its weight I could not bear"


as against I, 5, 30.


	"Its strength was overpowering, [134] and I could not endure
	its weight."


The important lines 31-36 are not found in the Assyrian version,
with the exception of I, 6, 27, which corresponds to lines 33-34,
but this lack of correspondence is probably due to the fact that the
Assyrian version represents the anticipation of the dreams which,
as already suggested, might well omit some details. As against this
we have in the Assyrian version I, 6, 23-25, an elaboration of line
30 in the Pennsylvania tablet and taken over from the recital of
the first dream. Through the Assyrian version I, 6, 31-32, we can
restore the closing lines of column I of the Pennsylvania tablet,
while with line 33 = line 45 of the Pennsylvania tablet, the parallel
between the two versions comes to an end. Lines 34-43 of the Assyrian
version (bringing tablet I to a close) [135] represent an elaboration
of the speech of Ninsun, followed by a further address of Gilgamesh
to his mother, and by the determination of Gilgamesh to seek out
Enkidu. [136] Nothing of this sort appears to have been included in
the old Babylonian version.Our text proceeds with the scene between
Enkidu and the woman, in which the latter by her charms and her appeal
endeavors to lead Enkidu away from his life with the animals. From
the abrupt manner in which the scene is introduced in line 43 of the
Pennsylvania tablet, it is evident that this cannot be the _first_
mention of the woman. The meeting must have been recounted in the
first tablet, as is the case in the Assyrian version. [137] The second
tablet takes up the direct recital of the dreams of Gilgamesh and
then continues the narrative. Whether in the old Babylonian version
the scene between Enkidu and the woman was described with the same
naïve details, as in the Assyrian version, of the sexual intercourse
between the two for six days and seven nights cannot of course be
determined, though presumably the Assyrian version, with the tendency
of epics to become more elaborate as they pass from age to age, added
some realistic touches. Assuming that lines 44-63 of the Pennsylvania
tablet--the cohabitation of Enkidu and the address of the woman--is
a repetition of what was already described in the first tablet, the
comparison with the Assyrian version I, 4, 16-41, not only points to
the elaboration of the later version, but likewise to an independent
recension, even where parallel lines can be picked out. Only lines
46-48 of the Pennsylvania tablet form a complete parallel to line 21
of column 4 of the Assyrian version. The description in lines 22-32
of column 4 is missing, though it may, of course, have been included
in part in the recital in the first tablet of the old Babylonian
version. Lines 49-59 of the Pennsylvania tablet are covered by 33-39,
the only slight difference being the specific mention in line 58 of
the Pennsylvania tablet of Eanna, the temple in Erech, described as
"the dwelling of Anu," whereas in the Assyrian version Eanna is merely
referred to as the "holy house" and described as "the dwelling of
Anu and Ishtar," where Ishtar is clearly a later addition.

Leaving aside lines 60-61, which may be merely a variant (though
independent) of line 39 of column 4 of the Assyrian version, we now
have in the Pennsylvania tablet a second speech of the woman to Enkidu
(not represented in the Assyrian version) beginning like the first
one with _alka_, "Come" (lines 62-63), in which she asks Enkidu to
leave the "accursed ground" in which he dwells. This speech, as the
description which follows, extending into columns 3-4, and telling how
the woman clothed Enkidu, how she brought him to the sheep folds, how
she taught him to eat bread and to drink wine, and how she instructed
him in the ways of civilization, must have been included in the second
tablet of the Assyrian version which has come down to us in a very
imperfect form. Nor is the scene in which Enkidu and Gilgamesh have
their encounter found in the preserved portions of the second (or
possibly the third) tablet of the Assyrian version, but only a brief
reference to it in the fourth tablet, [138] in which in Epic style the
story is repeated, leading up to the second exploit--the joint campaign
of Enkidu and Gilgamesh against Huwawa. This reference, covering only
seven lines, corresponds to lines 192-231 of the Pennsylvania tablet;
but the former being the repetition and the latter the original
recital, the comparison to be instituted merely reveals again the
independence of the Assyrian version, as shown in the use of _kibsu_,
"tread" (IV, 2, 46), for _sêpu_, "foot" (l. 216), _i-na-us_, "quake"
(line 5C), as against _ir-tu-tu_ (ll. 221 and 226).

Such variants as


	_d_Gish êribam ûl iddin (l. 217)


against


	_d_Gilgamesh ana surûbi ûl namdin, (IV, 2, 47).


and again


	_issabtûma kima lîm_ "they grappled at the gate of the family
	house" (IV, 2, 48),


against


	_issabtûma ina bâb bît emuti_, "they grappled at the gate of
	the family house" (IV, 2, 48),


all point once more to the literary independence of the Assyrian
version. The end of the conflict and the reconciliation of the two
heroes is likewise missing in the Assyrian version. It may have been
referred to at the beginning of column 3 [139] of Tablet IV.

Coming to the Yale tablet, the few passages in which a comparison may
be instituted with the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version, to which
in a general way it must correspond, are not sufficient to warrant any
conclusions, beyond the confirmation of the literary independence of
the Assyrian version. The section comprised within lines 72-89, where
Enkidu's grief at his friend's decision to fight Huwawa is described
[140], and he makes confession of his own physical exhaustion, _may_
correspond to Tablet IV, column 4, of the Assyrian version. This
would fit in with the beginning of the reverse, the first two lines
of which (136-137) correspond to column 5 of the fourth tablet of the
Assyrian version, with a variation "seven-fold fear" [141] as against
"fear of men" in the Assyrian version. If lines 138-139 (in column
4) of the Yale tablet correspond to line 7 of column 5 of Tablet IV
of the Assyrian version, we would again have an illustration of the
elaboration of the later version by the addition of lines 3-6. But
beyond this we have merely the comparison of the description of Huwawa


	"Whose roar is a flood, whose mouth is fire, and whose breath
	is death"


which occurs twice in the Yale tablet (lines 110-111 and 196-197),
with the same phrase in the Assyrian version Tablet IV, 5, 3--but here,
as just pointed out, with an elaboration.

Practically, therefore, the entire Yale tablet represents an addition
to our knowledge of the Huwawa episode, and until we are fortunate
enough to discover more fragments of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian
version, we must content ourselves with the conclusions reached from
a comparison of the Pennsylvania tablet with the parallels in the
Assyrian version.

It may be noted as a general point of resemblance in the exterior form
of the old Babylonian and Assyrian versions that both were inscribed
on tablets containing six columns, three on the obverse and three on
the reverse; and that the length of the tablets--an average of 40 to
50 lines--was about the same, thus revealing in the external form
a conventiona1 size for the tablets in the older period, which was
carried over into later times.




PENNSYLVANIA TABLET


The 240 lines of the six columns of the text are enumerated in
succession, with an indication on the margin where a new column
begins. This method, followed also in the case of the Yale tablet,
seems preferable to Langdon's breaking up of the text into Obverse and
Reverse, with a separate enumeration for each of the six columns. In
order, however, to facilitate a comparison with Langdon's edition,
a table is added:


	Obverse Col.   I,  1	=   Line  1 of our text.
	,,			   I,  5	=	 ,,   5  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,			   I, 10	=	 ,,  10  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,		       I, 15	=	 ,,  15  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,             I, 20	=	 ,,  20  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,			   I, 25	=	 ,,  25  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,			   I, 30	=	 ,,  30  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,			   I, 35	=	 ,,  35  ,,  ,,    ,,
	Col.          II,  1	=   Line 41	 ,,  ,,	   ,,
	,,            II,  5	=	 ,,  45  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,            II, 10	=	 ,,  50  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,            II, 15	=	 ,,  55  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,            II, 20	=	 ,,  60  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,            II, 25	=	 ,,  65  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,            II, 30	=	 ,,  70  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,            II, 35	=	 ,,  75  ,,  ,,    ,,
	Col.         III,  1	=   Line 81	 ,,  ,,	   ,,
	,,           III,  5	=	 ,,  85  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,           III, 10	=	 ,,  90  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,           III, 15	=	 ,,  95  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,           III, 26	=	 ,, 100  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,           III, 25	=	 ,, 105  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,           III, 30	=	 ,, 110  ,,  ,,    ,,
	,,           III, 35	=	 ,, 115  ,,  ,,    ,,

	Reverse Col.    I,  1 (= Col. IV) =  Line 131 of our text.
	,,              I,  5			  =   ,,  135  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,              I, 10			  =   ,,  140  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,              I, 15			  =   ,,  145  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,              I, 20			  =   ,,  150  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,              I, 25			  =   ,,  155  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,              I, 30			  =   ,,  160  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,             II,  1 (= Col.  V) =  Line 171  ,,  ,,   ,,
	,,             II,  5			  =   ,,  175  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,             II, 10			  =   ,,  180  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,             II, 15			  =   ,,  185  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,             II, 20			  =   ,,  190  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,             II, 25			  =   ,,  195  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,             II, 30			  =   ,,  200  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,            III,  1 (= Col. VI) =  Line 208  ,,  ,,   ,,
	,,            III,  5			  =   ,,  212  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,            III, 10			  =   ,,  217  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,            III, 15			  =   ,,  222  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,            III, 20			  =   ,,  227  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,            III, 25			  =   ,,  232  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,            III, 30			  =   ,,  237  ,,  ,,	,,
	,,            III, 33			  =   ,,  240  ,,  ,,	,,





PENNSYLVANIA TABLET.



TRANSLITERATION.


Col. I.

	it-bi-e-ma dGis sú-na-tam i-pa-ás-sar
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na um-mi-sú
	um-mi i-na sá-at mu-si-ti-ia
	sá-am-ha-ku-ma at-ta-na-al-la-ak
	i-na bi-ri-it it-lu-tim
	ib-ba-sú-nim-ma ka-ka-bu sá-ma-i
	[ki]-is-rù sá A-nim im-ku-ut a-na si-ri-ia
	ás-si-sú-ma ik-ta-bi-it e-li-ia
	ú-ni-is-sú-ma nu-us-sá-sú ú-ul il-ti-'i
	Urukki ma-tum pa-hi-ir e-li-sú
	it-lu-tum ú-na-sá-ku si-pi-sú
	ú-um-mi-id-ma pu-ti
	i-mi-du ia-ti
	ás-si-a-sú-ma ab-ba-la-ás-sú a-na si-ri-ki
	um-mi dGis mu-di-a-at ka-la-ma
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dGis
	mi-in-di dGis sá ki-ma ka-ti
	i-na si-ri i-wa-li-id-ma
	ú-ra-ab-bi-sú sá-du-ú
	ta-mar-sú-ma [kima Sal(?)] ta-ha-du at-ta
	it-lu-tum ú-na-sá-ku si-pi-sú
	tí-it-ti-ra-ás-[sú tu-ut]-tu-ú-ma
	ta-tar-ra-[as-su] a-na si-[ri]-ia
	[us]-ti-nim-ma i-ta-mar sá-ni-tam
	[sú-na]-ta i-ta-wa-a-am a-na um-mi-sú
	[um-mi] a-ta-mar sá-ni-tam
	[sú-na-tu a-ta]-mar e-mi-a i-na su-ki-im
	[sá Uruk]ki ri-bi-tim
	ha-as-si-nu na-di-i-ma
	e-li-sú pa-ah-ru
	ha-as-si-nu-um-ma sá-ni bu-nu-sú
	a-mur-sú-ma ah-ta-du a-na-ku
	a-ra-am-sú-ma ki-ma ás-sá-tim
	a-ha-ab-bu-ub el-sú
	el-ki-sú-ma ás-ta-ka-an-sú
	a-na a-hi-ia
	um-mi dGis mu-da-at [ka]-la-ma
	[iz-za-kàr-am a-na dGis]
	[dGis sá ta-mu-ru amêlu]
	[ta-ha-ab-bu-ub ki-ma ás-sá-tim el-sú]


Col. II.

	ás-sum us-[ta]-ma-ha-ru it-ti-ka
	dGis sú-na-tam i-pa-sar
	dEn-ki-[du wa]-si-ib ma-har ha-ri-im-tim
	ur-[sá ir]-ha-mu di-da-sá(?) ip-tí-[e]
	[dEn-ki]-du im-ta-si a-sar i-wa-al-du
	ûm, 6 ù 7 mu-si-a-tim
	dEn-[ki-du] ti-bi-i-ma
	sá-[am-ka-ta] ir-hi
	ha-[ri-im-tum pa-a]-sá i-pu-sá-am-ma
	iz-za-[kàr-am] a-na dEn-ki-du
	a-na-tal-ka dEn-ki-du ki-ma ili ta-ba-ás-si
	am-mi-nim it-ti na-ma-ás-te-e
	ta-at-ta-[na-al]-ak si-ra-am
	al-kam lu-úr-di-ka
	a-na libbi [Urukki] ri-bi-tim
	a-na bît [el]-lim mu-sá-bi sá A-nim
	dEn-ki-du ti-bi lu-ru-ka
	a-na Ê-[an]-na mu-sá-bi sá A-nim
	a-sar [dGis gi]-it-ma-[lu] ne-pi-si-tim
	ù at-[ta] ki-[ma Sal ta-ha]-bu-[ub]-sú
	ta-[ra-am-sú ki-ma] ra-ma-an-ka
	al-ka ti-ba i-[na] ga-ag-ga-ri
	ma-a-ag-ri-i-im
	is-me a-wa-as-sa im-ta-har ga-ba-sá
	mi-il-[kum] sá assatim
	im-ta-ku-ut a-na libbi-sú
	is-hu-ut li-ib-sá-am
	is-ti-nam ú-la-ab-bi-is-sú
	li-ib-[sá-am] sá-ni-a-am
	si-i it-ta-al-ba-ás
	sa-ab-tat ga-as-su
	ki-ma [ili] i-ri-id-di-sú
	a-na gu-up-ri sá-ri-i-im
	a-sar tar-ba-si-im
	i-na [ás]-ri-sú [im]-hu-ruri-ia-ú
	[ù sú-u dEn-ki-du i-lit-ta-sú sá-du-um-ma]
	[it-ti sabâti-ma ik-ka-la sam-ma]
	[it-ti bu-lim mas-ka-a i-sat-ti]
	[it-ti na-ma-ás-te-e mê i-tab lib-ba-sú]


(Perhaps one additional line missing.)



Col. III.

	si-iz-ba sá na-ma-ás-te-e
	i-te-en-ni-ik
	a-ka-lam is-ku-nu ma-har-sú
	ib-tí-ik-ma i-na-at-tal
	ù ip-pa-al-la-as
	ú-ul i-di dEn-ki-du
	aklam a-na a-ka-lim
	sikaram a-na sá-te-e-im
	la-a lum-mu-ud
	ha-ri-im-tum pi-sá i-pu-sá-am-ma
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dEn-ki-du
	a-ku-ul ak-lam dEn-ki-du
	zi-ma-at ba-la-ti-im
	sikaram si-ti si-im-ti ma-ti
	i-ku-ul a-ak-lam dEn-ki-du
	a-di si-bi-e-sú
	sikaram is-ti-a-am
	7 as-sa-am-mi-im
	it-tap-sar kab-ta-tum i-na-an-gu
	i-li-is libba-sú-ma
	pa-nu-sú [it]-tam-ru
	ul-tap-pi-it [lùSÚ]-I
	sú-hu-ra-am pa-ga-ar-sú
	sá-am-nam ip-ta-sá-ás-ma
	a-we-li-is i-we
	il-ba-ás li-ib-sá-am
	ki-ma mu-ti i-ba-ás-si
	il-ki ka-ak-ka-sú
	la-bi ú-gi-ir-ri
	us-sa-ak-pu re'ûti mu-si-a-tim
	ut-tap-pi-is sib-ba-ri
	la-bi uk-ta-si-id
	it-ti-[lu] na-ki-[di-e] ra-bu-tum
	dEn-ki-du ma-as-sa-ar-sú-nu
	a-we-lum gis-ru-um
	is-te-en it-lum
	a-na [na-ki-di-e(?) i]-za-ak-ki-ir


(About five lines missing.)



Col. IV.

(About eight lines missing.)


	i-ip-pu-us ul-sa-am
	is-si-ma i-ni-i-sú
	i-ta-mar a-we-lam
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na harimtim
	sá-am-ka-at uk-ki-si a-we-lam
	a-na mi-nim il-li-kam
	zi-ki-ir-sú lu-us-sú
	ha-ri-im-tum is-ta-si a-we-lam
	i-ba-us-su-um-ma i-ta-mar-sú
	e-di-il e-es ta-hi-[il-la]-am
	lim-nu a-la-ku ma-na-ah-[ti]-ka
	e-pi-sú i-pu-sá-am-ma
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dEn-[ki-du]
	bi-ti-is e-mu-tim ik ......
	si-ma-a-at ni-si-i-ma
	tu-a-(?)-ar e-lu-tim
	a-na âli(?) dup-sak-ki-i e-si-en
	uk-la-at âli(?) e-mi-sa a-a-ha-tim
	a-na sarri sá Urukki ri-bi-tim
	pi-ti pu-uk episi(-si) a-na ha-a-a-ri
	a-na dGis sarri sá Urukki ri-bi-tim
	pi-ti pu-uk episi(-si)
	a-na ha-a-a-ri
	ás-sa-at si-ma-tim i-ra-ah-hi
	sú-ú pa-na-nu-um-ma
	mu-uk wa-ar-ka-nu
	i-na mi-il-ki sá ili ga-bi-ma
	i-na bi-ti-ik a-bu-un-na-ti-sú
	si-ma-as-su
	a-na zi-ik-ri it-li-im
	i-ri-ku pa-nu-sú


(About three lines missing.)



Col. V.

(About six lines missing.)


	i-il-la-ak [dEn-ki-du i-na pa-ni]
	u-sá-am-ka-at [wa]-ar-ki-sú
	i-ru-ub-ma a-na libbi Urukki ri-bi-tim
	ip-hur um-ma-nu-um i-na si-ri-sú
	iz-zi-za-am-ma i-na su-ki-im
	sá Urukki ri-bi-tim
	pa-ah-ra-a-ma ni-sú
	i-ta-wa-a i-na si-ri-sú
	a-na salam dGis ma-si-il pi-it-tam
	la-nam sá-pi-il
	si-ma .... [sá-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul
	............. i-pa-ka-du
	i-[na mâti da-an e-mu]-ki i-wa
	si-iz-ba sá na-ma-as-te-e
	i-te-en-ni-ik
	ka-a-a-na i-na [libbi] Urukki kak-ki-a-tum
	it-lu-tum ú-te-el-li-lu
	sá-ki-in ur-sá-nu
	a-na itli sá i-sá-ru zi-mu-sú
	a-na dGis ki-ma i-li-im
	sá-ki-is-sum me-ih-rù
	a-na dIs-ha-ra ma-a-a-lum
	na-di-i-ma
	dGis it-[ti-il-ma wa-ar-ka-tim]
	i-na mu-si in-ni-[ib-bi]-it
	i-na-ag-sá-am-ma
	it-ta-[zi-iz dEn-ki-du] i-na sûkim
	ip-ta-ra-[as a-la]-ak-tam
	sá dGis
	[a-na e-pi-is] da-na-ni-is-sú


(About three lines missing.)



Col. VI.

(About four lines missing.)


	sar(?)-ha
	dGis ...
	i-na si-ri-[sú il-li-ka-am dEn-ki-du]
	i-ha-an-ni-ib [pi-ir-ta-sú]
	it-bi-ma [il-li-ik]
	a-na pa-ni-sú
	it-tam-ha-ru i-na ri-bi-tum ma-ti
	dEn-ki-du ba-ba-am ip-ta-ri-ik
	i-na si-pi-sú
	dGis e-ri-ba-am ú-ul id-di-in
	is-sa-ab-tu-ma ki-ma li-i-im
	i-lu-du
	zi-ip-pa-am 'i-bu-tu
	i-ga-rum ir-tu-tu
	dGis ù dEn-ki-du
	is-sa-ab-tu-ú-ma
	ki-ma li-i-im i-lu-du
	zi-ip-pa-am 'i-bu-tu
	i-ga-rum ir-tu-tú
	ik-mi-is-ma dGis
	i-na ga-ag-ga-ri si-ip-sú
	ip-si-ih uz-za-sú-ma
	i-ni-ih i-ra-as-su
	is-tu i-ra-su i-ni-hu
	dEn-ki-du a-na sá-si-im
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dGis
	ki-ma is-te-en-ma um-ma-ka
	ú-li-id-ka
	ri-im-tum sá su-pu-ri
	dNin-sun-na
	ul-lu e-li mu-ti ri-es-ka
	sar-ru-tú sá ni-si
	i-si-im-kum dEn-lil
		duppu 2 kam-ma
	sú-tu-ur e-li .....................
		4 sú-si




TRANSLATION.


Col. I.

	Gish sought to interpret the dream;
	Spoke to his mother:
	"My mother, during my night
	I became strong and moved about
	among the heroes;
	And from the starry heaven
	A meteor(?) of Anu fell upon me:
	I bore it and it grew heavy upon me,
	I became weak and its weight I could not endure.
	The land of Erech gathered about it.
	The heroes kissed its feet. [142]
	It was raised up before me.
	They stood me up. [143]
	I bore it and carried it to thee."
	The mother of Gish, who knows all things,
	Spoke to Gish:
	"Some one, O Gish, who like thee
	In the field was born and
	Whom the mountain has reared,
	Thou wilt see (him) and [like a woman(?)] thou wilt rejoice.
	Heroes will kiss his feet.
	Thou wilt spare [him and wilt endeavor]
	To lead him to me."
	He slept and saw another
	Dream, which he reported to his mother:
	["My mother,] I have seen another
	[Dream.] My likeness I have seen in the streets
	[Of Erech] of the plazas.
	An axe was brandished, and
	They gathered about him;
	And the axe made him angry.
	I saw him and I rejoiced,
	I loved him as a woman,
	I embraced him.
	I took him and regarded him
	As my brother."
	The mother of Gish, who knows all things,
	[Spoke to Gish]:
	["O Gish, the man whom thou sawest,]
	[Whom thou didst embrace like a woman].


Col II.

	(means) that he is to be associated with thee."
	Gish understood the dream.
	[As] Enki[du] was sitting before the woman,
	[Her] loins(?) he embraced, her vagina(?) he opened.
	[Enkidu] forgot the place where he was born.
	Six days and seven nights
	Enkidu continued
	To cohabit with [the courtesan].
	[The woman] opened her [mouth] and
	Spoke to Enkidu:
	"I gaze upon thee, O Enkidu, like a god art thou!
	Why with the cattle
	Dost thou [roam] across the field?
	Come, let me lead thee
	into [Erech] of the plazas,
	to the holy house, the dwelling of Anu,
	O, Enkidu arise, let me conduct thee
	To Eanna, the dwelling of Anu,
	The place [where Gish is, perfect] in vitality.
	And thou [like a wife wilt embrace] him.
	Thou [wilt love him like] thyself.
	Come, arise from the ground
	(that is) cursed."
	He heard her word and accepted her speech.
	The counsel of the woman
	Entered his heart.
	She stripped off a garment,
	Clothed him with one.
	Another garment
	She kept on herself.
	She took hold of his hand.
	Like [a god(?)] she brought him
	To the fertile meadow,
	The place of the sheepfolds.
	In that place they received food;
	[For he, Enkidu, whose birthplace was the mountain,]
	[With the gazelles he was accustomed to eat herbs,]
	[With the cattle to drink water,]
	[With the water beings he was happy.]


(Perhaps one additional line missing.)


Col. III.

	Milk of the cattle
	He was accustomed to suck.
	Food they placed before him,
	He broke (it) off and looked
	And gazed.
	Enkidu had not known
	To eat food.
	To drink wine
	He had not been taught.
	The woman opened her mouth and
	Spoke to Enkidu:
	"Eat food, O Enkidu,
	The provender of life!
	Drink wine, the custom of the land!"
	Enkidu ate food
	Till he was satiated.
	Wine he drank,
	Seven goblets.
	His spirit was loosened, he became hilarious.
	His heart became glad and
	His face shone.
	[The barber(?)] removed
	The hair on his body.
	He was anointed with oil.
	He became manlike.
	He put on a garment,
	He was like a man.
	He took his weapon;
	Lions he attacked,
	(so that) the night shepherds could rest.
	He plunged the dagger;
	Lions he overcame.
	The great [shepherds] lay down;
	Enkidu was their protector.
	The strong man,
	The unique hero,
	To [the shepherds(?)] he speaks:


(About five lines missing.)


Col. IV.

(About eight lines missing.)


	Making merry.
	He lifted up his eyes,
	He sees the man.
	He spoke to the woman:
	"O, courtesan, lure on the man.
	Why has he come to me?
	His name I will destroy."
	The woman called to the man
	Who approaches to him [144] and he beholds him.
	"Away! why dost thou [quake(?)]
	Evil is the course of thy activity." [145]
	Then he [146] opened his mouth and
	Spoke to Enkidu:
	"[To have (?)] a family home
	Is the destiny of men, and
	The prerogative(?) of the nobles.
	For the city(?) load the workbaskets!
	Food supply for the city lay to one side!
	For the King of Erech of the plazas,
	Open the hymen(?), perform the marriage act!
	For Gish, the King of Erech of the plazas,
	Open the hymen(?),
	Perform the marriage act!
	With the legitimate wife one should cohabit.
	So before,
	As well as in the future. [147]
	By the decree pronounced by a god,
	From the cutting of his umbilical cord
	(Such) is his fate."
	At the speech of the hero
	His face grew pale.


(About three lines missing.)



Col. V.

(About six lines missing.)


	[Enkidu] went [in front],
	And the courtesan behind him.
	He entered into Erech of the plazas.
	The people gathered about him.
	As he stood in the streets
	Of Erech of the plazas,
	The men gathered,
	Saying in regard to him:
	"Like the form of Gish he has suddenly become;
	shorter in stature.
	[In his structure high(?)], powerful,
	.......... overseeing(?)
	In the land strong of power has he become.
	Milk of cattle
	He was accustomed to suck."
	Steadily(?) in Erech .....
	The heroes rejoiced.
	He became a leader.
	To the hero of fine appearance,
	To Gish, like a god,
	He became a rival to him. [148]
	For Ishhara a couch
	Was stretched, and
	Gish [lay down, and afterwards(?)]
	In the night he fled.
	He approaches and
	[Enkidu stood] in the streets.
	He blocked the path
	of Gish.
	At the exhibit of his power,


(About three lines missing.)



Col. VI.

(About four lines missing.)


	Strong(?) ...
	Gish
	Against him [Enkidu proceeded],
	[His hair] luxuriant.
	He started [to go]
	Towards him.
	They met in the plaza of the district.
	Enkidu blocked the gate
	With his foot,
	Not permitting Gish to enter.
	They seized (each other), like oxen,
	They fought.
	The threshold they demolished;
	The wall they impaired.
	Gish and Enkidu
	Seized (each other).
	Like oxen they fought.
	The threshold they demolished;
	The wall they impaired.
	Gish bent
	His foot to the ground, [149]
	His wrath was appeased,
	His breast was quieted.
	When his breast was quieted,
	Enkidu to him
	Spoke, to Gish:
	"As a unique one, thy mother
	bore thee.
	The wild cow of the stall, [150]
	Ninsun,
	Has exalted thy head above men.
	Kingship over men
	Enlil has decreed for thee.
	Second tablet,
	enlarged beyond [the original(?)].
	240 lines.





COMMENTARY ON THE PENNSYLVANIA TABLET.


Line 1. The verb _tibû_ with _pasâru_ expresses the aim of Gish to
secure an interpretation for his dream. This disposes of Langdon's
note 1 on page 211 of his edition, in which he also erroneously speaks
of our text as "late." _Pasâru_ is not a variant of _zakâru_. Both
verbs occur just as here in the Assyrian version I, 5, 25.

Line 3. _ina sât musitia_, "in this my night," i.e., in the course of
this night of mine. A curious way of putting it, but the expression
occurs also in the Assyrian version, e.g., I, 5, 26 (parallel passage
to ours) and II, 4a, 14. In the Yale tablet we find, similarly,
_mu-si-it-ka_ (l. 262), "thy night," i.e., "at night to thee."

Line 5. Before Langdon put down the strange statement of Gish
"wandering about in the midst of omens" (misreading _id-da-tim _
for _it-lu-tim_), he might have asked himself the question, what it
could possibly mean. How can one walk among omens?

Line 6. _ka-ka-bu sá-ma-i_ must be taken as a compound term for
"starry heaven." The parallel passage in the Assyrian version (Tablet
I, 5, 27) has the ideograph for star, with the plural sign as a
variant. Literally, therefore, "The starry heaven (or "the stars in
heaven") was there," etc. Langdon's note 2 on page 211 rests on an
erroneous reading.

Line 7. _kisru sá Anim_, "mass of Anu," appears to be the designation
of a meteor, which might well be described as a "mass" coming from Anu,
i.e., from the god of heaven who becomes the personification of the
heavens in general. In the Assyrian version (I, 5, 28) we have _kima
ki-is-rù_, i.e., "something like a mass of heaven." Note also I, 3,
16, where in a description of Gilgamesh, his strength is said to be
"strong like a mass (i.e., a meteor) of heaven."

Line 9. For _nussasu ûl iltê_ we have a parallel in the Hebrew phrase
NLE'ETIY NS' (Isaiah 1, 14).

Line 10. _Uruk mâtum_, as the designation for the district of Erech,
occurs in the Assyrian version, e.g., I, 5, 31, and IV, 2, 38; also
to be supplied, I, 6, 23.

For _pahir_ the parallel in the Assyrian version has _iz-za-az_
(I, 5, 31), but VI, 197, we find _pah-ru_ and _pah-ra_.

Line 17. _mi-in-di_ does not mean "truly" as Langdon translates,
but "some one." It occurs also in the Assyrian version X, 1, 13,
_mi-in-di-e ma-an-nu-u_, "this is some one who," etc.

Line 18. Cf. Assyrian version I, 5, 3, and IV, 4, 7, _ina siri
âlid_--both passages referring to Enkidu.

Line 21. Cf. Assyrian version II, 3b, 38, with _malkê_, "kings,"
as a synonym of _itlutum_.

Line 23. _ta-tar-ra-as-sú_ from _tarâsu_,  "direct," "guide," etc.

Line 24. I take _us-ti-nim-ma_ as III, 2, from _isênu_ (YOSEN),
the verb underlying _sittu_, "sleep," and _suttu_, "dream."

Line 26. Cf. Assyrian version I, 6, 21--a complete parallel.

Line 28. _Uruk ri-bi-tim_, the standing phrase in both tablets of
the old Babylonian version, for which in the Assyrian version we
have _Uruk su-pu-ri_. The former term suggests the "broad space"
outside of the city or the "common" in a village community,
while _supûri_, "enclosed," would refer to the city within the
walls. Dr. W. F. Albright (in a private communication) suggests "Erech
of the plazas" as a suitable translation for _Uruk ribîtim_. A third
term, _Uruk mâtum_ (see above, note to line 10), though designating
rather the district of which Erech was the capital, appears to be
used as a synonym to _Uruk ribîtim_, as may be concluded from the
phrase _i-na ri-bi-tum ma-ti_ (l. 214 of the Pennsylvania tablet),
which clearly means the "plaza" of the city. One naturally thinks of
REHOBOT `IYR in Genesis 10, 11--the equivalent of Babylonian _ri-bi-tu
âli_--which can hardly be the name of a city. It appears to be a
gloss, as is HIY' HO`IYR HAGEDOLOH at the end of v. 12. The latter
gloss is misplaced, since it clearly describes "Nineveh," mentioned
in v. 11. Inasmuch as REHOBOT `IYR immediately follows the mention
of Nineveh, it seems simplest to take the phrase as designating the
"outside" or "suburbs" of the city, a complete parallel, therefore,
to _ri-bi-tu mâti_ in our text. Nineveh, together with the "suburbs,"
forms the "great city." _Uruk ribîtim_ is, therefore, a designation
for "greater Erech," proper to a capital city, which by its gradual
growth would take in more than its original confines. "Erech of the
plazas" must have come to be used as a honorific designation of this
important center as early as 2000 B. C., whereas later, perhaps
because of its decline, the epithet no longer seemed appropriate
and was replaced by the more modest designation of "walled Erech,"
with an allusion to the tradition which ascribed the building of the
wall of the city to Gilgamesh. At all events, all three expressions,
"Erech of the plazas," "Erech walled" and "Erech land," are to be
regarded as synonymous. The position once held by Erech follows also
from its ideographic designation (Brünnow No. 4796) by the sign "house"
with a "gunufied" extension, which conveys the idea of Unu = _subtu_,
or "dwelling" _par excellence_. The pronunciation Unug or Unuk (see
the gloss _u-nu-uk_, VR 23, 8a), composed of _unu_, "dwelling," and
_ki_, "place," is hardly to be regarded as older than Uruk, which is
to be resolved into _uru_, "city," and _ki_, "place," but rather as
a play upon the name, both Unu + ki and Uru + ki conveying the same
idea of _the_ city or _the_ dwelling place _par excellence_. As the
seat of the second oldest dynasty according to Babylonian traditions
(see Poebel's list in _Historical and Grammatical Texts_ No. 2),
Erech no doubt was regarded as having been at one time "the city,"
i.e., the capital of the entire Euphrates Valley.

Line 31. A difficult line for which Langdon proposes the translation:
"Another axe seemed his visage"!!--which may be picturesque, but
hardly a description befitting a hero. How can a man's face seem
to be an axe? Langdon attaches _sá-ni_ in the sense of "second"
to the preceding word "axe," whereas _sanî bunusu_, "change of his
countenance" or "his countenance being changed," is to be taken as
a phrase to convey the idea of "being disturbed," "displeased" or
"angry." The phrase is of the same kind as the well-known _sunnu
têmu_, "changing of reason," to denote "insanity." See the passages
in Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, pp. 355 and 1068. In Hebrew,
too, we have the same two phrases, e.g., VAYESANOV 'ETTA`EMOV
(I Sam. 21, 14 = Ps. 34, 1), "and he changed his reason," i.e.,
feigned insanity and MESANEH PONOYV (Job 14, 20), "changing his
face," to indicate a radical alteration in the frame of mind. There
is a still closer parallel in Biblical Aramaic: Dan. 3, 19, "The form
of his visage was changed," meaning "he was enraged." Fortunately,
the same phrase occurs also in the Yale tablet (l. 192), _sá-nu-ú
bu-nu-sú_, in a connection which leaves no doubt that the aroused
fury of the tyrant Huwawa is described by it:


	"Huwawa heard and his face was changed"


precisely, therefore, as we should say--following Biblical usage--"his
countenance fell." Cf. also the phrase _pânusu arpu_, "his countenance
was darkened" (Assyrian version I, 2, 48), to express "anger." The
line, therefore, in the Pennsylvania tablet must describe Enkidu's
anger. With the brandishing of the axe the hero's anger was also
stirred up. The touch was added to prepare us for the continuation
in which Gish describes how, despite this (or perhaps just because
of it), Enkidu seemed so attractive that Gish instantly fell in love
with him. May perhaps the emphatic form _hasinumma_ (line 31) against
_hasinu_ (line 29) have been used to indicate "The axe it was," or
"because of the axe?" It would be worth while to examine other texts
of the Hammurabi period with a view of determining the scope in the
use and meaning of the emphatic _ma_ when added to a substantive.

Line 32. The combination _amur ù ahtadu_ occurs also in the El-Amarna
Letters, No. 18, 12.

Line 34. In view of the common Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic Hobab "to
love," it seems preferable to read here, as in the other passages in
the Assyrian versions (I, 4, 15; 4, 35; 6, 27, etc.), _a-ha-ab-bu-ub_,
_ah-bu-ub_, _ih-bu-bu_, etc. (instead of with _p_), and to render
"embrace."

Lines 38-40, completing the column, may be supplied from the Assyrian
version I, 6, 30-32, in conjunction with lines 33-34 of our text. The
beginning of line 32 in Jensen's version is therefore to be filled
out _[ta-ra-am-sú ki]-i_.

Line 43. The restoration at the beginning of this line


	_En-ki-[du wa]-si-ib ma-har ha-ri-im-tim_


enables us to restore also the beginning of the second tablet of
the Assyrian version (cf. the colophon of the fragment 81, 7-27, 93,
in Jeremias, _Izdubar-Nimrod_, plate IV = Jensen, p. 134),


	_[d_En-ki-du wa-si-ib] ma-har-sá.


Line 44. The restoration of this line is largely conjectural, based
on the supposition that its contents correspond in a general way to I,
4, 16, of the Assyrian version. The reading _di-da_ is quite certain,
as is also _ip-ti-[e]_; and since both words occur in the line of the
Assyrian version in question, it is tempting to supply at the beginning
_ur-[sá]_ = "her loins" (cf. Holma, _Namen der Körperteile_, etc.,
p. 101), which is likewise found in the same line of the Assyrian
version. At all events the line describes the fascination exercised
upon Enkidu by the woman's bodily charms, which make him forget
everything else.

Lines 46-47 form a parallel to I, 4, 21, of the Assyrian version. The
form _samkatu_, "courtesan," is constant in the old Babylonian version
(ll. 135 and 172), as against _samhatu_ in the Assyrian version (I,
3, 19, 40, 45; 4, 16), which also uses the plural _sam-ha-a-ti_ (II,
3b, 40). The interchange between _h_ and _k_ is not without precedent
(cf. Meissner, _Altbabylonisches Privatrecht_, page 107, note 2,
and more particularly Chiera, _List of Personal Names_, page 37).

In view of the evidence, set forth in the Introduction, for the
assumption that the Enkidu story has been combined with a tale of the
evolution of primitive man to civilized life, it is reasonable to
suggest that in the original Enkidu story the female companion was
called _samkatu_, "courtesan," whereas in the tale of the primitive
man, which was transferred to Enkidu, the associate was _harimtu_, a
"woman," just as in the Genesis tale, the companion of Adam is simply
called _ishshâ_, "woman." Note that in the Assyrian parallel (Tablet I,
4, 26) we have two readings, _ir-hi_ (imperf.) and a variant _i-ri-hi_
(present). The former is the better reading, as our tablet shows.

Lines 49-59 run parallel to the Assyrian version I, 4, 33-38,
with slight variations which have been discussed above, p. 58, and
from which we may conclude that the Assyrian version represents an
independent redaction. Since in our tablet we have presumably the
repetition of what may have been in part at least set forth in the
first tablet of the old Babylonian version, we must not press the
parallelism with the first tablet of the Assyrian version too far;
but it is noticeable nevertheless (1) that our tablet contains lines
57-58 which are not represented in the Assyrian version, and (2) that
the second speech of the "woman" beginning, line 62, with _al-ka_,
"come" (just as the first speech, line 54), is likewise not found
in the first tablet of the Assyrian version; which on the other
hand contains a line (39) not in the Babylonian version, besides
the detailed answer of Enkidu (I 4, 42-5, 5). Line 6, which reads
"Enkidu and the woman went (_il-li-ku_) to walled Erech," is also
not found in the second tablet of the old Babylonian version.

Line 63. For _magrû_, "accursed," see the frequent use in Astrological
texts (Jastrow, _Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens_ II, page 450, note
2). Langdon, by his strange error in separating _ma-a-ag-ri-im_ into
two words _ma-a-ak_ and _ri-i-im_, with a still stranger rendering:
"unto the place yonder of the shepherds!!", naturally misses the
point of this important speech.

Line 64 corresponds to I, 4, 40, of the Assyrian version, which has
an additional line, leading to the answer of Enkidu. From here on,
our tablet furnishes material not represented in the Assyrian version,
but which was no doubt included in the second tablet of that version
of which we have only a few fragments.

Line 70 must be interpreted as indicating that the woman kept one
garment for herself. _Ittalbas_ would accordingly mean, "she kept
on." The female dress appears to have consisted of an upper and a
lower garment.

Line 72. The restoration "like a god" is favored by line 51, where
Enkidu is likened to a god, and is further confirmed by l. 190.

Line 73. _gupru_ is identical with _gu-up-ri_ (Thompson, _Reports of
the Magicians and Astrologers_, etc., 223 rev. 2 and 223a rev. 8), and
must be correlated to _gipâru_ (Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_,
p. 229a), "planted field," "meadow," and the like. Thompson's
translation "men" (as though a synonym of _gabru_) is to be corrected
accordingly.

Line 74. There is nothing missing between _a-sar_ and _tar-ba-si-im_.

Line 75. _ri-ia-ú_, which Langdon renders "shepherd," is the
equivalent of the Arabic _ri'y_ and Hebrew RE`IY "pasturage,"
"fodder." We have usually the feminine form _ri-i-tu_ (Muss-Arnolt,
_Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 990b). The break at the end of the second
column is not serious. Evidently Enkidu, still accustomed to live
like an animal, is first led to the sheepfolds, and this suggests
a repetition of the description of his former life. Of the four or
five lines missing, we may conjecturally restore four, on the basis
of the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2-5, or I, 2, 39-41. This would
then join on well to the beginning of column 3.

Line 81. Both here and in l. 52 our text has _na-ma-ás-te-e_, as
against _nam-mas-si-i_ in the Assyrian version, e.g., Tablet I,
2, 41; 4, 5, etc.,--the feminine form, therefore, as against the
masculine. Langdon's note 3 on page 213 is misleading. In astrological
texts we also find _nam-mas-te_; e.g., Thompson, _Reports of the
Magicians and Astrologers_, etc., No. 200, Obv. 2.

Line 93. _zi-ma-at_ (for _simat_) _ba-la-ti-im_ is not "conformity of
life" as Langdon renders, but that which "belongs to life" like _si-mat
pag-ri-sá_, "belonging to her body," in the Assyrian version III, 2a,
3 (Jensen, page 146). "Food," says the woman, "is the staff of life."

Line 94. Langdon's strange rendering "of the conditions and fate
of the land" rests upon an erroneous reading (see the corrections,
Appendix I), which is the more inexcusable because in line 97 the same
ideogram, Kàs = _sikaru_, "wine," occurs, and is correctly rendered
by him. _Simti mâti_ is not the "fate of the land," but the "fixed
custom of the land."

Line 98. _as-sa-mi-im_ (plural of _assamu_), which Langdon takes as
an adverb in the sense of "times," is a well-known word for a large
"goblet," which occurs in Incantation texts, e.g., _CT_ XVI, 24,
obv. 1, 19, _mê a-sa-am-mi-e sú-puk_, "pour out goblets of water." Line
18 of the passage shoves that _asammu_ is a Sumerian loan word.

Line 99. _it-tap-sar_, I, 2, from _pasâru_, "loosen." In combination
with _kabtatum_ (from _kabitatum_, yielding two forms: _kabtatum_, by
elision of _i_, and _kabittu_, by elision of _a_), "liver," _pasâru_
has the force of becoming cheerful. Cf. _ka-bit-ta-ki lip-pa-sir_
(_ZA_ V., p. 67, line 14).

Line 100, note the customary combination of "liver" (_kabtatum_)
and "heart" (_libbu_) for "disposition" and "mind," just as in the
standing phrase in penitential prayers: "May thy liver be appeased,
thy heart be quieted."

Line 102. The restoration [lùSÚ]-I = _gallabu_ "barber" (Delitzsch,
_Sumer. Glossar_, p. 267) was suggested to me by Dr. H. F. Lutz. The
ideographic writing "raising the hand" is interesting as recalling the
gesture of shaving or cutting. Cf. a reference to a barber in Lutz,
_Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa_, No. 109, 6.

Line 103. Langdon has correctly rendered _suhuru_ as "hair," and
has seen that we have here a loan-word from the Sumerian Suhur =
_kimmatu_, "hair," according to the Syllabary Sb 357 (cf. Delitzsch,
_Sumer. Glossar._, p. 253). For _kimmatu_, "hair," more specifically
hair of the head and face, see Holma, _Namen der Körperteile_,
page 3. The same sign Suhur or Suh (Brünnow No. 8615), with Lal,
i.e., "hanging hair," designates the "beard" (_ziknu_, cf. Brünnow,
No. 8620, and Holma, l. c., p. 36), and it is interesting to note
that we have _suhuru_ (introduced as a loan-word) for the barbershop,
according to II R, 21, 27c (= _CT_ XII, 41).


	Ê suhur(ra) (i.e., house of the hair) = _sú-hu-ru_.


In view of all this, we may regard as assured Holma's conjecture to
read _sú-[hur-ma-sú]_ in the list 93074 obv. (_MVAG_ 1904, p. 203; and
Holma, _Beiträge z. Assyr. Lexikon_, p. 36), as the Akkadian equivalent
to Suhur-Mas-Ha and the name of a fish, so called because it appeared
to have a double "beard" (cf. Holma, _Namen der Körperteile_). One is
tempted, furthermore, to see in the difficult word SKYRH (Isaiah 7,
20) a loan-word from our _suhuru_, and to take the words 'ETHORO'S
VESA`AR HORAGELAYIM "the head and hair of the feet" (euphemistic
for the hair around the privates), as an explanatory gloss to the rare
word Skyrh for "hair" of the body in general--just as in the passage
in the Pennsylvania tablet. The verse in Isaiah would then read,
"The Lord on that day will shave with the razor the hair (HSKYRH),
and even the beard will be removed." The rest of the verse would
represent a series of explanatory glosses: (a) "Beyond the river"
(i.e., Assyria), a gloss to YEGALAH (b) "with the king of Assyria,"
a gloss to BETA`AR "with a razor;" and (c) "the hair of the head and
hair of the feet," a gloss to HSKYRH. For "hair of the feet" we have an
interesting equivalent in Babylonian _su-hur_ (and _sú-hu-ur_) _sêpi_
(_CT_ XII, 41, 23-24 c-d). Cf. also Boissier, _Documents Assyriens
relatifs aux Présages_, p. 258, 4-5. The Babylonian phrase is like the
Hebrew one to be interpreted as a euphemism for the hair around the
male or female organ. To be sure, the change from H to K in HSKYRH
constitutes an objection, but not a serious one in the case of a
loan-word, which would aim to give the _pronunciation_ of the original
word, rather than the correct etymological equivalent. The writing with
aspirated K fulfills this condition. (Cf. _samkatum_ and _samhatum_,
above p. 73). The passage in Isaiah being a reference to Assyria,
the prophet might be tempted to use a foreign word to make his point
more emphatic. To take HSKYRH as "hired," as has hitherto been done,
and to translate "with a hired razor," is not only to suppose a very
wooden metaphor, but is grammatically difficult, since HSKYRH would
be a feminine adjective attached to a masculine substantive.

Coming back to our passage in the Pennsylvania tablet, it is to be
noted that Enkidu is described as covered "all over his body with hair"
(Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 36) like an animal. To convert him
into a civilized man, the hair is removed.

Line 107. _mutu_ does not mean "husband" here, as Langdon supposes,
but must be taken as in l. 238 in the more general sense of "man,"
for which there is good evidence.

Line 109. _la-bi_ (plural form) are "lions"--not "panthers" as Langdon
has it. The verb _ú-gi-ir-ri_ is from _gâru_, "to attack." Langdon by
separating _ú_ from _gi-ir-ri_ gets a totally wrong and indeed absurd
meaning. See the corrections in the Appendix. He takes the sign _ú_
for the copula (!!) which of course is impossible.

Line 110. Read _us-sa-ak-pu_, III, 1, of _sakâpu_, which is frequently
used for "lying down" and is in fact a synonym of _salâlu_. See
Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, page 758a. The original has very
clearly Síb (= _rê'u_, "shepherd") with the plural sign. The "shepherds
of the night," who could now rest since Enkidu had killed the lions,
are of course the shepherds who were accustomed to watch the flocks
during the night.

Line 111. _ut-tap-pi-is_ is II, 2, _napâsu_, "to make a hole," hence
"to plunge" in connection with a weapon. _Sib-ba-ri_ is, of course,
not "mountain goats," as Langdon renders, but a by-form to _sibbiru_,
"stick," and designates some special weapon. Since on seal cylinders
depicting Enkidu killing lions and other animals the hero is armed
with a dagger, this is presumably the weapon _sibbaru_.

Line 113. Langdon's translation is again out of the question and
purely fanciful. The traces favor the restoration _na-ki-[di-e]_,
"shepherds," and since the line appears to be a parallel to line 110,
I venture to suggest at the beginning _[it-ti]-lu_ from _na'âlu_, "lie
down"--a synonym, therefore, to _sakâpu_ in line 110. The shepherds can
sleep quietly after Enkidu has become the "guardian" of the flocks. In
the Assyrian version (tablet II, 3a, 4) Enkidu is called a _na-kid_,
"shepherd," and in the preceding line we likewise have lùNa-Kid with
the plural sign, i.e., "shepherds." This would point to _nakidu_
being a Sumerian loan-word, unless it is _vice versa_, a word that has
gone over into the Sumerian from Akkadian. Is perhaps the fragment
in question (K 8574) in the Assyrian version (Haupt's ed. No. 25)
the _parallel_ to our passage? If in line 4 of this fragment we could
read _sú_ for _sa_, i.e., _na-kid-sú-nu_, "their shepherd, we would
have a parallel to line 114 of the Pennsylvania tablet, with _na-kid_
as a synonym to _massaru_, "protector." The preceding line would then
be completed as follows:


	_[it-ti-lu]-nim-ma na-kidmes_ [ra-bu-tum]


(or perhaps only _it-ti-lu-ma_, since the _nim_ is not certain) and
would correspond to line 113 of the Pennsylvania tablet. Inasmuch
as the writing on the tiny fragment is very much blurred, it is
quite possible that in line 2 we must read _sib-ba-ri_ (instead
of _bar-ba-ri_), which would furnish a parallel to line 111 of the
Pennsylvania tablet. The difference between Bar and Sib is slight,
and the one sign might easily be mistaken for the other in the case
of close writing. The continuation of line 2 of the fragment would
then correspond to line 112 of the Pennsylvania tablet, while line 1
of the fragment might be completed _[re-e]-u-ti(?) sá [mu-si-a-tim]_,
though this is by no means certain.

The break at the close of column 3 (about 5 lines) and the top
of column 4 (about 8 lines) is a most serious interruption in the
narrative, and makes it difficult to pick up the thread where the
tablet again becomes readable. We cannot be certain whether the "strong
man, the unique hero" who addresses some one (lines 115-117) is Enkidu
or Gish or some other personage, but presumably Gish is meant. In the
Assyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 2 and 29, we find Gilgamesh described
as the "unique hero" and in l. 234 of the Pennsylvania tablet Gish
is called "unique," while again, in the Assyrian version, Tablet I,
2, 15 and 26, he is designated as _gasru_ as in our text. Assuming
this, whom does he address? Perhaps the shepherds? In either case
he receives an answer that rejoices him. If the fragment of the
Assyrian version (K 8574) above discussed is the equivalent to the
close of column 3 of the Pennsylvania tablet, we may go one step
further, and with some measure of assurance assume that Gish is told
of Enkidu's exploits and that the latter is approaching Erech. This
pleases Gish, but Enkidu when he sees Gish(?) is stirred to anger and
wants to annihilate him. At this point, the "man" (who is probably
Gish, though the possibility of a third personage must be admitted)
intervenes and in a long speech sets forth the destiny and higher aims
of mankind. The contrast between Enkidu and Gish (or the third party)
is that between the primitive savage and the civilized being. The
contrast is put in the form of an opposition between the two. The
primitive man is the stronger and wishes to destroy the one whom he
regards as a natural foe and rival. On the other hand, the one who
stands on a higher plane wants to lift his fellow up. The whole of
column 4, therefore, forms part of the lesson attached to the story
of Enkidu, who, identified with man in a primitive stage, is made the
medium of illustrating how the higher plane is reached through the
guiding influences of the woman's hold on man, an influence exercised,
to be sure, with the help of her bodily charms.

Line 135. _uk-ki-si_ (imperative form) does not mean "take away," as
Langdon (who entirely misses the point of the whole passage) renders,
but on the contrary, "lure him on," "entrap him," and the like. The
verb occurs also in the Yale tablet, ll. 183 and 186.

Line 137. Langdon's note to _lu-us-sú_ had better be passed over in
silence. The form is II. 1, from _esû_, "destroy."

Line 139. Since the man whom the woman calls approaches Enkidu, the
subject of both verbs is the man, and the object is Enkidu; i.e.,
therefore, "The man approaches Enkidu and beholds him."

Line 140. Langdon's interpretation of this line again is purely
fanciful. _E-di-il_ cannot, of course, be a "phonetic variant"
of _edir_; and certainly the line does not describe the state of
mind of the woman. Lines 140-141 are to be taken as an expression
of amazement at Enkidu's appearance. The first word appears to be
an imperative in the sense of "Be off," "Away," from _dâlu_, "move,
roam." The second word _e-es_, "why," occurs with the same verb _dâlu_
in the Meissner fragment: _e-es ta-da-al_ (column 3, 1), "why dost thou
roam about?" The verb at the end of the line may perhaps be completed
to _ta-hi-il-la-am_. The last sign appears to be _am_, but may be _ma_,
in which case we should have to complete simply _ta-hi-il-ma_. _Tahîl_
would be the second person present of _hîlu_. Cf. _i-hi-il_, frequently
in astrological texts, e.g., Virolleaud, _Adad_ No. 3, lines 21 and 33.

Line 141. The reading _lim-nu_ at the beginning, instead of Langdon's
_mi-nu_, is quite certain, as is also _ma-na-ah-ti-ka_ instead of
what Langdon proposes, which gives no sense whatever. _Manahtu_ in
the sense of the "toil" and "activity of life" (like `OMOL throughout
the Book of Ecclesiastes) occurs in the introductory lines to the
Assyrian version of the Epic I, 1, 8, _ka-lu ma-na-ah-ti-[su]_,
"all of his toil," i.e., all of his career.

Line 142. The subject of the verb cannot be the woman, as Langdon
supposes, for the text in that case, e.g., line 49, would have said
_pi-sá_ ("her mouth") not _pi-sú_ ("his mouth"). The long speech,
detailing the function and destiny of civilized man, is placed in
the mouth of the man who meets Enkidu.

In the Introduction it has been pointed out that lines 149 and 151
of the speech appear to be due to later modifications of the speech
designed to connect the episode with Gish. Assuming this to be the
case, the speech sets forth the following five distinct aims of
human life: (1) establishing a home (line 144), (2) work (line 147),
(3) storing up resources (line 148), (4) marriage (line 150), (5)
monogamy (line 154); all of which is put down as established for all
time by divine decree (lines 155-157), and as man's fate from his birth
(lines 158-159).

Line 144. _bi-ti-is e-mu-ti_ is for _bîti sá e-mu-ti_, just as
_kab-lu-us Ti-a-ma-ti_ (Assyrian Creation Myth, IV, 65) stands for
_kablu sá Tiamti_. Cf. _bît e-mu-ti_ (Assyrian version, IV, 2, 46
and 48). The end of the line is lost beyond recovery, but the general
sense is clear.

Line 146. _tu-a-ar_ is a possible reading. It may be the construct
of _tu-a-ru_, of frequent occurrence in legal texts and having some
such meaning as "right," "claim" or "prerogative." See the passages
given by Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 1139b.

Line 148. The reading _uk-la-at_, "food," and then in the wider
sense "food supply," "provisions," is quite certain. The fourth sign
looks like the one for "city." _E-mi-sa_ may stand for _e-mid-sa_,
"place it." The general sense of the line, at all events, is clear, as
giving the advice to gather resources. It fits in with the Babylonian
outlook on life to regard work and wealth as the fruits of work and
as a proper purpose in life.

Line 150 (repeated lines 152-153) is a puzzling line. To render _piti
pûk epsi_ (or _episi_), as Langdon proposes, "open, addressing thy
speech," is philologically and in every other respect inadmissible. The
word _pu-uk_ (which Langdon takes for "thy mouth"!!) can, of course,
be nothing but the construct form of _pukku_, which occurs in the
Assyrian version in the sense of "net" (_pu-uk-ku_ I, 2, 9 and
21, and also in the colophon to the eleventh tablet furnishing the
beginning of the twelfth tablet (Haupt's edition No. 56), as well as
in column 2, 29, and column 3, 6, of this twelfth tablet). In the two
last named passages _pukku_ is a synonym of _mekû_, which from the
general meaning of "enclosure" comes to be a euphemistic expression
for the female organ. So, for example, in the Assyrian Creation Myth,
Tablet IV, 66 (synonym of _kablu_, "waist," etc.). See Holma, _Namen
der Körperteile_, page 158. Our word _pukku_ must be taken in this same
sense as a designation of the female organ--perhaps more specifically
the "hymen" as the "net," though the womb in general might also be
designated as a "net" or "enclosure." _Kak-(si)_ is no doubt to be
read _epsi_, as Langdon correctly saw; or perhaps better, _episi_. An
expression like _ip-si-sú lul-la-a_ (Assyrian version, I, 4, 13;
also line 19, _i-pu-us-su-ma lul-la-a_), with the explanation _sipir
zinnisti_, "the work of woman" (i.e., after the fashion of woman),
shows that _epêsu_ is used in connection with the sexual act. The
phrase _pitî pûk episi a-na ha-a-a-ri_, literally "open the net,
perform the act for marriage," therefore designates the fulfillment
of the marriage act, and the line is intended to point to marriage
with the accompanying sexual intercourse as one of the duties of
man. While the general meaning is thus clear, the introduction of
Gish is puzzling, except on the supposition that lines 149 and 151
represent later additions to connect the speech, detailing the advance
to civilized life, with the hero. See above, p. 45 _seq._

Line 154. _assat simâtim_ is the "legitimate wife," and the line
inculcates monogamy as against promiscuous sexual intercourse. We know
that monogamy was the rule in Babylonia, though a man could in addition
to the wife recognized as the legalized spouse take a concubine, or
his wife could give her husband a slave as a concubine. Even in that
case, according to the Hammurabi Code, §§145-146, the wife retained
her status. The Code throughout assumes that a man has only _one_
wife--the _assat simâtim_ of our text. The phrase "so" (or "that")
before "as afterwards" is to be taken as an idiomatic expression--"so
it was and so it should be for all times"--somewhat like the phrase
_mahriam ù arkiam_, "for all times," in legal documents (_CT_ VIII,
38c, 22-23). For the use of _mûk_ see Behrens, _Assyrisch-Babylonische
Briefe_, p. 3.

Line 158. _i-na bi-ti-ik a-bu-un-na-ti-sú_. Another puzzling line,
for which Langdon proposes "in the work of his presence," which is
as obscure as the original. In a note he says that _apunnâti_ means
"nostrils," which is certainly wrong. There has been considerable
discussion about this term (see Holma, _Namen der Körperteile_,
pages 150 and 157), the meaning of which has been advanced by
Christian's discussion in _OLZ_ 1914, p. 397. From this it appears
that it must designate a part of the body which could acquire a wider
significance so as to be used as a synonym for "totality," since it
appears in a list of equivalent for Dur = _nap-ha-ru_, "totality,"
_ka-lu-ma_, "all," _a-bu-un-na-tum e-si-im-tum_, "bony structure," and
_kul-la-tum_, "totality" (_CT_ XII, 10, 7-10). Christian shows that
it may be the "navel," which could well acquire a wider significance
for the body in general; but we may go a step further and specify
the "umbilical cord" (tentatively suggested also by Christian) as
the primary meaning, then the "navel," and from this the "body" in
general. The structure of the umbilical cord as a series of strands
would account for designating it by a plural form _abunnâti_, as
also for the fact that one could speak of a right and left side of
the _appunnâti_. To distinguish between the "umbilical cord" and the
"navel," the ideograph Dur (the common meaning of which is _riksu_,
"bond" [Delitzsch, _Sumer. Glossar._, p. 150]), was used for the
former, while for the latter Li Dur was employed, though the reading
in Akkadian in both cases was the same. The expression "with (or at)
the cutting of his umbilical cord" would mean, therefore, "from
his birth"--since the cutting of the cord which united the child
with the mother marks the beginning of the separate life. Lines
158-159, therefore, in concluding the address to Enkidu, emphasize
in a picturesque way that what has been set forth is man's fate for
which he has been destined from birth. [See now Albright's remarks on
_abunnatu_ in the Revue d'Assyriologie 16, pp. 173-175, with whose
conclusion, however, that it means primarily "backbone" and then
"stature," I cannot agree.]

In the break of about three lines at the bottom of column 4, and
of about six at the beginning of column 5, there must have been set
forth the effect of the address on Enkidu and the indication of his
readiness to accept the advice; as in a former passage (line 64),
Enkidu showed himself willing to follow the woman. At all events the
two now proceed to the heart of the city. Enkidu is in front and
the woman behind him. The scene up to this point must have taken
place outside of Erech--in the suburbs or approaches to the city,
where the meadows and the sheepfolds were situated.

Line 174. _um-ma-nu-um_ are not the "artisans," as Langdon supposes,
but the "people" of Erech, just as in the Assyrian version, Tablet
IV, 1, 40, where the word occurs in connection with _i-dip-pi-ir_,
which is perhaps to be taken as a synonym of _pahâru_, "gather;"
so also _i-dip-pir_ (Tablet I, 2, 40) "gathers with the flock."

Lines 180-182 must have contained the description of Enkidu's
resemblance to Gish, but the lines are too mutilated to permit of any
certain restoration. See the corrections (Appendix) for a suggested
reading for the end of line 181.

Line 183 can be restored with considerable probability on the basis of
the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 3 and 30, where Enkidu is described
as one "whose power is strong in the land."

Lines 186-187. The puzzling word, to be read apparently _kak-ki-a-tum_,
can hardly mean "weapons," as Langdon proposes. In that case we
should expect _kakkê_; and, moreover, to so render gives no sense,
especially since the verb _ú-te-el-li-lu_ is without much question
to be rendered "rejoiced," and not "purified." _Kakkiatum_--if this
be the correct reading--may be a designation of Erech like _ribîtim_.

Lines 188-189 are again entirely misunderstood by Langdon, owing to
erroneous readings. See the corrections in the Appendix.

Line 190. _i-li-im_ in this line is used like Hebrew Elohîm, "God."

Line 191. _sakissum_ = _sakin-sum_, as correctly explained by Langdon.

Line 192. With this line a new episode begins which, owing to the gap
at the beginning of column 6, is somewhat obscure. The episode leads
to the hostile encounter between Gish and Enkidu. It is referred
to in column 2 of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version. Lines
35-50--all that is preserved of this column--form in part a parallel
to columns 5-6 of the Pennsylvania tablet, but in much briefer form,
since what on the Pennsylvania tablet is the incident itself is on
the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version merely a repeated summary of
the relationship between the two heroes, leading up to the expedition
against Hu(m)baba. Lines 38-40 of column 2 of the Assyrian version
correspond to lines 174-177 of the Pennsylvania tablet, and lines
44-50 to lines 192-221. It would seem that Gish proceeds stealthily
at night to go to the goddess Ishhara, who lies on a couch in the _bît
êmuti_ , the "family house" Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2. 46-48). He
encounters Enkidu in the street, and the latter blocks Gish's path,
puts his foot in the gate leading to the house where the goddess is,
and thus prevents Gish from entering. Thereupon the two have a fierce
encounter in which Gish is worsted. The meaning of the episode itself
is not clear. Does Enkidu propose to deprive Gish, here viewed as a god
(cf. line 190 of the Pennsylvania tablet = Assyrian version, Tablet
I, 4, 45, "like a god"), of his spouse, the goddess Ishhara--another
form of Ishtar? Or are the two heroes, the one a counterpart of the
other, contesting for the possession of a goddess? Is it in this
scene that Enkidu becomes the "rival" (_me-ih-rù_, line 191 of the
Pennsylvania tablet) of the divine Gish? We must content ourself with
having obtained through the Pennsylvania tablet a clearer indication
of the occasion of the fight between the two heroes, and leave the
further explanation of the episode till a fortunate chance may throw
additional light upon it. There is perhaps a reference to the episode
in the Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b, 35-36.

Line 196. For _i-na-ag-sá-am_ (from _nagâsu_), Langdon proposes the
purely fanciful "embracing her in sleep," whereas it clearly means
"he approaches." Cf. Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, page 645a.

Lines 197-200 appear to correspond to Tablet IV, 2, 35-37, of the
Assyrian version, though not forming a complete parallel. We may
therefore supply at the beginning of line 35 of the Assyrian version
_[ittaziz] Enkidu_, corresponding to line 197 of the Pennsylvania
tablet. Line 36 of IV, 2, certainly appears to correspond to line 200
(_dan-nu-ti_ = _da-na-ni-is-sú_).

Line 208. The first sign looks more like _sar_, though _ur_ is
possible.

Line 211 is clearly a description of Enkidu, as is shown by a
comparison with the Assyrian version I, 2, 37: _[pi]-ti-ik pi-ir-ti-sú
uh-tan-na-ba kima d_Nidaba, "The form of his hair sprouted like
wheat." We must therefore supply Enkidu in the preceding line. Tablet
IV, 4, 6, of the Assyrian version also contains a reference to the
flowing hair of Enkidu.

Line 212. For the completion of the line cf. Harper, _Assyrian and
Babylonian Letters_, No. 214.

Line 214. For _ribîtu mâti_ see the note above to line 28 of column 1.

Lines 215-217 correspond almost entirely to the Assyrian version IV, 2,
46-48. The variations _ki-ib-su_ in place of _sêpu_, and _kima lîm_,
"like oxen," instead of _ina bâb êmuti_ (repeated from line 46), _ana
surûbi_ for _êribam_, are slight though interesting. The Assyrian
version shows that the "gate" in line 215 is "the gate of the family
house" in which the goddess Ishhara lies.

Lines 218-228. The detailed description of the fight between the two
heroes is only partially preserved in the Assyrian version.

Line 218. _li-i-im_ is evidently to be taken as plural here as
in line 224, just as _su-ki-im_ (lines 27 and 175), _ri-bi-tim_
(lines 4, 28, etc.), _tarbasim_ (line 74), _assamim_ (line 98) are
plural forms. Our text furnishes, as does also the Yale tablet, an
interesting illustration of the vacillation in the Hammurabi period
in the twofold use of _im_: (a) as an indication of the plural (as in
Hebrew), and (b) as a mere emphatic ending (lines 63, 73, and 232),
which becomes predominant in the post-Hammurabi age.

Line 227. Gilgamesh is often represented on seal cylinders as kneeling,
e.g., Ward Seal Cylinders Nos. 159, 160, 165. Cf. also Assyrian version
V, 3, 6, where Gilgamesh is described as kneeling, though here in
prayer. See further the commentary to the Yale tablet, line 215.

Line 229. We must of course read _uz-za-sú_, "his anger," and not
_us-sa-sú_, "his javelin," as Langdon does, which gives no sense.

Line 231. Langdon's note is erroneous. He again misses the point. The
stem of the verb here as in line 230 (_i-ni-ih_) is the common _nâhu_,
used so constantly in connection with _pasâhu_, to designate the
cessation of anger.

Line 234. _istên_ applied to Gish designates him of course as "unique,"
not as "an ordinary man," as Langdon supposes.

Line 236. On this title "wild cow of the stall" for Ninsun, see Poebel
in _OLZ_ 1914, page 6, to whom we owe the correct view regarding the
name of Gilgamesh's mother.

Line 238. _mu-ti_ here cannot mean "husband," but "man" in general. See
above note to line 107. Langdon's strange misreading _ri-es-su_ for
_ri-es-ka_ ("thy head") leads him again to miss the point, namely
that Enkidu comforts his rival by telling him that he is destined for
a career above that of the ordinary man. He is to be more than a mere
prize fighter; he is to be a king, and no doubt in the ancient sense,
as the representative of the deity. This is indicated by the statement
that the kingship is decreed for him by Enlil. Similarly, Hu(m)baba or
Huwawa is designated by Enlil to inspire terror among men (Assyrian
version, Tablet IV, 5, 2 and 5), _i-sim-sú d_Enlil = Yale tablet,
l. 137, where this is to be supplied. This position accorded to Enlil
is an important index for the origin of the Epic, which is thus shown
to date from a period when the patron deity of Nippur was acknowledged
as the general head of the pantheon. This justifies us in going back
several centuries at least before Hammurabi for the beginning of
the Gilgamesh story. If it had originated in the Hammurabi period,
we should have had Marduk introduced instead of Enlil.

Line 242. As has been pointed out in the corrections to the text
(Appendix), _sú-tu-ur_ can only be III, 1, from _atâru_, "to be in
excess of." It is a pity that the balance of the line is broken off,
since this is the first instance of a colophon beginning with the
term in question. In some way _sutûr_ must indicate that the copy of
the text has been "enlarged." It is tempting to fill out the line
_sú-tu-ur e-li [duppi labiri]_, and to render "enlarged from an
original," as an indication of an independent recension of the Epic
in the Hammurabi period. All this, however, is purely conjectural,
and we must patiently hope for more tablets of the Old Babylonian
version to turn up. The chances are that some portions of the same
edition as the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets are in the hands of
dealers at present or have been sold to European museums. The war has
seriously interfered with the possibility of tracing the whereabouts
of groups of tablets that ought never to have been separated.






YALE TABLET.


TRANSLITERATION.


(About ten lines missing.)




Col. I.

	.................. [ib]-ri(?)
	[mi-im-ma(?) sá(?)]-kú-tu wa(?)-ak-rum
	[am-mi-nim] ta-ah-si-ih
	[an-ni]-a-am [e-pi]-sá-am
	...... mi-im[-ma sá-kú-tu(?)]ma-
	di-is
	[am-mi]-nim [tah]-si-ih
	[ur(?)]-ta-du-ú [a-na ki-i]s-tim
	si-ip-ra-am it-[ta-sú]-ú i-na [nisê]
	it-ta-ás-sú-ú-ma
	i-pu-sú ru-hu-tam
	.................. us-ta-di-nu
	............................. bu
	...............................


(About 17 lines missing.)


	.............. nam-........
	.................... u ib-[ri] .....
	.............. ú-na-i-du ......
	[zi-ik]-ra-am ú-[tí-ir]-ru
	[a-na] ha-ri-[im]-tim
	[i]-pu(?)-sú a-na sa-[ka]-pu-ti





Col. II.

(About eleven lines missing.)


	... sú(?)-mu(?) ...............
	ma-hi-ra-am [sá i-si-sú]
	sú-uk-ni-sum-[ma] ...............
	la-al-la-ru-[tu] ..................
	um-mi d-[Gis mu-di-a-at ka-la-ma]
	i-na ma-[har dSamas i-di-sá is-si]
	sá ú
	i-na- an(?)-[na am-mi-nim]
	ta-[as-kun(?) a-na ma-ri-ia li-ib-bi la]
	sa-[li-la te-mid-su]
	.............................


(About four lines missing.)


	i-na [sá dEn-ki-du im-la-a] di-[im-tam]
	il-[pu-ut li]-ib-ba-sú-[ma]
	[zar-bis(?)] us-ta-ni-[ih]
	[i-na sá dEn]-ki-du im-la-a di-im-tam
	[il-pu-ut] li-ib-ba-sú-ma
	[zar-bis(?)] us-ta-ni-[ih]
	[dGis ú-ta]-ab-bil pa-ni-sú
	[iz-za-kar-am] a-na dEn-ki-du
	[ib-ri am-mi-nim] i-na-ka
	[im-la-a di-im]-tam
	[il-pu-ut li-ib-bi]-ka
	[zar-bis tu-us-ta]-ni-ih
	[dEn-ki-du pi-sú i-pu-sá]-am-ma
	iz-za-[kàr-am] a-na dGis
	ta-ab-bi-a-tum ib-ri
	us-ta-li-pa da- [151]da-ni-ia
	a-ha-a-a ir-ma-a-ma
	e-mu-ki i-ni-is
	dGis pi-sú i-pu-sá-am-ma
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na   dEn-ki-du


(About four lines missing.)



Col. III.

	..... [a-di dHu]-wa-wa da-pi-nu
	.................. ra-[am(?)-ma]
	................ [ú-hal]- li-ik
	[lu-ur-ra-du a-na ki-is-ti sá] iserini
	............ lam(?) hal-bu
	............ [li]-li-is-su
	.............. lu(?)-up-ti-sú
	dEn-ki-du pi-sú i-pu-sá-am-ma
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dGis
	i-di-ma ib-ri i-na sadî(-i)
	i-nu-ma at-ta-la-ku it-ti bu-lim
	a-na istên(-en) kas-gíd-ta-a-an nu-ma-at ki-is-tum
	[e-di-is(?)] ur-ra-du a-na libbi-sá
	d[Hu-wa]-wa ri-ig-ma-sú a-bu-bu
	pi-[sú]   dBil-gi-ma
	na-pi-is-sú mu-tum
	am-mi-nim ta-ah-si-ih
	an-ni-a-am e-pi-sá-am
	ga-[ba]-al-la ma-ha-ar
	[sú]-pa-at dHu-wa-wa
	(d)Gis pi-sú i-pu-sá-am-ma
	[iz-za-k]àr-am a-na dEn-ki-du
	....... su(?)-lu-li a-sá-ki [152]-sá
	............. [i-na ki-is]-tim
	...............................
	ik(?) .........................
	a-na ..........................
	mu-sá-ab [dHu-wa-wa] .......
	ha-as-si-nu .................
	at-ta	lu(?) .................
	a-na-ku lu-[ur-ra-du a-na ki-is-tim]
	dEn-ki-du pi-sú i-pu-[sá-am-ma]
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na [dGis]
	ki-i ni[il]-la-ak [is-te-nis(?)]
	a-na ki-is-ti [sá iserini]
	na-si-ir-sá dGis muk-[tab-lu]
	da-a-an la sa[-li-lu(?)]
	dHu-wa-wa   dpi-ir-[hu sa (?)]
	dAdad is ..........
	sú-ú ..................



Col. IV.

	ás-súm sú-ul-lu-m[u ki-is-ti sáiserini]
	pu-ul-hi-a-tim 7 [sú(?) i-sim-sú dEnlil]
	dGis pi-sú i-pu [sá-am-ma]
	iz-za-kàr-am a-na [dEn-ki-du]
	ma-an-nu ib-ri e-lu-ú sá-[ru-ba(?)]
	i-tib-ma it-ti dSamas da-ri-is ú-[me-sú]
	a-we-lu-tum ba-ba-nu ú-tam-mu-sá-[ma]
	mi-im-ma sá i-te-ni-pu-sú sá-ru-ba
	at-ta an-na-nu-um-ma ta-dar mu-tam
	ul is-sú da-na-nu kar-ra-du-ti-ka
	lu-ul-li-ik-ma i-na pa-ni-ka
	pi-ka li-is-si-a-am ti-hi-e ta-du-ur
	sum-ma am-ta-ku-ut sú-mi lu-us-zi-iz
	dGis mi [153]-it-ti dHu-wa-wa da-pi-nim
	il(?)-ku-ut is-tu
	i-wa-al-dam-ma tar-bi-a i-na sam-mu(?) Il(?)
	is-hi-it-ka-ma la-bu ka-la-ma ti-di
	it- ku(?) ..... [il(?)]-pu-tu-(?) ma .....
	.............. ka-ma
	.............. si pi-ti
	............ ki-ma re'i(?) na-gi-la sa-rak-ti
	.... [ta-sá-s]i-a-am tu-lim-mi-in li-ib-bi
	[ga-ti lu]-us-ku-un-ma
	[lu-u-ri]-ba-am iserini
	[sú-ma sá]-ta-ru-ú a-na-ku lu-us-ta-ak-na
	[pu-tu-ku(?)] ib-ri a-na ki-is-ka-tim lu-mu-ha
	[be-le-e li-is-]-pu-ku i-na mah-ri-ni
	[pu-tu]-ku a-na ki-is-ka-ti-i i-mu-hu
	wa-ás-bu us-ta-da-nu um-mi-a-nu
	pa-si is-pu-ku ra-bu-tim
	ha-as-si-ni 3 biltu-ta-a-an is-tap-ku
	pa-at-ri is-pu-ku ra-bu-tim
	me-se-li-tum 2 biltu-ta-a-an
	si-ip-ru 30 ma-na-ta-a-an sá a-hi-si-na
	isid(?) pa-at-ri 30 ma-na-ta-a-an hurasi
	[d]Gis ù [dEn-ki-]du 10 biltu-ta-a-an sá-ak-nu]
	.... ul-la . .[Uruk]ki 7 i-di-il-sú
	...... is-me-ma um-ma-nu ib-bi-ra
	[us-te-(?)]-mi-a i-na sûki sá Urukki ri-bi-tim
	...... [u-se(?)]-sa-sú dGis
	[ina sûki sá(?) Urukki] ri-bi-tim
	[dEn-ki-du(?) ú]-sá-ab i-na mah-ri-sú
	..... [ki-a-am(?) i-ga]-ab-bi
	[........ Urukki ri]-bi-tim
			[ma-ha-ar-sú]



Col. V.

	dGis sá i-ga-ab-bu-ú lu-mu-ur
	sá sú-um-sú it-ta-nam-ma-la ma-ta-tum
	lu-uk-sú-su-ma i-na ki-is-ti iserini
	ki-ma da-an-nu pi-ir-hu-um sá Urukki
	lu-si-es-mi ma-tam
	ga-ti lu-us-ku-un-ma lu-uk-[sú] [154]-su-ma iserini
	sú-ma sá-ta-ru-ú a-na-ku lu-us-tak-nam
	si-bu-tum sá Urukki ri-bi-tim
	zi-ik-ra ú-ti-ir-ru a-na dGis
	si-ih-ri-ti-ma dGis libbi-ka na-si-ka
	mi-im-ma sá te-te-ni-pu-sú la ti-di
	ni-si-im-me-ma dHu-wa-wa sá-nu-ú bu-nu-sú
	ma-an-nu-um [us-tam]-ha-ru ka-ak-ki-sú
	a-na istên(-en) [kas-gíd-ta-a]-an nu-ma-at kisti
	ma-an-nu sá [ur-ra]-du a-na libbi-sá
	dHu-wa-wa ri-ig-ma-sú a-bu-bu
	pi-sú dBil-gi-ma na-pi-su mu-tum
	am-mi-nim tah-si-ih an-ni-a-am e-pi-sá
	ga-ba-al-la ma-ha-ar sú-pa-at dHu-wa-wa
	is-me-e-ma dGis zi-ki-ir ma-li-[ki]-sú
	ip-pa-al-sa-am-ma i-si-ih a-na ib-[ri-sú]
	i-na-an-na ib-[ri] ki-a-am [a-ga-ab-bi]
	a-pa-al-ah-sú-ma a-[al-la-ak a-na kisti]
	[lu]ul-[lik it-ti-ka a-na ki-is-ti iserini(?)]


(About five lines missing.)


	........................ -ma
	li ............... -ka
	ilu-ka li(?) ..............-ka
	harrana li-sá-[tir-ka a-na sú-ul-mi]
	a-na kar sá [Urukki ri-bi-tim]
	ka-mi-is-ma dGis [ma-ha-ar dSamas(?)]
	a-wa-at i-ga-ab- [bu-sú-ma]
	a-al-la-ak dSamas katâ-[ka a-sa-bat]
	ul-la-nu lu-us-li-ma na-pi-[is-ti]
	te-ir-ra-an-ni a-na kar i-[na Urukki]
	si-il-[la]m sú-ku-un [a-na ia-a-si(?)]
	is-si-ma dGis ib-[ri.....]
	te-ir-ta-sú ..........
	is(?) ..............
	tam ................
	........................
	i-nu(?)-[ma] ..................


(About two lines missing.)


Col. VI.

	[a-na-ku] dGis [i-ik]-ka-di ma-tum
	........... harrana sá la al-[kam] ma-ti-ma
	.... a-ka-lu ..... la(?) i-di
	[ul-la-nu] lu-us-li-[mu] a-na-ku
	[lu-ud-lul]-ka i-na [h]u-ud li-ib-bi
	...... [sú]-ku-ut-[ti] la-li-ka
	[lu-se-sib(?)] - ka i-na kussêmes
	....................... ú-nu-su
	[bêlêmes(?)ú-ti-ir]-ru ra-bu-tum
	[ka-as-tum] ù is-pa-tum
	[i-na] ga-ti is-ku-nu
	[il-]te-ki pa-si
	....... -ri is-pa-as-su
	..... [a-na] ili sá-ni-tam
	[it-ti pa(?)] - tar-[sú] i-na si-ip-pi-sú
	........ i-ip-pu-sú a-la-kam
	[sa]-nis ú-ga-ra-bu dGis
	[a-di ma]-ti tu-ut-te-ir a-na libbi Urukki
	[si-bu]-tum i-ka-ra-bu-sú
	[a-na] harrani i-ma-li-ku dGis
	[la t]a-at-kal dGis a-na e-[mu]-ki-ka
	[a-]ka-lu sú-wa-ra-ma ú-sur ra-ma-an-ka
	[li]-il-lik dEn-ki-du i-na pa-ni-ka
	[ur-ha]-am a-we-ir a-lik harrana(-na)
	[a-di] sá kisti ni-ri-bi-tim
	[sá(?)] [d]Hu-wa-wa ka-li-sú-nu si-ip-pi-ih(?)-sú
	[sa(?)a-lik] mah-ra tap-pa-a ú-sá-lim
	[harrana](-na)-sú sú-wa-ra-[ma ú-sur ra-ma-na-ka]
	[li-sak-sid]-ka ir-[ni-ta]-ka dSamas
	[ta]-ak-bi-a-at pi-ka li-kal-li-ma i-na-ka
	li-ip-ti-ku pa-da-nam pi-hi-tam
	harrana li-is-ta-zi-ik a-na ki-ib-si-ka
	sá-di-a li-is-ta-zi-ik a-na sêpi-ka
	mu-si-it-ka aw-a-at ta-ha-du-ú
	li-ib-la-ma dLugal-ban-da li-iz-zi-iz-ka
	i-na ir-ni-ti-ka
	ki-ma si-ih-ri ir-ni-ta-ka-ma lus-mida(-da)
	i-na na-ri sá dHu-wa-wa sá tu-sa-ma-ru
	mi-zi si-pi-ka
	i-na bat-ba-ti-ka hi-ri bu-ur-tam
	lu-ka-a-a-nu mê ellu i-na na-di-ka
	[ka-]su-tim me-e a-na dSamas ta-na-di
	[li-is]ta-ha-sa-as dLugal-ban-da
	[dEn-ki-]du pi-su i-pu-sá-am-ma, iz-za-kàr a-na dGis
	[is(?)]-tu(?) ta-ás-dan-nu e-pu-us a-la-kam
	[la pa]la-ah libbi-ka ia-ti tu-uk-la-ni
	[sú-ku-]un i-di-a-am sú-pa-as-su
	[harrana(?)]sá dHu-wa-wa it-ta-la-ku
	.......... ki-bi-ma te-[ir]-sú-nu-ti


(Three lines missing.)


L.E.

	.............. nam-ma-la
	............... il-li-ku it-ti-ia
	............... ba-ku-nu-si-im
	......... [ul]-la(?)-nu i-na hu-ud li-ib-bi
	[i-na se-me-e] an-ni-a ga-ba-sú
	e-dis harrana(?) us-te-[zi-ik]
	a-lik dGis lu-[ul-lik a-na pa-ni-ka]
	li-lik il-ka ..........
	li-sá-ak-lim-[ka harrana] ......
	dGis ù[dEn-ki-du] .......
	mu-di-es ..........
	bi-ri-[su-nu] ........




TRANSLATION.


(About ten lines missing.)


Col. I.

	.................. (my friend?)
	[Something] that is exceedingly difficult,
	[Why] dost thou desire
	[to do this?]
	.... something (?) that is very [difficult (?)],
	[Why dost thou] desire
	[to go down to the forest]?
	A message [they carried] among [men]
	They carried about.
	They made a ....
	.............. they brought
	..............................
	..............................


(About 17 lines missing.)


	.............................
	................... my friend
	................ they raised .....
	answer [they returned.]
	[To] the woman
	They proceeded to the overthrowing



Col. II.

(About eleven lines missing.)

	.......... name(?) .............
	[The one who is] a rival [to him]
	subdue and ................
	Wailing ................
	The mother [of Gish, who knows everything]
	Before [Shamash raised her hand]
	Who
	Now(?) [why]
	hast thou stirred up the heart for my son,
	[Restlessness imposed upon him (?)]
	............................


(About four lines missing.)


	The eyes [of Enkidu filled with tears].
	[He clutched] his heart;
	[Sadly(?)] he sighed.
	[The eyes of En]kidu filled with tears.
	[He clutched] his heart;
	[Sadly(?)] he sighed.
	The face [of Gish was grieved].
	[He spoke] to Enkidu:
	["My friend, why are] thy eyes
	[Filled with tears]?
	Thy [heart clutched]
	Dost thou sigh [sadly(?)]?"
	[Enkidu opened his mouth] and
	spoke to Gish:
	"Attacks, my friend,
	have exhausted my strength(?).
	My arms are lame,
	my strength has become weak."
	Gish opened his mouth and
	spoke to Enkidu:


(About four lines missing.)



Col. III.

	..... [until] Huwawa, [the terrible],
	........................
	............ [I destroyed].
	[I will go down to the] cedar forest,
	................... the jungle
	............... tambourine (?)
	................ I will open it.
	Enkidu opened his mouth and
	spoke to Gish:
	"Know, my friend, in the mountain,
	when I moved about with the cattle
	to a distance of one double hour into the heart of the forest,
	[Alone?] I penetrated within it,
	[To] Huwawa, whose roar is a flood,
	whose mouth is fire,
	whose breath is death.
	Why dost thou desire
	To do this?
	To advance towards
	the dwelling(?) of Huwawa?"
	Gish opened his mouth and
	[spoke to Enkidu:
	"... [the covering(?)] I will destroy.
	....[in the forest]
	....................
	....................
	To .................
	The dwelling [of Huwawa]
	The axe ..........
	Thou ..........
	I will [go down to the forest]."
	Enkidu opened his mouth and
	spoke to [Gish:]
	"When [together(?)] we go down
	To the [cedar] forest,
	whose guardian, O warrior Gish,
	a power(?) without [rest(?)],
	Huwawa, an offspring(?) of ....
	Adad ......................
	He ........................



Col. IV.

	To keep safe [the cedar forest],
	[Enlil has decreed for it] seven-fold terror."
	Gish [opened] his mouth and
	spoke to [Enkidu]:
	"Whoever, my friend, overcomes (?) [terror(?)],
	it is well (for him) with Shamash for the length of [his days].
	Mankind will speak of it at the gates.
	Wherever terror is to be faced,
	Thou, forsooth, art in fear of death.
	Thy prowess lacks strength.
	I will go before thee.
	Though thy mouth calls to me; "thou art afraid to approach."
	If I fall, I will establish my name.
	Gish, the corpse(?) of Huwawa, the terrible one,
	has snatched (?) from the time that
	My offspring was born in ......
	The lion restrained (?) thee, all of which thou knowest.
	........................
	.............. thee and
	................ open (?)
	........ like a shepherd(?) .....
	[When thou callest to me], thou afflictest my heart.
	I am determined
	[to enter] the cedar forest.
	I will, indeed, establish my name.
	[The work(?)], my friend, to the artisans I will entrust.
	[Weapons(?)] let them mould before us."
	[The work(?)] to the artisans they entrusted.
	A dwelling(?) they assigned to the workmen.
	Hatchets the masters moulded:
	Axes of 3 talents each they moulded.
	Lances the masters moulded;
	Blades(?) of 2 talents each,
	A spear of 30 mina each attached to them.
	The hilt of the lances of 30 mina in gold
	Gish and [Enki]du were equipped with 10 talents each
	.......... in Erech seven its ....
	....... the people heard and ....
	[proclaimed(?)] in the street of Erech of the plazas.
	..... Gis [brought him out(?)]
	[In the street (?)] of Erech of the plazas
	[Enkidu(?)] sat before him
	..... [thus] he spoke:
	"........ [of Erech] of the plazas
	............ [before him]



Col. V.

	Gish of whom they speak, let me see!
	whose name fills the lands.
	I will lure him to the cedar forest,
	Like a strong offspring of Erech.
	I will let the land hear (that)
	I am determined to lure (him) in the cedar (forest) [155].
	A name I will establish."
	The elders of Erech of the plazas
	brought word to Gish:
	"Thou art young, O Gish, and thy heart carries thee away.
	Thou dost not know what thou proposest to do.
	We hear that Huwawa is enraged.
	Who has ever opposed his weapon?
	To one [double hour] in the heart of the forest,
	Who has ever penetrated into it?
	Huwawa, whose roar is a deluge,
	whose mouth is fire, whose breath is death.
	Why dost thou desire to do this?
	To advance towards the dwelling (?) of Huwawa?"
	Gish heard the report of his counsellors.
	He saw and cried out to [his] friend:
	"Now, my friend, thus [I speak].
	I fear him, but [I will go to the cedar forest(?)];
	I will go [with thee to the cedar forest].


(About five lines missing.)


	..............................
	May ................... thee
	Thy god may (?) ........ thee;
	On the road may he guide [thee in safety(?)].
	At the rampart of [Erech of the plazas],
	Gish kneeled down [before Shamash(?)],
	A word then he spoke [to him]:
	"I will go, O Shamash, [thy] hands [I seize hold of].
	When I shall have saved [my life],
	Bring me back to the rampart [in Erech].
	Grant protection [to me ?]!"
	Gish cried, "[my friend] ......
	His oracle ..................
	........................
	........................
	........................
	When (?)


(About two lines missing.)


Col. VI.

	"[I(?)] Gish, the strong one (?) of the land.
	...... A road which I have never [trodden];
	........ food ...... do not (?) know.
	[When] I shall have succeeded,
	[I will praise] thee in the joy of my heart,
	[I will extol (?)] the superiority of thy power,
	[I will seat thee] on thrones."
	.................. his vessel(?)
	The masters [brought the weapons (?)];
	[bow] and quiver
	They placed in hand.
	[He took] the hatchet.
	................. his quiver.
	..... [to] the god(?) a second time
	[With his lance(?)] in his girdle,
	......... they took the road.
	[Again] they approached Gish!
	"[How long] till thou returnest to Erech?"
	[Again the elders] approached him.
	[For] the road they counselled Gis:
	"Do [not] rely, O Gish, on thy strength!
	Provide food and save thyself!
	Let Enkidu go before thee.
	He is acquainted with the way, he has trodden the road
	[to] the entrance of the forest.
	of Huwawa all of them his ......
	[He who goes] in advance will save the companion.
	Provide for his [road] and [save thyself]!
	(May) Shamash [carry out] thy endeavor!
	May he make thy eyes see the prophecy of thy mouth.
	May he track out (for thee) the closed path!
	May he level the road for thy treading!
	May he level the mountain for thy foot!
	During thy night [156] the word that wilt rejoice
	may Lugal-banda convey, and stand by thee
	in thy endeavor!
	Like a youth may he establish thy endeavor!
	In the river of Huwawa as thou plannest,
	wash thy feet!
	Round about thee dig a well!
	May there be pure water constantly for thy libation
	Goblets of water pour out to Shamash!
	[May] Lugal-banda take note of it!"
	[Enkidu] opened his mouth and spoke to Gish:
	"[Since thou art resolved] to take the road.
	Thy heart [be not afraid,] trust to me!
	[Confide] to my hand his dwelling(?)!"
	[on the road to] Huwawa they proceeded.
	....... command their return


(Three lines missing.)


L.E.

	............... were filled.
	.......... they will go with me.
	...............................
	.................. joyfully.
	[Upon hearing] this word of his,
	Alone, the road(?) [he levelled].
	"Go, O Gish [I will go before thee(?)].
	May thy god(?) go .........
	May he show [thee the road !] .....
	Gish and [Enkidu]
	Knowingly ....................
	Between [them] ................




Lines 13-14 (also line 16). See for the restoration, lines 112-13.

Line 62. For the restoration, see Jensen, p. 146 (Tablet III, 2a,9.)

Lines 64-66. Restored on the basis of the Assyrian version,
_ib_. line 10.

Line 72. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 4, 10, and restore at the
end of this line _di-im-tam_ as in our text, instead of Jensen's
conjecture.

Lines 74, 77 and 83. The restoration _zar-bis_, suggested by the
Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 4, 4.

Lines 76 and 82. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 18.

Line 78. _(ú-ta-ab-bil_ from _abâlu_, "grieve" or
"darkened." Cf. _us-ta-kal_ (Assyrian version, _ib_. line 9), where,
perhaps, we are to restore _it-ta-[bil pa-ni-sú]_.

Line 87. _us-ta-li-pa_ from _elêpu_, "exhaust." See Muss-Arnolt,
_Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 49a.

Line 89. Cf. Assyrian version, _ib_. line 11, and restore the end of
the line there to _i-ni-is_, as in our text.

Line 96. For _dapinu_ as an epithet of Huwawa, see Assyrian version,
Tablet III, 2a, 17, and 3a, 12. _Dapinu_ occurs also as a description
of an ox (Rm 618, Bezold, _Catalogue of the Kouyunjik Tablets_, etc.,
p. 1627).

Line 98. The restoration on the basis of _ib._ III, 2a, 18.

Lines 96-98 may possibly form a parallel to _ib_. lines 17-18,
which would then read about as follows: "Until I overcome Huwawa,
the terrible, and all the evil in the land I shall have destroyed." At
the same time, it is possible that we are to restore _[lu-ul]-li-ik_
at the end of line 98.

Line 101. _lilissu_ occurs in the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6, 36.

Line 100. For _halbu_, "jungle," see Assyrian version, Tablet V, 3,
39 (p. 160).

Lines 109-111. These lines enable us properly to restore Assyrian
version, Tablet IV, 5, 3 = Haupt's edition, p. 83 (col. 5, 3). No
doubt the text read as ours _mu-tum_ (or _mu-u-tum_) _na-pis-su_.

Line 115. _supatu_, which occurs again in line 199 and also line
275._sú-pa-as-su_ (= _supat-su_) must have some such meaning as
"dwelling," demanded by the context. [Dhorme refers me to _OLZ_ 1916,
p. 145].

Line 129. Restored on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet IV,
6, 38.

Line 131. The restoration _muktablu_, tentatively suggested on the
basis of CT XVIII, 30, 7b, where _muktablu_, "warrior," appears as
one of the designations of Gilgamesh, followed by _a-lik pa-na_,
"the one who goes in advance," or "leader"--the phrase so constantly
used in the Huwawa episode.

Line 132. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet I, 5, 18-19.

Lines 136-137. These two lines restored on the basis of Jensen IV, 5,
2 and 5. The variant in the Assyrian version, _sá nise_ (written Ukumes
in one case and Lumes in the other), for the numeral 7 in our text
to designate a terror of the largest and most widespread character,
is interesting. The number 7 is similarly used as a designation of
Gilgamesh, who is called _Esigga imin_, "seven-fold strong," i.e.,
supremely strong (CT XVIII, 30, 6-8). Similarly, Enkidu, _ib._ line
10, is designated _a-rá imina_, "seven-fold."

Line 149. A difficult line because of the uncertainty of the reading
at the beginning of the following line. The most obvious meaning of
_mi-it-tu_ is "corpse," though in the Assyrian version _salamtu_
is used (Assyrian version, Tablet V, 2, 42). On the other hand,
it is possible--as Dr. Lutz suggested to me--that _mittu_, despite
the manner of writing, is identical with _mittú_, the name of a
divine weapon, well-known from the Assyrian creation myth (Tablet
IV, 130), and other passages. The combination _mit-tu sá-ku-ú-_,
"lofty weapon," in the Bilingual text IV, R2, 18 No. 3, 31-32, would
favor the meaning "weapon" in our passage, since _[sá]-ku-tu_ is a
possible restoration at the beginning of line 150. However, the writing
_mi-it-ti_ points too distinctly to a derivative of the stem _mâtu_,
and until a satisfactory explanation of lines 150-152 is forthcoming,
we must stick to the meaning "corpse" and read the verb _il-ku-ut_.

Line 152. The context suggests "lion" for the puzzling _la-bu_.

Line 156. Another puzzling line. Dr. Clay's copy is an accurate
reproduction of what is distinguishable. At the close of the line
there appears to be a sign written over an erasure.

Line 158. _[ga-ti lu-]us-kun_ as in line 186, literally, "I will
place my hand," i.e., I purpose, I am determined.

Line 160. The restoration on the basis of the parallel line 187. Note
the interesting phrase, "writing a name" in the sense of acquiring
"fame."

Line 161. The _kiskattê_, "artisans," are introduced also in the
Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 187, to look at the enormous size and
weight of the horns of the slain divine bull. See for other passages
Muss-Arnolt _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 450b. At the beginning of this
line, we must seek for the same word as in line 163.

Line 162. While the restoration _belê_, "weapon," is purely
conjectural, the context clearly demands some such word. I choose
_belê_ in preference to _kakkê_, in view of the Assyrian version,
Tablet VI, 1.

Line 163. _Putuku_ (or _putukku_) from _patâku_ would be an appropriate
word for the fabrication of weapons.

Line 165. The _rabûtim_ here, as in line 167, I take as the "master
mechanics" as contrasted with the _ummianu_, "common workmen," or
journeymen. A parallel to this forging of the weapons for the two
heroes is to be found in the Sumerian fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic
published by Langdon, _Historical and Religious Texts from the Temple
Library of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914), No. 55, 1-15.

Lines 168-170 describe the forging of the various parts of the
lances for the two heroes. The _sipru_ is the spear point Muss-Arnolt,
_Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 886b; the _isid patri_ is clearly the "hilt,"
and the _meselitum_ I therefore take as the "blade" proper. The word
occurs here for the first time, so far as I can see. For 30 minas,
see Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 189, as the weight of the two horns
of the divine bull. Each axe weighing 3 _biltu_, and the lance with
point and hilt 3 _biltu_ we would have to assume 4 _biltu_ for each
_pasu_, so as to get a total of 10 _biltu_ as the weight of the weapons
for each hero. The lance is depicted on seal cylinders representing
Gilgamesh and Enkidu, for example, Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, No. 199,
and also in Nos. 184 and 191 in the field, with the broad hilt;
and in an enlarged form in No. 648. Note the clear indication of the
hilt. The two figures are Gilgamesh and Enkidu--not two Gilgameshes,
as Ward assumed. See above, page 34. A different weapon is the club or
mace, as seen in Ward, Nos. 170 and 173. This appears also to be the
weapon which Gilgamesh holds in his hand on the colossal figure from
the palace of Sargon (Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_,
Pl. LVII), though it has been given a somewhat grotesque character by
a perhaps intentional approach to the scimitar, associated with Marduk
(see Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, Chap. XXVII). The exact determination of
the various weapons depicted on seal-cylinders merits a special study.

Line 181. Begins a speech of Huwawa, extending to line 187, reported
to Gish by the elders (line 188-189), who add a further warning to
the youthful and impetuous hero.

Line 183. _lu-uk-sú-su_ (also l. 186), from _akâsu_, "drive on" or
"lure on," occurs on the Pennsylvania tablet, line 135, _uk-ki-si_,
"lure on" or "entrap," which Langdon erroneously renders "take away"
and thereby misses the point completely. See the comment to the line
of the Pennsylvania tablet in question.

Line 192. On the phrase _sanû bunu_, "change of countenance," in the
sense of "enraged," see the note to the Pennsylvania tablet, l.31.

Line 194. _nu-ma-at_ occurs in a tablet published by Meissner,
_Altbabyl. Privatrecht_, No. 100, with _bît abi_, which shows that the
total confine of a property is meant; here, therefore, the "interior"
of the forest or heart. It is hardly a "by-form" of _nuptum_ as
Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 690b, and others have supposed,
though _nu-um-tum_ in one passage quoted by Muss-Arnolt, _ib._ p. 705a,
may have arisen from an aspirate pronunciation of the _p_ in _nubtum_.

Line 215. The kneeling attitude of prayer is an interesting
touch. It symbolizes submission, as is shown by the description of
Gilgamesh's defeat in the encounter with Enkidu (Pennsylvania tablet,
l. 227), where Gilgamesh is represented as forced to "kneel" to the
ground. Again in the Assyrian version, Tablet V, 4, 6, Gilgamesh kneels
down (though the reading _ka-mis_ is not certain) and has a vision.

Line 229. It is much to be regretted that this line is so badly
preserved, for it would have enabled us definitely to restore the
opening line of the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh Epic. The
fragment published by Jeremias in his appendix to his _Izdubar-Nimrod_,
Plate IV, gives us the end of the colophon line to the Epic, reading
......... _di ma-a-ti_ (cf. _ib._, Pl. I, 1.  ... _a-ti_). Our text
evidently reproduces the same phrase and enables us to supply _ka_,
as well as the name of the hero Gish of which there are distinct
traces. The missing word, therefore, describes the hero as the
ruler, or controller of the land. But what are the two signs before
_ka_? A participial form from _pakâdu_, which one naturally thinks
of, is impossible because of the _ka_, and for the same reason one
cannot supply the word for shepherd (_nakidu_). One might think of
_ka-ak-ka-du_, except that _kakkadu_ is not used for "head" in the
sense of "chief" of the land. I venture to restore _[i-ik-]ka-di_,
"strong one." Our text at all events disposes of Haupt's conjecture
_is-di ma-a-ti_ (_JAOS_ 22, p. 11), "Bottom of the earth," as also of
Ungnad's proposed _[a-di pa]-a-ti_, "to the ends" (Ungnad-Gressmann,
_Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 6, note), or a reading _di-ma-a-ti_,
"pillars." The first line of the Assyrian version would now read


	_sá nak-ba i-mu-ru [d_Gis-gi(n)-mas i-ik-ka]-di ma-a-ti,


i.e., "The one who saw everything, Gilgamesh the strong one (?) of
the land."

We may at all events be quite certain that the name of the hero
occurred in the first line and that he was described by some epithet
indicating his superior position.

Lines 229-235 are again an address of Gilgamesh to the sun-god, after
having received a favorable "oracle" from the god (line 222). The
hero promises to honor and to celebrate the god, by erecting thrones
for him.

Lines 237-244 describe the arming of the hero by the "master"
craftsman. In addition to the _pasu_ and _patru_, the bow (?) and
quiver are given to him.

Line 249 is paralleled in the new fragment of the Assyrian version
published by King in _PSBA_ 1914, page 66 (col. 1, 2), except that
this fragment adds _gi-mir_ to _e-mu-ki-ka_.

Lines 251-252 correspond to column 1, 6-8, of King's fragment, with
interesting variations "battle" and "fight" instead of "way" and
"road," which show that in the interval between the old Babylonian and
the Assyrian version, the real reason why Enkidu should lead the way,
namely, because he knows the country in which Huwawa dwells (lines
252-253), was supplemented by describing Enkidu also as being more
experienced in battle than Gilgamesh.

Line 254. I am unable to furnish a satisfactory rendering for this
line, owing to the uncertainty of the word at the end. Can it be
"his household," from the stem which in Hebrew gives us MISEPOHOH
"family?"

Line 255. Is paralleled by col. 1, 4, of King's new fragment. The
episode of Gish and Enkidu proceeding to Ninsun, the mother of Gish,
to obtain her counsel, which follows in King's fragment, appears to
have been omitted in the old Babylonian version. Such an elaboration of
the tale is exactly what we should expect as it passed down the ages.

Line 257. Our text shows that _irnittu_ (lines 257, 264, 265) means
primarily "endeavor," and then success in one's endeavor, or "triumph."

Lines 266-270. Do not appear to refer to rites performed after a
victory, as might at a first glance appear, but merely voice the hope
that Gish will completely take possession of Huwawa's territory, so
as to wash up after the fight in Huwawa's own stream; and the hope
is also expressed that he may find pure water in Huwawa's land in
abundance, to offer a libation to Shamash.

Line 275. _On sú-pa-as-su_ = _supat-su_, see above, to l. 115.


[Note on Sabitum (above, p. 11)

In a communication before the Oriental Club of Philadelphia (Feb. 10,
1920), Prof. Haupt made the suggestion that _sa-bi-tum_ (or _tu_),
hitherto regarded as a proper name, is an epithet describing the
woman who dwells at the seashore which Gilgamesh in the course of his
wanderings reaches, as an "innkeeper". It is noticeable that the term
always appears without the determinative placed before proper names;
and since in the old Babylonian version (so far as preserved) and
in the Assyrian version, the determinative is invariably used, its
consistent absence in the case of _sabitum_ (Assyrian Version, Tablet
X, 1, 1, 10, 15, 20; 2, 15-16 [_sa-bit_]; Meissner fragment col. 2,
11-12) speaks in favor of Professor Haupt's suggestion. The meaning
"innkeeper", while not as yet found in Babylonian-Assyrian literature
is most plausible, since we have _sabu_ as a general name for 'drink',
though originally designating perhaps more specifically sesame wine
(Muss-Arnolt, Assyrian Dictionary, p. 745b) or distilled brandy,
according to Prof. Haupt. Similarly, in the Aramaic dialects, _se_bha
is used for "to drink" and in the Pael to "furnish drink". Muss-Arnolt
in his Assyrian Dictionary, 746b, has also recognized that _sabitum_
was originally an epithet and compares the Aramaic _se_bhoyâthâ(p1)
"barmaids". In view of the bad reputation of inns in ancient Babylonia
as brothels, it would be natural for an epithet like _sabitum_ to
become the equivalent to "public" women, just as the inn was a "public"
house. Sabitum would, therefore, have the same force as _samhatu_
(the "harlot"), used in the Gilgamesh Epic by the side of _harimtu_
"woman" (see the note to line 46 of Pennsylvania Tablet). The Sumerian
term for the female innkeeper is Sal Gestinna "the woman of the wine,"
known to us from the Hammurabi Code §§108-111. The bad reputation of
inns is confirmed by these statutes, for the house of the Sal Gestinna
is a gathering place for outlaws. The punishment of a female devotee
who enters the "house of a wine woman" (bît Sal Gestinna §110) is
death. It was not "prohibition" that prompted so severe a punishment,
but the recognition of the purpose for which a devotee would enter
such a house of ill repute. The speech of the _sabitum_ or innkeeper
to Gilgamesh (above, p. 12) was, therefore, an invitation to stay with
her, instead of seeking for life elsewhere. Viewed as coming from a
"public woman" the address becomes significant. The invitation would
be parallel to the temptation offered by the _harimtu_ in the first
tablet of the Enkidu, and to which Enkidu succumbs. The incident
in the tablet would, therefore, form a parallel in the adventures
of Gilgamesh to the one that originally belonged to the Enkidu
cycle. Finally, it is quite possible that _sabitum_ is actually the
Akkadian equivalent of the Sumerian Sal Gestinna, though naturally
until this equation is confirmed by a syllabary or by other direct
evidence, it remains a conjecture. See now also Albright's remarks
on Sabitum in the A. J. S. L. 36, pp. 269 _seq._]





CORRECTIONS TO THE TEXT OF LANGDON'S EDITION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
TABLET. [157]



Column 1.


5. Read _it-lu-tim_ ("heroes") instead of _id-da-tim_ ("omens").

6. Read _ka-ka-bu_ instead of _ka-ka-'a_. This disposes of Langdon's
note 2 on p. 211.

9 Read _ú-ni-is-sú-ma_, "I became weak" (from _enêsu_, "weak") instead
of _ilam is-sú-ma_, "He bore a net"(!). This disposes of Langdon's
note 5 on page 211.

10. Read _Urukki_ instead of _ad-ki_. Langdon's note 7 is wrong.

12. Langdon's note 8 is wrong. _ú-um-mid-ma pu-ti_ does not mean
"he attained my front."

14. Read _ab-ba-la-ás-sú_ instead of _at-ba-la-ás-sú_.

15. Read _mu-di-a-at_ instead of _mu-u-da-a-at_.

20. Read _ta-ha-du_ instead of an impossible _[sa]-ah-ha-ta_--two
mistakes in one word. Supply _kima Sal_ before _tahadu_.

22. Read _ás-sú_ instead of _sú_; and at the end of the line read
_[tu-ut]-tu-ú-ma_ instead of _sú-ú-zu_.

23. Read _ta-tar-ra-[as-su]_.

24. Read _[us]-ti-nim-ma_ instead of _[is]-ti-lam-ma_.

28. Read at the beginning _sá_ instead of _ina_.

29. Langdon's text and transliteration of the first word do not
tally. Read _ha-as-si-nu_, just as in line 31.

32. Read _ah-ta-du_ ("I rejoiced") instead of _ah-ta-ta_.



Column 2.


4. Read at the end of the line _di-da-sá(?) ip-tí-[e]_ instead of
_Di-?-al-lu-un_ (!).

5. Supply _d_En-ki-du at the beginning. Traces point to this reading.

19. Read _[gi]-it-ma-[lu]_ after _d_Gis, as suggested by the Assyrian
version, Tablet I, 4, 38, where _emûku_ ("strength") replaces _nepistu_
of our text.

20. Read _at-[ta kima Sal ta-ha]-bu-[ub]-sú_.

21. Read _ta-[ra-am-sú ki-ma]_.

23. Read as one word _ma-a-ag-ri-i-im_ ("accursed"), spelled in
characteristic Hammurabi fashion, instead of dividing into two words
_ma-a-ak_ and _ri-i-im_, as Langdon does, who suggests as a translation
"unto the place yonder(?) of the shepherd"(!).

24. Read _im-ta-har_ instead of _im-ta-gar_.

32. Supply _ili_(?) after _ki-ma_.

33. Read _sá-ri-i-im_ as one word.

35. Read _i-na [ás]-ri-sú [im]-hu-ru_.

36. Traces at beginning point to either _ù_ or _ki_ (=
_itti_). Restoration of lines 36-39 (perhaps to be distributed into
five lines) on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2-5.



Column 3.


14. Read _Kàs_ (= _sikaram_, "wine") _si-ti_, "drink," as in line 17,
instead of _bi-is-ti_, which leads Langdon to render this perfectly
simple line "of the conditions and the fate of the land"(!).

21. Read _it-tam-ru_ instead of _it-ta-bir-ru_.

22. Supply _[lù_Sú]-I.

29. Read _ú-gi-ir-ri_ from _garû_ ("attack), instead of separating into
_ú_ and _gi-ir-ri_, as Langdon does, who translates "and the lion." The
sign used can _never_ stand for the copula! Nor is _girru_, "lion!"

30. Read _Síbmes_, "shepherds," instead of _sab-[si]-es_!

31. _sib-ba-ri_ is not "mountain goat," nor can _ut-tap-pi-is_ mean
"capture." The first word means "dagger," and the second "he drew out."

33. Read _it-ti-[lu] na-ki-[di-e]_, instead of _itti immer nakie_
which yields no sense. Langdon's rendering, even on the basis of his
reading of the line, is a grammatical monstrosity.

35. Read _gis_ instead of _wa_.

37. Read perhaps _a-na [na-ki-di-e i]- za-ak-ki-ir_.



Column 4.


4. The first sign is clearly _iz_, not _ta_, as Langdon has it in
note 1 on page 216.

9. The fourth sign is _su_, not _sú_.

10. Separate _e-es_ ("why") from the following. Read _ta-hi-[il]_,
followed, perhaps, by _la_. The last sign is not certain; it may
be _ma_.

11. Read _lim-nu_ instead of _mi-nu_. In the same line read _a-la-ku
ma-na-ah-[ti]-ka_ instead of _a-la-ku-zu_(!) _na-ah ... ma_, which,
naturally, Langdon cannot translate.

16. Read _e-lu-tim_ instead of _pa-a-ta-tim_. The first sign of
the line, _tu_, is not certain, because apparently written over an
erasure. The second sign may be _a_. Some one has scratched the tablet
at this point.

18. Read _uk-la-at âli_ (?) instead of _ug-ad-ad-lil_, which gives
no possible sense!



Column 5.


2. Read _[wa]-ar-ki-sú_.

8. Read _i-ta-wa-a_ instead of _i-ta-me-a_. The word _pi-it-tam_
belongs to line 9! The sign _pi_ is unmistakable. This disposes of
note 1 on p. 218.

9. Read Mi = _salmu_, "image." This disposes of Langdon's note 2 on
page 218. Of six notes on this page, four are wrong.

11. The first sign appears to be _si_ and the second _ma_. At the
end we are perhaps to supply _[sá-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul_, on the basis
of the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 45, _sá-ki-i pu-[uk-ku-ul]_.

12. Traces at end of line suggest _i-pa(?)-ka-du_.

13. Read _i-[na mâti da-an e-mu]-ki i-wa_.

18. Read _ur-sá-nu_ instead of _ip-sá-nu_.

19. Read _i-sá-ru_ instead of _i-tu-ru_.

24. The reading _it-ti_ after _d_Gis is suggested by the traces.

25. Read _in-ni-[ib-bi-it]_ at the end of the line.

28. Read _ip-ta-ra-[as a-la]-ak-tam_ at the end of the line, as in
the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 37.

30. The conjectural restoration is based on the Assyrian version,
Tablet IV, 2, 36.



Column 6.


3. Read _i-na si-ri-[sú]_.

5. Supply _[il-li-ik]_.

21. Langdon's text has a superfluous _ga_.

22. Read _uz-za-sú_, "his anger," instead of _us-sa-sú_, "his javelin"
(!).

23. Read _i-ni-ih i-ra-as-su_, i.e., "his breast was quieted," in
the sense of "his anger was appeased."

31. Read _ri-es-ka_ instead of _ri-es-su_.

In general, it should be noted that the indications of the number of
lines missing at the bottom of columns 1-3 and at the top of columns
4-6 as given by Langdon are misleading. Nor should he have drawn
any lines at the bottom of columns 1-3 as though the tablet were
complete. Besides in very many cases the space indications of what
is missing within a line are inaccurate. Dr. Langdon also omitted to
copy the statement on the edge: _4 sú-si_, i.e., "240 lines;" and
in the colophon he mistranslates _sú-tu-ur_, "written," as though
from _satâru_, "write," whereas the form is the permansive III, 1,
of _atâru_, "to be in excess of." The sign _tu_ never has the value
_tu_! In all, Langdon has misread the text or mistransliterated it in
over forty places, and of the 204 preserved lines he has mistranslated
about one-half.





NOTES


[1] See for further details of this royal library, Jastrow,
_Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 21 _seq_.

[2] _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_ (Leipzig, 1884-1891), supplemented
by Haupt's article _Die Zwölfte Tafel des Babylonischen Nimrodepos_ in
_BA_ I, pp. 48-79, containing the fragments of the twelfth tablet. The
fragments of the Epic in Ashurbanapal's library--some sixty--represent
portions of several copies. Sin-likî-unnini--perhaps from Erech,
since this name appears as that of a family in tablets from Erech
(see Clay, _Legal Documents from Erech_, Index, p. 73)--is named in a
list of texts (K 9717--Haupt's edition No. 51, line 18) as the editor
of the Epic, though probably he was not the only compiler. Since the
publication of Haupt's edition, a few fragments were added by him
as an appendix to Alfred Jeremias _Izdubar-Nimrod_ (Leipzig, 1891)
Plates II-IV, and two more are embodied in Jensen's transliteration
of all the fragments in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_ VI;
pp. 116-265, with elaborate notes, pp. 421-531. Furthermore a
fragment, obtained from supplementary excavations at Kouyunjik,
has been published by L. W. King in his _Supplement to the Catalogue
of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British
Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum_
No. 56 and _PSBA_ Vol. 36, pp. 64-68. Recently a fragment of the 6th
tablet from the excavations at Assur has been published by Ebeling,
_Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts_ No. 115, and one may
expect further portions to turn up.

The designation "Nimrod Epic" on the supposition that the hero of
the Babylonian Epic is identical with Nimrod, the "mighty hunter"
of Genesis 10, has now been generally abandoned, in the absence of
any evidence that the Babylonian hero bore a name like Nimrod. For
all that, the description of Nimrod as the "mighty hunter" and the
occurrence of a "hunter" in the Babylonian Epic (Assyrian version
Tablet I)--though he is not the hero--points to a confusion in
the Hebrew form of the borrowed tradition between Gilgamesh and
Nimrod. The latest French translation of the Epic is by Dhorme,
_Choix de Textes Religieux Assyro-Babyloniens_ (Paris, 1907),
pp. 182-325; the latest German translation by Ungnad-Gressmann,
_Das Gilgamesch-Epos_ (Göttingen, 1911), with a valuable analysis
and discussion. These two translations now supersede Jensen's
translation in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, which, however,
is still valuable because of the detailed notes, containing a wealth
of lexicographical material. Ungnad also gave a partial translation in
Gressmann-Ranke, _Altorientalische Texte and Bilder_ I, pp. 39-61. In
English, we have translations of substantial portions by Muss-Arnolt
in Harper's _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_ (New York, 1901),
pp. 324-368; by Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston,
1898), Chap. XXIII; by Clay in _Light on the Old Testament from Babel_,
pp. 78-84; by Rogers in _Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament_,
pp. 80-103; and most recently by Jastrow in _Sacred Books and Early
Literature of the East_ (ed. C. F. Horne, New York, 1917), Vol. I,
pp. 187-220.

[3] See Luckenbill in _JAOS_, Vol. 37, p. 452 _seq._ Prof. Clay,
it should be added, clings to the older reading, Hammurabi, which is
retained in this volume.

[4] _ZA_, Vol. 14, pp. 277-292.

[5] The survivor of the Deluge is usually designated as Ut-napishtim
in the Epic, but in one passage (Assyrian version, Tablet XI, 196),
he is designated as Atra-hasis "the very wise one." Similarly, in
a second version of the Deluge story, also found in Ashurbanapal's
library (IV R2 additions, p. 9, line 11). The two names clearly
point to two versions, which in accordance with the manner of ancient
compositions were merged into one. See an article by Jastrow in _ZA_,
Vol. 13, pp. 288-301.

[6] Published by Scheil in _Recueil des Travaux_, etc. Vol. 20,
pp. 55-58.

[7] The text does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, as the colophon,
differing from the one attached to the Epic, shows.

[8] _Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos_ (_MVAG_ 1902,
No. 1).

[9] On these variant forms of the two names see the discussion below,
p. 24.

[10] The passage is paralleled by Ecc. 9, 7-9. See Jastrow, _A Gentle
Cynic_, p. 172 _seq._

[11] Among the Nippur tablets in the collection of the University
of Pennsylvania Museum. The fragment was published by Dr. Poebel in
his _Historical and Grammatical Texts_ No. 23. See also Poebel in the
_Museum Journal_, Vol. IV, p. 47, and an article by Dr. Langdon in the
same Journal, Vol. VII, pp. 178-181, though Langdon fails to credit
Dr. Poebel with the discovery and publication of the important tablet.

[12] No. 55 in Langdon's _Historical and Religious Texts from the
Temple Library of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914).

[13] No. 5 in his _Sumerian Liturgical Texts_. (Philadelphia, 1917)

[14] See on this name below, p. 23.

[15] See further below, p. 37 _seq_.

[16] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, No. 1, and
Jastrow in _JAOS_, Vol. 36, pp. 122-131 and 274-299.

[17] See an article by Jastrow, _Sumerian and Akkadian Views of
Beginnings_ (_JAOS_ Vol. 36, pp. 274-299).

[18] See on this point Eduard Meyer, _Sumerier und Semiten in
Babylonien_ (Berlin, 1906), p. 107 _seq_., whose view is followed
in Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 121. See
also Clay, _Empire of the Amorites_ (Yale University Press, 1919),
p. 23 _et seq_.

[19] See the discussion below, p. 24 _seq_.

[20] Dr. Poebel published an article on the tablet in _OLZ_, 1914,
pp. 4-6, in which he called attention to the correct name for the
mother of Gilgamesh, which was settled by the tablet as Ninsun.

[21] _Historical Texts_ No. 2, Column 2, 26. See the discussion in
_Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123, _seq._

[22] See Fostat in _OLZ_, 1915, p. 367.

[23] _Publications of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Babylonian
Section_, Vol. X, No. 3 (Philadelphia, 1917). It is to be regretted
that Dr. Langdon should not have given full credit to Dr. Poebel for
his discovery of the tablet. He merely refers in an obscure footnote
to Dr. Poebel's having made a copy.

[24] E.g., in the very first note on page 211, and again in a note
on page 213.

[25] Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs _4 sú-si_ = 240 which
appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word
_sú-tu-ur_ in the colophon which he translated "written," taking
the word from a stem _satâru_, "write." The form _sú-tu-ur_ is III,
1, from _atâru_, "to be in excess of," and indicates, presumably,
that the text is a copy "enlarged" from an older original. See the
Commentary to the colophon, p. 86.

[26] _Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, p. 29.

[27] See below, p. 23.

[28] I follow the enumeration of tablets, columns and lines in Jensen's
edition, though some fragments appear to have been placed by him in
a wrong position.

[29] According to Bezold's investigation, _Verbalsuffixformen als
Alterskriterien babylonisch-assyrischer Inschriften_ (Heidelberg
Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Klasse, 1910, 9te Abhandlung), the
bulk of the tablets in Ashurbanapal's library are copies of originals
dating from about 1500 B.C. It does not follow, however, that all
the copies date from originals of the same period. Bezold reaches
the conclusion on the basis of various forms for verbal suffixes,
that the fragments from the Ashurbanapal Library actually date from
three distinct periods ranging from before c. 1450 to c. 700 B.C.

[30] "Before thou comest from the mountain, Gilgamesh in Erech will
see thy dreams," after which the dreams are recounted by the woman
to Enkidu. The expression "thy dreams" means here "dreams about
thee." (Tablet I, 5, 23-24).

[31] Lines 100-101.

[32] In a paper read before the American Oriental Society at New Haven,
April 4, 1918.

[33] See the commentary to col. 4 of the Yale tablet for further
details.

[34] This is no doubt the correct reading of the three signs which
used to be read Iz-tu-bar or Gish-du-bar. The first sign has commonly
the value Gish, the second can be read Gin or Gi (Brünnow No. 11900)
and the third Mash as well as Bar. See Ungnad in Ungnad-Gressmann,
_Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 76, and Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical
Texts_, p. 123.

[35] So also in Sumerian (Zimmern, _Sumerische Kultlieder aus
altbabylonischer Zeit_, No. 196, rev. 14 and 16.)

[36] The sign used, LUM (Brünnow No. 11183), could have the value hu
as well as hum.

[37] The addition "father-in-law of Moses" to the name Hobab b. Re'uel
in this passage must refer to Re'uel, and not to Hobab. In Judges 4,
11, the gloss "of the Bene Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses" must
be separated into two: (1) "Bene Hobab," and (2) "father-in-law of
Moses." The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or is
intended as a brief reminder that Hobab is identical with the son
of Re'uel.

[38] See his _List of Personal Names from the Temple School of
Nippur_, p. 122. _Hu-um-ba-bi-tu_ and _si-kin hu-wa-wa_ also occur
in Omen Texts (_CT_ XXVII, 4, 8-9 = Pl. 3, 17 = Pl. 6, 3-4 = _CT_
XXVIII, 14, 12). The contrast to _huwawa_ is _ligru_, "dwarf" (_CT_
XXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow, _Religion
Babyloniens und Assyriens_, II, p. 913, Note 7. Huwawa, therefore,
has the force of "monster."

[39] Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 111 _seq._

[40] Ungnad, 1. c. p. 77, called attention to this name, but failed
to draw the conclusion that Hu(m)baba therefore belongs to the West
and not to the East.

[41] First pointed out by Ungnad in _OLZ_ 1910, p. 306, on the basis
of _CT_ XVIII, 30, 10, where En-gi-dú appears in the column furnishing
_phonetic_ readings.

[42] See Clay _Amurru_, pp. 74, 129, etc.

[43] Tablet I, 2, 39-40; 3, 6-7 and 33-34; 4, 3-4.

[44] Tablet I, 2, 1 and IX, 2, 16. Note also the statement about
Gilgamesh that "his body is flesh of the gods" (Tablet IX, 2, 14; X,
1, 7).

[45] _BOR_ IV, p. 264.

[46] Lewin, _Die Scholien des Theodor bar Koni zur
Patriarchengeschichte_ (Berlin, 1905), p. 2. See Gressmann in
Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 83, who points out that
the first element of GLMGVS compared with the second of GMYGMVS gives
the exact form that we require, namely, Gilgamos.

[47] Tablet I, col. 2, is taken up with this episode.

[48] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123.

[49] See Poebel, _Historical Texts_ No. 2, col. 2, 26.

[50] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_ I, 1 No. 26.

[51] Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestücke_, p. 88, VI, 2-3. Cf. also
_CT_ XXV, 28(K 7659) 3, where we must evidently supply [Esigga]-tuk,
for which in the following line we have again Gish-bil-ga-mesh as an
equivalent. See Meissner, _OLZ_ 1910, 99.

[52] See, e.g., Barton, _Haverford Collection_ II No. 27, Col. I,
14, etc.

[53] Deimel, _Pantheon Babylonicum_, p. 95.

[54] _CT_ XII, 50 (K 4359) obv. 17.

[55] See Barton, _Origin and Development of Babylonian Writing_, II,
p. 99 _seq._, for various explanations, though all centering around
the same idea of the picture of fire in some form.

[56] See the passages quoted by Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical
Texts_, p. 126.

[57] E.g., Genesis 4, 20, Jabal, "the father of tent-dwelling and
cattle holding;" Jubal (4, 21), "the father of harp and pipe striking."

[58] See particularly the plays (in the J. Document) upon the names of
the twelve sons of Jacob, which are brought forward either as tribal
characteristics, or as suggested by some incident or utterance by
the mother at the birth of each son.

[59] The designation is variously explained by Arabic writers. See
Beidhawi's _Commentary_ (ed. Fleischer), to Súra 18, 82.

[60] The writing Gish-gi-mash as an approach to the pronunciation
Gilgamesh would thus represent the beginning of the artificial process
which seeks to interpret the first syllable as "hero."

[61] See above, p. 27.

[62] Poebel, _Historical Texts_, p. 115 _seq_.

[63] Many years ago (_BA_ III, p. 376) I equated Etana with Ethan in
the Old Testament--therefore a West Semitic name.

[64] See Clay, _The Empire of the Amorites_, p. 80.

[65] Professor Clay strongly favors an Amoritic origin also
for Gilgamesh. His explanation of the name is set forth in his
recent work on _The Empire of the Amorites_, page 89, and is also
referred to in his work on _Amurru_, page 79, and in his volume
of _Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection_,
page 3, note. According to Professor Clay the original form of the
hero's name was West Semitic, and was something like _Bilga-Mash_,
the meaning of which was perhaps "the offspring of Mash." For the
first element in this division of the name cf. Pilikam, the name of
a ruler of an early dynasty, and Balak of the Old Testament. In view
of the fact that the axe figures so prominently in the Epic as an
instrument wielded by Gilgamesh, Professor Clay furthermore thinks it
reasonable to assume that the name was interpreted by the Babylonian
scribe as "the axe of Mash." In this way he would account for the
use of the determinative for weapons, which is also the sign Gish,
in the name. It is certainly noteworthy that the ideogram Gish-Tún in
the later form of _Gish-Tún-mash_ = _pasu_, "axe," _CT_ XVI, 38:14b,
etc. _Tun_ also = _pilaku_ "axe," _CT_ xii, 10:34b. Names with similar
element (besides Pilikam) are Belaku of the Hammurabi period, Bilakku
of the Cassite period, etc.

It is only proper to add that Professor Jastrow assumes the
responsibility for the explanation of the form and etymology of the
name Gilgamesh proposed in this volume. The question is one in regard
to which legitimate differences of opinion will prevail among scholars
until through some chance a definite decision, one way or the other,
can be reached.

[66] _me-ih-rù_ (line 191).

[67] Tablet I, 5, 23. Cf. I, 3, 2 and 29.

[68] Tablet IV, 4, 7 and I, 5, 3.

[69] Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b 34, in an address of Shamash
to Enkidu.

[70] So Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 11. Also supplied VIII, 5,
20 and 21; and X, 1, 46-47 and 5, 6-7.

[71] Tablet XII, 3, 25.

[72] Ward, _Seal Cylinders of Western Asia_, Chap. X, and the
same author's _Cylinders and other Ancient Oriental Seals_--Morgan
collection Nos. 19-50.

[73] E.g., Ward No. 192, Enkidu has human legs like Gilgamesh;
also No. 189, where it is difficult to say which is Gilgamesh, and
which is Enkidu. The clothed one is probably Gilgamesh, though not
infrequently Gilgamesh is also represented as nude, or merely with
a girdle around his waist.

[74] E.g., Ward, Nos. 173, 174, 190, 191, 195 as well as 189 and 192.

[75] On the other hand, in Ward Nos. 459 and 461, the conflict
between the two heroes is depicted with the heroes distinguished
in more conventional fashion, Enkidu having the hoofs of an animal,
and also with a varying arrangement of beard and hair.

[76] See Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston, 1898),
p. 468 _seq._

[77] Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 90 _seq._

[78] Pennsylvania tablet, l. 198 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 37.

[79] "Enkidu blocked the gate" (Pennsylvania tablet, line 215) =
Assyrian version Tablet IV, 2, 46: "Enkidu interposed his foot at
the gate of the family house."

[80] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 218 and 224.

[81] Yale tablet, line 198; also to be supplied lines 13-14.

[82] Yale tablet, lines 190 and 191.

[83] _PSBA_ 1914, 65 _seq._ = Jensen III, 1a, 4-11, which can now be
completed and supplemented by the new fragment.

[84] I.e., Enkidu will save Gilgamesh.

[85] These two lines impress one as popular sayings--here applied
to Enkidu.

[86] King's fragment, col. I, 13-27, which now enables us to complete
Jensen III, 1a, 12-21.

[87] Yale tablet, lines 252-253.

[88] Yale tablet, lines 143-148 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6,
26 _seq._

[89] Assyrian version, Tablet III, 2a, 13-14.

[90] Lines 215-222.

[91] Assyrian version, Tablet V, Columns 3-4. We have to assume that
in line 13 of column 4 (Jensen, p. 164), Enkidu takes up the thread
of conversation, as is shown by line 22: "Enkidu brought his dream
to him and spoke to Gilgamesh."

[92] Assyrian version, Tablet VI, lines 146-147.

[93] Lines 178-183.

[94] Lines 176-177.

[95] Tablet VII, Column 6.

[96] Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 200-203. These words are put into
the mouth of Gilgamesh (lines 198-199). It is, therefore, unlikely
that he would sing his own praise. Both Jensen and Ungnad admit that
Enkidu is to be supplied in at least one of the lines.

[97] Lines 109 and 112.

[98] Assyrian version, Tablet IX, 1, 8-9.

[99] Tablet VIII, 5, 2-6.

[100] So also Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_,
p. 97, regards Enkidu as the older figure.

[101] See Jastrow, _Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature, AJSL_,
Vol. 15, pp. 193-214.

[102] Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 31-36.

[103] It will be recalled that Enkidu is always spoken of as "born
in the field."

[104] Note the repetition _ibtani_ "created" in line 33 of the "man
of Anu" and in line 35 of the offspring of Ninib. The creation of the 
former is by the "heart," i.e., by the will of Aruru, the creation of 
the latter is an act of moulding out of clay.

[105] Tablet I, Column 3.

[106] Following as usual the enumeration of lines in Jensen's edition.

[107] An analogy does not involve a dependence of one tale upon the
other, but merely that both rest on similar traditions, which _may_
have arisen independently.

[108] Note that the name of Eve is not mentioned till after the
fall (Genesis 3, 20). Before that she is merely _ishsha_, i.e.,
"woman," just as in the Babylonian tale the woman who guides Enkidu
is _harimtu_, "woman."

[109] "And he drank and became drunk" (Genesis 9, 21).

[110] "His heart became glad and his face shone" (Pennsylvania Tablet,
lines 100-101).

[111] That in the combination of this Enkidu with tales of primitive
man, inconsistent features should have been introduced, such as the
union of Enkidu with the woman as the beginning of a higher life,
whereas the presence of a hunter and his father shows that human
society was already in existence, is characteristic of folk-tales,
which are indifferent to details that may be contradictory to the
general setting of the story.

[112] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 102-104.

[113] Line 105.

[114] Tablet I, 1, 9. See also the reference to the wall of Erech as
an "old construction" of Gilgamesh, in the inscription of An-Am in
the days of Sin-gamil (Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I,
No. 26.) Cf IV R2 52, 3, 53.

[115] The invariable designation in the Assyrian version as against
_Uruk ribîtim_, "Erech of the plazas," in the old Babylonian version.

[116] In Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 123 _seq._

[117] See Jensen, p. 266. Gilgamesh is addressed as "judge," as the
one who inspects the divisions of the earth, precisely as Shamash is
celebrated. In line 8 of the hymn in question, Gilgamesh is in fact
addressed as Shamash.

[118] The darkness is emphasized with each advance in the hero's
wanderings (Tablet IX, col. 5).

[119] This tale is again a nature myth, marking the change from the
dry to the rainy season. The Deluge is an annual occurrence in the
Euphrates Valley through the overflow of the two rivers. Only the
canal system, directing the overflow into the fields, changed the
curse into a blessing. In contrast to the Deluge, we have in the
Assyrian creation story the drying up of the primeval waters so
that the earth makes its appearance with the change from the rainy
to the dry season. The world is created in the spring, according to
the Akkadian view which is reflected in the Biblical creation story,
as related in the P. document. See Jastrow, _Sumerian and Akkadian
Views of Beginnings_ (_JAOS_, Vol 36, p. 295 seq.).

[120] As-am in Sumerian corresponding to the Akkadian Sabatu, which
conveys the idea of destruction.

[121] The month is known as the "Mission of Ishtar" in Sumerian, in
allusion to another nature myth which describes Ishtar's disappearance
from earth and her mission to the lower world.

[122] _Historical Texts_ No. 1. The Sumerian name of the survivor
is Zi-u-gíd-du or perhaps Zi-u-su-du (cf. King, _Legends of Babylon
and Egypt_, p. 65, note 4), signifying "He who lengthened the day of
life," i.e., the one of long life, of which Ut-napishtim ("Day of
Life") in the Assyrian version seems to be an abbreviated Akkadian
rendering, with the omission of the verb. So King's view, which is
here followed. See also _CT_ XVIII, 30, 9, and Langdon, _Sumerian Epic
of Paradise_, p. 90, who, however, enters upon further speculations
that are fanciful.

[123] See the translation in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_,
pp. 69, _seq._ and 73.

[124] According to Professor Clay, quite certainly Amurru, just as
in the case of Enkidu.

[125] Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 100
_seq._ touches upon this _motif_, but fails to see the main point that
the companions are also twins or at least brothers. Hence such examples
as Abraham and Lot, David and Jonathan, Achilles and Patroclus,
Eteokles and Polyneikes, are not parallels to Gilgamesh-Enkidu, but
belong to the _enlargement_ of the _motif_ so as to include companions
who are _not_ regarded as brothers.

[126] Or Romus. See Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 59, note 2.

[127] One might also include the primeval pair Yama-Yami with their
equivalents in Iranian mythology (Carnoy, _Iranian Mythology_,
p. 294 _seq._).

[128] Becoming, however, a triad and later increased to
seven. Cf. Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 32.

[129] I am indebted to my friend, Professor A. J. Carnoy, of the
University of Louvain, for having kindly gathered and placed at my
disposal material on the "twin-brother" _motif_ from Indo-European
sources, supplemental to Rendell Harris' work.

[130] On the other hand, _Uruk mâtum_ for the district of Erech, i.e.,
the territory over which the city holds sway, appears in both versions
(Pennsylvania tablet, 1. 10 = Assyrian version I, 5, 36).

[131] "My likeness" (line 27). It should be noted, however, that
lines 32-44 of I, 5, in Jensen's edition are part of a fragment K 9245
(not published, but merely copied by Bezold and Johns, and placed at
Jensen's disposal), which may represent a _duplicate_ to I, 6, 23-34,
with which it agrees entirely except for one line, viz., line 34 of
K 9245 which is not found in column 6, 23-34. If this be correct,
then there is lacking after line 31 of column 5, the interpretation
of the dream given in the Pennsylvania tablet in lines 17-23.

[132] _ina sap-li-ki_, literally, "below thee," whereas in the old
Babylonian version we have _ana si-ri-ka_, "towards thee."

[133] Repeated I, 6, 28.

[134] _ul-tap-rid ki-is-su-sú-ma_. The verb is from _parâdu_,
"violent." For _kissu_, "strong," see _CT_ XVI, 25, 48-49. Langdon
(_Gilgamesh Epic_, p. 211, note 5) renders the phrase: "he shook his
murderous weapon!!"--another illustration of his haphazard way of
translating texts.

[135] Shown by the colophon (Jeremias, _Izdubar-Nimrod_, Plate IV.)

[136] Lines 42-43 must be taken as part of the narrative of the
compiler, who tells us that after the woman had informed Enkidu that
Gilgamesh already knew of Enkidu's coming through dreams interpreted
by Ninsun, Gilgamesh actually set out and encountered Enkidu.

[137] Tablet I, col. 4. See also above, p. 19.

[138] IV, 2, 44-50. The word _ullanum_, (l.43) "once" or "since,"
points to the following being a reference to a former recital, and
not an original recital.

[139] Only the lower half (Haupt's edition, p. 82) is preserved.

[140] "The eyes of Enkidu were filled with tears," corresponding to
IV, 4, 10.

[141] Unless indeed the number "seven" is a slip for the sign sa. See
the commentary to the line.

[142] I.e., paid homage to the meteor.

[143] I.e., the heroes of Erech raised me to my feet, or perhaps in
the sense of "supported me."

[144] I.e., Enkidu.

[145] I.e., "thy way of life."

[146] I.e., the man.

[147] I.e., an idiomatic phrase meaning "for all times."

[148] I.e., Enkidu became like Gish, godlike. Cf. col. 2, 11.

[149] He was thrown and therefore vanquished.

[150] Epithet given to Ninsun. See the commentary to the line.

[151] Scribal error for _an_.

[152] Text apparently _di_.

[153] Hardly _ul_.

[154] Omitted by scribe.

[155] _Kisti_ omitted by scribe.

[156] I.e., at night to thee, may Lugal-banda, etc.

[157] The enumeration here is according to Langdon's edition.