“He became manlike.”113Thereupon 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 whichsomeare 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 exploitsin common. In such a combination, the aim would be to utilize all the incidents ofbothtales. 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 Ḫuwawa. 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.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,114and we may assume that the designation of the city asUruk supûri, “the walled Erech,”115rests 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 ridthe 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 Ḫuwawa 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 Gressmann116to 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,117recalls 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 sharingin 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 thismotifis 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 regions118in 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.119Gilgamesh hearsof 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”120and 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,121which 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,122and without any referenceto Gilgamesh. Similarly, Scheil and Hilprecht have published fragments of deluge stories written in Akkadian and likewise without any connection with the Gilgamesh Epic.123In 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 hastexperienced, 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 intothis 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,independentof 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 thelatestaddition to the Epic from a period subsequent to 2000 B.C.; and that the same is probably the case with the eleventh tablet.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 traditionof 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 Ḫuwawa 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 theolderfigure, 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 thereflexof 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 theEpic 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 hisCult 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 companions125or twins, like Castor and Pollux, Romulus and Remus,126the Acvins in the Rig-Veda,127Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau in the Old Testament, the Kabiri of the Phoenicians,128Herakles 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 themotiffar 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 byFrom 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 “HeavenlyTwins.” In the Indo-Iranian, Greek and Roman mythology, the twins almost invariably act together. In unison they proceed on expeditions to punish enemies.129But 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 isnotkilled 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”motiffound 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-motifappears 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.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 theliteraryrelationship 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 againstdGish-gì(n)-mash,dEn-ki-dũ as againstdEn-ki-dú, Ḫu-wa-wa as against Ḫu(m)-ba-ba. Erech appears asUruk ribîtim, “Erech ofthe Plazas,” as againstUruk supûri, “walled Erech” (or “Erech within the walls”), in the Assyrian version.130These variations point to anindependentrecension 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 dreamsdirectlygiven 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,131of 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, 35bsupplied from 6, 26)“I threw it (or him) at thy feet”132with an additional line in elaboration“Thou didst bring him into contact with me”133which anticipates the speech of the mother(Line 41 = Assyrian version I, 6, 33).Line 10 of the Pennsylvania tablet haspa-ḫi-iras againstiz-za-azI, 5, 31.Line 8 hasik-ta-bi-itas againstda-anin 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,134and 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)135represent 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.136Nothing 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 thefirstmention of the woman. The meeting must have been recounted in the first tablet, as is the case in the Assyrian version.137The 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 withalka, “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,138in which in Epic style the story is repeated, leading up to the second exploit—the joint campaign of Enkidu and Gilgamesh against Ḫuwawa. 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 ofkibsu, “tread” (IV, 2, 46), foršêpu, “foot” (l. 216),i-na-uš, “quake” (line 5C), as againstir-tu-tu(ll. 221 and 226).Such variants asdGish êribam ûl iddin(l. 217)againstdGilgamesh ana šurûbi ûl namdin, (IV, 2, 47).and againiṣṣabtûma kima lîm“they grappled at the gate of the family house” (IV, 2, 48),againstiṣṣabtûma 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 3139of Tablet IV.Coming to the Yale tablet, the few passages in which a comparisonmay 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 Ḫuwawa is described140, and he makes confession of his own physical exhaustion,maycorrespond 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”141as 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 Ḫuwawa“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 Ḫuwawa 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.1See for further details of this royal library, Jastrow,Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 21seq.2Das Babylonische Nimrodepos(Leipzig, 1884–1891), supplemented by Haupt’s articleDie Zwölfte Tafel des Babylonischen NimrodeposinBAI, 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-liḳî-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 JeremiasIzdubar-Nimrod(Leipzig, 1891) Plates II–IV, and two more are embodied in Jensen’s transliteration of all the fragments in theKeilinschriftliche BibliothekVI; 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 hisSupplement to the Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British MuseumNo. 56 andPSBAVol. 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 InhaltsNo. 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 likeNimrod. 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 theKeilinschriftliche 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 BilderI, pp. 39–61. In English, we have translations of substantial portions by Muss-Arnolt in Harper’sAssyrian and Babylonian Literature(New York, 1901), pp. 324–368; by Jastrow,Religion of Babylonia and Assyria(Boston, 1898), Chap. XXIII; by Clay inLight on the Old Testament from Babel, pp. 78–84; by Rogers inCuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, pp. 80–103; and most recently by Jastrow inSacred Books and Early Literature of the East(ed. C. F. Horne, New York, 1917), Vol. I, pp. 187–220.3See Luckenbill inJAOS, Vol. 37, p. 452seq.Prof. Clay, it should be added, clings to the older reading, Hammurabi, which is retained in this volume.4ZA, Vol. 14, pp. 277–292.5The 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-ḫasis “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 inZA, Vol. 13, pp. 288–301.6Published by Scheil inRecueil des Travaux, etc. Vol. 20, pp. 55–58.7The text does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, as the colophon, differing from the one attached to the Epic, shows.8Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos(MVAG1902, No. 1).9On these variant forms of the two names see the discussion below,p. 24.10The passage is paralleled by Ecc. 9, 7–9. See Jastrow,A Gentle Cynic, p. 172seq.11Among the Nippur tablets in the collection of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. The fragment was published by Dr. Poebel in hisHistorical and Grammatical TextsNo. 23. See also Poebel in theMuseum 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.12No. 55 in Langdon’sHistorical and Religious Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur(Munich, 1914).13No. 5 in hisSumerian Liturgical Texts. (Philadelphia, 1917)14See on this name below,p. 23.15See further below,p. 37seq.16See Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, No. 1, and Jastrow inJAOS, Vol. 36, pp. 122–131 and 274–299.17See an article by Jastrow,Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Beginnings(JAOSVol. 36, pp. 274–299).18See on this point Eduard Meyer,Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien(Berlin, 1906), p. 107seq., 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. 23et seq.19See the discussion below,p. 24seq.20Dr. Poebel published an article on the tablet inOLZ, 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.21Historical TextsNo. 2, Column 2, 26. See the discussion inHistorical and Grammatical Texts, p. 123,seq.22See Fostat inOLZ, 1915, p. 367.23Publications 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.24E.g., in the very first note on page 211, and again in a note on page 213.25Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs4 šú-si= 240 which appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the wordšú-tu-urin the colophon which he translated “written,” taking the word from a stemšaṭâru, “write.” The formšú-tu-uris III, 1, fromatâru, “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. 86.26Museum Journal, Vol. VIII, p. 29.27See below,p. 23.28I 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.29According to Bezold’s investigation,Verbalsuffixformen als Alterskriterien babylonisch-assyrischer Inschriften(Heidelberg Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Klasse, 1910, 9teAbhandlung), 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).31Lines 100–101.32In a paper read before the American Oriental Society at New Haven, April 4, 1918.33See the commentary to col. 4 of the Yale tablet for further details.34This 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. 123.35So also in Sumerian (Zimmern,Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit, No. 196, rev. 14 and 16.)36The sign used, LUM (Brünnow No. 11183), could have the value ḫu as well as ḫum.37The addition “father-in-law of Moses” to the name Ḫobab b. Re’uel in this passage must refer to Re’uel, and not to Ḫobab. In Judges 4, 11, the gloss “of the Bene Ḫobab, the father-in-law of Moses” must be separated into two: (1) “Bene Ḫobab,” and (2) “father-in-law of Moses.” The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or is intended as a brief reminder that Ḫobab is identical with the son of Re’uel.38See hisList of Personal Names from the Temple School of Nippur, p. 122.Ḫu-um-ba-bi-tuandši-kin ḫu-wa-waalso occur in Omen Texts (CTXXVII, 4, 8–9 = Pl. 3, 17 = Pl. 6, 3–4 =CTXXVIII, 14, 12). The contrast toḫuwawaisligru, “dwarf” (CTXXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow,Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, II, p. 913, Note 7. Ḫuwawa, therefore, has the force of “monster.”39Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 111seq.40Ungnad, 1. c. p. 77, called attention to this name, but failed to draw the conclusion that Ḫu(m)baba therefore belongs to the West and not to the East.41First pointed out by Ungnad inOLZ1910, p. 306, on the basis ofCTXVIII, 30, 10, where En-gi-dú appears in the column furnishingphoneticreadings.42See ClayAmurru, pp. 74, 129, etc.43Tablet I, 2, 39–40; 3, 6–7 and 33–34; 4, 3–4.44Tablet 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).45BORIV, p. 264.46Lewin,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 גלמגוס compared with the second of גמיגמוס gives the exact form that we require, namely, Gilgamos.47Tablet I, col. 2, is taken up with this episode.48See Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, p. 123.49See Poebel,Historical TextsNo. 2, col. 2, 26.50Hilprecht,Old Babylonian InscriptionsI, 1 No. 26.51Delitzsch,Assyrische Lesestücke, p. 88, VI, 2–3. Cf. alsoCTXXV, 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,OLZ1910, 99.52See, e.g., Barton,Haverford CollectionII No. 27, Col. I, 14, etc.53Deimel,Pantheon Babylonicum, p. 95.54CTXII, 50 (K 4359) obv. 17.55See Barton,Origin and Development of Babylonian Writing, II, p. 99seq., for various explanations, though all centering around the same idea of the picture of fire in some form.56See the passages quoted by Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, p. 126.57E.g., Genesis 4, 20, Jabal, “the father of tent-dwelling and cattle holding;” Jubal (4, 21), “the father of harp and pipe striking.”58See 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.59The designation is variously explained by Arabic writers. See Beidhawi’sCommentary(ed. Fleischer), to Súra 18, 82.60The 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.”61See above,p. 27.62Poebel,Historical Texts, p. 115seq.63Many years ago (BAIII, p. 376) I equated Etana with Ethan in the Old Testament—therefore a West Semitic name.64See Clay,The Empire of the Amorites, p. 80.65Professor Clay strongly favors an Amoritic origin also for Gilgamesh. His explanation of the name is set forth in his recent work onThe Empire of the Amorites, page 89, and is also referred to in his work onAmurru, page 79, and in his volume ofMiscellaneous 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 likeBilga-Mash, the meaning of which was perhaps “the offspring of Mash.” For the first element in this division of the name cf. Piliḳam, the name of a ruler of an early dynasty, and Balaḳ 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 ofGish-Tún-mash=pašu, “axe,”CTXVI, 38:14b, etc.Tunalso =pilaḳu“axe,”CTxii, 10:34b. Names with similar element (besides Piliḳam) are Belaḳu of the Hammurabi period, Bilaḳḳu 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.66me-iḫ-rù(line 191).67Tablet I, 5, 23. Cf. I, 3, 2 and 29.68Tablet IV, 4, 7 and I, 5, 3.69Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b 34, in an address of Shamash to Enkidu.70So Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 11. Also supplied VIII, 5, 20 and 21; and X, 1, 46–47 and 5, 6–7.71Tablet XII, 3, 25.72Ward,Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, Chap. X, and the same author’sCylinders and other Ancient Oriental Seals—Morgan collection Nos. 19–50.73E.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.74E.g., Ward, Nos. 173, 174, 190, 191, 195 as well as 189 and 192.75On 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.76See Jastrow,Religion of Babylonia and Assyria(Boston, 1898), p. 468seq.77Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 90seq.78Pennsylvania 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.”80Pennsylvania tablet, lines 218 and 224.81Yale tablet, line 198; also to be supplied lines 13–14.82Yale tablet, lines 190 and 191.83PSBA1914, 65seq.= Jensen III, 1a, 4–11, which can now be completed and supplemented by the new fragment.84I.e., Enkidu will save Gilgamesh.85These two lines impress one as popular sayings—here applied to Enkidu.86King’s fragment, col. I, 13–27, which now enables us to complete Jensen III, 1a, 12–21.87Yale tablet, lines252–253.88Yale tablet, lines 143–148 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6, 26seq.89Assyrian version, Tablet III, 2a, 13–14.90Lines 215–222.91Assyrian 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.”92Assyrian version, Tablet VI, lines 146–147.93Lines 178–183.94Lines 176–177.95Tablet VII, Column 6.96Assyrian 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.97Lines 109 and 112.98Assyrian version, Tablet IX, 1, 8–9.99Tablet VIII, 5, 2–6.100So also Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 97, regards Enkidu as the older figure.101See Jastrow,Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature, AJSL, Vol. 15, pp. 193–214.102Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 31–36.103It will be recalled that Enkidu is always spoken of as “born in the field.”104Note the repetitionibtani“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.105Tablet I, Column 3.106Following as usual the enumeration of lines in Jensen’s edition.107An analogy does not involve a dependence of one tale upon the other, but merely that both rest on similar traditions, whichmayhave arisen independently.108Note that the name of Eve is not mentioned till after the fall (Genesis 3, 20). Before that she is merelyishsha, i.e., “woman,” just as in the Babylonian tale the woman who guides Enkidu isḫarimtu, “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).111That 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.112Pennsylvania tablet, lines 102–104.113Line 105.114Tablet 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, 53.115The invariable designation in the Assyrian version as againstUruk ribîtim, “Erech of the plazas,” in the old Babylonian version.116In Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 123seq.117See 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.118The darkness is emphasized with each advance in the hero’s wanderings (Tablet IX, col. 5).119This 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 overflowof 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.).120Aš-am in Sumerian corresponding to the Akkadian Šabaṭu, which conveys the idea of destruction.121The 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.122Historical TextsNo. 1. The Sumerian name of the survivor is Zi-ū-gíd-du or perhaps Zi-ū-sū-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 alsoCTXVIII, 30, 9, and Langdon,Sumerian Epic of Paradise, p. 90, who, however, enters upon further speculations that are fanciful.123See the translation in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, pp. 69,seq.and 73.124According to Professor Clay, quite certainly Amurru, just as in the case of Enkidu.125Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 100seq.touches upon thismotif, 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 theenlargementof themotifso as to include companions who arenotregarded as brothers.126Or Romus. See Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 59, note 2.127One might also include the primeval pair Yama-Yami with their equivalents in Iranian mythology (Carnoy,Iranian Mythology, p. 294seq.).128Becoming, however, a triad and later increased to seven. Cf. Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 32.129I 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”motiffrom Indo-European sources, supplemental to Rendell Harris’ work.130On the other hand,Uruk mâtumfor 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 aduplicateto 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 17–23.132ina šap-li-ki, literally, “below thee,” whereas in the old Babylonian version we haveana ṣi-ri-ka, “towards thee.”133Repeated I, 6, 28.134ul-tap-rid ki-is-su-šú-ma. The verb is fromparâdu, “violent.” Forkissu, “strong,” seeCTXVI, 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.135Shown by the colophon (Jeremias,Izdubar-Nimrod, Plate IV.)136Lines 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.137Tablet I, col. 4. See also above,p. 19.138IV, 2, 44–50. The wordullanum, (l.43) “once” or “since,” points to the following being a reference to a former recital, and not an original recital.139Only the lower half (Haupt’s edition, p. 82) is preserved.140“The eyes of Enkidu were filled with tears,” corresponding to IV, 4, 10.141Unless indeed the number “seven” is a slip for the sign ša. See the commentary to the line.
“He became manlike.”113
“He became manlike.”113
“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 whichsomeare 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 exploitsin common. In such a combination, the aim would be to utilize all the incidents ofbothtales. 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 Ḫuwawa. 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.
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,114and we may assume that the designation of the city asUruk supûri, “the walled Erech,”115rests 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 ridthe 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 Ḫuwawa 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 Gressmann116to 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,117recalls 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 sharingin 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 thismotifis 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 regions118in 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.119Gilgamesh hearsof 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”120and 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,121which 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,122and without any referenceto 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 hastexperienced, tell me,”
“Tell me, my friend, tell me, my friend,The law of the earth which thou hastexperienced, tell me,”
“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.”
“I cannot tell thee, my friend, I cannot tell.”
“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 intothis 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,independentof 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 thelatestaddition to the Epic from a period subsequent to 2000 B.C.; and that the same is probably the case with the eleventh tablet.
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 traditionof 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 Ḫuwawa 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 theolderfigure, 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 thereflexof 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 theEpic 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 hisCult 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 companions125or twins, like Castor and Pollux, Romulus and Remus,126the Acvins in the Rig-Veda,127Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau in the Old Testament, the Kabiri of the Phoenicians,128Herakles 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 themotiffar 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 byFrom that day to the ending of the world.”—(Act, IV, 3, 57–58.)
“And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go byFrom that day to the ending of the world.”—(Act, IV, 3, 57–58.)
“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 “HeavenlyTwins.” 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 isnotkilled 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”motiffound 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-motifappears 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.
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 theliteraryrelationship 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 againstdGish-gì(n)-mash,dEn-ki-dũ as againstdEn-ki-dú, Ḫu-wa-wa as against Ḫu(m)-ba-ba. Erech appears asUruk ribîtim, “Erech ofthe Plazas,” as againstUruk supûri, “walled Erech” (or “Erech within the walls”), in the Assyrian version.130These variations point to anindependentrecension 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 dreamsdirectlygiven 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.”
”[I saw him and like] a woman I fell in love with him.”
”[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,131of 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”
“I bore it and carried it to thee”
“I bore it and carried it to thee”
and appears in the Assyrian version (I, 5, 35bsupplied from 6, 26)
“I threw it (or him) at thy feet”132
“I threw it (or him) at thy feet”132
“I threw it (or him) at thy feet”132
with an additional line in elaboration
“Thou didst bring him into contact with me”133
“Thou didst bring him into contact with me”133
“Thou didst bring him into contact with me”133
which anticipates the speech of the mother
(Line 41 = Assyrian version I, 6, 33).
(Line 41 = Assyrian version I, 6, 33).
(Line 41 = Assyrian version I, 6, 33).
Line 10 of the Pennsylvania tablet haspa-ḫi-iras againstiz-za-azI, 5, 31.
Line 8 hasik-ta-bi-itas againstda-anin the Assyrian version I, 5, 29.
More significant is the variant to line 9
“I became weak and its weight I could not bear”
“I became weak and its weight I could not bear”
“I became weak and its weight I could not bear”
as against I, 5, 30.
“Its strength was overpowering,134and I could not endure its weight.”
“Its strength was overpowering,134and I could not endure its weight.”
“Its strength was overpowering,134and 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)135represent 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.136Nothing 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 thefirstmention of the woman. The meeting must have been recounted in the first tablet, as is the case in the Assyrian version.137The 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 withalka, “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,138in which in Epic style the story is repeated, leading up to the second exploit—the joint campaign of Enkidu and Gilgamesh against Ḫuwawa. 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 ofkibsu, “tread” (IV, 2, 46), foršêpu, “foot” (l. 216),i-na-uš, “quake” (line 5C), as againstir-tu-tu(ll. 221 and 226).
Such variants as
dGish êribam ûl iddin(l. 217)
dGish êribam ûl iddin(l. 217)
dGish êribam ûl iddin(l. 217)
against
dGilgamesh ana šurûbi ûl namdin, (IV, 2, 47).
dGilgamesh ana šurûbi ûl namdin, (IV, 2, 47).
dGilgamesh ana šurûbi ûl namdin, (IV, 2, 47).
and again
iṣṣabtûma kima lîm“they grappled at the gate of the family house” (IV, 2, 48),
iṣṣabtûma kima lîm“they grappled at the gate of the family house” (IV, 2, 48),
iṣṣabtûma kima lîm“they grappled at the gate of the family house” (IV, 2, 48),
against
iṣṣabtûma ina bâb bît emuti, “they grappled at the gate of the family house” (IV, 2, 48),
iṣṣabtûma ina bâb bît emuti, “they grappled at the gate of the family house” (IV, 2, 48),
iṣṣabtûma 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 3139of Tablet IV.
Coming to the Yale tablet, the few passages in which a comparisonmay 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 Ḫuwawa is described140, and he makes confession of his own physical exhaustion,maycorrespond 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”141as 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 Ḫuwawa
“Whose roar is a flood, whose mouth is fire, and whose breath is death”
“Whose roar is a flood, whose mouth is fire, and whose breath is death”
“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 Ḫuwawa 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.
1See for further details of this royal library, Jastrow,Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 21seq.2Das Babylonische Nimrodepos(Leipzig, 1884–1891), supplemented by Haupt’s articleDie Zwölfte Tafel des Babylonischen NimrodeposinBAI, 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-liḳî-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 JeremiasIzdubar-Nimrod(Leipzig, 1891) Plates II–IV, and two more are embodied in Jensen’s transliteration of all the fragments in theKeilinschriftliche BibliothekVI; 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 hisSupplement to the Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British MuseumNo. 56 andPSBAVol. 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 InhaltsNo. 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 likeNimrod. 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 theKeilinschriftliche 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 BilderI, pp. 39–61. In English, we have translations of substantial portions by Muss-Arnolt in Harper’sAssyrian and Babylonian Literature(New York, 1901), pp. 324–368; by Jastrow,Religion of Babylonia and Assyria(Boston, 1898), Chap. XXIII; by Clay inLight on the Old Testament from Babel, pp. 78–84; by Rogers inCuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, pp. 80–103; and most recently by Jastrow inSacred Books and Early Literature of the East(ed. C. F. Horne, New York, 1917), Vol. I, pp. 187–220.3See Luckenbill inJAOS, Vol. 37, p. 452seq.Prof. Clay, it should be added, clings to the older reading, Hammurabi, which is retained in this volume.4ZA, Vol. 14, pp. 277–292.5The 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-ḫasis “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 inZA, Vol. 13, pp. 288–301.6Published by Scheil inRecueil des Travaux, etc. Vol. 20, pp. 55–58.7The text does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, as the colophon, differing from the one attached to the Epic, shows.8Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos(MVAG1902, No. 1).9On these variant forms of the two names see the discussion below,p. 24.10The passage is paralleled by Ecc. 9, 7–9. See Jastrow,A Gentle Cynic, p. 172seq.11Among the Nippur tablets in the collection of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. The fragment was published by Dr. Poebel in hisHistorical and Grammatical TextsNo. 23. See also Poebel in theMuseum 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.12No. 55 in Langdon’sHistorical and Religious Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur(Munich, 1914).13No. 5 in hisSumerian Liturgical Texts. (Philadelphia, 1917)14See on this name below,p. 23.15See further below,p. 37seq.16See Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, No. 1, and Jastrow inJAOS, Vol. 36, pp. 122–131 and 274–299.17See an article by Jastrow,Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Beginnings(JAOSVol. 36, pp. 274–299).18See on this point Eduard Meyer,Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien(Berlin, 1906), p. 107seq., 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. 23et seq.19See the discussion below,p. 24seq.20Dr. Poebel published an article on the tablet inOLZ, 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.21Historical TextsNo. 2, Column 2, 26. See the discussion inHistorical and Grammatical Texts, p. 123,seq.22See Fostat inOLZ, 1915, p. 367.23Publications 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.24E.g., in the very first note on page 211, and again in a note on page 213.25Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs4 šú-si= 240 which appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the wordšú-tu-urin the colophon which he translated “written,” taking the word from a stemšaṭâru, “write.” The formšú-tu-uris III, 1, fromatâru, “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. 86.26Museum Journal, Vol. VIII, p. 29.27See below,p. 23.28I 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.29According to Bezold’s investigation,Verbalsuffixformen als Alterskriterien babylonisch-assyrischer Inschriften(Heidelberg Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Klasse, 1910, 9teAbhandlung), 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).31Lines 100–101.32In a paper read before the American Oriental Society at New Haven, April 4, 1918.33See the commentary to col. 4 of the Yale tablet for further details.34This 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. 123.35So also in Sumerian (Zimmern,Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit, No. 196, rev. 14 and 16.)36The sign used, LUM (Brünnow No. 11183), could have the value ḫu as well as ḫum.37The addition “father-in-law of Moses” to the name Ḫobab b. Re’uel in this passage must refer to Re’uel, and not to Ḫobab. In Judges 4, 11, the gloss “of the Bene Ḫobab, the father-in-law of Moses” must be separated into two: (1) “Bene Ḫobab,” and (2) “father-in-law of Moses.” The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or is intended as a brief reminder that Ḫobab is identical with the son of Re’uel.38See hisList of Personal Names from the Temple School of Nippur, p. 122.Ḫu-um-ba-bi-tuandši-kin ḫu-wa-waalso occur in Omen Texts (CTXXVII, 4, 8–9 = Pl. 3, 17 = Pl. 6, 3–4 =CTXXVIII, 14, 12). The contrast toḫuwawaisligru, “dwarf” (CTXXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow,Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, II, p. 913, Note 7. Ḫuwawa, therefore, has the force of “monster.”39Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 111seq.40Ungnad, 1. c. p. 77, called attention to this name, but failed to draw the conclusion that Ḫu(m)baba therefore belongs to the West and not to the East.41First pointed out by Ungnad inOLZ1910, p. 306, on the basis ofCTXVIII, 30, 10, where En-gi-dú appears in the column furnishingphoneticreadings.42See ClayAmurru, pp. 74, 129, etc.43Tablet I, 2, 39–40; 3, 6–7 and 33–34; 4, 3–4.44Tablet 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).45BORIV, p. 264.46Lewin,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 גלמגוס compared with the second of גמיגמוס gives the exact form that we require, namely, Gilgamos.47Tablet I, col. 2, is taken up with this episode.48See Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, p. 123.49See Poebel,Historical TextsNo. 2, col. 2, 26.50Hilprecht,Old Babylonian InscriptionsI, 1 No. 26.51Delitzsch,Assyrische Lesestücke, p. 88, VI, 2–3. Cf. alsoCTXXV, 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,OLZ1910, 99.52See, e.g., Barton,Haverford CollectionII No. 27, Col. I, 14, etc.53Deimel,Pantheon Babylonicum, p. 95.54CTXII, 50 (K 4359) obv. 17.55See Barton,Origin and Development of Babylonian Writing, II, p. 99seq., for various explanations, though all centering around the same idea of the picture of fire in some form.56See the passages quoted by Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, p. 126.57E.g., Genesis 4, 20, Jabal, “the father of tent-dwelling and cattle holding;” Jubal (4, 21), “the father of harp and pipe striking.”58See 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.59The designation is variously explained by Arabic writers. See Beidhawi’sCommentary(ed. Fleischer), to Súra 18, 82.60The 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.”61See above,p. 27.62Poebel,Historical Texts, p. 115seq.63Many years ago (BAIII, p. 376) I equated Etana with Ethan in the Old Testament—therefore a West Semitic name.64See Clay,The Empire of the Amorites, p. 80.65Professor Clay strongly favors an Amoritic origin also for Gilgamesh. His explanation of the name is set forth in his recent work onThe Empire of the Amorites, page 89, and is also referred to in his work onAmurru, page 79, and in his volume ofMiscellaneous 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 likeBilga-Mash, the meaning of which was perhaps “the offspring of Mash.” For the first element in this division of the name cf. Piliḳam, the name of a ruler of an early dynasty, and Balaḳ 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 ofGish-Tún-mash=pašu, “axe,”CTXVI, 38:14b, etc.Tunalso =pilaḳu“axe,”CTxii, 10:34b. Names with similar element (besides Piliḳam) are Belaḳu of the Hammurabi period, Bilaḳḳu 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.66me-iḫ-rù(line 191).67Tablet I, 5, 23. Cf. I, 3, 2 and 29.68Tablet IV, 4, 7 and I, 5, 3.69Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b 34, in an address of Shamash to Enkidu.70So Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 11. Also supplied VIII, 5, 20 and 21; and X, 1, 46–47 and 5, 6–7.71Tablet XII, 3, 25.72Ward,Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, Chap. X, and the same author’sCylinders and other Ancient Oriental Seals—Morgan collection Nos. 19–50.73E.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.74E.g., Ward, Nos. 173, 174, 190, 191, 195 as well as 189 and 192.75On 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.76See Jastrow,Religion of Babylonia and Assyria(Boston, 1898), p. 468seq.77Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 90seq.78Pennsylvania 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.”80Pennsylvania tablet, lines 218 and 224.81Yale tablet, line 198; also to be supplied lines 13–14.82Yale tablet, lines 190 and 191.83PSBA1914, 65seq.= Jensen III, 1a, 4–11, which can now be completed and supplemented by the new fragment.84I.e., Enkidu will save Gilgamesh.85These two lines impress one as popular sayings—here applied to Enkidu.86King’s fragment, col. I, 13–27, which now enables us to complete Jensen III, 1a, 12–21.87Yale tablet, lines252–253.88Yale tablet, lines 143–148 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6, 26seq.89Assyrian version, Tablet III, 2a, 13–14.90Lines 215–222.91Assyrian 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.”92Assyrian version, Tablet VI, lines 146–147.93Lines 178–183.94Lines 176–177.95Tablet VII, Column 6.96Assyrian 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.97Lines 109 and 112.98Assyrian version, Tablet IX, 1, 8–9.99Tablet VIII, 5, 2–6.100So also Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 97, regards Enkidu as the older figure.101See Jastrow,Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature, AJSL, Vol. 15, pp. 193–214.102Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 31–36.103It will be recalled that Enkidu is always spoken of as “born in the field.”104Note the repetitionibtani“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.105Tablet I, Column 3.106Following as usual the enumeration of lines in Jensen’s edition.107An analogy does not involve a dependence of one tale upon the other, but merely that both rest on similar traditions, whichmayhave arisen independently.108Note that the name of Eve is not mentioned till after the fall (Genesis 3, 20). Before that she is merelyishsha, i.e., “woman,” just as in the Babylonian tale the woman who guides Enkidu isḫarimtu, “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).111That 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.112Pennsylvania tablet, lines 102–104.113Line 105.114Tablet 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, 53.115The invariable designation in the Assyrian version as againstUruk ribîtim, “Erech of the plazas,” in the old Babylonian version.116In Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 123seq.117See 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.118The darkness is emphasized with each advance in the hero’s wanderings (Tablet IX, col. 5).119This 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 overflowof 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.).120Aš-am in Sumerian corresponding to the Akkadian Šabaṭu, which conveys the idea of destruction.121The 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.122Historical TextsNo. 1. The Sumerian name of the survivor is Zi-ū-gíd-du or perhaps Zi-ū-sū-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 alsoCTXVIII, 30, 9, and Langdon,Sumerian Epic of Paradise, p. 90, who, however, enters upon further speculations that are fanciful.123See the translation in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, pp. 69,seq.and 73.124According to Professor Clay, quite certainly Amurru, just as in the case of Enkidu.125Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 100seq.touches upon thismotif, 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 theenlargementof themotifso as to include companions who arenotregarded as brothers.126Or Romus. See Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 59, note 2.127One might also include the primeval pair Yama-Yami with their equivalents in Iranian mythology (Carnoy,Iranian Mythology, p. 294seq.).128Becoming, however, a triad and later increased to seven. Cf. Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 32.129I 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”motiffrom Indo-European sources, supplemental to Rendell Harris’ work.130On the other hand,Uruk mâtumfor 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 aduplicateto 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 17–23.132ina šap-li-ki, literally, “below thee,” whereas in the old Babylonian version we haveana ṣi-ri-ka, “towards thee.”133Repeated I, 6, 28.134ul-tap-rid ki-is-su-šú-ma. The verb is fromparâdu, “violent.” Forkissu, “strong,” seeCTXVI, 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.135Shown by the colophon (Jeremias,Izdubar-Nimrod, Plate IV.)136Lines 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.137Tablet I, col. 4. See also above,p. 19.138IV, 2, 44–50. The wordullanum, (l.43) “once” or “since,” points to the following being a reference to a former recital, and not an original recital.139Only the lower half (Haupt’s edition, p. 82) is preserved.140“The eyes of Enkidu were filled with tears,” corresponding to IV, 4, 10.141Unless indeed the number “seven” is a slip for the sign ša. See the commentary to the line.
1See for further details of this royal library, Jastrow,Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 21seq.
2Das Babylonische Nimrodepos(Leipzig, 1884–1891), supplemented by Haupt’s articleDie Zwölfte Tafel des Babylonischen NimrodeposinBAI, 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-liḳî-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 JeremiasIzdubar-Nimrod(Leipzig, 1891) Plates II–IV, and two more are embodied in Jensen’s transliteration of all the fragments in theKeilinschriftliche BibliothekVI; 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 hisSupplement to the Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British MuseumNo. 56 andPSBAVol. 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 InhaltsNo. 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 likeNimrod. 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 theKeilinschriftliche 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 BilderI, pp. 39–61. In English, we have translations of substantial portions by Muss-Arnolt in Harper’sAssyrian and Babylonian Literature(New York, 1901), pp. 324–368; by Jastrow,Religion of Babylonia and Assyria(Boston, 1898), Chap. XXIII; by Clay inLight on the Old Testament from Babel, pp. 78–84; by Rogers inCuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, pp. 80–103; and most recently by Jastrow inSacred Books and Early Literature of the East(ed. C. F. Horne, New York, 1917), Vol. I, pp. 187–220.
3See Luckenbill inJAOS, Vol. 37, p. 452seq.Prof. Clay, it should be added, clings to the older reading, Hammurabi, which is retained in this volume.
4ZA, Vol. 14, pp. 277–292.
5The 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-ḫasis “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 inZA, Vol. 13, pp. 288–301.
6Published by Scheil inRecueil des Travaux, etc. Vol. 20, pp. 55–58.
7The text does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, as the colophon, differing from the one attached to the Epic, shows.
8Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos(MVAG1902, No. 1).
9On these variant forms of the two names see the discussion below,p. 24.
10The passage is paralleled by Ecc. 9, 7–9. See Jastrow,A Gentle Cynic, p. 172seq.
11Among the Nippur tablets in the collection of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. The fragment was published by Dr. Poebel in hisHistorical and Grammatical TextsNo. 23. See also Poebel in theMuseum 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.
12No. 55 in Langdon’sHistorical and Religious Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur(Munich, 1914).
13No. 5 in hisSumerian Liturgical Texts. (Philadelphia, 1917)
14See on this name below,p. 23.
15See further below,p. 37seq.
16See Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, No. 1, and Jastrow inJAOS, Vol. 36, pp. 122–131 and 274–299.
17See an article by Jastrow,Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Beginnings(JAOSVol. 36, pp. 274–299).
18See on this point Eduard Meyer,Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien(Berlin, 1906), p. 107seq., 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. 23et seq.
19See the discussion below,p. 24seq.
20Dr. Poebel published an article on the tablet inOLZ, 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.
21Historical TextsNo. 2, Column 2, 26. See the discussion inHistorical and Grammatical Texts, p. 123,seq.
22See Fostat inOLZ, 1915, p. 367.
23Publications 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.
24E.g., in the very first note on page 211, and again in a note on page 213.
25Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs4 šú-si= 240 which appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the wordšú-tu-urin the colophon which he translated “written,” taking the word from a stemšaṭâru, “write.” The formšú-tu-uris III, 1, fromatâru, “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.
26Museum Journal, Vol. VIII, p. 29.
27See below,p. 23.
28I 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.
29According to Bezold’s investigation,Verbalsuffixformen als Alterskriterien babylonisch-assyrischer Inschriften(Heidelberg Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Klasse, 1910, 9teAbhandlung), 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).
31Lines 100–101.
32In a paper read before the American Oriental Society at New Haven, April 4, 1918.
33See the commentary to col. 4 of the Yale tablet for further details.
34This 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.
35So also in Sumerian (Zimmern,Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit, No. 196, rev. 14 and 16.)
36The sign used, LUM (Brünnow No. 11183), could have the value ḫu as well as ḫum.
37The addition “father-in-law of Moses” to the name Ḫobab b. Re’uel in this passage must refer to Re’uel, and not to Ḫobab. In Judges 4, 11, the gloss “of the Bene Ḫobab, the father-in-law of Moses” must be separated into two: (1) “Bene Ḫobab,” and (2) “father-in-law of Moses.” The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or is intended as a brief reminder that Ḫobab is identical with the son of Re’uel.
38See hisList of Personal Names from the Temple School of Nippur, p. 122.Ḫu-um-ba-bi-tuandši-kin ḫu-wa-waalso occur in Omen Texts (CTXXVII, 4, 8–9 = Pl. 3, 17 = Pl. 6, 3–4 =CTXXVIII, 14, 12). The contrast toḫuwawaisligru, “dwarf” (CTXXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow,Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, II, p. 913, Note 7. Ḫuwawa, therefore, has the force of “monster.”
39Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 111seq.
40Ungnad, 1. c. p. 77, called attention to this name, but failed to draw the conclusion that Ḫu(m)baba therefore belongs to the West and not to the East.
41First pointed out by Ungnad inOLZ1910, p. 306, on the basis ofCTXVIII, 30, 10, where En-gi-dú appears in the column furnishingphoneticreadings.
42See ClayAmurru, pp. 74, 129, etc.
43Tablet I, 2, 39–40; 3, 6–7 and 33–34; 4, 3–4.
44Tablet 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).
45BORIV, p. 264.
46Lewin,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 גלמגוס compared with the second of גמיגמוס gives the exact form that we require, namely, Gilgamos.
47Tablet I, col. 2, is taken up with this episode.
48See Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, p. 123.
49See Poebel,Historical TextsNo. 2, col. 2, 26.
50Hilprecht,Old Babylonian InscriptionsI, 1 No. 26.
51Delitzsch,Assyrische Lesestücke, p. 88, VI, 2–3. Cf. alsoCTXXV, 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,OLZ1910, 99.
52See, e.g., Barton,Haverford CollectionII No. 27, Col. I, 14, etc.
53Deimel,Pantheon Babylonicum, p. 95.
54CTXII, 50 (K 4359) obv. 17.
55See Barton,Origin and Development of Babylonian Writing, II, p. 99seq., for various explanations, though all centering around the same idea of the picture of fire in some form.
56See the passages quoted by Poebel,Historical and Grammatical Texts, p. 126.
57E.g., Genesis 4, 20, Jabal, “the father of tent-dwelling and cattle holding;” Jubal (4, 21), “the father of harp and pipe striking.”
58See 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.
59The designation is variously explained by Arabic writers. See Beidhawi’sCommentary(ed. Fleischer), to Súra 18, 82.
60The 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.”
61See above,p. 27.
62Poebel,Historical Texts, p. 115seq.
63Many years ago (BAIII, p. 376) I equated Etana with Ethan in the Old Testament—therefore a West Semitic name.
64See Clay,The Empire of the Amorites, p. 80.
65Professor Clay strongly favors an Amoritic origin also for Gilgamesh. His explanation of the name is set forth in his recent work onThe Empire of the Amorites, page 89, and is also referred to in his work onAmurru, page 79, and in his volume ofMiscellaneous 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 likeBilga-Mash, the meaning of which was perhaps “the offspring of Mash.” For the first element in this division of the name cf. Piliḳam, the name of a ruler of an early dynasty, and Balaḳ 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 ofGish-Tún-mash=pašu, “axe,”CTXVI, 38:14b, etc.Tunalso =pilaḳu“axe,”CTxii, 10:34b. Names with similar element (besides Piliḳam) are Belaḳu of the Hammurabi period, Bilaḳḳu 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.
66me-iḫ-rù(line 191).
67Tablet I, 5, 23. Cf. I, 3, 2 and 29.
68Tablet IV, 4, 7 and I, 5, 3.
69Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b 34, in an address of Shamash to Enkidu.
70So Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 11. Also supplied VIII, 5, 20 and 21; and X, 1, 46–47 and 5, 6–7.
71Tablet XII, 3, 25.
72Ward,Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, Chap. X, and the same author’sCylinders and other Ancient Oriental Seals—Morgan collection Nos. 19–50.
73E.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.
74E.g., Ward, Nos. 173, 174, 190, 191, 195 as well as 189 and 192.
75On 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.
76See Jastrow,Religion of Babylonia and Assyria(Boston, 1898), p. 468seq.
77Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 90seq.
78Pennsylvania 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.”
80Pennsylvania tablet, lines 218 and 224.
81Yale tablet, line 198; also to be supplied lines 13–14.
82Yale tablet, lines 190 and 191.
83PSBA1914, 65seq.= Jensen III, 1a, 4–11, which can now be completed and supplemented by the new fragment.
84I.e., Enkidu will save Gilgamesh.
85These two lines impress one as popular sayings—here applied to Enkidu.
86King’s fragment, col. I, 13–27, which now enables us to complete Jensen III, 1a, 12–21.
87Yale tablet, lines252–253.
88Yale tablet, lines 143–148 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6, 26seq.
89Assyrian version, Tablet III, 2a, 13–14.
90Lines 215–222.
91Assyrian 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.”
92Assyrian version, Tablet VI, lines 146–147.
93Lines 178–183.
94Lines 176–177.
95Tablet VII, Column 6.
96Assyrian 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.
97Lines 109 and 112.
98Assyrian version, Tablet IX, 1, 8–9.
99Tablet VIII, 5, 2–6.
100So also Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 97, regards Enkidu as the older figure.
101See Jastrow,Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature, AJSL, Vol. 15, pp. 193–214.
102Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 31–36.
103It will be recalled that Enkidu is always spoken of as “born in the field.”
104Note the repetitionibtani“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.
105Tablet I, Column 3.
106Following as usual the enumeration of lines in Jensen’s edition.
107An analogy does not involve a dependence of one tale upon the other, but merely that both rest on similar traditions, whichmayhave arisen independently.
108Note that the name of Eve is not mentioned till after the fall (Genesis 3, 20). Before that she is merelyishsha, i.e., “woman,” just as in the Babylonian tale the woman who guides Enkidu isḫarimtu, “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).
111That 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.
112Pennsylvania tablet, lines 102–104.
113Line 105.
114Tablet 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.
115The invariable designation in the Assyrian version as againstUruk ribîtim, “Erech of the plazas,” in the old Babylonian version.
116In Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 123seq.
117See 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.
118The darkness is emphasized with each advance in the hero’s wanderings (Tablet IX, col. 5).
119This 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 overflowof 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.).
120Aš-am in Sumerian corresponding to the Akkadian Šabaṭu, which conveys the idea of destruction.
121The 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.
122Historical TextsNo. 1. The Sumerian name of the survivor is Zi-ū-gíd-du or perhaps Zi-ū-sū-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 alsoCTXVIII, 30, 9, and Langdon,Sumerian Epic of Paradise, p. 90, who, however, enters upon further speculations that are fanciful.
123See the translation in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, pp. 69,seq.and 73.
124According to Professor Clay, quite certainly Amurru, just as in the case of Enkidu.
125Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann,Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 100seq.touches upon thismotif, 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 theenlargementof themotifso as to include companions who arenotregarded as brothers.
126Or Romus. See Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 59, note 2.
127One might also include the primeval pair Yama-Yami with their equivalents in Iranian mythology (Carnoy,Iranian Mythology, p. 294seq.).
128Becoming, however, a triad and later increased to seven. Cf. Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 32.
129I 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”motiffrom Indo-European sources, supplemental to Rendell Harris’ work.
130On the other hand,Uruk mâtumfor 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 aduplicateto 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.
132ina šap-li-ki, literally, “below thee,” whereas in the old Babylonian version we haveana ṣi-ri-ka, “towards thee.”
133Repeated I, 6, 28.
134ul-tap-rid ki-is-su-šú-ma. The verb is fromparâdu, “violent.” Forkissu, “strong,” seeCTXVI, 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.
135Shown by the colophon (Jeremias,Izdubar-Nimrod, Plate IV.)
136Lines 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.
137Tablet I, col. 4. See also above,p. 19.
138IV, 2, 44–50. The wordullanum, (l.43) “once” or “since,” points to the following being a reference to a former recital, and not an original recital.
139Only the lower half (Haupt’s edition, p. 82) is preserved.
140“The eyes of Enkidu were filled with tears,” corresponding to IV, 4, 10.
141Unless indeed the number “seven” is a slip for the sign ša. See the commentary to the line.