131Making merry.132He lifted up his eyes,133He sees the man.134He spoke to the woman:135“O, courtesan, lure on the man.136Why has he come to me?137His name I will destroy.”138The woman called to the man139Who approaches to him3and he beholds him.140“Away! why dost thou [quake(?)]141Evil is the course of thy activity.”4142Then he5opened his mouth and143Spoke to Enkidu:144”[To have (?)] a family home145Is the destiny of men, and146The prerogative(?) of the nobles.147For the city(?) load the workbaskets!148Food supply for the city lay to one side!149For the King of Erech of the plazas,150Open the hymen(?), perform the marriage act!151For Gish, the King of Erech of the plazas,152Open the hymen(?),153Perform the marriage act!154With the legitimate wife one should cohabit.155So before,156As well as in the future.6157By the decree pronounced by a god,158From the cutting of his umbilical cord159(Such) is his fate.”160At the speech of the hero161His face grew pale.(About three lines missing.)Col. V.(About six lines missing.)171[Enkidu] went [in front],172And the courtesan behind him.173He entered into Erech of the plazas.174The people gathered about him.175As he stood in the streets176Of Erech of the plazas,177The men gathered,178Saying in regard to him:179“Like the form of Gish he hassuddenlybecome;180shorter in stature.181[In his structure high(?)], powerful,182.......... overseeing(?)183In the land strong of power has he become.184Milk of cattle185He was accustomed to suck.”186Steadily(?) in Erech .....187The heroes rejoiced.188He became a leader.189To the hero of fine appearance,190To Gish, like a god,191He became a rival to him.7192For Ishḫara a couch193Was stretched, and194Gish [lay down, and afterwards(?)]195In the night he fled.196He approaches and197[Enkidu stood] in the streets.198He blocked the path199of Gish.200At the exhibit of his power,(About three lines missing.)Col. VI.(About four lines missing.)208Strong(?) …209Gish210Against him [Enkidu proceeded],211[His hair] luxuriant.212He started [to go]213Towards him.214They met in the plaza of the district.215Enkidu blocked the gate216With his foot,217Not permitting Gish to enter.218They seized (each other), like oxen,219They fought.220The threshold they demolished;221The wall they impaired.222Gish and Enkidu223Seized (each other).224Like oxen they fought.225The threshold they demolished;226The wall they impaired.227Gish bent228His foot to the ground,8229His wrath was appeased,230His breast was quieted.231When his breast was quieted,232Enkidu to him233Spoke, to Gish:234“As a unique one, thy mother235bore thee.236The wild cow of the stall,9237Ninsun,238Has exalted thy head above men.239Kingship over men240Enlil has decreed for thee.241Second tablet,242enlarged beyond [the original(?)].243240 lines.1I.e., paid homage to the meteor.2I.e., theheroesof Erech raised me to my feet, or perhaps in the sense of “supported me.”3I.e., Enkidu.4I.e., “thy way of life.”5I.e., the man.6I.e., an idiomatic phrase meaning “for all times.”7I.e., Enkidu became like Gish, godlike. Cf. col. 2, 11.8He was thrown and therefore vanquished.9Epithet given to Ninsun. See the commentary to the line.Commentary on the Pennsylvania Tablet.Line 1. The verbtibûwithpašâruexpresses the aim of Gish to secure an interpretation for his dream. This disposes of Langdon’s note 1 on page 211 of his edition, in which he also erroneously speaks of our text as “late.”Pašâruis not a variant ofzakâru. Both verbs occur just as here in the Assyrian version I, 5, 25.Line 3.ina šât mušitia, “in this my night,” i.e., in the course of this night of mine. A curious way of putting it, but the expression occurs also in the Assyrian version, e.g., I, 5, 26 (parallel passage to ours) and II, 4a, 14. In the Yale tablet we find, similarly,mu-ši-it-ka(l. 262), “thy night,” i.e., “at night to thee.”Line 5. Before Langdon put down the strange statement of Gish “wandering about in the midst of omens” (misreadingid-da-timforit-lu-tim), he might have asked himself the question, what it could possibly mean. How can one walk among omens?Line 6.ka-ka-bu šá-ma-imust be taken as a compound term for “starry heaven.” The parallel passage in the Assyrian version (Tablet I, 5, 27) has the ideograph for star, with the plural sign as a variant. Literally, therefore, “The starry heaven (or “the stars in heaven”) was there,” etc. Langdon’s note 2 on page 211 rests on an erroneous reading.Line 7.kiṣru šá Anim, “mass of Anu,” appears to be the designation of a meteor, which might well be described as a “mass” coming from Anu, i.e., from the god of heaven who becomes the personification of the heavens in general. In the Assyrian version (I, 5, 28) we havekima ki-iṣ-rù, i.e., “something like a mass of heaven.” Note also I, 3, 16, where in a description of Gilgamesh, his strength is said to be “strong like a mass (i.e., a meteor) of heaven.”Line 9. Fornuššašu ûl iltêwe have a parallel in the Hebrew phrase נלְַפָסֵתִי נשַׂפָס (Isaiah 1, 14).Line 10.Uruk mâtum, as the designation for the district of Erech, occurs in the Assyrian version, e.g., I, 5, 31, and IV, 2, 38; also to be supplied, I, 6, 23.Forpaḫirthe parallel in the Assyrian version hasiz-za-az(I, 5, 31), but VI, 197, we findpaḫ-ruandpaḫ-ra.Line 17.mi-in-didoes not mean “truly” as Langdon translates, but “some one.” It occurs also in the Assyrian version X, 1, 13,mi-in-di-e ma-an-nu-ṵ, “this is some one who,” etc.Line 18. Cf. Assyrian version I, 5, 3, and IV, 4, 7,ina ṣiri âlid—both passages referring to Enkidu.Line 21. Cf. Assyrian version II, 3b, 38, withmalkê, “kings,” as a synonym ofitlutum.Line 23.ta-tar-ra-as-súfromtarâṣu, “direct,” “guide,” etc.Line 24. I takeuš-ti-nim-maas III, 2, fromišênu(יָשֵׁן), the verb underlyingšittu, “sleep,” andšuttu, “dream.”Line 26. Cf. Assyrian version I, 6, 21—a complete parallel.Line 28.Uruk ri-bi-tim, the standing phrase in both tablets of the old Babylonian version, for which in the Assyrian version we haveUruk su-pu-ri. The former term suggests the “broad space” outside of the city or the “common” in a village community, whilesupûri, “enclosed,” would refer to the city within the walls. Dr. W. F. Albright (in a private communication) suggests “Erech of the plazas” as a suitable translation forUruk ribîtim. A third term,Uruk mâtum(see above, note to line 10), though designating rather the district of which Erech was the capital, appears to be used as a synonym toUruk ribîtim, as may be concluded from the phrasei-na ri-bi-tum ma-ti(l. 214 of the Pennsylvania tablet), which clearly means the “plaza” of the city. One naturally thinks of רְחֹבֹת עִיר in Genesis 10, 11—the equivalent of Babylonianri-bi-tu âli—which can hardly be the name of a city. It appears to be a gloss, as is הִיַפָס הָעִיּר הַגְּדֹלָה at the end of v. 12. The latter gloss is misplaced, since it clearly describes “Nineveh,” mentioned in v. 11. Inasmuch as רְחֹבֹת עִיר immediately follows the mention of Nineveh, it seems simplest to take the phrase as designating the “outside” or “suburbs” of the city, a complete parallel, therefore, tori-bi-tu mâtiin our text. Nineveh, together with the “suburbs,” forms the “great city.”Uruk ribîtimis, therefore, a designation for “greater Erech,” proper to a capital city, which by its gradual growth would take in more than its original confines. “Erech of the plazas” must have come to be used as a honorific designation of this important center as early as 2000 B. C., whereas later, perhaps because of its decline, the epithet no longer seemed appropriate and was replaced by the more modest designation of “walled Erech,” with an allusion to the tradition which ascribed the building of the wall of the city to Gilgamesh. At allevents, all three expressions, “Erech of the plazas,” “Erech walled” and “Erech land,” are to be regarded as synonymous. The position once held by Erech follows also from its ideographic designation (Brünnow No. 4796) by the sign “house” with a “gunufied” extension, which conveys the idea of Unu =šubtu, or “dwelling”par excellence. The pronunciation Unug or Unuk (see the glossu-nu-uk, VR 23, 8a), composed ofunu, “dwelling,” andki, “place,” is hardly to be regarded as older than Uruk, which is to be resolved intouru, “city,” andki, “place,” but rather as a play upon the name, both Unu + ki and Uru + ki conveying the same idea ofthecity orthedwelling placepar excellence. As the seat of the second oldest dynasty according to Babylonian traditions (see Poebel’s list inHistorical and Grammatical TextsNo. 2), Erech no doubt was regarded as having been at one time “the city,” i.e., the capital of the entire Euphrates Valley.Line 31. A difficult line for which Langdon proposes the translation: “Another axe seemed his visage”!!—which may be picturesque, but hardly a description befitting a hero. How can a man’s face seem to be an axe? Langdon attachesšá-niin the sense of “second” to the preceding word “axe,” whereasšanî bunušu, “change of his countenance” or “his countenance being changed,” is to be taken as a phrase to convey the idea of “being disturbed,” “displeased” or “angry.” The phrase is of the same kind as the well-knownšunnu ṭêmu, “changing of reason,” to denote “insanity.” See the passages in Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, pp. 355 and 1068. In Hebrew, too, we have the same two phrases, e.g., וַיְשַׁנֹּו ַפָסֶת־טַעְמֹו (I Sam. 21, 14 = Ps. 34, 1), “and he changed his reason,” i.e., feigned insanity and מְשַׁנֶּה פָּנָיו (Job 14, 20), “changing his face,” to indicate a radical alteration in the frame of mind. There is a still closer parallel in Biblical Aramaic: Dan. 3, 19, “The form of his visage was changed,” meaning “he was enraged.” Fortunately, the same phrase occurs also in the Yale tablet (l. 192),šá-nu-ú bu-nu-šú, in a connection which leaves no doubt that the aroused fury of the tyrant Ḫuwawa is described by it:”Ḫuwawa heard and his face was changed”precisely, therefore, as we should say—following Biblical usage—“his countenance fell.” Cf. also the phrasepânušu arpu, “his countenancewas darkened” (Assyrian version I, 2, 48), to express “anger.” The line, therefore, in the Pennsylvania tablet must describe Enkidu’s anger. With the brandishing of the axe the hero’s anger was also stirred up. The touch was added to prepare us for the continuation in which Gish describes how, despite this (or perhaps just because of it), Enkidu seemed so attractive that Gish instantly fell in love with him. May perhaps the emphatic formḫaṣinumma(line 31) againstḫaṣinu(line 29) have been used to indicate “The axe it was,” or “because of the axe?” It would be worth while to examine other texts of the Hammurabi period with a view of determining the scope in the use and meaning of the emphaticmawhen added to a substantive.Line 32. The combinationamur ù aḫtaduoccurs also in the El-Amarna Letters, No. 18, 12.Line 34. In view of the common Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic חָבַב “to love,” it seems preferable to read here, as in the other passages in the Assyrian versions (I, 4, 15; 4, 35; 6, 27, etc.),a-ḫa-ab-bu-ub,aḫ-bu-ub,iḫ-bu-bu, etc. (instead of withp), and to render “embrace.”Lines 38–40, completing the column, may be supplied from the Assyrian version I, 6, 30–32, in conjunction with lines 33–34 of our text. The beginning of line 32 in Jensen’s version is therefore to be filled out[ta-ra-am-šú ki]-i.Line 43. The restoration at the beginning of this lineEn-ki-[dũ wa]-ši-ib ma-ḫar ḫa-ri-im-timenables us to restore also the beginning of the second tablet of the Assyrian version (cf. the colophon of the fragment 81, 7–27, 93, in Jeremias,Izdubar-Nimrod, plate IV = Jensen, p. 134),[dEn-ki-dũ wa-ši-ib] ma-ḫar-šá.Line 44. The restoration of this line is largely conjectural, based on the supposition that its contents correspond in a general way to I, 4, 16, of the Assyrian version. The readingdi-dais quite certain, as is alsoip-ti-[e]; and since both words occur in the line of the Assyrian version in question, it is tempting to supply at the beginningur-[šá]= “her loins” (cf. Holma,Namen der Körperteile, etc., p. 101), which is likewise found in the same line of the Assyrian version. At all events the line describes the fascination exercisedupon Enkidu by the woman’s bodily charms, which make him forget everything else.Lines 46–47 form a parallel to I, 4, 21, of the Assyrian version. The formšamkatu, “courtesan,” is constant in the old Babylonian version (ll. 135 and 172), as againstšamḫatuin the Assyrian version (I, 3, 19, 40, 45; 4, 16), which also uses the pluralšam-ḫa-a-ti(II, 3b, 40). The interchange betweenḫandkis not without precedent (cf. Meissner,Altbabylonisches Privatrecht, page 107, note 2, and more particularly Chiera,List of Personal Names, page 37).In view of the evidence, set forth in the Introduction, for the assumption that the Enkidu story has been combined with a tale of the evolution of primitive man to civilized life, it is reasonable to suggest that in the original Enkidu story the female companion was calledšamkatu, “courtesan,” whereas in the tale of the primitive man, which was transferred to Enkidu, the associate wasḫarimtu, a “woman,” just as in the Genesis tale, the companion of Adam is simply calledishshâ, “woman.” Note that in the Assyrian parallel (Tablet I, 4, 26) we have two readings,ir-ḫi(imperf.) and a varianti-ri-ḫi(present). The former is the better reading, as our tablet shows.Lines 49–59 run parallel to the Assyrian version I, 4, 33–38, with slight variations which have been discussed above, p. 58, and from which we may conclude that the Assyrian version represents an independent redaction. Since in our tablet we have presumably the repetition of what may have been in part at least set forth in the first tablet of the old Babylonian version, we must not press the parallelism with the first tablet of the Assyrian version too far; but it is noticeable nevertheless (1) that our tablet contains lines 57–58 which are not represented in the Assyrian version, and (2) that the second speech of the “woman” beginning, line 62, withal-ka, “come” (just as the first speech, line 54), is likewise not found in the first tablet of the Assyrian version; which on the other hand contains a line (39) not in the Babylonian version, besides the detailed answer of Enkidu (I 4, 42–5, 5). Line 6, which reads “Enkidu and the woman went (il-li-ku) to walled Erech,” is also not found in the second tablet of the old Babylonian version.Line 63. Formagrû, “accursed,” see the frequent use in Astrological texts (Jastrow,Religion Babyloniens und AssyriensII, page450, note 2). Langdon, by his strange error in separatingma-a-ag-ri-iminto two wordsma-a-akandri-i-im, with a still stranger rendering: “unto the place yonder of the shepherds!!”, naturally misses the point of this important speech.Line 64corresponds to I, 4, 40, of the Assyrian version, which has an additional line, leading to the answer of Enkidu. From here on, our tablet furnishes material not represented in the Assyrian version, but which was no doubt included in the second tablet of that version of which we have only a few fragments.Line 70must be interpreted as indicating that the woman kept one garment for herself.Ittalbašwould accordingly mean, “she kept on.” The female dress appears to have consisted of an upper and a lower garment.Line 72. The restoration “like a god” is favored byline 51, where Enkidu is likened to a god, and is further confirmed by l. 190.Line 73.gupruis identical withgu-up-ri(Thompson,Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers, etc., 223 rev. 2 and 223arev. 8), and must be correlated togipâru(Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, p. 229a), “planted field,” “meadow,” and the like. Thompson’s translation “men” (as though a synonym ofgabru) is to be corrected accordingly.Line 74. There is nothing missing betweena-šarandtar-ba-ṣi-im.Line 75.ri-ia-ú, which Langdon renders “shepherd,” is the equivalent of the Arabicriʿyand Hebrew רְעִי “pasturage,” “fodder.” We have usually the feminine formri-i-tu(Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, p. 990b). The break at the end of the second column is not serious. Evidently Enkidu, still accustomed to live like an animal, is first led to the sheepfolds, and this suggests a repetition of the description of his former life. Of the four or five lines missing, we may conjecturally restore four, on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2–5, or I, 2, 39–41. This would then join on well to the beginning of column 3.Line 81. Both here and inl. 52our text hasna-ma-áš-te-e, as againstnam-maš-ši-iin the Assyrian version, e.g., Tablet I, 2, 41; 4, 5, etc.,—the feminine form, therefore, as against the masculine. Langdon’s note 3 on page 213 is misleading. In astrological texts we also findnam-maš-te; e.g., Thompson,Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers, etc., No. 200, Obv. 2.Line 93.zi-ma-at(forsimat)ba-la-ṭi-imis not “conformity of life” as Langdon renders, but that which “belongs to life” likesi-mat pag-ri-šá, “belonging to her body,” in the Assyrian version III, 2a, 3 (Jensen, page 146). “Food,” says the woman, “is the staff of life.”Line 94. Langdon’s strange rendering “of the conditions and fate of the land” rests upon an erroneous reading (see the corrections, Appendix I), which is the more inexcusable because in line 97 the same ideogram, Kàš =šikaru, “wine,” occurs, and is correctly rendered by him.Šimti mâtiis not the “fate of the land,” but the “fixed custom of the land.”Line 98.aṣ-ṣa-mi-im(plural ofaṣṣamu), which Langdon takes as an adverb in the sense of “times,” is a well-known word for a large “goblet,” which occurs in Incantation texts, e.g.,CTXVI, 24, obv. 1, 19,mê a-ṣa-am-mi-e šú-puk, “pour out goblets of water.” Line 18 of the passage shoves thataṣammuis a Sumerian loan word.Line 99.it-tap-šar, I, 2, frompašâru, “loosen.” In combination withkabtatum(fromkabitatum, yielding two forms:kabtatum, by elision ofi, andkabittu, by elision ofa), “liver,”pašâruhas the force of becoming cheerful. Cf.ka-bit-ta-ki lip-pa-šir(ZAV., p. 67, line 14).Line 100, note the customary combination of “liver” (kabtatum) and “heart” (libbu) for “disposition” and “mind,” just as in the standing phrase in penitential prayers: “May thy liver be appeased, thy heart be quieted.”Line 102. The restoration [lùŠÚ]-I =gallabu“barber” (Delitzsch,Sumer. Glossar, p. 267) was suggested to me by Dr. H. F. Lutz. The ideographic writing “raising the hand” is interesting as recalling the gesture of shaving or cutting. Cf. a reference to a barber in Lutz,Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa, No. 109, 6.Line 103. Langdon has correctly renderedšuḫuruas “hair,” and has seen that we have here a loan-word from the Sumerian Suḫur =kimmatu, “hair,” according to the Syllabary Sb357 (cf. Delitzsch,Sumer. Glossar., p. 253). Forkimmatu, “hair,” more specifically hair of the head and face, see Holma,Namen der Körperteile, page 3. The same sign Suḫur or Suḫ (Brünnow No. 8615), with Lal, i.e., “hanging hair,” designates the “beard” (ziḳnu, cf. Brünnow, No. 8620, and Holma, l. c., p. 36), and it is interesting tonote that we havešuḫuru(introduced as a loan-word) for the barbershop, according to II R, 21, 27c(=CTXII, 41).Ê suḫur(ra) (i.e., house of the hair) =šú-ḫu-ru.In view of all this, we may regard as assured Holma’s conjecture to readšú-[ḫur-ma-šú]in the list 93074 obv. (MVAG1904, p. 203; and Holma,Beiträge z. Assyr. Lexikon, p. 36), as the Akkadian equivalent to Suḫur-Maš-Ḫa and the name of a fish, so called because it appeared to have a double “beard” (cf. Holma,Namen der Körperteile). One is tempted, furthermore, to see in the difficult word שכירה (Isaiah 7, 20) a loan-word from ouršuḫuru, and to take the words ַפָסֶת־הָרַֹפָסשׁ וְשַׂעַר הָרַגְלַיִם “the head and hair of the feet” (euphemistic for the hair around the privates), as an explanatory gloss to the rare word שכירה for “hair” of the body in general—just as in the passage in the Pennsylvania tablet. The verse in Isaiah would then read, “The Lord on that day will shave with the razor the hair (השכירה), and even the beard will be removed.” The rest of the verse would represent a series of explanatory glosses: (a) “Beyond the river” (i.e., Assyria), a gloss to יְגַלַּח (b) “with the king of Assyria,” a gloss to בְּתַעַר “with a razor;” and (c) “the hair of the head and hair of the feet,” a gloss to השכירה. For “hair of the feet” we have an interesting equivalent in Babylonianšu-ḫur(andšú-ḫu-ur)šêpi(CTXII, 41, 23–24 c-d). Cf. also Boissier,Documents Assyriens relatifs aux Présages, p. 258, 4–5. The Babylonian phrase is like the Hebrew one to be interpreted as a euphemism for the hair around the male or female organ. To be sure, the change from ה to כ in השכירה constitutes an objection, but not a serious one in the case of a loan-word, which would aim to give thepronunciationof the original word, rather than the correct etymological equivalent. The writing with aspirated כ fulfills this condition. (Cf.šamkatumandšamḫatum, above p. 73). The passage in Isaiah being a reference to Assyria, the prophet might be tempted to use a foreign word to make his point more emphatic. To take השכירה as “hired,” as has hitherto been done, and to translate “with a hired razor,” is not only to suppose a very wooden metaphor, but is grammatically difficult, since השכירח would be a feminine adjective attached to a masculine substantive.Coming back to our passage in the Pennsylvania tablet, it is tobe noted that Enkidu is described as covered “all over his body with hair” (Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 36) like an animal. To convert him into a civilized man, the hair is removed.Line 107.mutudoes not mean “husband” here, as Langdon supposes, but must be taken as inl. 238in the more general sense of “man,” for which there is good evidence.Line 109.la-bi(plural form) are “lions”—not “panthers” as Langdon has it. The verbú-gi-ir-riis fromgâru, “to attack.” Langdon by separatingúfromgi-ir-rigets a totally wrong and indeed absurd meaning. See the corrections in the Appendix. He takes the signúfor the copula (!!) which of course is impossible.Line 110. Readuš-sa-ak-pu, III, 1, ofsakâpu, which is frequently used for “lying down” and is in fact a synonym ofṣalâlu. See Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, page 758a. The original has very clearly Síb (=rê’u, “shepherd”) with the plural sign. The “shepherds of the night,” who could now rest since Enkidu had killed the lions, are of course the shepherds who were accustomed to watch the flocks during the night.Line 111.ut-tap-pi-išis II, 2,napâšu, “to make a hole,” hence “to plunge” in connection with a weapon.Šib-ba-riis, of course, not “mountain goats,” as Langdon renders, but a by-form tošibbiru, “stick,” and designates some special weapon. Since on seal cylinders depicting Enkidu killing lions and other animals the hero is armed with a dagger, this is presumably the weaponšibbaru.Line 113. Langdon’s translation is again out of the question and purely fanciful. The traces favor the restorationna-ki-[di-e], “shepherds,” and since the line appears to be a parallel to line 110, I venture to suggest at the beginning[it-ti]-lufromna’âlu, “lie down”—a synonym, therefore, tosakâpuin line 110. The shepherds can sleep quietly after Enkidu has become the “guardian” of the flocks. In the Assyrian version (tablet II, 3a, 4) Enkidu is called ana-kid, “shepherd,” and in the preceding line we likewise havelùNa-Kid with the plural sign, i.e., “shepherds.” This would point tonakidubeing a Sumerian loan-word, unless it isvice versa, a word that has gone over into the Sumerian from Akkadian. Is perhaps the fragment in question (K 8574) in the Assyrian version (Haupt’s ed. No. 25) theparallelto our passage? If in line 4 of this fragment we could readšúforsa, i.e.,na-kid-šú-nu, “their shepherd, we would have aparallel to line 114 of the Pennsylvania tablet, withna-kidas a synonym tomaṣṣaru, “protector.” The preceding line would then be completed as follows:[it-ti-lu]-nim-ma na-kidmeš[ra-bu-tum](or perhaps onlyit-ti-lu-ma, since thenimis not certain) and would correspond toline 113of the Pennsylvania tablet. Inasmuch as the writing on the tiny fragment is very much blurred, it is quite possible that in line 2 we must readšib-ba-ri(instead ofbar-ba-ri), which would furnish a parallel to line 111 of the Pennsylvania tablet. The difference between Bar and Šib is slight, and the one sign might easily be mistaken for the other in the case of close writing. The continuation of line 2 of the fragment would then correspond to line 112 of the Pennsylvania tablet, while line 1 of the fragment might be completed[re-e]-u-ti(?) šá [mu-ši-a-tim], though this is by no means certain.The break at the close of column 3 (about 5 lines) and the top of column 4 (about 8 lines) is a most serious interruption in the narrative, and makes it difficult to pick up the thread where the tablet again becomes readable. We cannot be certain whether the “strong man, the unique hero” who addresses some one (lines 115–117) is Enkidu or Gish or some other personage, but presumably Gish is meant. In the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 2 and 29, we find Gilgamesh described as the “unique hero” and in l. 234 of the Pennsylvania tablet Gish is called “unique,” while again, in the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 15 and 26, he is designated asgašruas in our text. Assuming this, whom does he address? Perhaps the shepherds? In either case he receives an answer that rejoices him. If the fragment of the Assyrian version (K 8574) above discussed is the equivalent to the close of column 3 of the Pennsylvania tablet, we may go one step further, and with some measure of assurance assume that Gish is told of Enkidu’s exploits and that the latter is approaching Erech. This pleases Gish, but Enkidu when he sees Gish(?) is stirred to anger and wants to annihilate him. At this point, the “man” (who is probably Gish, though the possibility of a third personage must be admitted) intervenes and in a long speech sets forth the destiny and higher aims of mankind. The contrast between Enkidu and Gish (or the third party) is that between the primitivesavage and the civilized being. The contrast is put in the form of an opposition between the two. The primitive man is the stronger and wishes to destroy the one whom he regards as a natural foe and rival. On the other hand, the one who stands on a higher plane wants to lift his fellow up. The whole of column 4, therefore, forms part of the lesson attached to the story of Enkidu, who, identified with man in a primitive stage, is made the medium of illustrating how the higher plane is reached through the guiding influences of the woman’s hold on man, an influence exercised, to be sure, with the help of her bodily charms.Line 135.uk-ki-ši(imperative form) does not mean “take away,” as Langdon (who entirely misses the point of the whole passage) renders, but on the contrary, “lure him on,” “entrap him,” and the like. The verb occurs also in the Yale tablet, ll. 183 and 186.Line 137. Langdon’s note tolu-uš-šúhad better be passed over in silence. The form is II. 1, fromešû, “destroy.”Line 139. Since the man whom the woman calls approaches Enkidu, the subject of both verbs is the man, and the object is Enkidu; i.e., therefore, “The man approaches Enkidu and beholds him.”Line 140. Langdon’s interpretation of this line again is purely fanciful.E-di-ilcannot, of course, be a “phonetic variant” ofedir; and certainly the line does not describe the state of mind of the woman. Lines 140–141 are to be taken as an expression of amazement at Enkidu’s appearance. The first word appears to be an imperative in the sense of “Be off,” “Away,” fromdâlu, “move, roam.” The second worde-eš, “why,” occurs with the same verbdâluin the Meissner fragment:e-eš ta-da-al(column 3, 1), “why dost thou roam about?” The verb at the end of the line may perhaps be completed tota-ḫi-il-la-am. The last sign appears to beam, but may bema, in which case we should have to complete simplyta-ḫi-il-ma.Taḫîlwould be the second person present ofḫîlu. Cf.i-ḫi-il, frequently in astrological texts, e.g., Virolleaud,AdadNo. 3, lines 21 and 33.Line 141. The readinglim-nuat the beginning, instead of Langdon’smi-nu, is quite certain, as is alsoma-na-aḫ-ti-kainstead of what Langdon proposes, which gives no sense whatever.Manaḫtuin the sense of the “toil” and “activity of life” (like עָמָל throughout the Book of Ecclesiastes) occurs in the introductory lines tothe Assyrian version of the Epic I, 1, 8,ka-lu ma-na-aḫ-ti-[šu], “all of his toil,” i.e., all of his career.Line 142. The subject of the verb cannot be the woman, as Langdon supposes, for the text in that case, e.g., line 49, would have saidpi-šá(“her mouth”) notpi-šú(“his mouth”). The long speech, detailing the function and destiny of civilized man, is placed in the mouth of the man who meets Enkidu.In the Introduction it has been pointed out thatlines 149and151of the speech appear to be due to later modifications of the speech designed to connect the episode with Gish. Assuming this to be the case, the speech sets forth the following five distinct aims of human life: (1) establishing a home (line 144), (2) work (line 147), (3) storing up resources (line 148), (4) marriage (line 150), (5) monogamy (line 154); all of which is put down as established for all time by divine decree (lines 155–157), and as man’s fate from his birth (lines 158–159).Line 144.bi-ti-iš e-mu-tiis forbîti šá e-mu-ti, just asḳab-lu-uš Ti-a-ma-ti(Assyrian Creation Myth, IV, 65) stands forḳablu šá Tiamti. Cf.bît e-mu-ti(Assyrian version, IV, 2, 46 and 48). The end of the line is lost beyond recovery, but the general sense is clear.Line 146.tu-a-aris a possible reading. It may be the construct oftu-a-ru, of frequent occurrence in legal texts and having some such meaning as “right,” “claim” or “prerogative.” See the passages given by Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, p. 1139b.Line 148. The readinguk-la-at, “food,” and then in the wider sense “food supply,” “provisions,” is quite certain. The fourth sign looks like the one for “city.”E-mi-samay stand fore-mid-sa, “place it.” The general sense of the line, at all events, is clear, as giving the advice to gather resources. It fits in with the Babylonian outlook on life to regard work and wealth as the fruits of work and as a proper purpose in life.Line 150(repeatedlines 152–153) is a puzzling line. To renderpiti pûk epši(orepiši), as Langdon proposes, “open, addressing thy speech,” is philologically and in every other respect inadmissible. The wordpu-uk(which Langdon takes for “thy mouth”!!) can, of course, be nothing but the construct form ofpukku, which occurs in the Assyrian version in the sense of “net” (pu-uk-kuI, 2, 9 and 21, and also in the colophon to the eleventh tablet furnishing thebeginning of the twelfth tablet (Haupt’s edition No. 56), as well as in column 2, 29, and column 3, 6, of this twelfth tablet). In the two last named passagespukkuis a synonym ofmekû, which from the general meaning of “enclosure” comes to be a euphemistic expression for the female organ. So, for example, in the Assyrian Creation Myth, Tablet IV, 66 (synonym ofḳablu, “waist,” etc.). See Holma,Namen der Körperteile, page 158. Our wordpukkumust be taken in this same sense as a designation of the female organ—perhaps more specifically the “hymen” as the “net,” though the womb in general might also be designated as a “net” or “enclosure.”Kak-(ši)is no doubt to be readepši, as Langdon correctly saw; or perhaps better,epiši. An expression likeip-ši-šú lul-la-a(Assyrian version, I, 4, 13; also line 19,i-pu-us-su-ma lul-la-a), with the explanationšipir zinništi, “the work of woman” (i.e., after the fashion of woman), shows thatepêšuis used in connection with the sexual act. The phrasepitî pûk epiši a-na ḫa-a-a-ri, literally “open the net, perform the act for marriage,” therefore designates the fulfillment of the marriage act, and the line is intended to point to marriage with the accompanying sexual intercourse as one of the duties of man. While the general meaning is thus clear, the introduction of Gish is puzzling, except on the supposition that lines 149 and 151 represent later additions to connect the speech, detailing the advance to civilized life, with the hero. See above, p. 45seq.Line 154.aššat šimâtimis the “legitimate wife,” and the line inculcates monogamy as against promiscuous sexual intercourse. We know that monogamy was the rule in Babylonia, though a man could in addition to the wife recognized as the legalized spouse take a concubine, or his wife could give her husband a slave as a concubine. Even in that case, according to the Hammurabi Code, §§145–146, the wife retained her status. The Code throughout assumes that a man has onlyonewife—theaššat šimâtimof our text. The phrase “so” (or “that”) before “as afterwards” is to be taken as an idiomatic expression—“so it was and so it should be for all times”—somewhat like the phrasemaḫriam ù arkiam, “for all times,” in legal documents (CTVIII, 38c, 22–23). For the use ofmûksee Behrens,Assyrisch-Babylonische Briefe, p. 3.Line 158.i-na bi-ti-iḳ a-bu-un-na-ti-šú. Another puzzling line, for which Langdon proposes “in the work of his presence,” whichis as obscure as the original. In a note he says thatapunnâtimeans “nostrils,” which is certainly wrong. There has been considerable discussion about this term (see Holma,Namen der Körperteile, pages 150 and 157), the meaning of which has been advanced by Christian’s discussion inOLZ1914, p. 397. From this it appears that it must designate a part of the body which could acquire a wider significance so as to be used as a synonym for “totality,” since it appears in a list of equivalent for Dur =nap-ḫa-ru, “totality,”ka-lu-ma, “all,”a-bu-un-na-tum e-ṣi-im-tum, “bony structure,” andkul-la-tum, “totality” (CTXII, 10, 7–10). Christian shows that it may be the “navel,” which could well acquire a wider significance for the body in general; but we may go a step further and specify the “umbilical cord” (tentatively suggested also by Christian) as the primary meaning, then the “navel,” and from this the “body” in general. The structure of the umbilical cord as a series of strands would account for designating it by a plural formabunnâti, as also for the fact that one could speak of a right and left side of theappunnâti. To distinguish between the “umbilical cord” and the “navel,” the ideograph Dur (the common meaning of which isriksu, “bond” [Delitzsch,Sumer. Glossar., p. 150]), was used for the former, while for the latter Li Dur was employed, though the reading in Akkadian in both cases was the same. The expression “with (or at) the cutting of his umbilical cord” would mean, therefore, “from his birth”—since the cutting of the cord which united the child with the mother marks the beginning of the separate life. Lines 158–159, therefore, in concluding the address to Enkidu, emphasize in a picturesque way that what has been set forth is man’s fate for which he has been destined from birth. [See now Albright’s remarks onabunnatuin the Revue d’Assyriologie 16, pp. 173–175, with whose conclusion, however, that it means primarily “backbone” and then “stature,” I cannot agree.]In the break of about three lines at the bottom of column 4, and of about six at the beginning of column 5, there must have been set forth the effect of the address on Enkidu and the indication of his readiness to accept the advice; as in a former passage (line 64), Enkidu showed himself willing to follow the woman. At all events the two now proceed to the heart of the city. Enkidu is in frontand the woman behind him. The scene up to this point must have taken place outside of Erech—in the suburbs or approaches to the city, where the meadows and the sheepfolds were situated.Line 174.um-ma-nu-umare not the “artisans,” as Langdon supposes, but the “people” of Erech, just as in the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 1, 40, where the word occurs in connection withi-dip-pi-ir, which is perhaps to be taken as a synonym ofpaḫâru, “gather;” so alsoi-dip-pir(Tablet I, 2, 40) “gathers with the flock.”Lines 180–182 must have contained the description of Enkidu’s resemblance to Gish, but the lines are too mutilated to permit of any certain restoration. See the corrections (Appendix) for a suggested reading for the end of line 181.Line 183can be restored with considerable probability on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 3 and 30, where Enkidu is described as one “whose power is strong in the land.”Lines 186–187. The puzzling word, to be read apparentlykak-ki-a-tum, can hardly mean “weapons,” as Langdon proposes. In that case we should expectkakkê; and, moreover, to so render gives no sense, especially since the verbú-te-el-li-luis without much question to be rendered “rejoiced,” and not “purified.”Kakkiatum—if this be the correct reading—may be a designation of Erech likeribîtim.Lines 188–189 are again entirely misunderstood by Langdon, owing to erroneous readings. See the corrections in the Appendix.Line 190.i-li-imin this line is used like Hebrew Elohîm, “God.”Line 191.šakiššum=šakin-šum, as correctly explained by Langdon.Line 192. With this line a new episode begins which, owing to the gap at the beginning of column 6, is somewhat obscure. The episode leads to the hostile encounter between Gish and Enkidu. It is referred to in column 2 of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version. Lines 35–50—all that is preserved of this column—form in part a parallel to columns 5–6 of the Pennsylvania tablet, but in much briefer form, since what on the Pennsylvania tablet is the incident itself is on the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version merely a repeated summary of the relationship between the two heroes, leading up to the expedition against Ḫu(m)baba. Lines 38–40 ofcolumn 2 of the Assyrian version correspond to lines 174–177 of the Pennsylvania tablet, and lines 44–50 to lines 192–221. It would seem that Gish proceeds stealthily at night to go to the goddess Ishḫara, who lies on a couch in thebît êmuti, the “family house” Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2. 46–48). He encounters Enkidu in the street, and the latter blocks Gish’s path, puts his foot in the gate leading to the house where the goddess is, and thus prevents Gish from entering. Thereupon the two have a fierce encounter in which Gish is worsted. The meaning of the episode itself is not clear. Does Enkidu propose to deprive Gish, here viewed as a god (cf. line 190 of the Pennsylvania tablet = Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 45, “like a god”), of his spouse, the goddess Ishḫara—another form of Ishtar? Or are the two heroes, the one a counterpart of the other, contesting for the possession of a goddess? Is it in this scene that Enkidu becomes the “rival” (me-iḫ-rù, line 191 of the Pennsylvania tablet) of the divine Gish? We must content ourself with having obtained through the Pennsylvania tablet a clearer indication of the occasion of the fight between the two heroes, and leave the further explanation of the episode till a fortunate chance may throw additional light upon it. There is perhaps a reference to the episode in the Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b, 35–36.Line 196. Fori-na-ag-šá-am(fromnagâšu), Langdon proposes the purely fanciful “embracing her in sleep,” whereas it clearly means “he approaches.” Cf. Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, page 645a.Lines 197–200 appear to correspond to Tablet IV, 2, 35–37, of the Assyrian version, though not forming a complete parallel. We may therefore supply at the beginning of line 35 of the Assyrian version[ittaziz] Enkidu, corresponding to line 197 of the Pennsylvania tablet. Line 36 of IV, 2, certainly appears to correspond to line 200 (dan-nu-ti=da-na-ni-iš-šú).Line 208. The first sign looks more likešar, thoughuris possible.Line 211is clearly a description of Enkidu, as is shown by a comparison with the Assyrian version I, 2, 37:[pi]-ti-ik pi-ir-ti-šú uḫ-tan-na-ba kimadNidaba, “The form of his hair sprouted like wheat.” We must therefore supply Enkidu in the preceding line. Tablet IV, 4, 6, of the Assyrian version also contains a reference to the flowing hair of Enkidu.Line 212. For the completion of the line cf. Harper,Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, No. 214.Line 214. Forribîtu mâtisee the note above to line 28 of column 1.Lines 215–217 correspond almost entirely to the Assyrian version IV, 2, 46–48. The variationski-ib-suin place ofšêpu, andkima lîm, “like oxen,” instead ofina bâb êmuti(repeated from line 46),ana šurûbiforêribam, are slight though interesting. The Assyrian version shows that the “gate” in line 215 is “the gate of the family house” in which the goddess Ishḫara lies.Lines 218–228. The detailed description of the fight between the two heroes is only partially preserved in the Assyrian version.Line 218.li-i-imis evidently to be taken as plural here as inline 224, just assu-ḳi-im(lines 27 and 175),ri-bi-tim(lines 4, 28, etc.),tarbaṣim(line 74),aṣṣamim(line 98) are plural forms. Our text furnishes, as does also the Yale tablet, an interesting illustration of the vacillation in the Hammurabi period in the twofold use ofim: (a) as an indication of the plural (as in Hebrew), and (b) as a mere emphatic ending (lines 63, 73, and 232), which becomes predominant in the post-Hammurabi age.Line 227. Gilgamesh is often represented on seal cylinders as kneeling, e.g., Ward Seal Cylinders Nos. 159, 160, 165. Cf. also Assyrian version V, 3, 6, where Gilgamesh is described as kneeling, though here in prayer. See further the commentary to the Yale tablet, line 215.Line 229. We must of course readuz-za-šú, “his anger,” and notuṣ-ṣa-šú, “his javelin,” as Langdon does, which gives no sense.Line 231. Langdon’s note is erroneous. He again misses the point. The stem of the verb here as inline 230(i-ni-iḫ) is the commonnâḫu, used so constantly in connection withpašâḫu, to designate the cessation of anger.Line 234.ištênapplied to Gish designates him of course as “unique,” not as “an ordinary man,” as Langdon supposes.Line 236. On this title “wild cow of the stall” for Ninsun, see Poebel inOLZ1914, page 6, to whom we owe the correct view regarding the name of Gilgamesh’s mother.Line 238.mu-tihere cannot mean “husband,” but “man” ingeneral. See above note to line 107. Langdon’s strange misreadingri-eš-suforri-eš-ka(“thy head”) leads him again to miss the point, namely that Enkidu comforts his rival by telling him that he is destined for a career above that of the ordinary man. He is to be more than a mere prize fighter; he is to be a king, and no doubt in the ancient sense, as the representative of the deity. This is indicated by the statement that the kingship is decreed for him by Enlil. Similarly, Ḫu(m)baba or Ḫuwawa is designated by Enlil to inspire terror among men (Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 5, 2 and 5),i-šim-šúdEnlil= Yale tablet, l. 137, where this is to be supplied. This position accorded to Enlil is an important index for the origin of the Epic, which is thus shown to date from a period when the patron deity of Nippur was acknowledged as the general head of the pantheon. This justifies us in going back several centuries at least before Hammurabi for the beginning of the Gilgamesh story. If it had originated in the Hammurabi period, we should have had Marduk introduced instead of Enlil.Line 242. As has been pointed out in the corrections to the text (Appendix),šú-tu-urcan only be III, 1, fromatâru, “to be in excess of.” It is a pity that the balance of the line is broken off, since this is the first instance of a colophon beginning with the term in question. In some wayšutûrmust indicate that the copy of the text has been “enlarged.” It is tempting to fill out the linešú-tu-ur e-li [duppi labiri], and to render “enlarged from an original,” as an indication of an independent recension of the Epic in theHammurabiperiod. All this, however, is purely conjectural, and we must patiently hope for more tablets of the Old Babylonian version to turn up. The chances are that some portions of the same edition as the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets are in the hands of dealers at present or have been sold to European museums. The war has seriously interfered with the possibility of tracing the whereabouts of groups of tablets that ought never to have been separated.
131Making merry.132He lifted up his eyes,133He sees the man.134He spoke to the woman:135“O, courtesan, lure on the man.136Why has he come to me?137His name I will destroy.”138The woman called to the man139Who approaches to him3and he beholds him.140“Away! why dost thou [quake(?)]141Evil is the course of thy activity.”4142Then he5opened his mouth and143Spoke to Enkidu:144”[To have (?)] a family home145Is the destiny of men, and146The prerogative(?) of the nobles.147For the city(?) load the workbaskets!148Food supply for the city lay to one side!149For the King of Erech of the plazas,150Open the hymen(?), perform the marriage act!151For Gish, the King of Erech of the plazas,152Open the hymen(?),153Perform the marriage act!154With the legitimate wife one should cohabit.155So before,156As well as in the future.6157By the decree pronounced by a god,158From the cutting of his umbilical cord159(Such) is his fate.”160At the speech of the hero161His face grew pale.
131Making merry.132He lifted up his eyes,133He sees the man.134He spoke to the woman:135“O, courtesan, lure on the man.136Why has he come to me?137His name I will destroy.”138The woman called to the man139Who approaches to him3and he beholds him.140“Away! why dost thou [quake(?)]141Evil is the course of thy activity.”4142Then he5opened his mouth and143Spoke to Enkidu:144”[To have (?)] a family home145Is the destiny of men, and146The prerogative(?) of the nobles.147For the city(?) load the workbaskets!148Food supply for the city lay to one side!149For the King of Erech of the plazas,150Open the hymen(?), perform the marriage act!151For Gish, the King of Erech of the plazas,152Open the hymen(?),153Perform the marriage act!154With the legitimate wife one should cohabit.155So before,156As well as in the future.6157By the decree pronounced by a god,158From the cutting of his umbilical cord159(Such) is his fate.”160At the speech of the hero161His face grew pale.
131Making merry.
132He lifted up his eyes,
133He sees the man.
134He spoke to the woman:
135“O, courtesan, lure on the man.
136Why has he come to me?
137His name I will destroy.”
138The woman called to the man
139Who approaches to him3and he beholds him.
140“Away! why dost thou [quake(?)]
141Evil is the course of thy activity.”4
142Then he5opened his mouth and
143Spoke to Enkidu:
144”[To have (?)] a family home
145Is the destiny of men, and
146The prerogative(?) of the nobles.
147For the city(?) load the workbaskets!
148Food supply for the city lay to one side!
149For the King of Erech of the plazas,
150Open the hymen(?), perform the marriage act!
151For Gish, the King of Erech of the plazas,
152Open the hymen(?),
153Perform the marriage act!
154With the legitimate wife one should cohabit.
155So before,
156As well as in the future.6
157By the decree pronounced by a god,
158From the cutting of his umbilical cord
159(Such) is his fate.”
160At the speech of the hero
161His face grew pale.
(About three lines missing.)
(About six lines missing.)
171[Enkidu] went [in front],172And the courtesan behind him.173He entered into Erech of the plazas.174The people gathered about him.175As he stood in the streets176Of Erech of the plazas,177The men gathered,178Saying in regard to him:179“Like the form of Gish he hassuddenlybecome;180shorter in stature.181[In his structure high(?)], powerful,182.......... overseeing(?)183In the land strong of power has he become.184Milk of cattle185He was accustomed to suck.”186Steadily(?) in Erech .....187The heroes rejoiced.188He became a leader.189To the hero of fine appearance,190To Gish, like a god,191He became a rival to him.7192For Ishḫara a couch193Was stretched, and194Gish [lay down, and afterwards(?)]195In the night he fled.196He approaches and197[Enkidu stood] in the streets.198He blocked the path199of Gish.200At the exhibit of his power,
171[Enkidu] went [in front],172And the courtesan behind him.173He entered into Erech of the plazas.174The people gathered about him.175As he stood in the streets176Of Erech of the plazas,177The men gathered,178Saying in regard to him:179“Like the form of Gish he hassuddenlybecome;180shorter in stature.181[In his structure high(?)], powerful,182.......... overseeing(?)183In the land strong of power has he become.184Milk of cattle185He was accustomed to suck.”186Steadily(?) in Erech .....187The heroes rejoiced.188He became a leader.189To the hero of fine appearance,190To Gish, like a god,191He became a rival to him.7192For Ishḫara a couch193Was stretched, and194Gish [lay down, and afterwards(?)]195In the night he fled.196He approaches and197[Enkidu stood] in the streets.198He blocked the path199of Gish.200At the exhibit of his power,
171[Enkidu] went [in front],
172And the courtesan behind him.
173He entered into Erech of the plazas.
174The people gathered about him.
175As he stood in the streets
176Of Erech of the plazas,
177The men gathered,
178Saying in regard to him:
179“Like the form of Gish he hassuddenlybecome;
180shorter in stature.
181[In his structure high(?)], powerful,
182.......... overseeing(?)
183In the land strong of power has he become.
184Milk of cattle
185He was accustomed to suck.”
186Steadily(?) in Erech .....
187The heroes rejoiced.
188He became a leader.
189To the hero of fine appearance,
190To Gish, like a god,
191He became a rival to him.7
192For Ishḫara a couch
193Was stretched, and
194Gish [lay down, and afterwards(?)]
195In the night he fled.
196He approaches and
197[Enkidu stood] in the streets.
198He blocked the path
199of Gish.
200At the exhibit of his power,
(About three lines missing.)
(About four lines missing.)
208Strong(?) …209Gish210Against him [Enkidu proceeded],211[His hair] luxuriant.212He started [to go]213Towards him.214They met in the plaza of the district.215Enkidu blocked the gate216With his foot,217Not permitting Gish to enter.218They seized (each other), like oxen,219They fought.220The threshold they demolished;221The wall they impaired.222Gish and Enkidu223Seized (each other).224Like oxen they fought.225The threshold they demolished;226The wall they impaired.227Gish bent228His foot to the ground,8229His wrath was appeased,230His breast was quieted.231When his breast was quieted,232Enkidu to him233Spoke, to Gish:234“As a unique one, thy mother235bore thee.236The wild cow of the stall,9237Ninsun,238Has exalted thy head above men.239Kingship over men240Enlil has decreed for thee.241Second tablet,242enlarged beyond [the original(?)].243240 lines.
208Strong(?) …209Gish210Against him [Enkidu proceeded],211[His hair] luxuriant.212He started [to go]213Towards him.214They met in the plaza of the district.215Enkidu blocked the gate216With his foot,217Not permitting Gish to enter.218They seized (each other), like oxen,219They fought.220The threshold they demolished;221The wall they impaired.222Gish and Enkidu223Seized (each other).224Like oxen they fought.225The threshold they demolished;226The wall they impaired.227Gish bent228His foot to the ground,8229His wrath was appeased,230His breast was quieted.231When his breast was quieted,232Enkidu to him233Spoke, to Gish:234“As a unique one, thy mother235bore thee.236The wild cow of the stall,9237Ninsun,238Has exalted thy head above men.239Kingship over men240Enlil has decreed for thee.241Second tablet,242enlarged beyond [the original(?)].243240 lines.
208Strong(?) …
209Gish
210Against him [Enkidu proceeded],
211[His hair] luxuriant.
212He started [to go]
213Towards him.
214They met in the plaza of the district.
215Enkidu blocked the gate
216With his foot,
217Not permitting Gish to enter.
218They seized (each other), like oxen,
219They fought.
220The threshold they demolished;
221The wall they impaired.
222Gish and Enkidu
223Seized (each other).
224Like oxen they fought.
225The threshold they demolished;
226The wall they impaired.
227Gish bent
228His foot to the ground,8
229His wrath was appeased,
230His breast was quieted.
231When his breast was quieted,
232Enkidu to him
233Spoke, to Gish:
234“As a unique one, thy mother
235bore thee.
236The wild cow of the stall,9
237Ninsun,
238Has exalted thy head above men.
239Kingship over men
240Enlil has decreed for thee.
241Second tablet,
242enlarged beyond [the original(?)].
243240 lines.
1I.e., paid homage to the meteor.2I.e., theheroesof Erech raised me to my feet, or perhaps in the sense of “supported me.”3I.e., Enkidu.4I.e., “thy way of life.”5I.e., the man.6I.e., an idiomatic phrase meaning “for all times.”7I.e., Enkidu became like Gish, godlike. Cf. col. 2, 11.8He was thrown and therefore vanquished.9Epithet given to Ninsun. See the commentary to the line.
1I.e., paid homage to the meteor.
2I.e., theheroesof Erech raised me to my feet, or perhaps in the sense of “supported me.”
3I.e., Enkidu.
4I.e., “thy way of life.”
5I.e., the man.
6I.e., an idiomatic phrase meaning “for all times.”
7I.e., Enkidu became like Gish, godlike. Cf. col. 2, 11.
8He was thrown and therefore vanquished.
9Epithet given to Ninsun. See the commentary to the line.
Line 1. The verbtibûwithpašâruexpresses the aim of Gish to secure an interpretation for his dream. This disposes of Langdon’s note 1 on page 211 of his edition, in which he also erroneously speaks of our text as “late.”Pašâruis not a variant ofzakâru. Both verbs occur just as here in the Assyrian version I, 5, 25.
Line 3.ina šât mušitia, “in this my night,” i.e., in the course of this night of mine. A curious way of putting it, but the expression occurs also in the Assyrian version, e.g., I, 5, 26 (parallel passage to ours) and II, 4a, 14. In the Yale tablet we find, similarly,mu-ši-it-ka(l. 262), “thy night,” i.e., “at night to thee.”
Line 5. Before Langdon put down the strange statement of Gish “wandering about in the midst of omens” (misreadingid-da-timforit-lu-tim), he might have asked himself the question, what it could possibly mean. How can one walk among omens?
Line 6.ka-ka-bu šá-ma-imust be taken as a compound term for “starry heaven.” The parallel passage in the Assyrian version (Tablet I, 5, 27) has the ideograph for star, with the plural sign as a variant. Literally, therefore, “The starry heaven (or “the stars in heaven”) was there,” etc. Langdon’s note 2 on page 211 rests on an erroneous reading.
Line 7.kiṣru šá Anim, “mass of Anu,” appears to be the designation of a meteor, which might well be described as a “mass” coming from Anu, i.e., from the god of heaven who becomes the personification of the heavens in general. In the Assyrian version (I, 5, 28) we havekima ki-iṣ-rù, i.e., “something like a mass of heaven.” Note also I, 3, 16, where in a description of Gilgamesh, his strength is said to be “strong like a mass (i.e., a meteor) of heaven.”
Line 9. Fornuššašu ûl iltêwe have a parallel in the Hebrew phrase נלְַפָסֵתִי נשַׂפָס (Isaiah 1, 14).
Line 10.Uruk mâtum, as the designation for the district of Erech, occurs in the Assyrian version, e.g., I, 5, 31, and IV, 2, 38; also to be supplied, I, 6, 23.
Forpaḫirthe parallel in the Assyrian version hasiz-za-az(I, 5, 31), but VI, 197, we findpaḫ-ruandpaḫ-ra.
Line 17.mi-in-didoes not mean “truly” as Langdon translates, but “some one.” It occurs also in the Assyrian version X, 1, 13,mi-in-di-e ma-an-nu-ṵ, “this is some one who,” etc.
Line 18. Cf. Assyrian version I, 5, 3, and IV, 4, 7,ina ṣiri âlid—both passages referring to Enkidu.
Line 21. Cf. Assyrian version II, 3b, 38, withmalkê, “kings,” as a synonym ofitlutum.
Line 23.ta-tar-ra-as-súfromtarâṣu, “direct,” “guide,” etc.
Line 24. I takeuš-ti-nim-maas III, 2, fromišênu(יָשֵׁן), the verb underlyingšittu, “sleep,” andšuttu, “dream.”
Line 26. Cf. Assyrian version I, 6, 21—a complete parallel.
Line 28.Uruk ri-bi-tim, the standing phrase in both tablets of the old Babylonian version, for which in the Assyrian version we haveUruk su-pu-ri. The former term suggests the “broad space” outside of the city or the “common” in a village community, whilesupûri, “enclosed,” would refer to the city within the walls. Dr. W. F. Albright (in a private communication) suggests “Erech of the plazas” as a suitable translation forUruk ribîtim. A third term,Uruk mâtum(see above, note to line 10), though designating rather the district of which Erech was the capital, appears to be used as a synonym toUruk ribîtim, as may be concluded from the phrasei-na ri-bi-tum ma-ti(l. 214 of the Pennsylvania tablet), which clearly means the “plaza” of the city. One naturally thinks of רְחֹבֹת עִיר in Genesis 10, 11—the equivalent of Babylonianri-bi-tu âli—which can hardly be the name of a city. It appears to be a gloss, as is הִיַפָס הָעִיּר הַגְּדֹלָה at the end of v. 12. The latter gloss is misplaced, since it clearly describes “Nineveh,” mentioned in v. 11. Inasmuch as רְחֹבֹת עִיר immediately follows the mention of Nineveh, it seems simplest to take the phrase as designating the “outside” or “suburbs” of the city, a complete parallel, therefore, tori-bi-tu mâtiin our text. Nineveh, together with the “suburbs,” forms the “great city.”Uruk ribîtimis, therefore, a designation for “greater Erech,” proper to a capital city, which by its gradual growth would take in more than its original confines. “Erech of the plazas” must have come to be used as a honorific designation of this important center as early as 2000 B. C., whereas later, perhaps because of its decline, the epithet no longer seemed appropriate and was replaced by the more modest designation of “walled Erech,” with an allusion to the tradition which ascribed the building of the wall of the city to Gilgamesh. At allevents, all three expressions, “Erech of the plazas,” “Erech walled” and “Erech land,” are to be regarded as synonymous. The position once held by Erech follows also from its ideographic designation (Brünnow No. 4796) by the sign “house” with a “gunufied” extension, which conveys the idea of Unu =šubtu, or “dwelling”par excellence. The pronunciation Unug or Unuk (see the glossu-nu-uk, VR 23, 8a), composed ofunu, “dwelling,” andki, “place,” is hardly to be regarded as older than Uruk, which is to be resolved intouru, “city,” andki, “place,” but rather as a play upon the name, both Unu + ki and Uru + ki conveying the same idea ofthecity orthedwelling placepar excellence. As the seat of the second oldest dynasty according to Babylonian traditions (see Poebel’s list inHistorical and Grammatical TextsNo. 2), Erech no doubt was regarded as having been at one time “the city,” i.e., the capital of the entire Euphrates Valley.
Line 31. A difficult line for which Langdon proposes the translation: “Another axe seemed his visage”!!—which may be picturesque, but hardly a description befitting a hero. How can a man’s face seem to be an axe? Langdon attachesšá-niin the sense of “second” to the preceding word “axe,” whereasšanî bunušu, “change of his countenance” or “his countenance being changed,” is to be taken as a phrase to convey the idea of “being disturbed,” “displeased” or “angry.” The phrase is of the same kind as the well-knownšunnu ṭêmu, “changing of reason,” to denote “insanity.” See the passages in Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, pp. 355 and 1068. In Hebrew, too, we have the same two phrases, e.g., וַיְשַׁנֹּו ַפָסֶת־טַעְמֹו (I Sam. 21, 14 = Ps. 34, 1), “and he changed his reason,” i.e., feigned insanity and מְשַׁנֶּה פָּנָיו (Job 14, 20), “changing his face,” to indicate a radical alteration in the frame of mind. There is a still closer parallel in Biblical Aramaic: Dan. 3, 19, “The form of his visage was changed,” meaning “he was enraged.” Fortunately, the same phrase occurs also in the Yale tablet (l. 192),šá-nu-ú bu-nu-šú, in a connection which leaves no doubt that the aroused fury of the tyrant Ḫuwawa is described by it:
”Ḫuwawa heard and his face was changed”
”Ḫuwawa heard and his face was changed”
”Ḫuwawa heard and his face was changed”
precisely, therefore, as we should say—following Biblical usage—“his countenance fell.” Cf. also the phrasepânušu arpu, “his countenancewas darkened” (Assyrian version I, 2, 48), to express “anger.” The line, therefore, in the Pennsylvania tablet must describe Enkidu’s anger. With the brandishing of the axe the hero’s anger was also stirred up. The touch was added to prepare us for the continuation in which Gish describes how, despite this (or perhaps just because of it), Enkidu seemed so attractive that Gish instantly fell in love with him. May perhaps the emphatic formḫaṣinumma(line 31) againstḫaṣinu(line 29) have been used to indicate “The axe it was,” or “because of the axe?” It would be worth while to examine other texts of the Hammurabi period with a view of determining the scope in the use and meaning of the emphaticmawhen added to a substantive.
Line 32. The combinationamur ù aḫtaduoccurs also in the El-Amarna Letters, No. 18, 12.
Line 34. In view of the common Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic חָבַב “to love,” it seems preferable to read here, as in the other passages in the Assyrian versions (I, 4, 15; 4, 35; 6, 27, etc.),a-ḫa-ab-bu-ub,aḫ-bu-ub,iḫ-bu-bu, etc. (instead of withp), and to render “embrace.”
Lines 38–40, completing the column, may be supplied from the Assyrian version I, 6, 30–32, in conjunction with lines 33–34 of our text. The beginning of line 32 in Jensen’s version is therefore to be filled out[ta-ra-am-šú ki]-i.
Line 43. The restoration at the beginning of this line
En-ki-[dũ wa]-ši-ib ma-ḫar ḫa-ri-im-tim
En-ki-[dũ wa]-ši-ib ma-ḫar ḫa-ri-im-tim
En-ki-[dũ wa]-ši-ib ma-ḫar ḫa-ri-im-tim
enables us to restore also the beginning of the second tablet of the Assyrian version (cf. the colophon of the fragment 81, 7–27, 93, in Jeremias,Izdubar-Nimrod, plate IV = Jensen, p. 134),
[dEn-ki-dũ wa-ši-ib] ma-ḫar-šá.
[dEn-ki-dũ wa-ši-ib] ma-ḫar-šá.
[dEn-ki-dũ wa-ši-ib] ma-ḫar-šá.
Line 44. The restoration of this line is largely conjectural, based on the supposition that its contents correspond in a general way to I, 4, 16, of the Assyrian version. The readingdi-dais quite certain, as is alsoip-ti-[e]; and since both words occur in the line of the Assyrian version in question, it is tempting to supply at the beginningur-[šá]= “her loins” (cf. Holma,Namen der Körperteile, etc., p. 101), which is likewise found in the same line of the Assyrian version. At all events the line describes the fascination exercisedupon Enkidu by the woman’s bodily charms, which make him forget everything else.
Lines 46–47 form a parallel to I, 4, 21, of the Assyrian version. The formšamkatu, “courtesan,” is constant in the old Babylonian version (ll. 135 and 172), as againstšamḫatuin the Assyrian version (I, 3, 19, 40, 45; 4, 16), which also uses the pluralšam-ḫa-a-ti(II, 3b, 40). The interchange betweenḫandkis not without precedent (cf. Meissner,Altbabylonisches Privatrecht, page 107, note 2, and more particularly Chiera,List of Personal Names, page 37).
In view of the evidence, set forth in the Introduction, for the assumption that the Enkidu story has been combined with a tale of the evolution of primitive man to civilized life, it is reasonable to suggest that in the original Enkidu story the female companion was calledšamkatu, “courtesan,” whereas in the tale of the primitive man, which was transferred to Enkidu, the associate wasḫarimtu, a “woman,” just as in the Genesis tale, the companion of Adam is simply calledishshâ, “woman.” Note that in the Assyrian parallel (Tablet I, 4, 26) we have two readings,ir-ḫi(imperf.) and a varianti-ri-ḫi(present). The former is the better reading, as our tablet shows.
Lines 49–59 run parallel to the Assyrian version I, 4, 33–38, with slight variations which have been discussed above, p. 58, and from which we may conclude that the Assyrian version represents an independent redaction. Since in our tablet we have presumably the repetition of what may have been in part at least set forth in the first tablet of the old Babylonian version, we must not press the parallelism with the first tablet of the Assyrian version too far; but it is noticeable nevertheless (1) that our tablet contains lines 57–58 which are not represented in the Assyrian version, and (2) that the second speech of the “woman” beginning, line 62, withal-ka, “come” (just as the first speech, line 54), is likewise not found in the first tablet of the Assyrian version; which on the other hand contains a line (39) not in the Babylonian version, besides the detailed answer of Enkidu (I 4, 42–5, 5). Line 6, which reads “Enkidu and the woman went (il-li-ku) to walled Erech,” is also not found in the second tablet of the old Babylonian version.
Line 63. Formagrû, “accursed,” see the frequent use in Astrological texts (Jastrow,Religion Babyloniens und AssyriensII, page450, note 2). Langdon, by his strange error in separatingma-a-ag-ri-iminto two wordsma-a-akandri-i-im, with a still stranger rendering: “unto the place yonder of the shepherds!!”, naturally misses the point of this important speech.
Line 64corresponds to I, 4, 40, of the Assyrian version, which has an additional line, leading to the answer of Enkidu. From here on, our tablet furnishes material not represented in the Assyrian version, but which was no doubt included in the second tablet of that version of which we have only a few fragments.
Line 70must be interpreted as indicating that the woman kept one garment for herself.Ittalbašwould accordingly mean, “she kept on.” The female dress appears to have consisted of an upper and a lower garment.
Line 72. The restoration “like a god” is favored byline 51, where Enkidu is likened to a god, and is further confirmed by l. 190.
Line 73.gupruis identical withgu-up-ri(Thompson,Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers, etc., 223 rev. 2 and 223arev. 8), and must be correlated togipâru(Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, p. 229a), “planted field,” “meadow,” and the like. Thompson’s translation “men” (as though a synonym ofgabru) is to be corrected accordingly.
Line 74. There is nothing missing betweena-šarandtar-ba-ṣi-im.
Line 75.ri-ia-ú, which Langdon renders “shepherd,” is the equivalent of the Arabicriʿyand Hebrew רְעִי “pasturage,” “fodder.” We have usually the feminine formri-i-tu(Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, p. 990b). The break at the end of the second column is not serious. Evidently Enkidu, still accustomed to live like an animal, is first led to the sheepfolds, and this suggests a repetition of the description of his former life. Of the four or five lines missing, we may conjecturally restore four, on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2–5, or I, 2, 39–41. This would then join on well to the beginning of column 3.
Line 81. Both here and inl. 52our text hasna-ma-áš-te-e, as againstnam-maš-ši-iin the Assyrian version, e.g., Tablet I, 2, 41; 4, 5, etc.,—the feminine form, therefore, as against the masculine. Langdon’s note 3 on page 213 is misleading. In astrological texts we also findnam-maš-te; e.g., Thompson,Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers, etc., No. 200, Obv. 2.
Line 93.zi-ma-at(forsimat)ba-la-ṭi-imis not “conformity of life” as Langdon renders, but that which “belongs to life” likesi-mat pag-ri-šá, “belonging to her body,” in the Assyrian version III, 2a, 3 (Jensen, page 146). “Food,” says the woman, “is the staff of life.”
Line 94. Langdon’s strange rendering “of the conditions and fate of the land” rests upon an erroneous reading (see the corrections, Appendix I), which is the more inexcusable because in line 97 the same ideogram, Kàš =šikaru, “wine,” occurs, and is correctly rendered by him.Šimti mâtiis not the “fate of the land,” but the “fixed custom of the land.”
Line 98.aṣ-ṣa-mi-im(plural ofaṣṣamu), which Langdon takes as an adverb in the sense of “times,” is a well-known word for a large “goblet,” which occurs in Incantation texts, e.g.,CTXVI, 24, obv. 1, 19,mê a-ṣa-am-mi-e šú-puk, “pour out goblets of water.” Line 18 of the passage shoves thataṣammuis a Sumerian loan word.
Line 99.it-tap-šar, I, 2, frompašâru, “loosen.” In combination withkabtatum(fromkabitatum, yielding two forms:kabtatum, by elision ofi, andkabittu, by elision ofa), “liver,”pašâruhas the force of becoming cheerful. Cf.ka-bit-ta-ki lip-pa-šir(ZAV., p. 67, line 14).
Line 100, note the customary combination of “liver” (kabtatum) and “heart” (libbu) for “disposition” and “mind,” just as in the standing phrase in penitential prayers: “May thy liver be appeased, thy heart be quieted.”
Line 102. The restoration [lùŠÚ]-I =gallabu“barber” (Delitzsch,Sumer. Glossar, p. 267) was suggested to me by Dr. H. F. Lutz. The ideographic writing “raising the hand” is interesting as recalling the gesture of shaving or cutting. Cf. a reference to a barber in Lutz,Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa, No. 109, 6.
Line 103. Langdon has correctly renderedšuḫuruas “hair,” and has seen that we have here a loan-word from the Sumerian Suḫur =kimmatu, “hair,” according to the Syllabary Sb357 (cf. Delitzsch,Sumer. Glossar., p. 253). Forkimmatu, “hair,” more specifically hair of the head and face, see Holma,Namen der Körperteile, page 3. The same sign Suḫur or Suḫ (Brünnow No. 8615), with Lal, i.e., “hanging hair,” designates the “beard” (ziḳnu, cf. Brünnow, No. 8620, and Holma, l. c., p. 36), and it is interesting tonote that we havešuḫuru(introduced as a loan-word) for the barbershop, according to II R, 21, 27c(=CTXII, 41).
Ê suḫur(ra) (i.e., house of the hair) =šú-ḫu-ru.
Ê suḫur(ra) (i.e., house of the hair) =šú-ḫu-ru.
Ê suḫur(ra) (i.e., house of the hair) =šú-ḫu-ru.
In view of all this, we may regard as assured Holma’s conjecture to readšú-[ḫur-ma-šú]in the list 93074 obv. (MVAG1904, p. 203; and Holma,Beiträge z. Assyr. Lexikon, p. 36), as the Akkadian equivalent to Suḫur-Maš-Ḫa and the name of a fish, so called because it appeared to have a double “beard” (cf. Holma,Namen der Körperteile). One is tempted, furthermore, to see in the difficult word שכירה (Isaiah 7, 20) a loan-word from ouršuḫuru, and to take the words ַפָסֶת־הָרַֹפָסשׁ וְשַׂעַר הָרַגְלַיִם “the head and hair of the feet” (euphemistic for the hair around the privates), as an explanatory gloss to the rare word שכירה for “hair” of the body in general—just as in the passage in the Pennsylvania tablet. The verse in Isaiah would then read, “The Lord on that day will shave with the razor the hair (השכירה), and even the beard will be removed.” The rest of the verse would represent a series of explanatory glosses: (a) “Beyond the river” (i.e., Assyria), a gloss to יְגַלַּח (b) “with the king of Assyria,” a gloss to בְּתַעַר “with a razor;” and (c) “the hair of the head and hair of the feet,” a gloss to השכירה. For “hair of the feet” we have an interesting equivalent in Babylonianšu-ḫur(andšú-ḫu-ur)šêpi(CTXII, 41, 23–24 c-d). Cf. also Boissier,Documents Assyriens relatifs aux Présages, p. 258, 4–5. The Babylonian phrase is like the Hebrew one to be interpreted as a euphemism for the hair around the male or female organ. To be sure, the change from ה to כ in השכירה constitutes an objection, but not a serious one in the case of a loan-word, which would aim to give thepronunciationof the original word, rather than the correct etymological equivalent. The writing with aspirated כ fulfills this condition. (Cf.šamkatumandšamḫatum, above p. 73). The passage in Isaiah being a reference to Assyria, the prophet might be tempted to use a foreign word to make his point more emphatic. To take השכירה as “hired,” as has hitherto been done, and to translate “with a hired razor,” is not only to suppose a very wooden metaphor, but is grammatically difficult, since השכירח would be a feminine adjective attached to a masculine substantive.
Coming back to our passage in the Pennsylvania tablet, it is tobe noted that Enkidu is described as covered “all over his body with hair” (Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 36) like an animal. To convert him into a civilized man, the hair is removed.
Line 107.mutudoes not mean “husband” here, as Langdon supposes, but must be taken as inl. 238in the more general sense of “man,” for which there is good evidence.
Line 109.la-bi(plural form) are “lions”—not “panthers” as Langdon has it. The verbú-gi-ir-riis fromgâru, “to attack.” Langdon by separatingúfromgi-ir-rigets a totally wrong and indeed absurd meaning. See the corrections in the Appendix. He takes the signúfor the copula (!!) which of course is impossible.
Line 110. Readuš-sa-ak-pu, III, 1, ofsakâpu, which is frequently used for “lying down” and is in fact a synonym ofṣalâlu. See Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, page 758a. The original has very clearly Síb (=rê’u, “shepherd”) with the plural sign. The “shepherds of the night,” who could now rest since Enkidu had killed the lions, are of course the shepherds who were accustomed to watch the flocks during the night.
Line 111.ut-tap-pi-išis II, 2,napâšu, “to make a hole,” hence “to plunge” in connection with a weapon.Šib-ba-riis, of course, not “mountain goats,” as Langdon renders, but a by-form tošibbiru, “stick,” and designates some special weapon. Since on seal cylinders depicting Enkidu killing lions and other animals the hero is armed with a dagger, this is presumably the weaponšibbaru.
Line 113. Langdon’s translation is again out of the question and purely fanciful. The traces favor the restorationna-ki-[di-e], “shepherds,” and since the line appears to be a parallel to line 110, I venture to suggest at the beginning[it-ti]-lufromna’âlu, “lie down”—a synonym, therefore, tosakâpuin line 110. The shepherds can sleep quietly after Enkidu has become the “guardian” of the flocks. In the Assyrian version (tablet II, 3a, 4) Enkidu is called ana-kid, “shepherd,” and in the preceding line we likewise havelùNa-Kid with the plural sign, i.e., “shepherds.” This would point tonakidubeing a Sumerian loan-word, unless it isvice versa, a word that has gone over into the Sumerian from Akkadian. Is perhaps the fragment in question (K 8574) in the Assyrian version (Haupt’s ed. No. 25) theparallelto our passage? If in line 4 of this fragment we could readšúforsa, i.e.,na-kid-šú-nu, “their shepherd, we would have aparallel to line 114 of the Pennsylvania tablet, withna-kidas a synonym tomaṣṣaru, “protector.” The preceding line would then be completed as follows:
[it-ti-lu]-nim-ma na-kidmeš[ra-bu-tum]
[it-ti-lu]-nim-ma na-kidmeš[ra-bu-tum]
[it-ti-lu]-nim-ma na-kidmeš[ra-bu-tum]
(or perhaps onlyit-ti-lu-ma, since thenimis not certain) and would correspond toline 113of the Pennsylvania tablet. Inasmuch as the writing on the tiny fragment is very much blurred, it is quite possible that in line 2 we must readšib-ba-ri(instead ofbar-ba-ri), which would furnish a parallel to line 111 of the Pennsylvania tablet. The difference between Bar and Šib is slight, and the one sign might easily be mistaken for the other in the case of close writing. The continuation of line 2 of the fragment would then correspond to line 112 of the Pennsylvania tablet, while line 1 of the fragment might be completed[re-e]-u-ti(?) šá [mu-ši-a-tim], though this is by no means certain.
The break at the close of column 3 (about 5 lines) and the top of column 4 (about 8 lines) is a most serious interruption in the narrative, and makes it difficult to pick up the thread where the tablet again becomes readable. We cannot be certain whether the “strong man, the unique hero” who addresses some one (lines 115–117) is Enkidu or Gish or some other personage, but presumably Gish is meant. In the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 2 and 29, we find Gilgamesh described as the “unique hero” and in l. 234 of the Pennsylvania tablet Gish is called “unique,” while again, in the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 15 and 26, he is designated asgašruas in our text. Assuming this, whom does he address? Perhaps the shepherds? In either case he receives an answer that rejoices him. If the fragment of the Assyrian version (K 8574) above discussed is the equivalent to the close of column 3 of the Pennsylvania tablet, we may go one step further, and with some measure of assurance assume that Gish is told of Enkidu’s exploits and that the latter is approaching Erech. This pleases Gish, but Enkidu when he sees Gish(?) is stirred to anger and wants to annihilate him. At this point, the “man” (who is probably Gish, though the possibility of a third personage must be admitted) intervenes and in a long speech sets forth the destiny and higher aims of mankind. The contrast between Enkidu and Gish (or the third party) is that between the primitivesavage and the civilized being. The contrast is put in the form of an opposition between the two. The primitive man is the stronger and wishes to destroy the one whom he regards as a natural foe and rival. On the other hand, the one who stands on a higher plane wants to lift his fellow up. The whole of column 4, therefore, forms part of the lesson attached to the story of Enkidu, who, identified with man in a primitive stage, is made the medium of illustrating how the higher plane is reached through the guiding influences of the woman’s hold on man, an influence exercised, to be sure, with the help of her bodily charms.
Line 135.uk-ki-ši(imperative form) does not mean “take away,” as Langdon (who entirely misses the point of the whole passage) renders, but on the contrary, “lure him on,” “entrap him,” and the like. The verb occurs also in the Yale tablet, ll. 183 and 186.
Line 137. Langdon’s note tolu-uš-šúhad better be passed over in silence. The form is II. 1, fromešû, “destroy.”
Line 139. Since the man whom the woman calls approaches Enkidu, the subject of both verbs is the man, and the object is Enkidu; i.e., therefore, “The man approaches Enkidu and beholds him.”
Line 140. Langdon’s interpretation of this line again is purely fanciful.E-di-ilcannot, of course, be a “phonetic variant” ofedir; and certainly the line does not describe the state of mind of the woman. Lines 140–141 are to be taken as an expression of amazement at Enkidu’s appearance. The first word appears to be an imperative in the sense of “Be off,” “Away,” fromdâlu, “move, roam.” The second worde-eš, “why,” occurs with the same verbdâluin the Meissner fragment:e-eš ta-da-al(column 3, 1), “why dost thou roam about?” The verb at the end of the line may perhaps be completed tota-ḫi-il-la-am. The last sign appears to beam, but may bema, in which case we should have to complete simplyta-ḫi-il-ma.Taḫîlwould be the second person present ofḫîlu. Cf.i-ḫi-il, frequently in astrological texts, e.g., Virolleaud,AdadNo. 3, lines 21 and 33.
Line 141. The readinglim-nuat the beginning, instead of Langdon’smi-nu, is quite certain, as is alsoma-na-aḫ-ti-kainstead of what Langdon proposes, which gives no sense whatever.Manaḫtuin the sense of the “toil” and “activity of life” (like עָמָל throughout the Book of Ecclesiastes) occurs in the introductory lines tothe Assyrian version of the Epic I, 1, 8,ka-lu ma-na-aḫ-ti-[šu], “all of his toil,” i.e., all of his career.
Line 142. The subject of the verb cannot be the woman, as Langdon supposes, for the text in that case, e.g., line 49, would have saidpi-šá(“her mouth”) notpi-šú(“his mouth”). The long speech, detailing the function and destiny of civilized man, is placed in the mouth of the man who meets Enkidu.
In the Introduction it has been pointed out thatlines 149and151of the speech appear to be due to later modifications of the speech designed to connect the episode with Gish. Assuming this to be the case, the speech sets forth the following five distinct aims of human life: (1) establishing a home (line 144), (2) work (line 147), (3) storing up resources (line 148), (4) marriage (line 150), (5) monogamy (line 154); all of which is put down as established for all time by divine decree (lines 155–157), and as man’s fate from his birth (lines 158–159).
Line 144.bi-ti-iš e-mu-tiis forbîti šá e-mu-ti, just asḳab-lu-uš Ti-a-ma-ti(Assyrian Creation Myth, IV, 65) stands forḳablu šá Tiamti. Cf.bît e-mu-ti(Assyrian version, IV, 2, 46 and 48). The end of the line is lost beyond recovery, but the general sense is clear.
Line 146.tu-a-aris a possible reading. It may be the construct oftu-a-ru, of frequent occurrence in legal texts and having some such meaning as “right,” “claim” or “prerogative.” See the passages given by Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, p. 1139b.
Line 148. The readinguk-la-at, “food,” and then in the wider sense “food supply,” “provisions,” is quite certain. The fourth sign looks like the one for “city.”E-mi-samay stand fore-mid-sa, “place it.” The general sense of the line, at all events, is clear, as giving the advice to gather resources. It fits in with the Babylonian outlook on life to regard work and wealth as the fruits of work and as a proper purpose in life.
Line 150(repeatedlines 152–153) is a puzzling line. To renderpiti pûk epši(orepiši), as Langdon proposes, “open, addressing thy speech,” is philologically and in every other respect inadmissible. The wordpu-uk(which Langdon takes for “thy mouth”!!) can, of course, be nothing but the construct form ofpukku, which occurs in the Assyrian version in the sense of “net” (pu-uk-kuI, 2, 9 and 21, and also in the colophon to the eleventh tablet furnishing thebeginning of the twelfth tablet (Haupt’s edition No. 56), as well as in column 2, 29, and column 3, 6, of this twelfth tablet). In the two last named passagespukkuis a synonym ofmekû, which from the general meaning of “enclosure” comes to be a euphemistic expression for the female organ. So, for example, in the Assyrian Creation Myth, Tablet IV, 66 (synonym ofḳablu, “waist,” etc.). See Holma,Namen der Körperteile, page 158. Our wordpukkumust be taken in this same sense as a designation of the female organ—perhaps more specifically the “hymen” as the “net,” though the womb in general might also be designated as a “net” or “enclosure.”Kak-(ši)is no doubt to be readepši, as Langdon correctly saw; or perhaps better,epiši. An expression likeip-ši-šú lul-la-a(Assyrian version, I, 4, 13; also line 19,i-pu-us-su-ma lul-la-a), with the explanationšipir zinništi, “the work of woman” (i.e., after the fashion of woman), shows thatepêšuis used in connection with the sexual act. The phrasepitî pûk epiši a-na ḫa-a-a-ri, literally “open the net, perform the act for marriage,” therefore designates the fulfillment of the marriage act, and the line is intended to point to marriage with the accompanying sexual intercourse as one of the duties of man. While the general meaning is thus clear, the introduction of Gish is puzzling, except on the supposition that lines 149 and 151 represent later additions to connect the speech, detailing the advance to civilized life, with the hero. See above, p. 45seq.
Line 154.aššat šimâtimis the “legitimate wife,” and the line inculcates monogamy as against promiscuous sexual intercourse. We know that monogamy was the rule in Babylonia, though a man could in addition to the wife recognized as the legalized spouse take a concubine, or his wife could give her husband a slave as a concubine. Even in that case, according to the Hammurabi Code, §§145–146, the wife retained her status. The Code throughout assumes that a man has onlyonewife—theaššat šimâtimof our text. The phrase “so” (or “that”) before “as afterwards” is to be taken as an idiomatic expression—“so it was and so it should be for all times”—somewhat like the phrasemaḫriam ù arkiam, “for all times,” in legal documents (CTVIII, 38c, 22–23). For the use ofmûksee Behrens,Assyrisch-Babylonische Briefe, p. 3.
Line 158.i-na bi-ti-iḳ a-bu-un-na-ti-šú. Another puzzling line, for which Langdon proposes “in the work of his presence,” whichis as obscure as the original. In a note he says thatapunnâtimeans “nostrils,” which is certainly wrong. There has been considerable discussion about this term (see Holma,Namen der Körperteile, pages 150 and 157), the meaning of which has been advanced by Christian’s discussion inOLZ1914, p. 397. From this it appears that it must designate a part of the body which could acquire a wider significance so as to be used as a synonym for “totality,” since it appears in a list of equivalent for Dur =nap-ḫa-ru, “totality,”ka-lu-ma, “all,”a-bu-un-na-tum e-ṣi-im-tum, “bony structure,” andkul-la-tum, “totality” (CTXII, 10, 7–10). Christian shows that it may be the “navel,” which could well acquire a wider significance for the body in general; but we may go a step further and specify the “umbilical cord” (tentatively suggested also by Christian) as the primary meaning, then the “navel,” and from this the “body” in general. The structure of the umbilical cord as a series of strands would account for designating it by a plural formabunnâti, as also for the fact that one could speak of a right and left side of theappunnâti. To distinguish between the “umbilical cord” and the “navel,” the ideograph Dur (the common meaning of which isriksu, “bond” [Delitzsch,Sumer. Glossar., p. 150]), was used for the former, while for the latter Li Dur was employed, though the reading in Akkadian in both cases was the same. The expression “with (or at) the cutting of his umbilical cord” would mean, therefore, “from his birth”—since the cutting of the cord which united the child with the mother marks the beginning of the separate life. Lines 158–159, therefore, in concluding the address to Enkidu, emphasize in a picturesque way that what has been set forth is man’s fate for which he has been destined from birth. [See now Albright’s remarks onabunnatuin the Revue d’Assyriologie 16, pp. 173–175, with whose conclusion, however, that it means primarily “backbone” and then “stature,” I cannot agree.]
In the break of about three lines at the bottom of column 4, and of about six at the beginning of column 5, there must have been set forth the effect of the address on Enkidu and the indication of his readiness to accept the advice; as in a former passage (line 64), Enkidu showed himself willing to follow the woman. At all events the two now proceed to the heart of the city. Enkidu is in frontand the woman behind him. The scene up to this point must have taken place outside of Erech—in the suburbs or approaches to the city, where the meadows and the sheepfolds were situated.
Line 174.um-ma-nu-umare not the “artisans,” as Langdon supposes, but the “people” of Erech, just as in the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 1, 40, where the word occurs in connection withi-dip-pi-ir, which is perhaps to be taken as a synonym ofpaḫâru, “gather;” so alsoi-dip-pir(Tablet I, 2, 40) “gathers with the flock.”
Lines 180–182 must have contained the description of Enkidu’s resemblance to Gish, but the lines are too mutilated to permit of any certain restoration. See the corrections (Appendix) for a suggested reading for the end of line 181.
Line 183can be restored with considerable probability on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 3 and 30, where Enkidu is described as one “whose power is strong in the land.”
Lines 186–187. The puzzling word, to be read apparentlykak-ki-a-tum, can hardly mean “weapons,” as Langdon proposes. In that case we should expectkakkê; and, moreover, to so render gives no sense, especially since the verbú-te-el-li-luis without much question to be rendered “rejoiced,” and not “purified.”Kakkiatum—if this be the correct reading—may be a designation of Erech likeribîtim.
Lines 188–189 are again entirely misunderstood by Langdon, owing to erroneous readings. See the corrections in the Appendix.
Line 190.i-li-imin this line is used like Hebrew Elohîm, “God.”
Line 191.šakiššum=šakin-šum, as correctly explained by Langdon.
Line 192. With this line a new episode begins which, owing to the gap at the beginning of column 6, is somewhat obscure. The episode leads to the hostile encounter between Gish and Enkidu. It is referred to in column 2 of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version. Lines 35–50—all that is preserved of this column—form in part a parallel to columns 5–6 of the Pennsylvania tablet, but in much briefer form, since what on the Pennsylvania tablet is the incident itself is on the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version merely a repeated summary of the relationship between the two heroes, leading up to the expedition against Ḫu(m)baba. Lines 38–40 ofcolumn 2 of the Assyrian version correspond to lines 174–177 of the Pennsylvania tablet, and lines 44–50 to lines 192–221. It would seem that Gish proceeds stealthily at night to go to the goddess Ishḫara, who lies on a couch in thebît êmuti, the “family house” Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2. 46–48). He encounters Enkidu in the street, and the latter blocks Gish’s path, puts his foot in the gate leading to the house where the goddess is, and thus prevents Gish from entering. Thereupon the two have a fierce encounter in which Gish is worsted. The meaning of the episode itself is not clear. Does Enkidu propose to deprive Gish, here viewed as a god (cf. line 190 of the Pennsylvania tablet = Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 45, “like a god”), of his spouse, the goddess Ishḫara—another form of Ishtar? Or are the two heroes, the one a counterpart of the other, contesting for the possession of a goddess? Is it in this scene that Enkidu becomes the “rival” (me-iḫ-rù, line 191 of the Pennsylvania tablet) of the divine Gish? We must content ourself with having obtained through the Pennsylvania tablet a clearer indication of the occasion of the fight between the two heroes, and leave the further explanation of the episode till a fortunate chance may throw additional light upon it. There is perhaps a reference to the episode in the Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b, 35–36.
Line 196. Fori-na-ag-šá-am(fromnagâšu), Langdon proposes the purely fanciful “embracing her in sleep,” whereas it clearly means “he approaches.” Cf. Muss-Arnolt,Assyrian Dictionary, page 645a.
Lines 197–200 appear to correspond to Tablet IV, 2, 35–37, of the Assyrian version, though not forming a complete parallel. We may therefore supply at the beginning of line 35 of the Assyrian version[ittaziz] Enkidu, corresponding to line 197 of the Pennsylvania tablet. Line 36 of IV, 2, certainly appears to correspond to line 200 (dan-nu-ti=da-na-ni-iš-šú).
Line 208. The first sign looks more likešar, thoughuris possible.
Line 211is clearly a description of Enkidu, as is shown by a comparison with the Assyrian version I, 2, 37:[pi]-ti-ik pi-ir-ti-šú uḫ-tan-na-ba kimadNidaba, “The form of his hair sprouted like wheat.” We must therefore supply Enkidu in the preceding line. Tablet IV, 4, 6, of the Assyrian version also contains a reference to the flowing hair of Enkidu.
Line 212. For the completion of the line cf. Harper,Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, No. 214.
Line 214. Forribîtu mâtisee the note above to line 28 of column 1.
Lines 215–217 correspond almost entirely to the Assyrian version IV, 2, 46–48. The variationski-ib-suin place ofšêpu, andkima lîm, “like oxen,” instead ofina bâb êmuti(repeated from line 46),ana šurûbiforêribam, are slight though interesting. The Assyrian version shows that the “gate” in line 215 is “the gate of the family house” in which the goddess Ishḫara lies.
Lines 218–228. The detailed description of the fight between the two heroes is only partially preserved in the Assyrian version.
Line 218.li-i-imis evidently to be taken as plural here as inline 224, just assu-ḳi-im(lines 27 and 175),ri-bi-tim(lines 4, 28, etc.),tarbaṣim(line 74),aṣṣamim(line 98) are plural forms. Our text furnishes, as does also the Yale tablet, an interesting illustration of the vacillation in the Hammurabi period in the twofold use ofim: (a) as an indication of the plural (as in Hebrew), and (b) as a mere emphatic ending (lines 63, 73, and 232), which becomes predominant in the post-Hammurabi age.
Line 227. Gilgamesh is often represented on seal cylinders as kneeling, e.g., Ward Seal Cylinders Nos. 159, 160, 165. Cf. also Assyrian version V, 3, 6, where Gilgamesh is described as kneeling, though here in prayer. See further the commentary to the Yale tablet, line 215.
Line 229. We must of course readuz-za-šú, “his anger,” and notuṣ-ṣa-šú, “his javelin,” as Langdon does, which gives no sense.
Line 231. Langdon’s note is erroneous. He again misses the point. The stem of the verb here as inline 230(i-ni-iḫ) is the commonnâḫu, used so constantly in connection withpašâḫu, to designate the cessation of anger.
Line 234.ištênapplied to Gish designates him of course as “unique,” not as “an ordinary man,” as Langdon supposes.
Line 236. On this title “wild cow of the stall” for Ninsun, see Poebel inOLZ1914, page 6, to whom we owe the correct view regarding the name of Gilgamesh’s mother.
Line 238.mu-tihere cannot mean “husband,” but “man” ingeneral. See above note to line 107. Langdon’s strange misreadingri-eš-suforri-eš-ka(“thy head”) leads him again to miss the point, namely that Enkidu comforts his rival by telling him that he is destined for a career above that of the ordinary man. He is to be more than a mere prize fighter; he is to be a king, and no doubt in the ancient sense, as the representative of the deity. This is indicated by the statement that the kingship is decreed for him by Enlil. Similarly, Ḫu(m)baba or Ḫuwawa is designated by Enlil to inspire terror among men (Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 5, 2 and 5),i-šim-šúdEnlil= Yale tablet, l. 137, where this is to be supplied. This position accorded to Enlil is an important index for the origin of the Epic, which is thus shown to date from a period when the patron deity of Nippur was acknowledged as the general head of the pantheon. This justifies us in going back several centuries at least before Hammurabi for the beginning of the Gilgamesh story. If it had originated in the Hammurabi period, we should have had Marduk introduced instead of Enlil.
Line 242. As has been pointed out in the corrections to the text (Appendix),šú-tu-urcan only be III, 1, fromatâru, “to be in excess of.” It is a pity that the balance of the line is broken off, since this is the first instance of a colophon beginning with the term in question. In some wayšutûrmust indicate that the copy of the text has been “enlarged.” It is tempting to fill out the linešú-tu-ur e-li [duppi labiri], and to render “enlarged from an original,” as an indication of an independent recension of the Epic in theHammurabiperiod. All this, however, is purely conjectural, and we must patiently hope for more tablets of the Old Babylonian version to turn up. The chances are that some portions of the same edition as the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets are in the hands of dealers at present or have been sold to European museums. The war has seriously interfered with the possibility of tracing the whereabouts of groups of tablets that ought never to have been separated.