(1) Cf. also Jastrow,Hebr. and Bab. Trad., p. 336.(2) Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 123.
Another feature in which the two versions differ is that in the Sumerian text the lamentation of the goddess precedes the sending of the Deluge, while in the Gilgamesh Epic it is occasioned by the actual advent of the storm. Since our text is not completely preserved, it is just possible that the couplet was repeated at the end of the Fourth Column after mankind's destruction had taken place. But a further apparent difference has been noted. While in the Sumerian Version the goddess at once deplores the divine decision, it is clear from Ishtar's words in the Gilgamesh Epic that in the assembly of the gods she had at any rate concurred in it.(1) On the other hand, in Bêlit-ili's later speech in the Epic, after Ut-napishtim's sacrifice upon the mountain, she appears to subscribe the decision to Enlil alone.(2) The passages in the Gilgamesh Epic are not really contradictory, for they can be interpreted as implying that, while Enlil forced his will upon the other gods against Bêlit-ili's protest, the goddess at first reproached herself with her concurrence, and later stigmatized Enlil as the real author of the catastrophe. The Semitic narrative thus does not appear, as has been suggested, to betray traces of two variant traditions which have been skilfully combined, though it may perhaps exhibit an expansion of the Sumerian story. On the other hand, most of the apparent discrepancies between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions disappear, on the recognition that our text gives in many passages only an epitome of the original Sumerian Version.
(1) Cf. l. 121 f., "Since I commanded evil in the assemblyof the gods, (and) commanded battle for the destruction ofmy people".(2) Cf. ll. 165 ff., "Ye gods that are here! So long as Iforget not the (jewels of) lapis lazuli upon my neck, I willkeep these days in my memory, never will I forget them! Letthe gods come to the offering, but let not Enlil come to theoffering, since he took not counsel but sent the deluge andsurrendered my people to destruction."
The lament of the goddess is followed by a brief account of the action taken by the other chief figures in the drama. Enki holds counsel with his own heart, evidently devising the project, which he afterwards carried into effect, of preserving the seed of mankind from destruction. Since the verb in the following line is wanting, we do not know what action is there recorded of the four creating deities; but the fact that the gods of heaven and earth invoked the name of Anu and Enlil suggests that it was their will which had been forced upon the other gods. We shall see that throughout the text Anu and Enlil are the ultimate rulers of both gods and men.
The narrative then introduces the human hero of the Deluge story:
At that time Ziusudu, the king, . . . priest of the god (. . .),Made a very great . . ., (. . .).In humility he prostrates himself, in reverence (. . .),Daily he stands in attendance (. . .).A dream,(1) such as had not been before, comes forth(2) . . .(. . .),By the Name of Heaven and Earth he conjures (. . .).(1) The word may also be rendered "dreams".(2) For this rendering of the verbe-de, for which Dr.Poebel does not hazard a translation, see Rawlinson,W.A.I., IV, pl. 26, l. 24 f.(a),nu-e-de= Sem.la us-su-u(Pres.); and cf. Brünnow,Classified List, p. 327.An alternative rendering "is created" is also possible, andwould give equally good sense; cf.nu-e-de= Sem.la su-pu-u,W.A.I., IV, pl. 2, l. 5 (a), and Brünnow, op. cit.,p. 328.
The name of the hero, Ziusudu, is the fuller Sumerian equivalent of Ut-napishtim (or Uta-napishtim), the abbreviated Semitic form which we find in the Gilgamesh Epic. For not only are the first two elements of the Sumerian name identical with those of the Semitic Ut-napishtim, but the names themselves are equated in a later Babylonian syllabary or explanatory list of words.(1) We there find "Ut-napishte" given as the equivalent of the Sumerian "Zisuda", evidently an abbreviated form of the name Ziusudu;(2) and it is significant that the names occur in the syllabary between those of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, evidently in consequence of the association of the Deluge story by the Babylonians with their national epic of Gilgamesh. The name Ziusudu may be rendered "He who lengthened the day of life" or "He who made life long of days",(3) which in the Semitic form is abbreviated by the omission of the verb. The reference is probably to the immortality bestowed upon Ziusudu at the close of the story, and not to the prolongation of mankind's existence in which he was instrumental. It is scarcely necessary to add that the name has no linguistic connexion with the Hebrew name Noah, to which it also presents no parallel in meaning.
(1) Cf.Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus., Pt. XVIII, pl. 30,l. 9 (a).(2) The name in the Sumerian Version is read by Dr. Poebelas Ziugiddu, but there is much in favour of Prof. Zimmern'ssuggestion, based on the form Zisuda, that the thirdsyllable of the name should be read assu. On a fragmentof another Nippur text, No. 4611, Dr. Langdon reads the nameasZi-u-sud-du(cf. Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sec.,Vol. X, No. 1, p. 90, pl. iv a); the presence of thephonetic complementdumay be cited in favour of thisreading, but it does not appear to be supported by thephotographic reproductions of the name in the SumerianDeluge Version given by Dr. Poebel (Hist. and Gramm.Texts, pl. lxxxviii f.). It may be added that, on eitheralternative, the meaning of the name is the same.(3) The meaning of the Sumerian elementuin the name,rendered asutuin the Semitic form, is rather obscure,and Dr. Poebel left it unexplained. It is very probable, assuggested by Dr. Langdon (cf.Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.,XXXVI, 1914, p. 190), that we should connect it with theSemiticuddu; in that case, in place of "breath", therending he suggests, I should be inclined to render it hereas "day", forudduas the meaning "dawn" and the sign UDis employed both forurru, "day-light", andûmu, "day".
It is an interesting fact that Ziusudu should be described simply as "the king", without any indication of the city or area he ruled; and in three of the five other passages in the text in which his name is mentioned it is followed by the same title without qualification. In most cases Berossus tells us the cities from which his Antediluvian rulers came; and if the end of the line had been preserved it might have been possible to determine definitely Ziusudu's city, and incidentally the scene of the Deluge in the Sumerian Version, by the name of the deity in whose service he acted as priest. We have already noted some grounds for believing that his city may have been Shuruppak, as in the Babylonian Version; and if that were so, the divine name reads as "the God of Shurrupak" should probably be restored at the end of the line.(1)
(1) The remains that are preserved of the determinative,which is not combined with the sign EN, proves that Enki'sname is not to be restored. Hence Ziusudu was not priest ofEnki, and his city was probably not Eridu, the seat of hisdivine friend and counsellor, and the first of theAntediluvian cities. Sufficient reason for Enki'sintervention on Ziusudu's behalf is furnished by the factthat, as God of the Deep, he was concerned in the proposedmethod of man's destruction. His rivalry of Enlil, the Godof the Earth, is implied in the Babylonian Version (cf.Gilg. Epic. XI, ll. 39-42), and in the Sumerian Version thiswould naturally extend to Anu, the God of Heaven.
The employment of the royal title by itself accords with the tradition from Berossus that before the Deluge, as in later periods, the land was governed by a succession of supreme rulers, and that the hero of the Deluge was the last of them. In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, Ut-napishtim is given no royal nor any other title. He is merely referred to as a "man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu", and he appears in the guise of an ancient hero or patriarch not invested with royal power. On this point Berossus evidently preserves the original Sumerian traditions, while the Hebrew Versions resemble the Semitic-Babylonian narrative. The Sumerian conception of a series of supreme Antediluvian rulers is of course merely a reflection from the historical period, when the hegemony in Babylonia was contested among the city-states. The growth of the tradition may have been encouraged by the early use oflugal, "king", which, though always a term of secular character, was not very sharply distinguished from that ofpatesiand other religious titles, until, in accordance with political development, it was required to connote a wider dominion. In Sumer, at the time of the composition of our text, Ziusudu was still only one in a long line of Babylonian rulers, mainly historical but gradually receding into the realms of legend and myth. At the time of the later Semites there had been more than one complete break in the tradition and the historical setting of the old story had become dim. The fact that Hebrew tradition should range itself in this matter with Babylon rather than with Sumer is important as a clue in tracing the literary history of our texts.
The rest of the column may be taken as descriptive of Ziusudu's activities. One line records his making of some very great object or the erection of a huge building;(1) and since the following lines are concerned solely with religious activities, the reference is possibly to a temple or some other structure of a sacred character. Its foundation may have been recorded as striking evidence of his devotion to his god; or, since the verb in this sentence depends on the words "at that time" in the preceding line, we may perhaps regard his action as directly connected with the revelation to be made to him. His personal piety is then described: daily he occupied himself in his god's service, prostrating himself in humility and constant in his attendance at the shrine. A dream (or possibly dreams), "such as had not been before", appears to him and he seems to be further described as conjuring "by the Name of Heaven and Earth"; but as the ends of all these lines are broken, the exact connexion of the phrases is not quite certain.
(1) The elementgur-gur, "very large" or "huge", which occurs in the name of this great object or building,an- sag-gur-gur, is employed later in the term for the "huge boat",(gish)ma-gur-gur, in which Ziusudu rode out the storm. There was, of course, even at this early period a natural tendency to picture on a superhuman scale the lives and deeds of remote predecessors, a tendency which increased in later times and led, as we shall see, to the elaboration of extravagant detail.
It is difficult not to associate the reference to a dream, or possibly to dream-divination, with the warning in which Enki reveals the purpose of the gods. For the later versions prepare us for a reference to a dream. If we take the line as describing Ziusudu's practice of dream-divination in general, "such as had not been before", he may have been represented as the first diviner of dreams, as Enmeduranki was held to be the first practitioner of divination in general. But it seems to me more probable that the reference is to a particular dream, by means of which he obtained knowledge of the gods' intentions. On the rendering of this passage depends our interpretation of the whole of the Fourth Column, where the point will be further discussed. Meanwhile it may be noted that the conjuring "by the Name of Heaven and Earth", which we may assume is ascribed to Ziusudu, gains in significance if we may regard the setting of the myth as a magical incantation, an inference in support of which we shall note further evidence. For we are furnished at once with the grounds for its magical employment. If Ziusudu, through conjuring by the Name of Heaven and earth, could profit by the warning sent him and so escape the impending fate of mankind, the application of such a myth to the special needs of a Sumerian in peril or distress will be obvious. For should he, too, conjure by the Name of Heaven and Earth, he might look for a similar deliverance; and his recital of the myth itself would tend to clinch the magical effect of his own incantation.
The description of Ziusudu has also great interest in furnishing us with a close parallel to the piety of Noah in the Hebrew Versions. For in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus this feature of the story is completely absent. We are there given no reason why Ut-napishtim was selected by Ea, nor Xisuthros by Kronos. For all that those versions tell us, the favour of each deity might have been conferred arbitrarily, and not in recognition of, or in response to, any particular quality or action on the part of its recipient. The Sumerian Version now restores the original setting of the story and incidentally proves that, in this particular, the Hebrew Versions have not embroidered a simpler narrative for the purpose of edification, but have faithfully reproduced an original strand of the tradition.
The top of the Fourth Column of the text follows immediately on the close of the Third Column, so that at this one point we have no great gap between the columns. But unfortunately the ends of all the lines in both columns are wanting, and the exact content of some phrases preserved and their relation to each other are consequently doubtful. This materially affects the interpretation of the passage as a whole, but the main thread of the narrative may be readily followed. Ziusudu is here warned that a flood is to be sent "to destroy the seed of mankind"; the doubt that exists concerns the manner in which the warning is conveyed. In the first line of the column, after a reference to "the gods", a building seems to be mentioned, and Ziusudu, standing beside it, apparently hears a voice, which bids him take his stand beside a wall and then conveys to him the warning of the coming flood. The destruction of mankind had been decreed in "the assembly (of the gods)" and would be carried out by the commands of Anu and Enlil. Before the text breaks off we again have a reference to the "kingdom" and "its rule", a further trace of the close association of the Deluge with the dynastic succession in the early traditions of Sumer.
In the opening words of the warning to Ziusudu, with its prominent repetition of the word "wall", we must evidently trace some connexion with the puzzling words of Ea in the Gilgamesh Epic, when he begins his warning to Ut-napishtim. The warnings, as given in the two versions, are printed below in parallel columns for comparison.(1) The Gilgamesh Epic, after relating how the great gods in Shuruppak had decided to send a deluge, continues as follows in the right-hand column:
SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSIONFor (. . .) . . . the gods a Nin-igi-azag,(2) the god Ea,. . . (. . .); sat with them,Ziusudu standing at its side And he repeated their word toheard (. . .): the house of reeds:"At the wall on my left side take "Reed-hut, reed-hut! Wall,thy stand and (. . .), wall!At the wall I will speak a word O reed-hut, hear! O wall,to thee (. . .). understand!O my devout one . . . (. . .), Thou man of Shuruppak, son ofUbar-Tutu,By our hand(?) a flood(3) . . . Pull down thy house, build a(. . .) will be (sent). ship,To destroy the seed of mankind Leave thy possessions, take(. . .) heed for thy life,Is the decision, the word of the Abandon thy property, and saveassembly(4) (of the gods) thy life.The commands of Anu (and) And bring living seed of everyEn(lil . . .) kind into the ship.Its kingdom, its rule (. . .) As for the ship, which thoushalt build,To his (. . .)" Of which the measurementsshall be carefully measured,(. . .) Its breadth and length shallcorrespond.(. . .) In the deep shalt thou immerseit."(1) Col. IV, ll. 1 ff. are there compared with Gilg. Epic,XI, ll. 19-31.(2) Nin-igi-azag, "The Lord of Clear Vision", a title borneby Enki, or Ea, as God of Wisdom.(3) The Sumerian termamaru, here used for the flood andrendered as "rain-storm" by Dr. Poebel, is explained in alater syllabary as the equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonianwordabûbu(cf. Meissner,S.A.I., No. 8909), the termemployed for the flood both in the early Semitic version ofthe Atrakhasis story dated in Ammizaduga's reign and in theGilgamesh Epic. The wordabûbuis often conventionallyrendered "deluge", but should be more accurately translated"flood". It is true that the tempests of the SumerianVersion probably imply rain; and in the Gilgamesh Epic heavyrain in the evening begins the flood and is followed at dawnby a thunderstorm and hurricane. But in itself the termabûbuimplies flood, which could take place through a riseof the rivers unaccompanied by heavy local rain. The annualrainfall in Babylonia to-day is on an average only about 8in., and there have been years in succession when the totalrainfall has not exceeded 4 in.; and yet theabûbuis nota thing of the past.(4) The word here rendered "assembly" is the Semitic loan-wordbuhrum, in Babylonianpuhrum, the term employed forthe "assembly" of the gods both in the Babylonian CreationSeries and in the Gilgamesh Epic. Its employment in theSumerian Version, in place of its Sumerian equivalentukkin, is an interesting example of Semitic influence. Itsoccurrence does not necessarily imply the existence of arecognized Semitic Version at the period our text wasinscribed. The substitution ofbuhrumforukkinin thetext may well date from the period of Hammurabi, when we mayassume that the increased importance of the city-council wasreflected in the general adoption of the Semitic term (cf.Poebel,Hist. Texts, p. 53).
In the Semitic Version Ut-napishtim, who tells the story in the first person, then says that he "understood", and that, after assuring Ea that he would carry out his commands, he asked how he was to explain his action to "the city, the people, and the elders"; and the god told him what to say. Then follows an account of the building of the ship, introduced by the words "As soon as the dawn began to break". In the Sumerian Version the close of the warning, in which the ship was probably referred to, and the lines prescribing how Ziusudu carried out the divine instructions are not preserved.
It will be seen that in the passage quoted from the Semitic Version there is no direct mention of a dream; the god is represented at first as addressing his words to a "house of reeds" and a "wall", and then as speaking to Ut-napishtim himself. But in a later passage in the Epic, when Ea seeks to excuse his action to Enlil, he says that the gods' decision was revealed to Atrakhasis through a dream.(1) Dr. Poebel rightly compares the direct warning of Ut-napishtim by Ea in the passage quoted above with the equally direct warning Ziusudu receives in the Sumerian Version. But he would have us divorce the direct warning from the dream-warning, and he concludes that no less than three different versions of the story have been worked together in the Gilgamesh Epic. In the first, corresponding to that in our text, Ea communicates the gods' decision directly to Ut-napishtim; in the second he sends a dream from which Atrakhasis, "the Very Wise one", guesses the impending peril; while in the third he relates the plan to a wall, taking care that Ut-napishtim overhears him.(2) The version of Berossus, that Kronos himself appears to Xisuthros in a dream and warns him, is rejected by Dr. Poebel, who remarks that here the "original significance of the dream has already been obliterated". Consequently there seems to him to be "no logical connexion" between the dreams or dream mentioned at the close of the Third Column and the communication of the plan of the gods at the beginning of the Fourth Column of our text.(3)
(1) Cf. l. 195 f.; "I did not divulge the decision of thegreat gods. I caused Atrakhasis to behold a dream and thushe heard the decision of the gods."(2) Cf. Poebel,Hist. Texts, p. 51 f. With the god'sapparent subterfuge in the third of these supposed versionsSir James Frazer (Ancient Stories of a Great Flood, p. 15)not inaptly compares the well-known story of King Midas'sservant, who, unable to keep the secret of the king'sdeformity to himself, whispered it into a hole in theground, with the result that the reeds which grew up thereby their rustling in the wind proclaimed it to the world(Ovid,Metamorphoses, xi, 174 ff.).(3) Op. cit., p. 51; cf. also Jastrow,Heb. and Bab.Trad., p. 346.
So far from Berossus having missed the original significance of the narrative he relates, I think it can be shown that he reproduces very accurately the sense of our Sumerian text; and that the apparent discrepancies in the Semitic Version, and the puzzling references to a wall in both it and the Sumerian Version, are capable of a simple explanation. There appears to me no justification for splitting the Semitic narrative into the several versions suggested, since the assumption that the direct warning and the dream-warning must be distinguished is really based on a misunderstanding of the character of Sumerian dreams by which important decisions of the gods in council were communicated to mankind. We fortunately possess an instructive Sumerian parallel to our passage. In it the will of the gods is revealed in a dream, which is not only described in full but is furnished with a detailed interpretation; and as it seems to clear up our difficulties, it may be well to summarize its main features.
The occasion of the dream in this case was not a coming deluge but a great dearth of water in the rivers, in consequence of which the crops had suffered and the country was threatened with famine. This occurred in the reign of Gudea, patesi of Lagash, who lived some centuries before our Sumerian document was inscribed. In his own inscription(1) he tells us that he was at a loss to know by what means he might restore prosperity to his country, when one night he had a dream; and it was in consequence of the dream that he eventually erected one of the most sumptuously appointed of Sumerian temples and thereby restored his land to prosperity. Before recounting his dream he describes how the gods themselves took counsel. On the day in which destinies were fixed in heaven and earth, Enlil, the chief of the gods, and Ningirsu, the city-god of Lagash, held converse; and Enlil, turning to Ningirsu, described the sad condition of Southern Babylonia, and remarked that "the decrees of the temple Eninnû should be made glorious in heaven and upon earth", or, in other words, that Ningirsu's city-temple must be rebuilt. Thereupon Ningirsu did not communicate his orders directly to Gudea, but conveyed the will of the gods to him by means of a dream.
(1) See Thureau-Dangin,Les inscriptions de Sumer etd'Akkad, Cyl. A, pp. 134 ff., Germ. ed., pp. 88 ff.; andcf. King and Hall,Eg. and West. Asia, pp. 196 ff.
It will be noticed that we here have a very similar situation to that in the Deluge story. A conference of the gods has been held; a decision has been taken by the greatest god, Enlil; and, in consequence, another deity is anxious to inform a Sumerian ruler of that decision. The only difference is that here Enlil desires the communication to be made, while in the Deluge story it is made without his knowledge, and obviously against his wishes. So the fact that Ningirsu does not communicate directly with the patesi, but conveys his message by means of a dream, is particularly instructive. For here there can be no question of any subterfuge in the method employed, since Enlil was a consenting party.
The story goes on to relate that, while the patesi slept, a vision of the night came to him, and he beheld a man whose stature was so great that it equalled the heavens and the earth. By the diadem he wore upon his head Gudea knew that the figure must be a god. Beside the god was the divine eagle, the emblem of Lagash; his feet rested upon the whirlwind, and a lion crouched upon his right hand and upon his left. The figure spoke to the patesi, but he did not understand the meaning of the words. Then it seemed to Gudea that the Sun rose from the earth; and he beheld a woman holding in her hand a pure reed, and she carried also a tablet on which was a star of the heavens, and she seemed to take counsel with herself. While Gudea was gazing, he seemed to see a second man, who was like a warrior; and he carried a slab of lapis lazuli, on which he drew out the plan of a temple. Before the patesi himself it seemed that a fair cushion was placed, and upon the cushion was set a mould, and within the mould was a brick. And on the right hand the patesi beheld an ass that lay upon the ground. Such was the dream of Gudea, and he was troubled because he could not interpret it.(1)
(1) The resemblance its imagery bears to that of apocalypticvisions of a later period is interesting, as evidence of thelatter's remote ancestry, and of the development in the useof primitive material to suit a completely changed politicaloutlook. But those are points which do not concern ourproblem.
To cut the long story short, Gudea decided to seek the help of Ninâ, "the child of Eridu", who, as daughter of Enki, the God of Wisdom, could divine all the mysteries of the gods. But first of all by sacrifices and libations he secured the mediation of his own city-god and goddess, Ningirsu and Gatumdug; and then, repairing to Ninâ's temple, he recounted to her the details of his vision. When the patesi had finished, the goddess addressed him and said she would explain to him the meaning of his dream. Here, no doubt, we are to understand that she spoke through the mouth of her chief priest. And this was the interpretation of the dream. The man whose stature was so great, and whose head was that of a god, was the god Ningirsu, and the words which he uttered were an order to the patesi to rebuild the temple Eninnû. The Sun which rose from the earth was the god Ningishzida, for like the Sun he goes forth from the earth. The maiden who held the pure reed and carried the tablet with the star was the goddess Nisaba; the star was the pure star of the temple's construction, which she proclaimed. The second man, who was like a warrior, was the god Nibub; and the plan of the temple which he drew was the plan of Eninnû; and the ass that lay upon the ground was the patesi himself.(1)
(1) The symbolism of the ass, as a beast of burden, wasapplicable to the patesi in his task of carrying out thebuilding of the temple.
The essential feature of the vision is that the god himself appeared to the sleeper and delivered his message in words. That is precisely the manner in which Kronos warned Xisuthros of the coming Deluge in the version of Berossus; while in the Gilgamesh Epic the apparent contradiction between the direct warning and the dream-warning at once disappears. It is true that Gudea states that he did not understand the meaning of the god's message, and so required an interpretation; but he was equally at a loss as to the identity of the god who gave it, although Ningirsu was his own city-god and was accompanied by his own familiar city-emblem. We may thus assume that the god's words, as words, were equally intelligible to Gudea. But as they were uttered in a dream, it was necessary that the patesi, in view of his country's peril, should have divine assurance that they implied no other meaning. And in his case such assurance was the more essential, in view of the symbolism attaching to the other features of his vision. That this is sound reasoning is proved by a second vision vouchsafed to Gudea by Ningirsu. For the patesi, though he began to prepare for the building of the temple, was not content even with Ninâ's assurance. He offered a prayer to Ningirsu himself, saying that he wished to build the temple, but had received no sign that this was the will of the god; and he prayed for a sign. Then, as the patesi lay stretched upon the ground, the god again appeared to him and gave him detailed instructions, adding that he would grant the sign for which he asked. The sign was that he should feel his side touched as by a flame,(1) and thereby he should know that he was the man chosen by Ningirsu to carry out his commands. Here it is the sign which confirms the apparent meaning of the god's words. And Gudea was at last content and built the temple.(2)
(1) Cyl. A., col. xii, l. 10 f.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, op.cit., p. 150 f., Germ. ed., p. 102 f. The word translated"side" may also be rendered as "hand"; but "side" is themore probable rendering of the two. The touching of Gudea'sside (or hand) presents an interesting resemblance to thetouching of Jacob's thigh by the divine wrestler at Penielin Gen. xxxii. 24 ff. (J or JE). Given a belief in theconstant presence of the unseen and its frequentmanifestation, such a story as that of Peniel might wellarise from an unexplained injury to the sciatic muscle,while more than one ailment of the heart or liver mightperhaps suggest the touch of a beckoning god. There is ofcourse no connexion between the Sumerian and Hebrew storiesbeyond their common background. It may be added that thosecritics who would reverse therôlesof Jacob and thewrestler miss the point of the Hebrew story.(2) Even so, before starting on the work, he took thefurther precautions of ascertaining that the omens werefavourable and of purifying his city from all maligninfluence.
We may conclude, then, that in the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge we have traced a logical connexion between the direct warning to Ziusudu in the Fourth Column of the text and the reference to a dream in the broken lines at the close of the Third Column. As in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus, here too the god's warning is conveyed in a dream; and the accompanying reference to conjuring by the Name of Heaven and Earth probably represents the means by which Ziusudu was enabled to verify its apparent meaning. The assurance which Gudea obtained through the priest of Ninâ and the sign, the priest-king Ziusudu secured by his own act, in virtue of his piety and practice of divination. And his employment of the particular class of incantation referred to, that which conjures by the Name of Heaven and Earth, is singularly appropriate to the context. For by its use he was enabled to test the meaning of Enki's words, which related to the intentions of Anu and Enlil, the gods respectively of Heaven and of Earth. The symbolical setting of Gudea's vision also finds a parallel in the reed-house and wall of the Deluge story, though in the latter case we have not the benefit of interpretation by a goddess. In the Sumerian Version the wall is merely part of the vision and does not receive a direct address from the god. That appears as a later development in the Semitic Version, and it may perhaps have suggested the excuse, put in that version into the mouth of Ea, that he had not directly revealed the decision of the gods.(1)
(1) In that case the parallel suggested by Sir James Frazerbetween the reed-house and wall of the Gilgamesh Epic, nowregarded as a medium of communication, and the whisperingreeds of the Midas story would still hold good.
The omission of any reference to a dream before the warning in the Gilgamesh Epic may be accounted for on the assumption that readers of the poem would naturally suppose that the usual method of divine warning was implied; and the text does indicate that the warning took place at night, for Gilgamesh proceeds to carry out the divine instructions at the break of day. The direct warning of the Hebrew Versions, on the other hand, does not carry this implication, since according to Hebrew ideas direct speech, as well as vision, was included among the methods by which the divine will could be conveyed to man.
The missing portion of the Fourth Column must have described Ziusudu's building of his great boat in order to escape the Deluge, for at the beginning of the Fifth Column we are in the middle of the Deluge itself. The column begins:
All the mighty wind-storms together blew,The flood . . . raged.When for seven days, for seven nights,The flood had overwhelmed the landWhen the wind-storm had driven the great boat over the mightywaters,The Sun-god came forth, shedding light over heaven and earth.Ziusudu opened the opening of the great boat;The light of the hero, the Sun-god, (he) causes to enter into theinterior(?) of the great boat.Ziusudu, the king,Bows himself down before the Sun-god;The king sacrifices an ox, a sheep he slaughters(?).
The connected text of the column then breaks off, only a sign or two remaining of the following half-dozen lines. It will be seen that in the eleven lines that are preserved we have several close parallels to the Babylonian Version and some equally striking differences. While attempting to define the latter, it will be well to point out how close the resemblances are, and at the same time to draw a comparison between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions of this part of the story and the corresponding Hebrew accounts.
Here, as in the Babylonian Version, the Flood is accompanied by hurricanes of wind, though in the latter the description is worked up in considerable detail. We there read(1) that at the appointed time the ruler of the darkness at eventide sent a heavy rain. Ut-napishtim saw its beginning, but fearing to watch the storm, he entered the interior of the ship by Ea's instructions, closed the door, and handed over the direction of the vessel to the pilot Puzur-Amurri. Later a thunder-storm and hurricane added their terrors to the deluge. For at early dawn a black cloud came up from the horizon, Adad the Storm-god thundering in its midst, and his heralds, Nabû and Sharru, flying over mountain and plain. Nergal tore away the ship's anchor, while Ninib directed the storm; the Anunnaki carried their lightning-torches and lit up the land with their brightness; the whirlwind of the Storm-god reached the heavens, and all light was turned into darkness. The storm raged the whole day, covering mountain and people with water.(2) No man beheld his fellow; the gods themselves were afraid, so that they retreated into the highest heaven, where they crouched down, cowering like dogs. Then follows the lamentation of Ishtar, to which reference has already been made, the goddess reproaching herself for the part she had taken in the destruction of her people. This section of the Semitic narrative closes with the picture of the gods weeping with her, sitting bowed down with their lips pressed together.
(1) Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 90 ff.(2) In the Atrakhasis version, dated in the reign ofAmmizaduga, Col. I, l. 5, contains a reference to the "cry"of men when Adad the Storm-god, slays them with his flood.
It is probable that the Sumerian Version, in the missing portion of its Fourth Column, contained some account of Ziusudu's entry into his boat; and this may have been preceded, as in the Gilgamesh Epic, by a reference to "the living seed of every kind", or at any rate to "the four-legged creatures of the field", and to his personal possessions, with which we may assume he had previously loaded it. But in the Fifth Column we have no mention of the pilot or of any other companions who may have accompanied the king; and we shall see that the Sixth Column contains no reference to Ziusudu's wife. The description of the storm may have begun with the closing lines of the Fourth Column, though it is also quite possible that the first line of the Fifth Column actually begins the account. However that may be, and in spite of the poetic imagery of the Semitic Babylonian narrative, the general character of the catastrophe is the same in both versions.
We find an equally close parallel, between the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts, in the duration of the storm which accompanied the Flood, as will be seen by printing the two versions together:(3)
SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSIONWhen for seven days, for seven For six days and nightsnights,The flood had overwhelmed the The wind blew, the flood, theland, tempest overwhelmed the land.When the wind-storm had driven When the seventh day drew near,the great boat over the the tempest, the flood, ceasedmighty waters, from the battleIn which it had fought like ahost.The Sun-god came forth shedding Then the sea rested and waslight over heaven and earth. still, and the wind-storm, theflood, ceased.(3) Col. V, ll. 3-6 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI,ll. 128-32.
The two narratives do not precisely agree as to the duration of the storm, for while in the Sumerian account the storm lasts seven days and seven nights, in the Semitic-Babylonian Version it lasts only six days and nights, ceasing at dawn on the seventh day. The difference, however, is immaterial when we compare these estimates with those of the Hebrew Versions, the older of which speaks of forty days' rain, while the later version represents the Flood as rising for no less than a hundred and fifty days.
The close parallel between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions is not, however, confined to subject-matter, but here, even extends to some of the words and phrases employed. It has already been noted that the Sumerian term employed for "flood" or "deluge" is the attested equivalent of the Semitic word; and it may now be added that the word which may be rendered "great boat" or "great ship" in the Sumerian text is the same word, though partly expressed by variant characters, which occurs in the early Semitic fragment of the Deluge story from Nippur.(1) In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, the ordinary ideogram for "vessel" or "ship"(2) is employed, though the great size of the vessel is there indicated, as in Berossus and the later Hebrew Version, by detailed measurements. Moreover, the Sumerian and Semitic verbs, which are employed in the parallel passages quoted above for the "overwhelming" of the land, are given as synonyms in a late syllabary, while in another explanatory text the Sumerian verb is explained as applying to the destructive action of a flood.(3) Such close linguistic parallels are instructive as furnishing additional proof, if it were needed, of the dependence of the Semitic-Babylonian and Assyrian Versions upon Sumerian originals.
(1) The Sumerian word is(gish)ma-gur-gur, correspondingto the term written in the early Semitic fragment, l. 8, as(isu)ma-gur-gur, which is probably to be read under itsSemitized formmagurgurru. In l. 6 of that fragment thevessel is referred to under the synonymous expression(isu)elippu ra-be-tu, "a great ship".(2) i.e. (GISH)MA, the first element in the Sumerian word,read in Semitic Babylonian aselippu, "ship"; whenemployed in the early Semitic fragment it is qualified bythe adj.ra-be-tu, "great". There is no justification forassuming, with Prof. Hilbrecht, that a measurement of thevessel was given in l. 7 of the early Semitic fragment.(3) The Sumerian verbur, which is employed in l. 2 of theFifth Column in the expressionba-an-da-ab-ur-ur,translated as "raged", occurs again in l. 4 in the phrasekalam-ma ba-ur-ra, "had overwhelmed the land". That we arejustified in regarding the latter phrase as the original ofthe Semitici-sap-pan mâta(Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 129) isproved by the equation Sum.ur-ur= Sem.sa-pa-nu(Rawlinson,W.A.I., Vol. V, pl. 42, l. 54 c) and by theexplanation Sum.ur-ur= Sem.sa-ba-tu sa a-bu-bi, i.e."ur-ur= to smite, of a flood" (Cun. Texts, Pt. XII, pl.50, Obv., l. 23); cf. Poebel,Hist. Texts, p. 54, n. 1.
It may be worth while to pause for a moment in our study of the text, in order to inquire what kind of boat it was in which Ziusudu escaped the Flood. It is only called "a great boat" or "a great ship" in the text, and this term, as we have noted, was taken over, semitized, and literally translated in an early Semitic-Babylonian Version. But the Gilgamesh Epic, representing the later Semitic-Babylonian Version, supplies fuller details, which have not, however, been satisfactorily explained. Either the obvious meaning of the description and figures there given has been ignored, or the measurements have been applied to a central structure placed upon a hull, much on the lines of a modern "house-boat" or the conventional Noah's ark.(1) For the latter interpretation the text itself affords no justification. The statement is definitely made that the length and breadth of the vessel itself are to be the same;(2) and a later passage gives tengarfor the height of its sides and tengarfor the breadth of its deck.(3) This description has been taken to imply a square box-like structure, which, in order to be seaworthy, must be placed on a conjectured hull.