Chapter 2

ground. Again in the Assyrian version, Tablet V, 4, 6, Gilgamesh kneels down (though the reading _ka-mis_ is not certain) and has a vision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Note on Sabitum (above, p. 11)

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

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

Column 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28. Read at the beginning _sá_ instead of _ina_.

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

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

Column 2.

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

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

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

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

21. Read _ta-[ra-am-sú ki-ma]_.

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

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

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

33. Read _sá-ri-i-im_ as one word.

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

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

Column 3.

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

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

22. Supply _[lù_Sú]-I.

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

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

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

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

35. Read _gis_ instead of _wa_.

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

Column 4.

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

9. The fourth sign is _su_, not _sú_.

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

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

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

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

Column 5.

2. Read _[wa]-ar-ki-sú_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column 6.

3. Read _i-na si-ri-[sú]_.

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

21. Langdon's text has a superfluous _ga_.

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

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

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

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

NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[27] See below, p. 23.

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

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

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

[31] Lines 100-101.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[45] _BOR_ IV, p. 264.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[61] See above, p. 27.

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

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

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

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

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

[66] _me-ih-rù_ (line 191).

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

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

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

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

[71] Tablet XII, 3, 25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[80] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 218 and 224.

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

[82] Yale tablet, lines 190 and 191.

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

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

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

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

[87] Yale tablet, lines 252-253.

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

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

[90] Lines 215-222.

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

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

[93] Lines 178-183.

[94] Lines 176-177.

[95] Tablet VII, Column 6.

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

[97] Lines 109 and 112.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[105] Tablet I, Column 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[112] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 102-104.

[113] Line 105.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[133] Repeated I, 6, 28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[144] I.e., Enkidu.

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

[146] I.e., the man.

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

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

[149] He was thrown and therefore vanquished.

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

[151] Scribal error for _an_.

[152] Text apparently _di_.

[153] Hardly _ul_.

[154] Omitted by scribe.

[155] _Kisti_ omitted by scribe.

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

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