{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_11000/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_11000","id":"gutenberg_11000","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11000","summary":null,"tags":["Best Books Ever Listings","Category: Classics of Literature","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Epic poetry, Assyro-Babylonian"],"text":"This eBook was produced by Jeroen Hellingman.\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  Yale Oriental Series\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Researches\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Volume IV\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPart III\n\n   Published from the fund given to the university in memory of Mary\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tStevens Hammond\n\n\n\n\n\t\t\tYale Oriental Series. Researches, Volume IV, 3.\n\n\t\t\tAn Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic\n\n\t\t\t   On the Basis of Recently Discovered Texts\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   By\n\n\t\t\t\t\tMorris Jastrow Jr., Ph.D., LL.D.\n\t   Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Pennsylvania\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  And\n\n\t\t\t\t Albert T. Clay, Ph.D., LL.D., Litt.D.\n  Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature, Yale University\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\t\t   Copyright, 1920, by Yale University Press\n\n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  In Memory of\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   William Max M\u00fcller\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  (1863-1919)\n\t\t\tWhose life was devoted to Egyptological research\n\t\t\t\t\t   which he greatly enriched\n\t\t\t\t\t\t by many contributions\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE\n\n\nThe Introduction, the Commentary to the two tablets, and the\nAppendix, are by Professor Jastrow, and for these he assumes the sole\nresponsibility. The text of the Yale tablet is by Professor Clay. The\ntransliteration and the translation of the two tablets represent\nthe joint work of the two authors. In the transliteration of the two\ntablets, C. E. Keiser's \"System of Accentuation for Sumero-Akkadian\nsigns\" (Yale Oriental Researches--VOL. IX, Appendix, New Haven, 1919)\nhas been followed.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nI.\n\n\nThe Gilgamesh Epic is the most notable literary product of Babylonia as\nyet discovered in the mounds of Mesopotamia. It recounts the exploits\nand adventures of a favorite hero, and in its final form covers twelve\ntablets, each tablet consisting of six columns (three on the obverse\nand three on the reverse) of about 50 lines for each column, or a total\nof about 3600 lines. Of this total, however, barely more than one-half\nhas been found among the remains of the great collection of cuneiform\ntablets gathered by King Ashurbanapal (668-626 B.C.) in his palace\nat Nineveh, and discovered by Layard in 1854 [1] in the course of his\nexcavations of the mound Kouyunjik (opposite Mosul). The fragments of\nthe epic painfully gathered--chiefly by George Smith--from the _circa_\n30,000 tablets and bits of tablets brought to the British Museum were\npublished in model form by Professor Paul Haupt; [2] and that edition\nstill remains the primary source for our study of the Epic.\n\nFor the sake of convenience we may call the form of the Epic in the\nfragments from the library of Ashurbanapal the Assyrian version,\nthough like most of the literary productions in the library it not\nonly reverts to a Babylonian original, but represents a late copy of\na much older original. The absence of any reference to Assyria in\nthe fragments recovered justifies us in assuming that the Assyrian\nversion received its present form in Babylonia, perhaps in Erech;\nthough it is of course possible that some of the late features,\nparticularly the elaboration of the teachings of the theologians or\nschoolmen in the eleventh and twelfth tablets, may have been produced\nat least in part under Assyrian influence. A definite indication\nthat the Gilgamesh Epic reverts to a period earlier than Hammurabi\n(or Hammurawi) [3] i.e., beyond 2000 B. C., was furnished by the\npublication of a text clearly belonging to the first Babylonian\ndynasty (of which Hammurabi was the sixth member) in _CT_. VI, 5;\nwhich text Zimmern [4] recognized as a part of the tale of Atra-hasis,\none of the names given to the survivor of the deluge, recounted on\nthe eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. [5] This was confirmed\nby the discovery [6] of a fragment of the deluge story dated in the\neleventh year of Ammisaduka, i.e., c. 1967 B.C. In this text, likewise,\nthe name of the deluge hero appears as Atra-hasis (col. VIII, 4). [7]\nBut while these two tablets do not belong to the Gilgamesh Epic and\nmerely introduce an episode which has also been incorporated into the\nEpic, Dr. Bruno Meissner in 1902 published a tablet, dating, as the\nwriting and the internal evidence showed, from the Hammurabi period,\nwhich undoubtedly is a portion of what by way of distinction we may\ncall an old Babylonian version. [8] It was picked up by Dr. Meissner\nat a dealer's shop in Bagdad and acquired for the Berlin Museum. The\ntablet consists of four columns (two on the obverse and two on the\nreverse) and deals with the hero's wanderings in search of a cure\nfrom disease with which he has been smitten after the death of his\ncompanion Enkidu. The hero fears that the disease will be fatal and\nlongs to escape death. It corresponds to a portion of Tablet X of\nthe Assyrian version. Unfortunately, only the lower portion of the\nobverse and the upper of the reverse have been preserved (57 lines\nin all); and in default of a colophon we do not know the numeration\nof the tablet in this old Babylonian edition. Its chief value,\napart from its furnishing a proof for the existence of the Epic\nas early as 2000 B. C., lies (a) in the writing _Gish_ instead of\nGish-gi(n)-mash in the Assyrian version, for the name of the hero,\n(b) in the writing En-ki-du--abbreviated from dug--\"Enki is\ngood\" for En-ki-d\u00fa in the Assyrian version, [9] and (c) in the\nremarkable address of the maiden Sabitum, dwelling at the seaside,\nto whom Gilgamesh comes in the course of his wanderings. From the\nAssyrian version we know that the hero tells the maiden of his grief\nfor his lost companion, and of his longing to escape the dire fate of\nEnkidu. In the old Babylonian fragment the answer of Sabitum is given\nin full, and the sad note that it strikes, showing how hopeless it\nis for man to try to escape death which is in store for all mankind,\nis as remarkable as is the philosophy of \"eat, drink and be merry\"\nwhich Sabitum imparts. The address indicates how early the tendency\narose to attach to ancient tales the current religious teachings.\n\n\n\t\"Why, O Gish, does thou run about?\n\tThe life that thou seekest, thou wilt not find.\n\tWhen the gods created mankind,\n\tDeath they imposed on mankind;\n\tLife they kept in their power.\n\tThou, O Gish, fill thy belly,\n\tDay and night do thou rejoice,\n\tDaily make a rejoicing!\n\tDay and night a renewal of jollification!\n\tLet thy clothes be clean,\n\tWash thy head and pour water over thee!\n\tCare for the little one who takes hold of thy hand!\n\tLet the wife rejoice in thy bosom!\"\n\n\nSuch teachings, reminding us of the leading thought in the Biblical\nBook of Ecclesiastes, [10] indicate the _didactic_ character given to\nancient tales that were of popular origin, but which were modified\nand elaborated under the influence of the schools which arose in\nconnection with the Babylonian temples. The story itself belongs,\ntherefore, to a still earlier period than the form it received in this\nold Babylonian version. The existence of this tendency at so early a\ndate comes to us as a genuine surprise, and justifies the assumption\nthat the attachment of a lesson to the deluge story in the Assyrian\nversion, to wit, the limitation in attainment of immortality to those\nsingled out by the gods as exceptions, dates likewise from the old\nBabylonian period. The same would apply to the twelfth tablet, which\nis almost entirely didactic, intended to illustrate the impossibility\nof learning anything of the fate of those who have passed out of this\nworld. It also emphasizes the necessity of contenting oneself with the\ncomfort that the care of the dead, by providing burial and food and\ndrink offerings for them affords, as the only means of ensuring for\nthem rest and freedom from the pangs of hunger and distress. However,\nit is of course possible that the twelfth tablet, which impresses\none as a supplement to the adventures of Gilgamesh, ending with his\nreturn to Uruk (i.e., Erech) at the close of the eleventh tablet, may\nrepresent a _later_ elaboration of the tendency to connect religious\nteachings with the exploits of a favorite hero.\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\nWe now have further evidence both of the extreme antiquity of the\nliterary form of the Gilgamesh Epic and also of the disposition to\nmake the Epic the medium of illustrating aspects of life and the\ndestiny of mankind. The discovery by Dr. Arno Poebel of a Sumerian\nform of the tale of the descent of Ishtar to the lower world and her\nrelease [11]--apparently a nature myth to illustrate the change of\nseason from summer to winter and back again to spring--enables us to\npass beyond the Akkadian (or Semitic) form of tales current in the\nEuphrates Valley to the Sumerian form. Furthermore, we are indebted\nto Dr. Langdon for the identification of two Sumerian fragments in the\nNippur Collection which deal with the adventures of Gilgamesh, one in\nConstantinople, [12] the other in the collection of the University\nof Pennsylvania Museum. [13] The former, of which only 25 lines are\npreserved (19 on the obverse and 6 on the reverse), appears to be a\ndescription of the weapons of Gilgamesh with which he arms himself\nfor an encounter--presumably the encounter with Humbaba or Huwawa,\nthe ruler of the cedar forest in the mountain. [14] The latter deals\nwith the building operations of Gilgamesh in the city of Erech. A\ntext in Zimmern's _Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit_\n(Leipzig, 1913), No. 196, appears likewise to be a fragment of the\nSumerian version of the Gilgamesh Epic, bearing on the episode of\nGilgamesh's and Enkidu's relations to the goddess Ishtar, covered in\nthe sixth and seventh tablets of the Assyrian version. [15]\n\nUntil, however, further fragments shall have turned up, it would\nbe hazardous to institute a comparison between the Sumerian and the\nAkkadian versions. All that can be said for the present is that there\nis every reason to believe in the existence of a literary form of the\nEpic in Sumerian which presumably antedated the Akkadian recension,\njust as we have a Sumerian form of Ishtar's descent into the nether\nworld, and Sumerian versions of creation myths, as also of the\nDeluge tale. [16] It does not follow, however, that the Akkadian\nversions of the Gilgamesh Epic are translations of the Sumerian,\nany more than that the Akkadian creation myths are translations of\na Sumerian original. Indeed, in the case of the creation myths,\nthe striking difference between the Sumerian and Akkadian views\nof creation [17] points to the independent production of creation\nstories on the part of the Semitic settlers of the Euphrates Valley,\nthough no doubt these were worked out in part under Sumerian literary\ninfluences. The same is probably true of Deluge tales, which would\nbe given a distinctly Akkadian coloring in being reproduced and\nsteadily elaborated by the Babylonian _literati_ attached to the\ntemples. The presumption is, therefore, in favor of an independent\n_literary_ origin for the Semitic versions of the Gilgamesh Epic,\nthough naturally with a duplication of the episodes, or at least of\nsome of them, in the Sumerian narrative. Nor does the existence of a\nSumerian form of the Epic necessarily prove that it originated with\nthe Sumerians in their earliest home before they came to the Euphrates\nValley. They may have adopted it after their conquest of southern\nBabylonia from the Semites who, there are now substantial grounds for\nbelieving, were the earlier settlers in the Euphrates Valley. [18]\nWe must distinguish, therefore, between the earliest _literary_ form,\nwhich was undoubtedly Sumerian, and the _origin_ of the episodes\nembodied in the Epic, including the chief actors, Gilgamesh and his\ncompanion Enkidu. It will be shown that one of the chief episodes,\nthe encounter of the two heroes with a powerful guardian or ruler\nof a cedar forest, points to a western region, more specifically to\nAmurru, as the scene. The names of the two chief actors, moreover,\nappear to have been \"Sumerianized\" by an artificial process, [19]\nand if this view turns out to be correct, we would have a further\nground for assuming the tale to have originated among the Akkadian\nsettlers and to have been taken over from them by the Sumerians.\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\nNew light on the earliest Babylonian version of the Epic, as well\nas on the Assyrian version, has been shed by the recovery of two\nsubstantial fragments of the form which the Epic had assumed in\nBabylonia in the Hammurabi period. The study of this important new\nmaterial also enables us to advance the interpretation of the Epic\nand to perfect the analysis into its component parts. In the spring\nof 1914, the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania acquired by\npurchase a large tablet, the writing of which as well as the style\nand the manner of spelling verbal forms and substantives pointed\ndistinctly to the time of the first Babylonian dynasty. The tablet\nwas identified by Dr. Arno Poebel as part of the Gilgamesh Epic; and,\nas the colophon showed, it formed the second tablet of the series. He\ncopied it with a view to publication, but the outbreak of the war which\nfound him in Germany--his native country--prevented him from carrying\nout this intention. [20] He, however, utilized some of its contents in\nhis discussion of the historical or semi-historical traditions about\nGilgamesh, as revealed by the important list of partly mythical and\npartly historical dynasties, found among the tablets of the Nippur\ncollection, in which Gilgamesh occurs [21] as a King of an Erech\ndynasty, whose father was \u00c2, a priest of Kulab. [22]\n\nThe publication of the tablet was then undertaken by Dr. Stephen\nLangdon in monograph form under the title, \"The Epic of\nGilgamish.\" [23] In a preliminary article on the tablet in the\n_Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, pages 29-38, Dr. Langdon took the\ntablet to be of the late Persian period (i.e., between the sixth\nand third century B. C.), but his attention having been called to\nthis error of some _1500 years_, he corrected it in his introduction\nto his edition of the text, though he neglected to change some of\nhis notes in which he still refers to the text as \"late.\" [24] In\naddition to a copy of the text, accompanied by a good photograph,\nDr. Langdon furnished a transliteration and translation with some\nnotes and a brief introduction. The text is unfortunately badly\ncopied, being full of errors; and the translation is likewise very\ndefective. A careful collation with the original tablet was made with\nthe assistance of Dr. Edward Chiera, and as a consequence we are in a\nposition to offer to scholars a correct text. We beg to acknowledge\nour obligations to Dr. Gordon, the Director of the Museum of the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania, for kindly placing the tablet at our\ndisposal. Instead of republishing the text, I content myself with\ngiving a full list of corrections in the appendix to this volume\nwhich will enable scholars to control our readings, and which will,\nI believe, justify the translation in the numerous passages in which\nit deviates from Dr. Langdon's rendering. While credit should be given\nto Dr. Langdon for having made this important tablet accessible, the\ninterests of science demand that attention be called to his failure to\ngrasp the many important data furnished by the tablet, which escaped\nhim because of his erroneous readings and faulty translations.\n\nThe tablet, consisting of six columns (three on the obverse and three\non the reverse), comprised, according to the colophon, 240 lines\n[25] and formed the second tablet of the series. Of the total, 204\nlines are preserved in full or in part, and of the missing thirty-six\nquite a number can be restored, so that we have a fairly complete\ntablet. The most serious break occurs at the top of the reverse, where\nabout eight lines are missing. In consequence of this the connection\nbetween the end of the obverse (where about five lines are missing)\nand the beginning of the reverse is obscured, though not to the extent\nof our entirely losing the thread of the narrative.\n\nAbout the same time that the University of Pennsylvania Museum\npurchased this second tablet of the Gilgamesh Series, Yale University\nobtained a tablet from the same dealer, which turned out to be a\ncontinuation of the University of Pennsylvania tablet. That the two\nbelong to the same edition of the Epic is shown by their agreement\nin the dark brown color of the clay, in the writing as well as in\nthe size of the tablet, though the characters on the Yale tablet\nare somewhat cramped and in consequence more difficult to read. Both\ntablets consist of six columns, three on the obverse and three on the\nreverse. The measurements of both are about the same, the Pennsylvania\ntablet being estimated at about 7 inches high, as against 7 2/16 inches\nfor the Yale tablet, while the width of both is 6 1/2 inches. The\nYale tablet is, however, more closely written and therefore has a\nlarger number of lines than the Pennsylvania tablet. The colophon to\nthe Yale tablet is unfortunately missing, but from internal evidence\nit is quite certain that the Yale tablet follows immediately upon\nthe Pennsylvania tablet and, therefore, may be set down as the third\nof the series. The obverse is very badly preserved, so that only a\ngeneral view of its contents can be secured. The reverse contains\nserious gaps in the first and second columns. The scribe evidently\nhad a copy before him which he tried to follow exactly, but finding\nthat he could not get all of the copy before him in the six columns,\nhe continued the last column on the edge. In this way we obtain for the\nsixth column 64 lines as against 45 for column IV, and 47 for column V,\nand a total of 292 lines for the six columns. Subtracting the 16 lines\nwritten on the edge leaves us 276 lines for our tablet as against 240\nfor its companion. The width of each column being the same on both\ntablets, the difference of 36 lines is made up by the closer writing.\n\nBoth tablets have peculiar knobs at the sides, the purpose of which\nis evidently not to facilitate holding the tablet in one's hand while\nwriting or reading it, as Langdon assumed [26] (it would be quite\nimpracticable for this purpose), but simply to protect the tablet in\nits position on a shelf, where it would naturally be placed on the\nedge, just as we arrange books on a shelf. Finally be it noted that\nthese two tablets of the old Babylonian version do not belong to the\nsame edition as the Meissner tablet above described, for the latter\nconsists of two columns each on obverse and reverse, as against\nthree columns each in the case of our two tablets. We thus have\nthe interesting proof that as early as 2000 B.C. there were already\nseveral editions of the Epic. As to the provenance of our two tablets,\nthere are no definite data, but it is likely that they were found by\nnatives in the mounds at Warka, from which about the year 1913, many\ntablets came into the hands of dealers. It is likely that where two\ntablets of a series were found, others of the series were also dug up,\nand we may expect to find some further portions of this old Babylonian\nversion turning up in the hands of other dealers or in museums.\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n\nComing to the contents of the two tablets, the Pennsylvania tablet\ndeals with the meeting of the two heroes, Gilgamesh and Enkidu,\ntheir conflict, followed by their reconciliation, while the Yale\ntablet in continuation takes up the preparations for the encounter of\nthe two heroes with the guardian of the cedar forest, Humbaba--but\nprobably pronounced Hubaba [27]--or, as the name appears in the old\nBabylonian version, Huwawa. The two tablets correspond, therefore,\nto portions of Tablets I to V of the Assyrian version; [28] but,\nas will be shown in detail further on, the number of _completely_\nparallel passages is not large, and the Assyrian version shows an\nindependence of the old Babylonian version that is larger than we\nhad reason to expect. In general, it may be said that the Assyrian\nversion is more elaborate, which points to its having received its\npresent form at a considerably later period than the old Babylonian\nversion. [29] On the other hand, we already find in the Babylonian\nversion the tendency towards repetition, which is characteristic\nof Babylonian-Assyrian tales in general. Through the two Babylonian\ntablets we are enabled to fill out certain details of the two episodes\nwith which they deal: (1) the meeting of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and\n(2) the encounter with Huwawa; while their greatest value consists\nin the light that they throw on the gradual growth of the Epic until\nit reached its definite form in the text represented by the fragments\nin Ashurbanapal's Library. Let us now take up the detailed analysis,\nfirst of the Pennsylvania tablet and then of the Yale tablet. The\nPennsylvania tablet begins with two dreams recounted by Gilgamesh\nto his mother, which the latter interprets as presaging the coming\nof Enkidu to Erech. In the one, something like a heavy meteor falls\nfrom heaven upon Gilgamesh and almost crushes him. With the help of\nthe heroes of Erech, Gilgamesh carries the heavy burden to his mother\nNinsun. The burden, his mother explains, symbolizes some one who,\nlike Gilgamesh, is born in the mountains, to whom all will pay homage\nand of whom Gilgamesh will become enamoured with a love as strong as\nthat for a woman. In a second dream, Gilgamesh sees some one who is\nlike him, who brandishes an axe, and with whom he falls in love. This\npersonage, the mother explains, is again Enkidu.\n\nLangdon is of the opinion that these dreams are recounted to\nEnkidu by a woman with whom Enkidu cohabits for six days and seven\nnights and who weans Enkidu from association with animals. This,\nhowever, cannot be correct. The scene between Enkidu and the woman\nmust have been recounted in detail in the first tablet, as in the\nAssyrian version, [30] whereas here in the second tablet we have the\ncontinuation of the tale with Gilgamesh recounting his dreams directly\nto his mother. The story then continues with the description of the\ncoming of Enkidu, conducted by the woman to the outskirts of Erech,\nwhere food is given him. The main feature of the incident is the\nconversion of Enkidu to civilized life. Enkidu, who hitherto had\ngone about naked, is clothed by the woman. Instead of sucking milk\nand drinking from a trough like an animal, food and strong drink are\nplaced before him, and he is taught how to eat and drink in human\nfashion. In human fashion he also becomes drunk, and his \"spree\" is\nna\u00efvely described: \"His heart became glad and his face shone.\" [31]\nLike an animal, Enkidu's body had hitherto been covered with hair,\nwhich is now shaved off. He is anointed with oil, and clothed \"like\na man.\" Enkidu becomes a shepherd, protecting the fold against wild\nbeasts, and his exploit in dispatching lions is briefly told. At this\npoint--the end of column 3 (on the obverse), i.e., line 117, and the\nbeginning of column 4 (on the reverse), i.e., line 131--a gap of 13\nlines--the tablet is obscure, but apparently the story of Enkidu's\ngradual transformation from savagery to civilized life is continued,\nwith stress upon his introduction to domestic ways with the wife\nchosen or decreed for him, and with work as part of his fate. All\nthis has no connection with Gilgamesh, and it is evident that the\ntale of Enkidu was originally an _independent_ tale to illustrate the\nevolution of man's career and destiny, how through intercourse with\na woman he awakens to the sense of human dignity, how he becomes\naccustomed to the ways of civilization, how he passes through the\npastoral stage to higher walks of life, how the family is instituted,\nand how men come to be engaged in the labors associated with human\nactivities. In order to connect this tale with the Gilgamesh story,\nthe two heroes are brought together; the woman taking on herself,\nin addition to the r\u00f4le of civilizer, that of the medium through\nwhich Enkidu is brought to Gilgamesh. The woman leads Enkidu from\nthe outskirts of Erech into the city itself, where the people on\nseeing him remark upon his likeness to Gilgamesh. He is the very\ncounterpart of the latter, though somewhat smaller in stature. There\nfollows the encounter between the two heroes in the streets of Erech,\nwhere they engage in a fierce combat. Gilgamesh is overcome by Enkidu\nand is enraged at being thrown to the ground. The tablet closes with\nthe endeavor of Enkidu to pacify Gilgamesh. Enkidu declares that the\nmother of Gilgamesh has exalted her son above the ordinary mortal,\nand that Enlil himself has singled him out for royal prerogatives.\n\nAfter this, we may assume, the two heroes become friends and together\nproceed to carry out certain exploits, the first of which is an attack\nupon the mighty guardian of the cedar forest. This is the main episode\nin the Yale tablet, which, therefore, forms the third tablet of the\nold Babylonian version.\n\nIn the first column of the obverse of the Yale tablet, which is badly\npreserved, it would appear that the elders of Erech (or perhaps the\npeople) are endeavoring to dissuade Gilgamesh from making the attempt\nto penetrate to the abode of Huwawa. If this is correct, then the\nclose of the first column may represent a conversation between these\nelders and the woman who accompanies Enkidu. It would be the elders\nwho are represented as \"reporting the speech to the woman,\" which is\npresumably the determination of Gilgamesh to fight Huwawa. The elders\napparently desire Enkidu to accompany Gilgamesh in this perilous\nadventure, and with this in view appeal to the woman. In the second\ncolumn after an obscure reference to the mother of Gilgamesh--perhaps\nappealing to the sun-god--we find Gilgamesh and Enkidu again face to\nface. From the reference to Enkidu's eyes \"filled with tears,\" we may\nconclude that he is moved to pity at the thought of what will happen to\nGilgamesh if he insists upon carrying out his purpose. Enkidu, also,\ntries to dissuade Gilgamesh. This appears to be the main purport of\nthe dialogue between the two, which begins about the middle of the\nsecond column and extends to the end of the third column. Enkidu\npleads that even his strength is insufficient,\n\n\n\t\"My arms are lame,\n\tMy strength has become weak.\" (lines 88-89)\n\n\nGilgamesh apparently asks for a description of the terrible tyrant\nwho thus arouses the fear of Enkidu, and in reply Enkidu tells\nhim how at one time, when he was roaming about with the cattle, he\npenetrated into the forest and heard the roar of Huwawa which was\nlike that of a deluge. The mouth of the tyrant emitted fire, and his\nbreath was death. It is clear, as Professor Haupt has suggested, [32]\nthat Enkidu furnishes the description of a volcano in eruption, with\nits mighty roar, spitting forth fire and belching out a suffocating\nsmoke. Gilgamesh is, however, undaunted and urges Enkidu to accompany\nhim in the adventure.\n\n\"I will go down to the forest,\" says Gilgamesh, if the conjectural\nrestoration of the line in question (l. 126) is correct. Enkidu replies\nby again drawing a lurid picture of what will happen \"When we go\n(together) to the forest.......\" This speech of Enkidu is continued on\nthe reverse. In reply Gilgamesh emphasizes his reliance upon the good\nwill of Shamash and reproaches Enkidu with cowardice. He declares\nhimself superior to Enkidu's warning, and in bold terms says that\nhe prefers to perish in the attempt to overcome Huwawa rather than\nabandon it.\n\n\n\t\"Wherever terror is to be faced,\n\tThou, forsooth, art in fear of death.\n\tThy prowess lacks strength.\n\tI will go before thee,\n\tThough thy mouth shouts to me: 'thou art afraid to approach,'\n\tIf I fall, I will establish my name.\" (lines 143-148)\n\n\nThere follows an interesting description of the forging of the\nweapons for the two heroes in preparation for the encounter. [33]\nThe elders of Erech when they see these preparations are stricken\nwith fear. They learn of Huwawa's threat to annihilate Gilgamesh if\nhe dares to enter the cedar forest, and once more try to dissuade\nGilgamesh from the undertaking.\n\n\n\t\"Thou art young, O Gish, and thy heart carries thee away,\n\tThou dost not know what thou proposest to do.\" (lines 190-191)\n\n\nThey try to frighten Gilgamesh by repeating the description of\nthe terrible Huwawa. Gilgamesh is still undaunted and prays to his\npatron deity Shamash, who apparently accords him a favorable \"oracle\"\n(_t\u00eartu_). The two heroes arm themselves for the fray, and the elders\nof Erech, now reconciled to the perilous undertaking, counsel Gilgamesh\nto take provision along for the undertaking. They urge Gilgamesh to\nallow Enkidu to take the lead, for\n\n\n\t\"He is acquainted with the way, he has trodden the road\n\t[to] the entrance of the forest.\" (lines 252-253)\n\n\nThe elders dismiss Gilgamesh with fervent wishes that Enkidu may track\nout the \"closed path\" for Gilgamesh, and commit him to the care of\nLugalbanda--here perhaps an epithet of Shamash. They advise Gilgamesh\nto perform certain rites, to wash his feet in the stream of Huwawa and\nto pour out a libation of water to Shamash. Enkidu follows in a speech\nlikewise intended to encourage the hero; and with the actual beginning\nof the expedition against Huwawa the tablet ends. The encounter itself,\nwith the triumph of the two heroes, must have been described in the\nfourth tablet.\n\n\n\nV.\n\n\nNow before taking up the significance of the additions to our\nknowledge of the Epic gained through these two tablets, it will be\nwell to discuss the forms in which the names of the two heroes and\nof the ruler of the cedar forest occur in our tablets.\n\nAs in the Meissner fragment, the chief hero is invariably designated\nas dGish in both the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets; and we may\ntherefore conclude that this was the common form in the Hammurabi\nperiod, as against the writing dGish-g\u00ec(n)-mash [34] in the Assyrian\nversion. Similarly, as in the Meissner fragment, the second hero's\nname is always written En-ki-du [35] (abbreviated from d\u00fag) as\nagainst En-ki-d\u00fa in the Assyrian version. Finally, we encounter in\nthe Yale tablet for the first time the writing Hu-wa-wa as the name\nof the guardian of the cedar forest, as against Hum-ba-ba in the\nAssyrian version, though in the latter case, as we may now conclude\nfrom the Yale tablet, the name should rather be read Hu-ba-ba. [36]\nThe variation in the writing of the latter name is interesting\nas pointing to the aspirate pronunciation of the labial in both\ninstances. The name would thus present a complete parallel to the\nHebrew name Howawa (or Hobab) who appears as the brother-in-law\nof Moses in the P document, Numbers 10, 29. [37] Since the name\nalso occurs, written precisely as in the Yale tablet, among the\n\"Amoritic\" names in the important lists published by Dr. Chiera,\n[38] there can be no doubt that Huwawa or Hubaba is a West Semitic\nname. This important fact adds to the probability that the \"cedar\nforest\" in which Huwawa dwells is none other than the Lebanon district,\nfamed since early antiquity for its cedars. This explanation of the\nname Huwawa disposes of suppositions hitherto brought forward for an\nElamitic origin. Gressmann [39] still favors such an origin, though\nrealizing that the description of the cedar forest points to the Amanus\nor Lebanon range. In further confirmation of the West Semitic origin of\nthe name, we have in Lucian, _De Dea Syria_, \u00a7 19, the name Kombabos\n[40] (the guardian of Stratonika), which forms a perfect parallel to\nHu(m)baba. Of the important bearings of this western character of the\nname Huwawa on the interpretation and origin of the Gilgamesh Epic,\nsuggesting that the episode of the encounter between the tyrant and\nthe two heroes rests upon a tradition of an expedition against the\nWest or Amurru land, we shall have more to say further on.\n\nThe variation in the writing of the name Enkidu is likewise\ninteresting. It is evident that the form in the old Babylonian\nversion with the sign du (i.e., d\u00fag) is the original, for it furnishes\nus with a suitable etymology \"Enki is good.\" The writing with d\u00fag,\npronounced du, also shows that the sign d\u00fa as the third element in the\nform which the name has in the Assyrian version is to be read d\u00fa, and\nthat former readings like Ea-bani must be definitely abandoned. [41]\nThe form with d\u00fa is clearly a _phonetic_ writing of the Sumerian name,\nthe sign d\u00fa being chosen to indicate the _pronunciation_ (not the\nideograph) of the third element d\u00fag. This is confirmed by the writing\nEn-gi-d\u00fa in the syllabary _CT_ XVIII, 30, 10. The phonetic writing\nis, therefore, a warning against any endeavor to read the name by\nan Akkadian transliteration of the signs. This would not of itself\nprove that Enkidu is of Sumerian _origin_, for it might well be that\nthe writing En-ki-d\u00fa is an endeavor to give a Sumerian _aspect_ to\na name that _may_ have been foreign. The element d\u00fag corresponds to\nthe Semitic _t\u00e2bu_, \"good,\" and En-ki being originally a designation\nof a deity as the \"lord of the land,\" which would be the Sumerian\nmanner of indicating a Semitic Baal, it is not at all impossible\nthat En-ki-d\u00fag may be the \"Sumerianized\" form of a Semitic BA`L TZOB\n\"Baal is good.\" It will be recalled that in the third column of the\nYale tablet, Enkidu speaks of himself in his earlier period while\nstill living with cattle, as wandering into the cedar forest of\nHuwawa, while in another passage (ll. 252-253) he is described as\n\"acquainted with the way ... to the entrance of the forest.\" This\nwould clearly point to the West as the original home of Enkidu. We\nare thus led once more to Amurru--taken as a general designation of\nthe West--as playing an important role in the Gilgamesh Epic. [42] If\nGilgamesh's expedition against Huwawa of the Lebanon district recalls\na Babylonian campaign against Amurru, Enkidu's coming from his home,\nwhere, as we read repeatedly in the Assyrian version,\n\n\n\t\"He ate herbs with the gazelles,\n\tDrank out of a trough with cattle,\" [43]\n\n\nmay rest on a tradition of an Amorite invasion of Babylonia. The\nfight between Gilgamesh and Enkidu would fit in with this tradition,\nwhile the subsequent reconciliation would be the form in which the\ntradition would represent the enforced union between the invaders\nand the older settlers.\n\nLeaving this aside for the present, let us proceed to a consideration\nof the relationship of the form dGish, for the chief personage\nin the Epic in the old Babylonian version, to dGish-gi(n)-mash in\nthe Assyrian version. Of the meaning of Gish there is fortunately\nno doubt. It is clearly the equivalent to the Akkadian _zikaru_,\n\"man\" (Br\u00fcnnow No. 5707), or possibly _rab\u00fb_, \"great\" (Br\u00fcnnow\nNo. 5704). Among various equivalents, the preference is to be given\nto _itlu_, \"hero.\" The determinative for deity stamps the person so\ndesignated as deified, or as in part divine, and this is in accord\nwith the express statement in the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh\nEpic which describes the hero as\n\n\n\t\"Two-thirds god and one-third human.\" [44]\n\n\nGish is, therefore, the hero-god _par excellence_; and this shows\nthat we are not dealing with a genuine proper name, but rather with a\ndescriptive attribute. Proper names are not formed in this way, either\nin Sumerian or Akkadian. Now what relation does this form Gish bear to\n\n\n                            [FIGURE]\n\n\nas the name of the hero is invariably written in the Assyrian version,\nthe form which was at first read dIz-tu-bar or dGish-du-bar by\nscholars, until Pinches found in a neo-Babylonian syllabary [45]\nthe equation of it with Gi-il-ga-mesh? Pinches' discovery pointed\nconclusively to the popular pronunciation of the hero's name as\nGilgamesh; and since Aelian (_De natura Animalium_ XII, 2) mentions\na Babylonian personage Gilgamos (though what he tells us of Gilgamos\ndoes not appear in our Epic, but seems to apply to Etana, another\nfigure of Babylonian mythology), there seemed to be no further reason\nto question that the problem had been solved. Besides, in a later\nSyriac list of Babylonian kings found in the Scholia of Theodor bar\nKoni, the name GLMGVM with a variant GMYGMVS occurs, [46] and it\nis evident that we have here again the Gi-il-ga-mesh, discovered by\nPinches. The existence of an old Babylonian hero Gilgamesh who was\nlikewise a king is thus established, as well as his identification with\n\n\n                            [FIGURE]\n\n\nIt is evident that we cannot read this name as Iz-tu-bar or\nGish-du-bar, but that we must read the first sign as Gish and the\nthird as Mash, while for the second we must assume a reading G\u00ecn or\nGi. This would give us Gish-g\u00ec(n)-mash which is clearly again (like\nEn-ki-d\u00fa) not an etymological writing but a _phonetic_ one, intended\nto convey an _approach_ to the popular pronunciation. Gi-il-ga-mesh\nmight well be merely a variant for Gish-ga-mesh, or _vice versa_,\nand this would come close to Gish-gi-mash. Now, when we have a name\nthe pronunciation of which is not definite but approximate, and which\nis written in various ways, the probabilities are that the name is\nforeign. A foreign name might naturally be spelled in various ways. The\nEpic in the Assyrian version clearly depicts dGish-g\u00ec(n)-mash as a\nconqueror of Erech, who forces the people into subjection, and whose\nautocratic rule leads the people of Erech to implore the goddess\nAruru to create a rival to him who may withstand him. In response\nto this appeal dEnkidu is formed out of dust by Aruru and eventually\nbrought to Erech. [47] Gish-g\u00ec(n)-mash or Gilgamesh is therefore in\nall probability a foreigner; and the simplest solution suggested by the\nexistence of the two forms (1) Gish in the old Babylonian version and\n(2) Gish-g\u00ec(n)-mash in the Assyrian version, is to regard the former\nas an abbreviation, which seemed appropriate, because the short name\nconveyed the idea of the \"hero\" _par excellence_. If Gish-g\u00ec(n)-mash\nis a foreign name, one would think in the first instance of Sumerian;\nbut here we encounter a difficulty in the circumstance that outside of\nthe Epic this conqueror and ruler of Erech appears in quite a different\nform, namely, as dGish-bil-ga-mesh, with dGish-gibil(or b\u00ecl)-ga-mesh\nand dGish-bil-ge-mesh as variants. [48] In the remarkable list of\npartly mythological and partly historical dynasties, published by\nPoebel, [49] the fifth member of the first dynasty of Erech appears\nas dGish-bil-ga-mesh; and similarly in an inscription of the days of\nSin-gamil, dGish-bil-ga-mesh is mentioned as the builder of the wall\nof Erech. [50] Moreover, in the several fragments of the Sumerian\nversion of the Epic we have invariably the form dGish-bil-ga-mesh. It\nis evident, therefore, that this is the genuine form of the name in\nSumerian and presumably, therefore, the oldest form. By way of further\nconfirmation we have in the syllabary above referred to, CT, XVIII,\n30, 6-8, three designations of our hero, viz:\n\n\n\tdGish-gibil(or b\u00edl)-ga-mesh\n\t_muk-tab-lu_ (\"warrior\")\n\t_a-lik pa-na_ (\"leader\")\n\n\nAll three designations are set down as the equivalent of the Sumerian\nEsigga imin i.e., \"the seven-fold hero.\"\n\nOf the same general character is the equation in another syllabary:\n[51]\n\n\n\tEsigga-tuk and its equivalent Gish-tuk = \"the one who is\n\ta hero.\"\n\n\nFurthermore, the name occurs frequently in \"Temple\" documents of the Ur\ndynasty in the form dGish-bil-ga-mesh [52] with dGish-bil-gi(n)-mesh\nas a variant. [53] In a list of deities (_CT_ XXV, 28, K 7659)\nwe likewise encounter dGish-gibil(or b\u00edl)-ga-mesh, and lastly in a\nsyllabary we have the equation [54]\n\n\n\tdGish-gi-mas-[si?] = dGish-bil-[ga-mesh].\n\n\nThe variant Gish-gibil for Gish-bil may be disposed of readily, in view\nof the frequent confusion or interchange of the two signs Bil (Br\u00fcnnow\nNo. 4566) and Gibil or B\u00edl (Br\u00fcnnow No. 4642) which has also the value\nGi (Br\u00fcnnow 4641), so that we might also read Gish-gi-ga-mesh. Both\nsigns convey the idea of \"fire,\" \"renew,\" etc.; both revert to the\npicture of flames of fire, in the one case with a bowl (or some\nsuch obiect) above it, in the other the flames issuing apparently\nfrom a torch. [55] The meaning of the name is not affected whether\nwe read dGish-bil-ga-mesh or dGish-gibil(or b\u00edl)-ga-mesh, for the\nmiddle element in the latter case being identical with the fire-god,\nwritten dBil-gi and to be pronounced in the inverted form as Gibil\nwith _-ga_ (or _ge_) as the phonetic complement; it is equivalent,\ntherefore, to the writing bil-ga in the former case. Now Gish-gibil\nor Gish-b\u00edl conveys the idea of _abu_, \"father\" (Br\u00fcnnow No. 5713),\njust as Bil (Br\u00fcnnow No. 4579) has this meaning, while Pa-gibil-(ga)\nor Pa-b\u00edl-ga is _abu abi_, \"grandfather.\" [56] This meaning may be\nderived from Gibil, as also from B\u00edl = _isatu_, \"fire,\" then _essu_,\n\"new,\" then _abu_, \"father,\" as the renewer or creator. Gish with B\u00edl\nor Gibil would, therefore, be \"the father-man\" or \"the father-hero,\"\ni.e., again the hero _par excellence_, the original hero, just as in\nHebrew and Arabic _ab_ is used in this way. [57] The syllable _ga\n_being a phonetic complement, the element _mesh_ is to be taken\nby itself and to be explained, as Poebel suggested, as \"hero\"\n(_itlu_. Br\u00fcnnow No. 5967).\n\nWe would thus obtain an entirely artificial combination, \"man (or\nhero), father, hero,\" which would simply convey in an emphatic manner\nthe idea of the _Ur-held_, the original hero, the father of heroes as\nit were--practically the same idea, therefore, as the one conveyed\nby Gish alone, as the hero _par excellence_. Our investigation thus\nleads us to a substantial identity between Gish and the longer form\nGish-bil(or b\u00edl)-ga-mesh, and the former might, therefore, well be used\nas an abbreviation of the latter. Both the shorter and the longer forms\nare _descriptive epithets _based on naive folk etymology, rather than\npersonal names, just as in the designation of our hero as  _muktablu_,\nthe \"fighter,\" or as _\u00e2lik p\u00e2na_, \"the leader,\" or as _Esigga imin_,\n\"the seven-fold hero,\" or _Esigga tuk_, \"the one who is a hero,\" are\ndescriptive epithets, and as Atra-hasis, \"the very wise one,\" is such\nan epithet for the hero of the deluge story. The case is different with\nGi-il-ga-mesh, or Gish-g\u00ec(n)-mash, which represent the popular and\nactual pronunciation of the name, or at least the _approach_ to such\npronunciation. Such forms, stripped as they are of all artificiality,\nimpress one as genuine names. The conclusion to which we are thus led\nis that Gish-bil(or b\u00edl)-ga-mesh is a play upon the genuine name,\nto convey to those to whom the real name, as that of a foreigner,\nwould suggest no meaning an interpretation _fitting in with his\ncharacter_. In other words, Gish-bil-ga-mesh is a \"Sumerianized\"\nform of the name, introduced into the Sumerian version of the tale\nwhich became a folk-possession in the Euphrates Valley. Such plays\nupon names to suggest the character of an individual or some incident\nare familiar to us from the narratives in Genesis. [58] They do not\nconstitute genuine etymologies and are rarely of use in leading to a\ncorrect etymology. Reuben, e.g., certainly does not mean \"Yahweh has\nseen my affliction,\" which the mother is supposed to have exclaimed\nat the birth (Genesis 29, 32), with a play upon _ben_ and _be'onyi_,\nany more than Judah means \"I praise Yahweh\" (v. 35), though it does\ncontain the divine name (_Ye_h\u00f4) as an element. The play on the\nname may be close or remote, as long as it fulfills its function of\n_suggesting_ an etymology that is complimentary or appropriate.\n\nIn this way, an artificial division and at the same time a\ndistortion of a foreign name like Gilgamesh into several elements,\nGish-bil-ga-mesh, is no more violent than, for example, the explanation\nof Issachar or rather Issaschar as \"God has given my hire\" (Genesis\n30, 18) with a play upon the element _se_char, and as though the\nname were to be divided into _Yah_ (\"God\") and _se_char (\"hire\");\nor the popular name of Alexander among the Arabs as _Zu'l Karnaini_,\n\"the possessor of the two horns.\" with a suggestion of his conquest\nof two hemispheres, or what not. [59] The element Gil in Gilgamesh\nwould be regarded as a contraction of Gish-bil or gi-bil, in order\nto furnish the meaning \"father-hero,\" or Gil might be looked upon\nas a variant for Gish, which would give us the \"phonetic\" form in\nthe Assyrian version dGish-gi-mash, [60] as well as such a variant\nwriting dGish-gi-mas-(si). Now a name like Gilgamesh, upon which we\nmay definitely settle as coming closest to the genuine form, certainly\nimpresses one as foreign, i.e., it is neither Sumerian nor Akkadian;\nand we have already suggested that the circumstance that the hero of\nthe Epic is portrayed as a conqueror of Erech, and a rather ruthless\none at that, points to a tradition of an invasion of the Euphrates\nValley as the background for the episode in the first tablet of the\nseries. Now it is significant that many of the names in the \"mythical\"\ndynasties, as they appear in Poebel's list, [61] are likewise foreign,\nsuch as Mes-ki-in-ga-se-ir, son of the god Shamash (and the founder\nof the \"mythical\" dynasty of Erech of which dGish-bil-ga-mesh is\nthe fifth member), [62] and En-me-ir-k\u00e1r his son. In a still earlier\n\"mythical\" dynasty, we encounter names like Ga-lu-mu-um, Zu-ga-gi-ib,\nAr-pi, E-ta-na, [63] which are distinctly foreign, while such names as\nEn-me(n)-nun-na and Bar-sal-nun-na strike one again as \"Sumerianized\"\nnames rather than as genuine Sumerian formations. [64]\n\nSome of these names, as Galumum, Arpi and Etana, are so Amoritic\nin appearance, that one may hazard the conjecture of their western\norigin. May Gilgamesh likewise belong to the Amurru [65] region, or\ndoes he represent a foreigner from the East in contrast to Enkidu,\nwhose name, we have seen, may have been Baal-T\u00f4b in the West, with\nwhich region he is according to the Epic so familiar? It must be\nconfessed that the second element _ga-mesh_ would fit in well with\na Semitic origin for the name, for the element impresses one as\nthe participial form of a Semitic stem G-M-S, just as in the second\nelement of Meskin-gaser we have such a form. Gil might then be the\nname of a West-Semitic deity. Such conjectures, however, can for the\npresent not be substantiated, and we must content ourselves with the\nconclusion that Gilgamesh as the real name of the hero, or at least\nthe form which comes closest to the real name, points to a foreign\norigin for the hero, and that such forms as dGish-bil-ga-mesh and\ndGish-b\u00edl-gi-mesh and other variants are \"Sumerianized\" forms for which\nan artificial etymology was brought forward to convey the idea of the\n\"original hero\" or the hero _par excellence_. By means of this \"play\"\non the name, which reverts to the compilers of the Sumerian version\nof the Epic, Gilgamesh was converted into a Sumerian figure, just as\nthe name Enkidu may have been introduced as a Sumerian translation\nof his Amoritic name. dGish at all events is an abbreviated form of\nthe \"Sumerianized\" name, introduced by the compilers of the earliest\nAkkadian version, which was produced naturally under the influence\nof the Sumerian version. Later, as the Epic continued to grow, a\nphonetic writing was introduced, dGish-gi-mash, which is in a measure\na compromise between the genuine name and the \"Sumerianized\" form,\nbut at the same time an _approach_ to the real pronunciation.\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n\nNext to the new light thrown upon the names and original character\nof the two main figures of the Epic, one of the chief points of\ninterest in the Pennsylvania fragment is the proof that it furnishes\nfor a striking resemblance of the two heroes, Gish and Enkidu, to one\nanother. In interpreting the dream of Gish, his mother. Ninsun, lays\nstress upon the fact that the dream portends the coming of someone\nwho is like Gish, \"born in the field and reared in the mountain\"\n(lines 18-19). Both, therefore, are shown by this description to\nhave come to Babylonia from a mountainous region, i.e., they are\nforeigners; and in the case of Enkidu we have seen that the mountain\nin all probability refers to a region in the West, while the same may\nalso be the case with Gish. The resemblance of the two heroes to one\nanother extends to their personal appearance. When Enkidu appears on\nthe streets of Erech, the people are struck by this resemblance. They\nremark that he is \"like Gish,\" though \"shorter in stature\" (lines\n179-180). Enkidu is described as a rival or counterpart. [66]\n\nThis relationship between the two is suggested also by the Assyrian\nversion. In the creation of Enkidu by Aruru, the people urge the\ngoddess to create the \"counterpart\" (_zikru_) of Gilgamesh, someone who\nwill be like him (_ma-si-il_) (Tablet I, 2, 31). Enkidu not only comes\nfrom the mountain, [67] but the mountain is specifically designated as\nhis birth-place (I, 4, 2), precisely as in the Pennsylvania tablet,\nwhile in another passage he is also described, as in our tablet, as\n\"born in the field.\" [68] Still more significant is the designation of\nGilgamesh as the _talimu_, \"younger brother,\" of Enkidu. [69] In accord\nwith this, we find Gilgamesh in his lament over Enkidu describing\nhim as a \"younger brother\" (_ku-ta-ni_); [70] and again in the last\ntablet of the Epic, Gilgamesh is referred to as the \"brother\" of\nEnkidu. [71] This close relationship reverts to the Sumerian version,\nfor the Constantinople fragment (Langdon, above, p. 13) begins with the\ndesignation of Gish-bil-ga-mesh as \"his brother.\" By \"his\" no doubt\nEnkidu is meant. Likewise in the Sumerian text published by Zimmern\n(above, p. 13) Gilgamesh appears as the brother of Enkidu (rev. 1, 17).\n\nTurning to the numerous representations of Gilgamesh and Enkidu on\nSeal Cylinders, [72] we find this resemblance of the two heroes to each\nother strikingly confirmed. Both are represented as bearded, with the\nstrands arranged in the same fashion. The face in both cases is broad,\nwith curls protruding at the side of the head, though at times these\ncurls are lacking in the case of Enkidu. What is particularly striking\nis to find Gilgamesh generally _a little taller_ than Enkidu, thus\nbearing out the statement in the Pennsylvania tablet that Enkidu is\n\"shorter in stature.\" There are, to be sure, also some distinguishing\nmarks between the two. Thus Enkidu is generally represented with\nanimal hoofs, but not always. [73] Enkidu is commonly portrayed with\nthe horns of a bison, but again this sign is wanting in quite a number\nof instances. [74] The hoofs and the horns mark the period when Enkidu\nlived with animals and much like an animal. Most remarkable, however,\nof all are cylinders on which we find the two heroes almost exactly\nalike as, for example, Ward No. 199 where two figures, the one a\nduplicate of the other (except that one is just a shade taller), are in\nconflict with each other. Dr. Ward was puzzled by this representation\nand sets it down as a \"fantastic\" scene in which \"each Gilgamesh\nis stabbing the other.\" In the light of the Pennsylvania tablet,\nthis scene is clearly the conflict between the two heroes described\nin column 6, preliminary to their forming a friendship. Even in the\nrealm of myth the human experience holds good that there is nothing\nlike a good fight as a basis for a subsequent alliance. The fragment\ndescribes this conflict as a furious one in which Gilgamesh is worsted,\nand his wounded pride assuaged by the generous victor, who comforts his\nvanquished enemy by the assurance that he was destined for something\nhigher than to be a mere \"Hercules.\" He was singled out for the\nexercise of royal authority. True to the description of the two heroes\nin the Pennsylvania tablet as alike, one the counterpart of the other,\nthe seal cylinder portrays them almost exactly alike, as alike as two\nbrothers could possibly be; with just enough distinction to make it\nclear on close inspection that two figures are intended and not one\nrepeated for the sake of symmetry. There are slight variations in the\nmanner in which the hair is worn, and slightly varying expressions\nof the face, just enough to make it evident that the one is intended\nfor Gilgamesh and the other for Enkidu. When, therefore, in another\nspecimen, No. 173, we find a Gilgamesh holding his counterpart by the\nlegs, it is merely another aspect of the fight between the two heroes,\none of whom is intended to represent Enkidu, and not, as Dr. Ward\nsupposed, a grotesque repetition of Gilgamesh. [75]\n\nThe description of Enkidu in the Pennsylvania tablet as a parallel\nfigure to Gilgamesh leads us to a consideration of the relationship\nof the two figures to one another. Many years ago it was pointed\nout that the Gilgamesh Epic was a composite tale in which various\nstories of an independent origin had been combined and brought into\nmore or less artificial connection with the _heros eponymos_ of\nsouthern Babylonia. [76] We may now go a step further and point out\nthat not only is Enkidu originally an entirely independent figure,\nhaving no connection with Gish or Gilgamesh, but that the latter is\nreally depicted in the Epic as the counterpart of Enkidu, a reflection\nwho has been given the traits of extraordinary physical power that\nbelong to Enkidu. This is shown in the first place by the fact that\nin the encounter it is Enkidu who triumphs over Gilgamesh. The entire\nanalysis of the episode of the meeting between the two heroes as given\nby Gressmann [77] must be revised. It is not Enkidu who is terrified\nand who is warned against the encounter. It is Gilgamesh who, during\nthe night on his way from the house in which the goddess Ishhara\nlies, encounters Enkidu on the highway. Enkidu \"blocks the path\"\n[78] of Gilgamesh. He prevents Gilgamesh from re-entering the house,\n[79] and the two attack each other \"like oxen.\" [80] They grapple\nwith each other, and Enkidu forces Gilgamesh to the ground. Enkidu\nis, therefore, the real hero whose traits of physical prowess are\nafterwards transferred to Gilgamesh.\n\nSimilarly in the next episode, the struggle against Huwawa, the Yale\ntablet makes it clear that in the original form of the tale Enkidu\nis the real hero. All warn Gish against the undertaking--the elders\nof Erech, Enkidu, and also the workmen. \"Why dost thou desire to do\nthis?\" [81] they say to him. \"Thou art young, and thy heart carries\nthee away. Thou knowest not what thou proposest to do.\" [82] This part\nof the incident is now better known to us through the latest fragment\nof the Assyrian version discovered and published by King. [83] The\nelders say to Gilgamesh:\n\n\n\t\"Do not trust, O Gilgamesh, in thy strength!\n\tBe warned(?) against trusting to thy attack!\n\tThe one who goes before will save his companion, [84]\n\tHe who has foresight will save his friend. [85]\n\tLet Enkidu go before thee.\n\tHe knows the roads to the cedar forest;\n\tHe is skilled in battle and has seen fight.\"\n\n\nGilgamesh is sufficiently impressed by this warning to invite Enkidu\nto accompany him on a visit to his mother, Ninsun, for the purpose\nof receiving her counsel. [86]\n\nIt is only after Enkidu, who himself hesitates and tries to dissuade\nGish, decides to accompany the latter that the elders of Erech\nare reconciled and encourage Gish for the fray. The two in concert\nproceed against Huwawa. Gilgamesh alone cannot carry out the plan. Now\nwhen a tale thus associates two figures in one deed, one of the\ntwo has been added to the original tale. In the present case there\ncan be little doubt that Enkidu, without whom Gish cannot proceed,\nwho is specifically described as \"acquainted with the way ... to the\nentrance of the forest\" [87] in which Huwawa dwells is the _original_\nvanquisher. Naturally, the Epic aims to conceal this fact as much\nas possible _ad majorem gloriam_ of Gilgamesh. It tries to put the\none who became the favorite hero into the foreground. Therefore, in\nboth the Babylonian and the Assyrian version Enkidu is represented\nas hesitating, and Gilgamesh as determined to go ahead. Gilgamesh,\nin fact, accuses Enkidu of cowardice and boldly declares that he\nwill proceed even though failure stare him in the face. [88] Traces\nof the older view, however, in which Gilgamesh is the one for whom\none fears the outcome, crop out; as, for example, in the complaint of\nGilgamesh's mother to Shamash that the latter has stirred the heart\nof her son to take the distant way to Hu(m)baba,\n\n\n\t\"To a fight unknown to him, he advances,\n\tAn expedition unknown to him he undertakes.\" [89]\n\n\nNinsun evidently fears the consequences when her son informs her\nof his intention and asks her counsel. The answer of Shamash is not\npreserved, but no doubt it was of a reassuring character, as was the\nanswer of the Sun-god to Gish's appeal and prayer as set forth in\nthe Yale tablet. [90]\n\nAgain, as a further indication that Enkidu is the real conqueror of\nHuwawa, we find the coming contest revealed to Enkidu no less than\nthree times in dreams, which Gilgamesh interprets. [91] Since the\nperson who dreams is always the one to whom the dream applies, we may\nsee in these dreams a further trace of the primary r\u00f4le originally\nassigned to Enkidu.\n\nAnother exploit which, according to the Assyrian version, the two\nheroes perform in concert is the killing of a bull, sent by Anu at\nthe instance of Ishtar to avenge an insult offered to the goddess\nby Gilgamesh, who rejects her offer of marriage. In the fragmentary\ndescription of the contest with the bull, we find Enkidu \"seizing\"\nthe monster by \"its tail.\" [92]\n\nThat Enkidu originally played the part of the slayer is also shown\nby the statement that it is he who insults Ishtar by throwing a\npiece of the carcass into the goddess' face, [93] adding also an\ninsulting speech; and this despite the fact that Ishtar in her rage\naccuses Gilgamesh of killing the bull. [94] It is thus evident that\nthe Epic alters the original character of the episodes in order to\nfind a place for Gilgamesh, with the further desire to assign to the\nlatter the _chief_ r\u00f4le. Be it noted also that Enkidu, not Gilgamesh,\nis punished for the insult to Ishtar. Enkidu must therefore in the\noriginal form of the episode have been the guilty party, who is\nstricken with mortal disease as a punishment to which after twelve\ndays he succumbs. [95] In view of this, we may supply the name of\nEnkidu in the little song introduced at the close of the encounter\nwith the bull, and not Gilgamesh as has hitherto been done.\n\n\n\t\"Who is distinguished among the heroes?\n\tWho is glorious among men?\n\t[Enkidu] is distinguished among heroes,\n\t[Enkidu] is glorious among men.\" [96]\n\n\nFinally, the killing of lions is directly ascribed to Enkidu in the\nPennsylvania tablet:\n\n\n\t\"Lions he attacked\n\t*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\n\tLions he overcame\" [97]\n\n\nwhereas Gilgamesh appears to be afraid of lions. On his long search\nfor Utnapishtim he says:\n\n\n\t\"On reaching the entrance of the mountain at night\n\tI saw lions and was afraid.\" [98]\n\n\nHe prays to Sin and Ishtar to protect and save him. When, therefore,\nin another passage some one celebrates Gilgamesh as the one who\novercame the \"guardian,\" who dispatched Hu(m)baba in the cedar forest,\nwho killed lions and overthrew the bull, [99] we have the completion\nof the process which transferred to Gilgamesh exploits and powers\nwhich originally belonged to Enkidu, though ordinarily the process\nstops short at making Gilgamesh a _sharer_ in the exploits; with the\nnatural tendency, to be sure, to enlarge the share of the favorite.\n\nWe can now understand why the two heroes are described in the\nPennsylvania tablet as alike, as born in the same place, aye, as\nbrothers. Gilgamesh in the Epic is merely a reflex of Enkidu. The\nlatter is the real hero and presumably, therefore, the older\nfigure. [100] Gilgamesh resembles Enkidu, because he _is_ originally\nEnkidu. The \"resemblance\" _motif_ is merely the manner in which\nin the course of the partly popular, partly literary transfer, the\nrecollection is preserved that Enkidu is the original, and Gilgamesh\nthe copy.\n\nThe artificiality of the process which brings the two heroes together\nis apparent in the dreams of Gilgamesh which are interpreted by\nhis mother as portending the coming of Enkidu. Not the conflict is\nforeseen, but the subsequent close association, na\u00efvely described as\ndue to the personal charm which Enkidu exercises, which will lead\nGilgamesh to fall in love with the one whom he is to meet. The two\nwill become one, like man and wife.\n\nOn the basis of our investigations, we are now in a position to\nreconstruct in part the cycle of episodes that once formed part of\nan Enkidu Epic. The fight between Enkidu and Gilgamesh, in which\nthe former is the victor, is typical of the kind of tales told of\nEnkidu. He is the real prototype of the Greek Hercules. He slays\nlions, he overcomes a powerful opponent dwelling in the forests of\nLebanon, he kills the bull, and he finally succumbs to disease sent\nas a punishment by an angry goddess. The death of Enkidu naturally\nformed the close of the Enkidu Epic, which in its original form may,\nof course, have included other exploits besides those taken over into\nthe Gilgamesh Epic.\n\n\n\nVII.\n\n\nThere is another aspect of the figure of Enkidu which is brought\nforward in the Pennsylvania tablet more clearly than had hitherto been\nthe case. Many years ago attention was called to certain striking\nresemblances between Enkidu and the figure of the first man as\ndescribed in the early chapters of Genesis. [101] At that time we had\nmerely the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh Epic at our disposal,\nand the main point of contact was the description of Enkidu living\nwith the animals, drinking and feeding like an animal, until a woman\nis brought to him with whom he engages in sexual intercourse. This\nsuggested that Enkidu was a picture of primeval man, while the\nwoman reminded one of Eve, who when she is brought to Adam becomes\nhis helpmate and inseparable companion. The Biblical tale stands,\nof course, on a much higher level, and is introduced, as are other\ntraditions and tales of primitive times, in the style of a parable\nto convey certain religious teachings. For all that, suggestions\nof earlier conceptions crop out in the picture of Adam surrounded\nby animals to which he assigns names. Such a phrase as \"there was no\nhelpmate corresponding to him\" becomes intelligible on the supposition\nof an existing tradition or belief, that man once lived and, indeed,\ncohabited with animals. The tales in the early chapters of Genesis\nmust rest on very early popular traditions, which have been cleared\nof mythological and other objectionable features in order to adapt\nthem to the purpose of the Hebrew compilers, to serve as a medium for\nillustrating certain religious teachings regarding man's place in\nnature and his higher destiny. From the resemblance between Enkidu\nand Adam it does not, of course, follow that the latter is modelled\nupon the former, but only that both rest on similar traditions of\nthe condition under which men lived in primeval days prior to the\nbeginnings of human culture.\n\nWe may now pass beyond these general indications and recognize in the\nstory of Enkidu as revealed by the Pennsylvania tablet an attempt\nto trace the evolution of primitive man from low beginnings to the\nregular and orderly family life associated with advanced culture. The\nnew tablet furnishes a further illustration for the surprisingly early\ntendency among the Babylonian _literati_ to connect with popular tales\nteachings of a religious or ethical character. Just as the episode\nbetween Gilgamesh and the maiden Sabitum is made the occasion for\nintroducing reflections on the inevitable fate of man to encounter\ndeath, so the meeting of Enkidu with the woman becomes the medium\nof impressing the lesson of human progress through the substitution\nof bread and wine for milk and water, through the institution of\nthe family, and through work and the laying up of resources. This\nis the significance of the address to Enkidu in column 4 of the\nPennsylvania tablet, even though certain expressions in it are\nsomewhat obscure. The connection of the entire episode of Enkidu and\nthe woman with Gilgamesh is very artificial; and it becomes much more\nintelligible if we disassociate it from its present entanglement in\nthe Epic. In Gilgamesh's dream, portending the meeting with Enkidu,\nnothing is said of the woman who is the companion of the latter. The\npassage in which Enkidu is created by Aruru to oppose Gilgamesh [102]\nbetrays evidence of having been worked over in order to bring Enkidu\ninto association with the longing of the people of Erech to get rid\nof a tyrannical character. The people in their distress appeal to\nAruru to create a rival to Gilgamesh. In response,\n\n\n\t\"Aruru upon hearing this created a man of Anu in her heart.\"\n\n\nNow this \"man of Anu\" cannot possibly be Enkidu, for the sufficient\nreason that a few lines further on Enkidu is described as an offspring\nof Ninib. Moreover, the being created is not a \"counterpart\"\nof Gilgamesh, but an animal-man, as the description that follows\nshows. We must separate lines 30-33 in which the creation of the \"Anu\nman\" is described from lines 34-41 in which the creation of Enkidu is\nnarrated. Indeed, these lines strike one as the proper _beginning_\nof the original Enkidu story, which would naturally start out with\nhis birth and end with his death. The description is clearly an\naccount of the creation of the first man, in which capacity Enkidu\nis brought forward.\n\n\n\t\"Aruru washed her hands, broke off clay,\n\tthrew it on the field [103]\n\t... created Enkidu, the hero, a lofty\n\toffspring of the host of Ninib.\" [104]\n\n\nThe description of Enkidu follows, with his body covered with hair\nlike an animal, and eating and drinking with the animals. There\nfollows an episode [105] which has no connection whatsoever with\nthe Gilgamesh Epic, but which is clearly intended to illustrate how\nEnkidu came to abandon the life with the animals. A hunter sees Enkidu\nand is amazed at the strange sight--an animal and yet a man. Enkidu,\nas though resenting his condition, becomes enraged at the sight of\nthe hunter, and the latter goes to his father and tells him of the\nstrange creature whom he is unable to catch. In reply, the father\nadvises his son to take a woman with him when next he goes out on\nhis pursuit, and to have the woman remove her dress in the presence\nof Enkidu, who will then approach her, and after intercourse with\nher will abandon the animals among whom he lives. By this device he\nwill catch the strange creature. Lines 14-18 of column 3 in the first\ntablet in which the father of the hunter refers to Gilgamesh must be\nregarded as a later insertion, a part of the reconstruction of the\ntale to connect the episode with Gilgamesh. The advice of the father\nto his son, the hunter, begins, line 19,\n\n\n\t\"Go my hunter, take with thee a woman.\"\n\n\nIn the reconstructed tale, the father tells his son to go to Gilgamesh\nto relate to him the strange appearance of the animal-man; but there\nis clearly no purpose in this, as is shown by the fact that when the\nhunter does so, Gilgamesh makes _precisely the same speech_ as does\nthe father of the hunter. Lines 40-44 of column 3, in which Gilgamesh\nis represented as speaking to the hunter form a complete _doublet_\nto lines 19-24, beginning\n\n\n\t\"Go, my hunter, take with thee a woman, etc.\"\n\n\nand similarly the description of Enkidu appears twice, lines 2-12\nin an address of the hunter to his father, and lines 29-39 in the\naddress of the hunter to Gilgamesh.\n\nThe artificiality of the process of introducing Gilgamesh into\nthe episode is revealed by this awkward and entirely meaningless\nrepetition. We may therefore reconstruct the first two scenes in the\nEnkidu Epic as follows: [106]\n\nTablet I, col. 2, 34-35: Creation of Enkidu by Aruru.\n\n36-41: Description of Enkidu's hairy body and of his life with the\nanimals.\n\n42-50: The hunter sees Enkidu, who shows his anger, as also his woe,\nat his condition.\n\n3, 1-12: The hunter tells his father of the strange being who pulls\nup the traps which the hunter digs, and who tears the nets so that\nthe hunter is unable to catch him or the animals.\n\n19-24: The father of the hunter advises his son on his next expedition\nto take a woman with him in order to lure the strange being from his\nlife with the animals.\n\nLine 25, beginning \"On the advice of his father,\" must have set forth,\nin the original form of the episode, how the hunter procured the\nwoman and took her with him to meet Enkidu.\n\nColumn 4 gives in detail the meeting between the two, and na\u00efvely\ndescribes how the woman exposes her charms to Enkidu, who is captivated\nby her and stays with her six days and seven nights. The animals see\nthe change in Enkidu and run away from him. He has been transformed\nthrough the woman. So far the episode. In the Assyrian version there\nfollows an address of the woman to Enkidu beginning (col. 4, 34):\n\n\n\t\"Beautiful art thou, Enkidu, like a god art thou.\"\n\n\nWe find her urging him to go with her to Erech, there to meet Gilgamesh\nand to enjoy the pleasures of city life with plenty of beautiful\nmaidens. Gilgamesh, she adds, will expect Enkidu, for the coming\nof the latter to Erech has been foretold in a dream. It is evident\nthat here we have again the later transformation of the Enkidu Epic\nin order to bring the two heroes together. Will it be considered too\nbold if we assume that in the original form the address of the woman\nand the construction of the episode were such as we find preserved in\npart in columns 2 to 4 of the Pennsylvania tablet, which forms part\nof the new material that can now be added to the Epic? The address\nof the woman begins in line 51 of the Pennsylvania tablet:\n\n\n\t\"I gaze upon thee, Enkidu, like a god art thou.\"\n\n\nThis corresponds to the line in the Assyrian version (I, 4, 34)\nas given above, just as lines 52-53:\n\n\n\t\"Why with the cattle\n\tDost thou roam across the field?\"\n\n\ncorrespond to I, 4, 35, of the Assyrian version. There follows in both\nthe old Babylonian and the Assyrian version the appeal of the woman\nto Enkidu, to allow her to lead him to Erech where Gilgamesh dwells\n(Pennsylvania tablet lines 54-61 = Assyrian version I, 4, 36-39);\nbut in the Pennsylvania tablet we now have a _second_ speech (lines\n62-63) beginning like the first one with _al-ka_, \"come:\"\n\n\n\t\"Come, arise from the accursed ground.\"\n\n\nEnkidu consents, and now the woman takes off her garments and clothes\nthe naked Enkidu, while putting another garment on herself. She takes\nhold of his hand and leads him to the sheepfolds (not to Erech!!),\nwhere bread and wine are placed before him. Accustomed hitherto\nto sucking milk with cattle, Enkidu does not know what to do with\nthe strange food until encouraged and instructed by the woman. The\nentire third column is taken up with this introduction of Enkidu\nto civilized life in a pastoral community, and the scene ends with\nEnkidu becoming a guardian of flocks. Now all this has nothing to\ndo with Gilgamesh, and clearly sets forth an entirely different\nidea from the one embodied in the meeting of the two heroes. In the\noriginal Enkidu tale, the animal-man is looked upon as the type of a\nprimitive savage, and the point of the tale is to illustrate in the\nna\u00efve manner characteristic of folklore the evolution to the higher\nform of pastoral life. This aspect of the incident is, therefore,\nto be separated from the other phase which has as its chief _motif_\nthe bringing of the two heroes together.\n\nWe now obtain, thanks to the new section revealed by the Pennsylvania\ntablet, a further analogy [107] with the story of Adam and Eve,\nbut with this striking difference, that whereas in the Babylonian\ntale the woman is the medium leading man to the higher life, in the\nBiblical story the woman is the tempter who brings misfortune to\nman. This contrast is, however, not inherent in the Biblical story,\nbut due to the point of view of the Biblical writer, who is somewhat\npessimistically inclined and looks upon primitive life, when man went\nnaked and lived in a garden, eating of fruits that grew of themselves,\nas the blessed life in contrast to advanced culture which leads\nto agriculture and necessitates hard work as the means of securing\none's substance. Hence the woman through whom Adam eats of the tree\nof knowledge and becomes conscious of being naked is looked upon as\nan evil tempter, entailing the loss of the primeval life of bliss in\na gorgeous Paradise. The Babylonian point of view is optimistic. The\nchange to civilized life--involving the wearing of clothes and the\neating of food that is cultivated (bread and wine) is looked upon as an\nadvance. Hence the woman is viewed as the medium of raising man to a\nhigher level. The feature common to the Biblical and Babylonian tales\nis the attachment of a lesson to early folk-tales. The story of Adam\nand Eve, [108] as the story of Enkidu and the woman, is told _with\na purpose_. Starting with early traditions of men's primitive life\non earth, that may have arisen independently, Hebrew and Babylonian\nwriters diverged, each group going its own way, each reflecting the\nparticular point of view from which the evolution of human society\nwas viewed.\n\nLeaving the analogy between the Biblical and Babylonian tales aside,\nthe main point of value for us in the Babylonian story of Enkidu\nand the woman is the proof furnished by the analysis, made possible\nthrough the Pennsylvania tablet, that the tale can be separated\nfrom its subsequent connection with Gilgamesh. We can continue this\nprocess of separation in the fourth column, where the woman instructs\nEnkidu in the further duty of living his life with the woman decreed\nfor him, to raise a family, to engage in work, to build cities and\nto gather resources. All this is looked upon in the same optimistic\nspirit as marking progress, whereas the Biblical writer, consistent\nwith his point of view, looks upon work as a curse, and makes Cain,\nthe murderer, also the founder of cities. The step to the higher\nforms of life is not an advance according to the J document. It is\ninteresting to note that even the phrase the \"cursed ground\" occurs\nin both the Babylonian and Biblical tales; but whereas in the latter\n(Gen. 3, 17) it is because of the hard work entailed in raising the\nproducts of the earth that the ground is cursed, in the former (lines\n62-63) it is the place in which Enkidu lives _before_ he advances to\nthe dignity of human life that is \"cursed,\" and which he is asked\nto leave. Adam is expelled from Paradise as a punishment, whereas\nEnkidu is implored to leave it as a necessary step towards _progress_\nto a higher form of existence. The contrast between the Babylonian\nand the Biblical writer extends to the view taken of viniculture. The\nBiblical writer (again the J document) looks upon Noah's drunkenness\nas a disgrace. Noah loses his sense of shame and uncovers himself\n(Genesis 9, 21), whereas in the Babylonian description Enkidu's jolly\nspirit after he has drunk seven jars of wine meets with approval. The\nBiblical point of view is that he who drinks wine becomes drunk;\n[109] the Babylonian says, if you drink wine you become happy. [110]\n\nIf the thesis here set forth of the original character and import\nof the episode of Enkidu with the woman is correct, we may again\nregard lines 149-153 of the Pennsylvania tablet, in which Gilgamesh\nis introduced, as a later addition to bring the two heroes into\nassociation. The episode in its original form ended with the\nintroduction of Enkidu first to pastoral life, and then to the still\nhigher city life with regulated forms of social existence.\n\nNow, to be sure, this Enkidu has little in common with the Enkidu\nwho is described as a powerful warrior, a Hercules, who kills lions,\novercomes the giant Huwawa, and dispatches a great bull, but it is\nthe nature of folklore everywhere to attach to traditions about\na favorite hero all kinds of tales with which originally he had\nnothing to do. Enkidu, as such a favorite, is viewed also as the\ntype of primitive man, [111] and so there arose gradually an Epic\nwhich began with his birth, pictured him as half-animal half-man,\ntold how he emerged from this state, how he became civilized, was\nclothed, learned to eat food and drink wine, how he shaved off the\nhair with which his body was covered, [112] anointed himself--in short,\n\n\n\t\"He became manlike.\" [113]\n\n\nThereupon he is taught his duties as a husband, is introduced to\nthe work of building, and to laying aside supplies, and the like. The\nfully-developed and full-fledged hero then engages in various exploits,\nof which _some_ are now embodied in the Gilgamesh Epic. Who this Enkidu\nwas, we are not in a position to determine, but the suggestion has\nbeen thrown out above that he is a personage foreign to Babylonia,\nthat his home appears to be in the undefined Amurru district, and\nthat he conquers that district. The original tale of Enkidu, if this\nview be correct, must therefore have been carried to the Euphrates\nValley, at a very remote period, with one of the migratory waves that\nbrought a western people as invaders into Babylonia. Here the tale\nwas combined with stories current of another hero, Gilgamesh--perhaps\nalso of Western origin--whose conquest of Erech likewise represents\nan invasion of Babylonia. The center of the Gilgamesh tale was Erech,\nand in the process of combining the stories of Enkidu and Gilgamesh,\nEnkidu is brought to Erech and the two perform exploits in common. In\nsuch a combination, the aim would be to utilize all the incidents of\n_both_ tales. The woman who accompanies Enkidu, therefore, becomes\nthe medium of bringing the two heroes together. The story of the\nevolution of primitive man to civilized life is transformed into the\ntale of Enkidu's removal to Erech, and elaborated with all kinds of\ndetails, among which we have, as perhaps embodying a genuine historical\ntradition, the encounter of the two heroes.\n\nBefore passing on, we have merely to note the very large part taken\nin both the old Babylonian and the Assyrian version by the struggle\nagainst Huwawa. The entire Yale tablet--forming, as we have seen,\nthe third of the series--is taken up with the preparation for the\nstruggle, and with the repeated warnings given to Gilgamesh against\nthe dangerous undertaking. The fourth tablet must have recounted the\nstruggle itself, and it is not improbable that this episode extended\ninto the fifth tablet, since in the Assyrian version this is the\ncase. The elaboration of the story is in itself an argument in favor\nof assuming some historical background for it--the recollection of\nthe conquest of Amurru by some powerful warrior; and we have seen\nthat this conquest must be ascribed to Enkidu and not to Gilgamesh.\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\n\nIf, now, Enkidu is not only the older figure but the one who is the\nreal hero of the most notable episode in the Gilgamesh Epic; if,\nfurthermore, Enkidu is the Hercules who kills lions and dispatches\nthe bull sent by an enraged goddess, what becomes of Gilgamesh? What\nis left for him?\n\nIn the first place, he is definitely the conqueror of Erech. He builds\nthe wall of Erech, [114] and we may assume that the designation of\nthe city as _Uruk sup\u00fbri_, \"the walled Erech,\" [115] rests upon this\ntradition. He is also associated with the great temple Eanna, \"the\nheavenly house,\" in Erech. To Gilgamesh belongs also the unenviable\ntradition of having exercised his rule in Erech so harshly that the\npeople are impelled to implore Aruru to create a rival who may rid\nthe district of the cruel tyrant, who is described as snatching sons\nand daughters from their families, and in other ways terrifying the\npopulation--an early example of \"Schrecklichkeit.\" Tablets II to\nV inclusive of the Assyrian version being taken up with the Huwawa\nepisode, modified with a view of bringing the two heroes together,\nwe come at once to the sixth tablet, which tells the story of how\nthe goddess Ishtar wooed Gilgamesh, and of the latter's rejection\nof her advances. This tale is distinctly a nature myth. The attempt\nof Gressmann [116] to find some historical background to the episode\nis a failure. The goddess Ishtar symbolizes the earth which woos the\nsun in the spring, but whose love is fatal, for after a few months\nthe sun's power begins to wane. Gilgamesh, who in incantation hymns\nis invoked in terms which show that he was conceived as a sun-god,\n[117] recalls to the goddess how she changed her lovers into animals,\nlike Circe of Greek mythology, and brought them to grief. Enraged at\nGilgamesh's insult to her vanity, she flies to her father Anu and cries\nfor revenge. At this point the episode of the creation of the bull is\nintroduced, but if the analysis above given is correct it is Enkidu\nwho is the hero in dispatching the bull, and we must assume that the\nsickness with which Gilgamesh is smitten is the punishment sent by Anu\nto avenge the insult to his daughter. This sickness symbolizes the\nwaning strength of the sun after midsummer is past. The sun recedes\nfrom the earth, and this was pictured in the myth as the sun-god's\nrejection of Ishtar; Gilgamesh's fear of death marks the approach\nof the winter season, when the sun appears to have lost its vigor\ncompletely and is near to death. The entire episode is, therefore,\na nature myth, symbolical of the passing of spring to midsummer and\nthen to the bare season. The myth has been attached to Gilgamesh as\na favorite figure, and then woven into a pattern with the episode\nof Enkidu and the bull. The bull episode can be detached from the\nnature myth without any loss to the symbolism of the tale of Ishtar\nand Gilgamesh.\n\nAs already suggested, with Enkidu's death after this conquest\nof the bull the original Enkidu Epic came to an end. In order to\nconnect Gilgamesh with Enkidu, the former is represented as sharing\nin the struggle against the bull. Enkidu is punished with death,\nwhile Gilgamesh is smitten with disease. Since both shared equally\nin the guilt, the punishment should have been the same for both. The\ndifferentiation may be taken as an indication that Gilgamesh's disease\nhas nothing to do with the bull episode, but is merely part of the\nnature myth.\n\nGilgamesh now begins a series of wanderings in search of\nthe restoration of his vigor, and this _motif_ is evidently a\ncontinuation of the nature myth to symbolize the sun's wanderings\nduring the dark winter in the hope of renewed vigor with the coming\nof the spring. Professor Haupt's view is that the disease from which\nGilgamesh is supposed to be suffering is of a venereal character,\naffecting the organs of reproduction. This would confirm the position\nhere taken that the myth symbolizes the loss of the sun's vigor. The\nsun's rays are no longer strong enough to fertilize the earth. In\naccord with this, Gilgamesh's search for healing leads him to the\ndark regions [118] in which the scorpion-men dwell. The terrors of\nthe region symbolize the gloom of the winter season. At last Gilgamesh\nreaches a region of light again, described as a landscape situated at\nthe sea. The maiden in control of this region bolts the gate against\nGilgamesh's approach, but the latter forces his entrance. It is the\npicture of the sun-god bursting through the darkness, to emerge as\nthe youthful reinvigorated sun-god of the spring.\n\nNow with the tendency to attach to popular tales and nature myths\nlessons illustrative of current beliefs and aspirations, Gilgamesh's\nsearch for renewal of life is viewed as man's longing for eternal\nlife. The sun-god's waning power after midsummer is past suggests\nman's growing weakness after the meridian of life has been left\nbehind. Winter is death, and man longs to escape it. Gilgamesh's\nwanderings are used as illustration of this longing, and accordingly\nthe search for life becomes also the quest for immortality. Can the\nprecious boon of eternal life be achieved? Popular fancy created\nthe figure of a favorite of the gods who had escaped a destructive\ndeluge in which all mankind had perished. [119] Gilgamesh hears of\nthis favorite and determines to seek him out and learn from him the\nsecret of eternal life. The deluge story, again a pure nature myth,\nsymbolical of the rainy season which destroys all life in nature,\nis thus attached to the Epic. Gilgamesh after many adventures finds\nhimself in the presence of the survivor of the Deluge who, although\nhuman, enjoys immortal life among the gods. He asks the survivor\nhow he came to escape the common fate of mankind, and in reply\nUtnapishtim tells the story of the catastrophe that brought about\nuniversal destruction. The moral of the tale is obvious. Only those\nsingled out by the special favor of the gods can hope to be removed\nto the distant \"source of the streams\" and live forever. The rest of\nmankind must face death as the end of life.\n\nThat the story of the Deluge is told in the eleventh tablet of the\nseries, corresponding to the eleventh month, known as the month of\n\"rain curse\" [120] and marking the height of the rainy season, may\nbe intentional, just as it may not be accidental that Gilgamesh's\nrejection of Ishtar is recounted in the sixth tablet, corresponding to\nthe sixth month, [121] which marks the end of the summer season. The\ntwo tales may have formed part of a cycle of myths, distributed\namong the months of the year. The Gilgamesh Epic, however, does\nnot form such a cycle. Both myths have been artificially attached\nto the adventures of the hero. For the deluge story we now have the\ndefinite proof for its independent existence, through Dr. Poebel's\npublication of a Sumerian text which embodies the tale, [122] and\nwithout any reference to Gilgamesh. Similarly, Scheil and Hilprecht\nhave published fragments of deluge stories written in Akkadian and\nlikewise without any connection with the Gilgamesh Epic. [123]\n\nIn the Epic the story leads to another episode attached to Gilgamesh,\nnamely, the search for a magic plant growing in deep water, which has\nthe power of restoring old age to youth. Utnapishtim, the survivor of\nthe deluge, is moved through pity for Gilgamesh, worn out by his long\nwanderings. At the request of his wife, Utnapishtim decides to tell\nGilgamesh of this plant, and he succeeds in finding it. He plucks it\nand decides to take it back to Erech so that all may enjoy the benefit,\nbut on his way stops to bathe in a cool cistern. A serpent comes along\nand snatches the plant from him, and he is forced to return to Erech\nwith his purpose unachieved. Man cannot hope, when old age comes on,\nto escape death as the end of everything.\n\nLastly, the twelfth tablet of the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh\nEpic is of a purely didactic character, bearing evidence of having\nbeen added as a further illustration of the current belief that there\nis no escape from the nether world to which all must go after life has\ncome to an end. Proper burial and suitable care of the dead represent\nall that can be done in order to secure a fairly comfortable rest for\nthose who have passed out of this world. Enkidu is once more introduced\ninto this episode. His shade is invoked by Gilgamesh and rises up out\nof the lower world to give a discouraging reply to Gilgamesh's request,\n\n\n\t\"Tell me, my friend, tell me, my friend,\n\tThe law of the earth which thou hast\n\texperienced, tell me,\"\n\n\nThe mournful message comes back:\n\n\n\t\"I cannot tell thee, my friend, I cannot tell.\"\n\n\nDeath is a mystery and must always remain such. The historical\nGilgamesh has clearly no connection with the figure introduced into\nthis twelfth tablet. Indeed, as already suggested, the Gilgamesh Epic\nmust have ended with the return to Erech, as related at the close of\nthe eleventh tablet. The twelfth tablet was added by some school-men of\nBabylonia (or perhaps of Assyria), purely for the purpose of conveying\na summary of the teachings in regard to the fate of the dead. Whether\nthese six episodes covering the sixth to the twelfth tablets, (1) the\nnature myth, (2) the killing of the divine bull, (3) the punishment\nof Gilgamesh and the death of Enkidu, (4) Gilgamesh's wanderings,\n(5) the Deluge, (6) the search for immortality, were all included\nat the time that the old Babylonian version was compiled cannot, of\ncourse, be determined until we have that version in a more complete\nform. Since the two tablets thus far recovered show that as early as\n2000 B.C. the Enkidu tale had already been amalgamated with the current\nstories about Gilgamesh, and the endeavor made to transfer the traits\nof the former to the latter, it is eminently likely that the story of\nIshtar's unhappy love adventure with Gilgamesh was included, as well\nas Gilgamesh's punishment and the death of Enkidu. With the evidence\nfurnished by Meissner's fragment of a version of the old Babylonian\nrevision and by our two tablets, of the early disposition to make\npopular tales the medium of illustrating current beliefs and the\nteachings of the temple schools, it may furthermore be concluded that\nthe death of Enkidu and the punishment of Gilgamesh were utilized for\ndidactic purposes in the old Babylonian version. On the other hand,\nthe proof for the existence of the deluge story in the Hammurabi\nperiod and some centuries later, _independent_ of any connection\nwith the Gilgamesh Epic, raises the question whether in the old\nBabylonian version, of which our two tablets form a part, the deluge\ntale was already woven into the pattern of the Epic. At all events,\ntill proof to the contrary is forthcoming, we may assume that the\ntwelfth tablet of the Assyrian version, though also reverting to a\nBabylonian original, dates as the _latest_ addition to the Epic from\na period subsequent to 2000 B.C.; and that the same is probably the\ncase with the eleventh tablet.\n\n\n\nIX.\n\n\nTo sum up, there are four main currents that flow together in the\nGilgamesh Epic even in its old Babylonian form: (1) the adventures of\na mighty warrior Enkidu, resting perhaps on a faint tradition of the\nconquest of Amurru by the hero; (2) the more definite recollection\nof the exploits of a foreign invader of Babylonia by the name of\nGilgamesh, whose home appears likewise to have been in the West; [124]\n(3) nature myths and didactic tales transferred to Enkidu and Gilgamesh\nas popular figures; and (4) the process of weaving the traditions,\nexploits, myths and didactic tales together, in the course of which\nprocess Gilgamesh becomes the main hero, and Enkidu his companion.\n\nFurthermore, our investigation has shown that to Enkidu belongs the\nepisode with the woman, used to illustrate the evolution of primitive\nman to the ways and conditions of civilized life, the conquest of\nHuwawa in the land of Amurru, the killing of lions and also of the\nbull, while Gilgamesh is the hero who conquers Erech. Identified with\nthe sun-god, the nature myth of the union of the sun with the earth and\nthe subsequent separation of the two is also transferred to him. The\nwanderings of the hero, smitten with disease, are a continuation of\nthe nature myth, symbolizing the waning vigor of the sun with the\napproach of the wintry season.\n\nThe details of the process which led to making Gilgamesh the favorite\nfigure, to whom the traits and exploits of Enkidu and of the sun-god\nare transferred, escape us, but of the fact that Enkidu is the _older_\nfigure, of whom certain adventures were set forth in a tale that\nonce had an independent existence, there can now be little doubt in\nthe face of the evidence furnished by the two tablets of the old\nBabylonian version; just as the study of these tablets shows that\nin the combination of the tales of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, the former\nis the prototype of which Gilgamesh is the copy. If the two are\nregarded as brothers, as born in the same place, even resembling one\nanother in appearance and carrying out their adventures in common,\nit is because in the process of combination Gilgamesh becomes the\n_reflex_ of Enkidu. That Enkidu is not the figure created by Aruru to\nrelieve Erech of its tyrannical ruler is also shown by the fact that\nGilgamesh remains in control of Erech. It is to Erech that he returns\nwhen he fails of his purpose to learn the secret of escape from old\nage and death. Erech is, therefore, not relieved of the presence of\nthe ruthless ruler through Enkidu. The \"Man of Anu\" formed by Aruru\nas a deliverer is confused in the course of the growth of the Epic\nwith Enkidu, the offspring of Ninib, and in this way we obtain the\nstrange contradiction of Enkidu and Gilgamesh appearing first as bitter\nrivals and then as close and inseparable friends. It is of the nature\nof Epic compositions everywhere to eliminate unnecessary figures by\nconcentrating on one favorite the traits belonging to another or to\nseveral others.\n\nThe close association of Enkidu and Gilgamesh which becomes one of\nthe striking features in the combination of the tales of these two\nheroes naturally recalls the \"Heavenly Twins\" _motif_, which has been\nso fully and so suggestively treated by Professor J. Rendell Harris\nin his _Cult of the Heavenly Twins_, (London, 1906). Professor Harris\nhas conclusively shown how widespread the tendency is to associate\ntwo divine or semi-divine beings in myths and legends as inseparable\ncompanions [125] or twins, like Castor and Pollux, Romulus and Remus,\n[126] the Acvins in the Rig-Veda, [127] Cain and Abel, Jacob and\nEsau in the Old Testament, the Kabiri of the Phoenicians, [128]\nHerakles and Iphikles in Greek mythology, Ambrica and Fidelio in\nTeutonic mythology, Patollo and Potrimpo in old Prussian mythology,\nCautes and Cautopates in Mithraism, Jesus and Thomas (according to\nthe Syriac Acts of Thomas), and the various illustrations of \"Dioscuri\nin Christian Legends,\" set forth by Dr. Harris in his work under this\ntitle, which carries the _motif_ far down into the period of legends\nabout Christian Saints who appear in pairs, including the reference\nto such a pair in Shakespeare's Henry V:\n\n\n\t\"And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by\n\tFrom that day to the ending of the world.\"--(_Act, IV,\n\t3, 57-58._)\n\n\nThere are indeed certain parallels which suggest that Enkidu-Gilgamesh\nmay represent a Babylonian counterpart to the \"Heavenly Twins.\" In\nthe Indo-Iranian, Greek and Roman mythology, the twins almost\ninvariably act together. In unison they proceed on expeditions to\npunish enemies. [129]\n\nBut after all, the parallels are of too general a character to be of\nmuch moment; and moreover the parallels stop short at the critical\npoint, for Gilgamesh though worsted is _not_ killed by Enkidu,\nwhereas one of the \"Heavenly Twins\" is always killed by the brother,\nas Abel is by Cain, and Iphikles by his twin brother Herakles. Even\nthe trait which is frequent in the earliest forms of the \"Heavenly\nTwins,\" according to which one is immortal and the other is mortal,\nthough applying in a measure to Enkidu who is killed by Ishtar, while\nGilgamesh the offspring of a divine pair is only smitten with disease,\nis too unsubstantial to warrant more than a general comparison between\nthe Enkidu-Gilgamesh pair and the various forms of the \"twin\" _motif_\nfound throughout the ancient world. For all that, the point is of some\ninterest that in the Gilgamesh Epic we should encounter two figures who\nare portrayed as possessing the same traits and accomplishing feats in\ncommon, which suggest a partial parallel to the various forms in which\nthe twin-_motif_ appears in the mythologies, folk-lore and legends\nof many nations; and it may be that in some of these instances the\nduplication is due, as in the case of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, to an\nactual transfer of the traits of one figure to another who usurped\nhis place.\n\n\n\nX.\n\n\nIn concluding this study of the two recently discovered tablets of\nthe old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic which has brought us\nseveral steps further in the interpretation and in our understanding\nof the method of composition of the most notable literary production\nof ancient Babylonia, it will be proper to consider the _literary_\nrelationship of the old Babylonian to the Assyrian version.\n\nWe have already referred to the different form in which the names\nof the chief figures appear in the old Babylonian version, dGish as\nagainst dGish-g\u00ec(n)-mash, dEn-ki-du as against dEn-ki-d\u00fa, Hu-wa-wa\nas against Hu(m)-ba-ba. Erech appears as _Uruk rib\u00eetim_, \"Erech of\nthe Plazas,\" as against _Uruk sup\u00fbri_, \"walled Erech\" (or \"Erech\nwithin the walls\"), in the Assyrian version. [130] These variations\npoint to an _independent_ recension for the Assyrian revision; and\nthis conclusion is confirmed by a comparison of parallel passages in\nour two tablets with the Assyrian version, for such parallels rarely\nextend to verbal agreements in details, and, moreover, show that the\nAssyrian version has been elaborated.\n\nBeginning with the Pennsylvania tablet, column I is covered in the\nAssyrian version by tablet I, 5, 25, to 6, 33, though, as pointed out\nabove, in the Assyrian version we have the anticipation of the dreams\nof Gilgamesh and their interpretation through their recital to Enkidu\nby his female companion, whereas in the old Babylonian version we\nhave the dreams _directly_ given in a conversation between Gilgamesh\nand his mother. In the anticipation, there would naturally be some\nomissions. So lines 4-5 and 12-13 of the Pennsylvania tablet do not\nappear in the Assyrian version, but in their place is a line (I, 5,\n35), to be restored to\n\n\n\t\"[I saw him and like] a woman I fell in love with him.\"\n\n\nwhich occurs in the old Babylonian version only in connection with\nthe second dream. The point is of importance as showing that in the\nBabylonian version the first dream lays stress upon the omen of\nthe falling meteor, as symbolizing the coming of Enkidu, whereas\nthe second dream more specifically reveals Enkidu as a man, [131]\nof whom Gilgamesh is instantly enamored. Strikingly variant lines,\nthough conveying the same idea, are frequent. Thus line 14 of the\nBabylonian version reads\n\n\n\t\"I bore it and carried it to thee\"\n\n\nand appears in the Assyrian version (I, 5, 35_b_ supplied from 6, 26)\n\n\n\t\"I threw it (or him) at thy feet\" [132]\n\n\nwith an additional line in elaboration\n\n\n\t\"Thou didst bring him into contact with me\" [133]\n\n\nwhich anticipates the speech of the mother\n\n\n\t(Line 41 = Assyrian version I, 6, 33).\n\n\nLine 10 of the Pennsylvania tablet has _pa-hi-ir_ as against _iz-za-az_\nI, 5, 31.\n\nLine 8 has _ik-ta-bi-it_ as against _da-an_ in the Assyrian version I,\n5, 29.\n\nMore significant is the variant to line 9\n\n\n\t\"I became weak and its weight I could not bear\"\n\n\nas against I, 5, 30.\n\n\n\t\"Its strength was overpowering, [134] and I could not endure\n\tits weight.\"\n\n\nThe important lines 31-36 are not found in the Assyrian version,\nwith the exception of I, 6, 27, which corresponds to lines 33-34,\nbut this lack of correspondence is probably due to the fact that the\nAssyrian version represents the anticipation of the dreams which,\nas already suggested, might well omit some details. As against this\nwe have in the Assyrian version I, 6, 23-25, an elaboration of line\n30 in the Pennsylvania tablet and taken over from the recital of\nthe first dream. Through the Assyrian version I, 6, 31-32, we can\nrestore the closing lines of column I of the Pennsylvania tablet,\nwhile with line 33 = line 45 of the Pennsylvania tablet, the parallel\nbetween the two versions comes to an end. Lines 34-43 of the Assyrian\nversion (bringing tablet I to a close) [135] represent an elaboration\nof the speech of Ninsun, followed by a further address of Gilgamesh\nto his mother, and by the determination of Gilgamesh to seek out\nEnkidu. [136] Nothing of this sort appears to have been included in\nthe old Babylonian version.Our text proceeds with the scene between\nEnkidu and the woman, in which the latter by her charms and her appeal\nendeavors to lead Enkidu away from his life with the animals. From\nthe abrupt manner in which the scene is introduced in line 43 of the\nPennsylvania tablet, it is evident that this cannot be the _first_\nmention of the woman. The meeting must have been recounted in the\nfirst tablet, as is the case in the Assyrian version. [137] The second\ntablet takes up the direct recital of the dreams of Gilgamesh and\nthen continues the narrative. Whether in the old Babylonian version\nthe scene between Enkidu and the woman was described with the same\nna\u00efve details, as in the Assyrian version, of the sexual intercourse\nbetween the two for six days and seven nights cannot of course be\ndetermined, though presumably the Assyrian version, with the tendency\nof epics to become more elaborate as they pass from age to age, added\nsome realistic touches. Assuming that lines 44-63 of the Pennsylvania\ntablet--the cohabitation of Enkidu and the address of the woman--is\na repetition of what was already described in the first tablet, the\ncomparison with the Assyrian version I, 4, 16-41, not only points to\nthe elaboration of the later version, but likewise to an independent\nrecension, even where parallel lines can be picked out. Only lines\n46-48 of the Pennsylvania tablet form a complete parallel to line 21\nof column 4 of the Assyrian version. The description in lines 22-32\nof column 4 is missing, though it may, of course, have been included\nin part in the recital in the first tablet of the old Babylonian\nversion. Lines 49-59 of the Pennsylvania tablet are covered by 33-39,\nthe only slight difference being the specific mention in line 58 of\nthe Pennsylvania tablet of Eanna, the temple in Erech, described as\n\"the dwelling of Anu,\" whereas in the Assyrian version Eanna is merely\nreferred to as the \"holy house\" and described as \"the dwelling of\nAnu and Ishtar,\" where Ishtar is clearly a later addition.\n\nLeaving aside lines 60-61, which may be merely a variant (though\nindependent) of line 39 of column 4 of the Assyrian version, we now\nhave in the Pennsylvania tablet a second speech of the woman to Enkidu\n(not represented in the Assyrian version) beginning like the first\none with _alka_, \"Come\" (lines 62-63), in which she asks Enkidu to\nleave the \"accursed ground\" in which he dwells. This speech, as the\ndescription which follows, extending into columns 3-4, and telling how\nthe woman clothed Enkidu, how she brought him to the sheep folds, how\nshe taught him to eat bread and to drink wine, and how she instructed\nhim in the ways of civilization, must have been included in the second\ntablet of the Assyrian version which has come down to us in a very\nimperfect form. Nor is the scene in which Enkidu and Gilgamesh have\ntheir encounter found in the preserved portions of the second (or\npossibly the third) tablet of the Assyrian version, but only a brief\nreference to it in the fourth tablet, [138] in which in Epic style the\nstory is repeated, leading up to the second exploit--the joint campaign\nof Enkidu and Gilgamesh against Huwawa. This reference, covering only\nseven lines, corresponds to lines 192-231 of the Pennsylvania tablet;\nbut the former being the repetition and the latter the original\nrecital, the comparison to be instituted merely reveals again the\nindependence of the Assyrian version, as shown in the use of _kibsu_,\n\"tread\" (IV, 2, 46), for _s\u00eapu_, \"foot\" (l. 216), _i-na-us_, \"quake\"\n(line 5C), as against _ir-tu-tu_ (ll. 221 and 226).\n\nSuch variants as\n\n\n\t_d_Gish \u00earibam \u00fbl iddin (l. 217)\n\n\nagainst\n\n\n\t_d_Gilgamesh ana sur\u00fbbi \u00fbl namdin, (IV, 2, 47).\n\n\nand again\n\n\n\t_issabt\u00fbma kima l\u00eem_ \"they grappled at the gate of the family\n\thouse\" (IV, 2, 48),\n\n\nagainst\n\n\n\t_issabt\u00fbma ina b\u00e2b b\u00eet emuti_, \"they grappled at the gate of\n\tthe family house\" (IV, 2, 48),\n\n\nall point once more to the literary independence of the Assyrian\nversion. The end of the conflict and the reconciliation of the two\nheroes is likewise missing in the Assyrian version. It may have been\nreferred to at the beginning of column 3 [139] of Tablet IV.\n\nComing to the Yale tablet, the few passages in which a comparison may\nbe instituted with the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version, to which\nin a general way it must correspond, are not sufficient to warrant any\nconclusions, beyond the confirmation of the literary independence of\nthe Assyrian version. The section comprised within lines 72-89, where\nEnkidu's grief at his friend's decision to fight Huwawa is described\n[140], and he makes confession of his own physical exhaustion, _may_\ncorrespond to Tablet IV, column 4, of the Assyrian version. This\nwould fit in with the beginning of the reverse, the first two lines\nof which (136-137) correspond to column 5 of the fourth tablet of the\nAssyrian version, with a variation \"seven-fold fear\" [141] as against\n\"fear of men\" in the Assyrian version. If lines 138-139 (in column\n4) of the Yale tablet correspond to line 7 of column 5 of Tablet IV\nof the Assyrian version, we would again have an illustration of the\nelaboration of the later version by the addition of lines 3-6. But\nbeyond this we have merely the comparison of the description of Huwawa\n\n\n\t\"Whose roar is a flood, whose mouth is fire, and whose breath\n\tis death\"\n\n\nwhich occurs twice in the Yale tablet (lines 110-111 and 196-197),\nwith the same phrase in the Assyrian version Tablet IV, 5, 3--but here,\nas just pointed out, with an elaboration.\n\nPractically, therefore, the entire Yale tablet represents an addition\nto our knowledge of the Huwawa episode, and until we are fortunate\nenough to discover more fragments of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian\nversion, we must content ourselves with the conclusions reached from\na comparison of the Pennsylvania tablet with the parallels in the\nAssyrian version.\n\nIt may be noted as a general point of resemblance in the exterior form\nof the old Babylonian and Assyrian versions that both were inscribed\non tablets containing six columns, three on the obverse and three on\nthe reverse; and that the length of the tablets--an average of 40 to\n50 lines--was about the same, thus revealing in the external form\na conventiona1 size for the tablets in the older period, which was\ncarried over into later times.\n\n\n\n\nPENNSYLVANIA TABLET\n\n\nThe 240 lines of the six columns of the text are enumerated in\nsuccession, with an indication on the margin where a new column\nbegins. This method, followed also in the case of the Yale tablet,\nseems preferable to Langdon's breaking up of the text into Obverse and\nReverse, with a separate enumeration for each of the six columns. In\norder, however, to facilitate a comparison with Langdon's edition,\na table is added:\n\n\n\tObverse Col.   I,  1\t=   Line  1 of our text.\n\t,,\t\t\t   I,  5\t=\t ,,   5  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,\t\t\t   I, 10\t=\t ,,  10  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,\t\t       I, 15\t=\t ,,  15  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,             I, 20\t=\t ,,  20  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,\t\t\t   I, 25\t=\t ,,  25  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,\t\t\t   I, 30\t=\t ,,  30  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,\t\t\t   I, 35\t=\t ,,  35  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\tCol.          II,  1\t=   Line 41\t ,,  ,,\t   ,,\n\t,,            II,  5\t=\t ,,  45  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,            II, 10\t=\t ,,  50  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,            II, 15\t=\t ,,  55  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,            II, 20\t=\t ,,  60  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,            II, 25\t=\t ,,  65  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,            II, 30\t=\t ,,  70  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,            II, 35\t=\t ,,  75  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\tCol.         III,  1\t=   Line 81\t ,,  ,,\t   ,,\n\t,,           III,  5\t=\t ,,  85  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,           III, 10\t=\t ,,  90  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,           III, 15\t=\t ,,  95  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,           III, 26\t=\t ,, 100  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,           III, 25\t=\t ,, 105  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,           III, 30\t=\t ,, 110  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\t,,           III, 35\t=\t ,, 115  ,,  ,,    ,,\n\n\tReverse Col.    I,  1 (= Col. IV) =  Line 131 of our text.\n\t,,              I,  5\t\t\t  =   ,,  135  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,              I, 10\t\t\t  =   ,,  140  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,              I, 15\t\t\t  =   ,,  145  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,              I, 20\t\t\t  =   ,,  150  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,              I, 25\t\t\t  =   ,,  155  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,              I, 30\t\t\t  =   ,,  160  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,             II,  1 (= Col.  V) =  Line 171  ,,  ,,   ,,\n\t,,             II,  5\t\t\t  =   ,,  175  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,             II, 10\t\t\t  =   ,,  180  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,             II, 15\t\t\t  =   ,,  185  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,             II, 20\t\t\t  =   ,,  190  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,             II, 25\t\t\t  =   ,,  195  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,             II, 30\t\t\t  =   ,,  200  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,            III,  1 (= Col. VI) =  Line 208  ,,  ,,   ,,\n\t,,            III,  5\t\t\t  =   ,,  212  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,            III, 10\t\t\t  =   ,,  217  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,            III, 15\t\t\t  =   ,,  222  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,            III, 20\t\t\t  =   ,,  227  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,            III, 25\t\t\t  =   ,,  232  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,            III, 30\t\t\t  =   ,,  237  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\t,,            III, 33\t\t\t  =   ,,  240  ,,  ,,\t,,\n\n\n\n\n\nPENNSYLVANIA TABLET.\n\n\n\nTRANSLITERATION.\n\n\nCol. I.\n\n\tit-bi-e-ma dGis s\u00fa-na-tam i-pa-\u00e1s-sar\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na um-mi-s\u00fa\n\tum-mi i-na s\u00e1-at mu-si-ti-ia\n\ts\u00e1-am-ha-ku-ma at-ta-na-al-la-ak\n\ti-na bi-ri-it it-lu-tim\n\tib-ba-s\u00fa-nim-ma ka-ka-bu s\u00e1-ma-i\n\t[ki]-is-r\u00f9 s\u00e1 A-nim im-ku-ut a-na si-ri-ia\n\t\u00e1s-si-s\u00fa-ma ik-ta-bi-it e-li-ia\n\t\u00fa-ni-is-s\u00fa-ma nu-us-s\u00e1-s\u00fa \u00fa-ul il-ti-'i\n\tUrukki ma-tum pa-hi-ir e-li-s\u00fa\n\tit-lu-tum \u00fa-na-s\u00e1-ku si-pi-s\u00fa\n\t\u00fa-um-mi-id-ma pu-ti\n\ti-mi-du ia-ti\n\t\u00e1s-si-a-s\u00fa-ma ab-ba-la-\u00e1s-s\u00fa a-na si-ri-ki\n\tum-mi dGis mu-di-a-at ka-la-ma\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na dGis\n\tmi-in-di dGis s\u00e1 ki-ma ka-ti\n\ti-na si-ri i-wa-li-id-ma\n\t\u00fa-ra-ab-bi-s\u00fa s\u00e1-du-\u00fa\n\tta-mar-s\u00fa-ma [kima Sal(?)] ta-ha-du at-ta\n\tit-lu-tum \u00fa-na-s\u00e1-ku si-pi-s\u00fa\n\tt\u00ed-it-ti-ra-\u00e1s-[s\u00fa tu-ut]-tu-\u00fa-ma\n\tta-tar-ra-[as-su] a-na si-[ri]-ia\n\t[us]-ti-nim-ma i-ta-mar s\u00e1-ni-tam\n\t[s\u00fa-na]-ta i-ta-wa-a-am a-na um-mi-s\u00fa\n\t[um-mi] a-ta-mar s\u00e1-ni-tam\n\t[s\u00fa-na-tu a-ta]-mar e-mi-a i-na su-ki-im\n\t[s\u00e1 Uruk]ki ri-bi-tim\n\tha-as-si-nu na-di-i-ma\n\te-li-s\u00fa pa-ah-ru\n\tha-as-si-nu-um-ma s\u00e1-ni bu-nu-s\u00fa\n\ta-mur-s\u00fa-ma ah-ta-du a-na-ku\n\ta-ra-am-s\u00fa-ma ki-ma \u00e1s-s\u00e1-tim\n\ta-ha-ab-bu-ub el-s\u00fa\n\tel-ki-s\u00fa-ma \u00e1s-ta-ka-an-s\u00fa\n\ta-na a-hi-ia\n\tum-mi dGis mu-da-at [ka]-la-ma\n\t[iz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na dGis]\n\t[dGis s\u00e1 ta-mu-ru am\u00ealu]\n\t[ta-ha-ab-bu-ub ki-ma \u00e1s-s\u00e1-tim el-s\u00fa]\n\n\nCol. II.\n\n\t\u00e1s-sum us-[ta]-ma-ha-ru it-ti-ka\n\tdGis s\u00fa-na-tam i-pa-sar\n\tdEn-ki-[du wa]-si-ib ma-har ha-ri-im-tim\n\tur-[s\u00e1 ir]-ha-mu di-da-s\u00e1(?) ip-t\u00ed-[e]\n\t[dEn-ki]-du im-ta-si a-sar i-wa-al-du\n\t\u00fbm, 6 \u00f9 7 mu-si-a-tim\n\tdEn-[ki-du] ti-bi-i-ma\n\ts\u00e1-[am-ka-ta] ir-hi\n\tha-[ri-im-tum pa-a]-s\u00e1 i-pu-s\u00e1-am-ma\n\tiz-za-[k\u00e0r-am] a-na dEn-ki-du\n\ta-na-tal-ka dEn-ki-du ki-ma ili ta-ba-\u00e1s-si\n\tam-mi-nim it-ti na-ma-\u00e1s-te-e\n\tta-at-ta-[na-al]-ak si-ra-am\n\tal-kam lu-\u00far-di-ka\n\ta-na libbi [Urukki] ri-bi-tim\n\ta-na b\u00eet [el]-lim mu-s\u00e1-bi s\u00e1 A-nim\n\tdEn-ki-du ti-bi lu-ru-ka\n\ta-na \u00ca-[an]-na mu-s\u00e1-bi s\u00e1 A-nim\n\ta-sar [dGis gi]-it-ma-[lu] ne-pi-si-tim\n\t\u00f9 at-[ta] ki-[ma Sal ta-ha]-bu-[ub]-s\u00fa\n\tta-[ra-am-s\u00fa ki-ma] ra-ma-an-ka\n\tal-ka ti-ba i-[na] ga-ag-ga-ri\n\tma-a-ag-ri-i-im\n\tis-me a-wa-as-sa im-ta-har ga-ba-s\u00e1\n\tmi-il-[kum] s\u00e1 assatim\n\tim-ta-ku-ut a-na libbi-s\u00fa\n\tis-hu-ut li-ib-s\u00e1-am\n\tis-ti-nam \u00fa-la-ab-bi-is-s\u00fa\n\tli-ib-[s\u00e1-am] s\u00e1-ni-a-am\n\tsi-i it-ta-al-ba-\u00e1s\n\tsa-ab-tat ga-as-su\n\tki-ma [ili] i-ri-id-di-s\u00fa\n\ta-na gu-up-ri s\u00e1-ri-i-im\n\ta-sar tar-ba-si-im\n\ti-na [\u00e1s]-ri-s\u00fa [im]-hu-ruri-ia-\u00fa\n\t[\u00f9 s\u00fa-u dEn-ki-du i-lit-ta-s\u00fa s\u00e1-du-um-ma]\n\t[it-ti sab\u00e2ti-ma ik-ka-la sam-ma]\n\t[it-ti bu-lim mas-ka-a i-sat-ti]\n\t[it-ti na-ma-\u00e1s-te-e m\u00ea i-tab lib-ba-s\u00fa]\n\n\n(Perhaps one additional line missing.)\n\n\n\nCol. III.\n\n\tsi-iz-ba s\u00e1 na-ma-\u00e1s-te-e\n\ti-te-en-ni-ik\n\ta-ka-lam is-ku-nu ma-har-s\u00fa\n\tib-t\u00ed-ik-ma i-na-at-tal\n\t\u00f9 ip-pa-al-la-as\n\t\u00fa-ul i-di dEn-ki-du\n\taklam a-na a-ka-lim\n\tsikaram a-na s\u00e1-te-e-im\n\tla-a lum-mu-ud\n\tha-ri-im-tum pi-s\u00e1 i-pu-s\u00e1-am-ma\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na dEn-ki-du\n\ta-ku-ul ak-lam dEn-ki-du\n\tzi-ma-at ba-la-ti-im\n\tsikaram si-ti si-im-ti ma-ti\n\ti-ku-ul a-ak-lam dEn-ki-du\n\ta-di si-bi-e-s\u00fa\n\tsikaram is-ti-a-am\n\t7 as-sa-am-mi-im\n\tit-tap-sar kab-ta-tum i-na-an-gu\n\ti-li-is libba-s\u00fa-ma\n\tpa-nu-s\u00fa [it]-tam-ru\n\tul-tap-pi-it [l\u00f9S\u00da]-I\n\ts\u00fa-hu-ra-am pa-ga-ar-s\u00fa\n\ts\u00e1-am-nam ip-ta-s\u00e1-\u00e1s-ma\n\ta-we-li-is i-we\n\til-ba-\u00e1s li-ib-s\u00e1-am\n\tki-ma mu-ti i-ba-\u00e1s-si\n\til-ki ka-ak-ka-s\u00fa\n\tla-bi \u00fa-gi-ir-ri\n\tus-sa-ak-pu re'\u00fbti mu-si-a-tim\n\tut-tap-pi-is sib-ba-ri\n\tla-bi uk-ta-si-id\n\tit-ti-[lu] na-ki-[di-e] ra-bu-tum\n\tdEn-ki-du ma-as-sa-ar-s\u00fa-nu\n\ta-we-lum gis-ru-um\n\tis-te-en it-lum\n\ta-na [na-ki-di-e(?) i]-za-ak-ki-ir\n\n\n(About five lines missing.)\n\n\n\nCol. IV.\n\n(About eight lines missing.)\n\n\n\ti-ip-pu-us ul-sa-am\n\tis-si-ma i-ni-i-s\u00fa\n\ti-ta-mar a-we-lam\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na harimtim\n\ts\u00e1-am-ka-at uk-ki-si a-we-lam\n\ta-na mi-nim il-li-kam\n\tzi-ki-ir-s\u00fa lu-us-s\u00fa\n\tha-ri-im-tum is-ta-si a-we-lam\n\ti-ba-us-su-um-ma i-ta-mar-s\u00fa\n\te-di-il e-es ta-hi-[il-la]-am\n\tlim-nu a-la-ku ma-na-ah-[ti]-ka\n\te-pi-s\u00fa i-pu-s\u00e1-am-ma\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na dEn-[ki-du]\n\tbi-ti-is e-mu-tim ik ......\n\tsi-ma-a-at ni-si-i-ma\n\ttu-a-(?)-ar e-lu-tim\n\ta-na \u00e2li(?) dup-sak-ki-i e-si-en\n\tuk-la-at \u00e2li(?) e-mi-sa a-a-ha-tim\n\ta-na sarri s\u00e1 Urukki ri-bi-tim\n\tpi-ti pu-uk episi(-si) a-na ha-a-a-ri\n\ta-na dGis sarri s\u00e1 Urukki ri-bi-tim\n\tpi-ti pu-uk episi(-si)\n\ta-na ha-a-a-ri\n\t\u00e1s-sa-at si-ma-tim i-ra-ah-hi\n\ts\u00fa-\u00fa pa-na-nu-um-ma\n\tmu-uk wa-ar-ka-nu\n\ti-na mi-il-ki s\u00e1 ili ga-bi-ma\n\ti-na bi-ti-ik a-bu-un-na-ti-s\u00fa\n\tsi-ma-as-su\n\ta-na zi-ik-ri it-li-im\n\ti-ri-ku pa-nu-s\u00fa\n\n\n(About three lines missing.)\n\n\n\nCol. V.\n\n(About six lines missing.)\n\n\n\ti-il-la-ak [dEn-ki-du i-na pa-ni]\n\tu-s\u00e1-am-ka-at [wa]-ar-ki-s\u00fa\n\ti-ru-ub-ma a-na libbi Urukki ri-bi-tim\n\tip-hur um-ma-nu-um i-na si-ri-s\u00fa\n\tiz-zi-za-am-ma i-na su-ki-im\n\ts\u00e1 Urukki ri-bi-tim\n\tpa-ah-ra-a-ma ni-s\u00fa\n\ti-ta-wa-a i-na si-ri-s\u00fa\n\ta-na salam dGis ma-si-il pi-it-tam\n\tla-nam s\u00e1-pi-il\n\tsi-ma .... [s\u00e1-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul\n\t............. i-pa-ka-du\n\ti-[na m\u00e2ti da-an e-mu]-ki i-wa\n\tsi-iz-ba s\u00e1 na-ma-as-te-e\n\ti-te-en-ni-ik\n\tka-a-a-na i-na [libbi] Urukki kak-ki-a-tum\n\tit-lu-tum \u00fa-te-el-li-lu\n\ts\u00e1-ki-in ur-s\u00e1-nu\n\ta-na itli s\u00e1 i-s\u00e1-ru zi-mu-s\u00fa\n\ta-na dGis ki-ma i-li-im\n\ts\u00e1-ki-is-sum me-ih-r\u00f9\n\ta-na dIs-ha-ra ma-a-a-lum\n\tna-di-i-ma\n\tdGis it-[ti-il-ma wa-ar-ka-tim]\n\ti-na mu-si in-ni-[ib-bi]-it\n\ti-na-ag-s\u00e1-am-ma\n\tit-ta-[zi-iz dEn-ki-du] i-na s\u00fbkim\n\tip-ta-ra-[as a-la]-ak-tam\n\ts\u00e1 dGis\n\t[a-na e-pi-is] da-na-ni-is-s\u00fa\n\n\n(About three lines missing.)\n\n\n\nCol. VI.\n\n(About four lines missing.)\n\n\n\tsar(?)-ha\n\tdGis ...\n\ti-na si-ri-[s\u00fa il-li-ka-am dEn-ki-du]\n\ti-ha-an-ni-ib [pi-ir-ta-s\u00fa]\n\tit-bi-ma [il-li-ik]\n\ta-na pa-ni-s\u00fa\n\tit-tam-ha-ru i-na ri-bi-tum ma-ti\n\tdEn-ki-du ba-ba-am ip-ta-ri-ik\n\ti-na si-pi-s\u00fa\n\tdGis e-ri-ba-am \u00fa-ul id-di-in\n\tis-sa-ab-tu-ma ki-ma li-i-im\n\ti-lu-du\n\tzi-ip-pa-am 'i-bu-tu\n\ti-ga-rum ir-tu-tu\n\tdGis \u00f9 dEn-ki-du\n\tis-sa-ab-tu-\u00fa-ma\n\tki-ma li-i-im i-lu-du\n\tzi-ip-pa-am 'i-bu-tu\n\ti-ga-rum ir-tu-t\u00fa\n\tik-mi-is-ma dGis\n\ti-na ga-ag-ga-ri si-ip-s\u00fa\n\tip-si-ih uz-za-s\u00fa-ma\n\ti-ni-ih i-ra-as-su\n\tis-tu i-ra-su i-ni-hu\n\tdEn-ki-du a-na s\u00e1-si-im\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na dGis\n\tki-ma is-te-en-ma um-ma-ka\n\t\u00fa-li-id-ka\n\tri-im-tum s\u00e1 su-pu-ri\n\tdNin-sun-na\n\tul-lu e-li mu-ti ri-es-ka\n\tsar-ru-t\u00fa s\u00e1 ni-si\n\ti-si-im-kum dEn-lil\n\t\tduppu 2 kam-ma\n\ts\u00fa-tu-ur e-li .....................\n\t\t4 s\u00fa-si\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATION.\n\n\nCol. I.\n\n\tGish sought to interpret the dream;\n\tSpoke to his mother:\n\t\"My mother, during my night\n\tI became strong and moved about\n\tamong the heroes;\n\tAnd from the starry heaven\n\tA meteor(?) of Anu fell upon me:\n\tI bore it and it grew heavy upon me,\n\tI became weak and its weight I could not endure.\n\tThe land of Erech gathered about it.\n\tThe heroes kissed its feet. [142]\n\tIt was raised up before me.\n\tThey stood me up. [143]\n\tI bore it and carried it to thee.\"\n\tThe mother of Gish, who knows all things,\n\tSpoke to Gish:\n\t\"Some one, O Gish, who like thee\n\tIn the field was born and\n\tWhom the mountain has reared,\n\tThou wilt see (him) and [like a woman(?)] thou wilt rejoice.\n\tHeroes will kiss his feet.\n\tThou wilt spare [him and wilt endeavor]\n\tTo lead him to me.\"\n\tHe slept and saw another\n\tDream, which he reported to his mother:\n\t[\"My mother,] I have seen another\n\t[Dream.] My likeness I have seen in the streets\n\t[Of Erech] of the plazas.\n\tAn axe was brandished, and\n\tThey gathered about him;\n\tAnd the axe made him angry.\n\tI saw him and I rejoiced,\n\tI loved him as a woman,\n\tI embraced him.\n\tI took him and regarded him\n\tAs my brother.\"\n\tThe mother of Gish, who knows all things,\n\t[Spoke to Gish]:\n\t[\"O Gish, the man whom thou sawest,]\n\t[Whom thou didst embrace like a woman].\n\n\nCol II.\n\n\t(means) that he is to be associated with thee.\"\n\tGish understood the dream.\n\t[As] Enki[du] was sitting before the woman,\n\t[Her] loins(?) he embraced, her vagina(?) he opened.\n\t[Enkidu] forgot the place where he was born.\n\tSix days and seven nights\n\tEnkidu continued\n\tTo cohabit with [the courtesan].\n\t[The woman] opened her [mouth] and\n\tSpoke to Enkidu:\n\t\"I gaze upon thee, O Enkidu, like a god art thou!\n\tWhy with the cattle\n\tDost thou [roam] across the field?\n\tCome, let me lead thee\n\tinto [Erech] of the plazas,\n\tto the holy house, the dwelling of Anu,\n\tO, Enkidu arise, let me conduct thee\n\tTo Eanna, the dwelling of Anu,\n\tThe place [where Gish is, perfect] in vitality.\n\tAnd thou [like a wife wilt embrace] him.\n\tThou [wilt love him like] thyself.\n\tCome, arise from the ground\n\t(that is) cursed.\"\n\tHe heard her word and accepted her speech.\n\tThe counsel of the woman\n\tEntered his heart.\n\tShe stripped off a garment,\n\tClothed him with one.\n\tAnother garment\n\tShe kept on herself.\n\tShe took hold of his hand.\n\tLike [a god(?)] she brought him\n\tTo the fertile meadow,\n\tThe place of the sheepfolds.\n\tIn that place they received food;\n\t[For he, Enkidu, whose birthplace was the mountain,]\n\t[With the gazelles he was accustomed to eat herbs,]\n\t[With the cattle to drink water,]\n\t[With the water beings he was happy.]\n\n\n(Perhaps one additional line missing.)\n\n\nCol. III.\n\n\tMilk of the cattle\n\tHe was accustomed to suck.\n\tFood they placed before him,\n\tHe broke (it) off and looked\n\tAnd gazed.\n\tEnkidu had not known\n\tTo eat food.\n\tTo drink wine\n\tHe had not been taught.\n\tThe woman opened her mouth and\n\tSpoke to Enkidu:\n\t\"Eat food, O Enkidu,\n\tThe provender of life!\n\tDrink wine, the custom of the land!\"\n\tEnkidu ate food\n\tTill he was satiated.\n\tWine he drank,\n\tSeven goblets.\n\tHis spirit was loosened, he became hilarious.\n\tHis heart became glad and\n\tHis face shone.\n\t[The barber(?)] removed\n\tThe hair on his body.\n\tHe was anointed with oil.\n\tHe became manlike.\n\tHe put on a garment,\n\tHe was like a man.\n\tHe took his weapon;\n\tLions he attacked,\n\t(so that) the night shepherds could rest.\n\tHe plunged the dagger;\n\tLions he overcame.\n\tThe great [shepherds] lay down;\n\tEnkidu was their protector.\n\tThe strong man,\n\tThe unique hero,\n\tTo [the shepherds(?)] he speaks:\n\n\n(About five lines missing.)\n\n\nCol. IV.\n\n(About eight lines missing.)\n\n\n\tMaking merry.\n\tHe lifted up his eyes,\n\tHe sees the man.\n\tHe spoke to the woman:\n\t\"O, courtesan, lure on the man.\n\tWhy has he come to me?\n\tHis name I will destroy.\"\n\tThe woman called to the man\n\tWho approaches to him [144] and he beholds him.\n\t\"Away! why dost thou [quake(?)]\n\tEvil is the course of thy activity.\" [145]\n\tThen he [146] opened his mouth and\n\tSpoke to Enkidu:\n\t\"[To have (?)] a family home\n\tIs the destiny of men, and\n\tThe prerogative(?) of the nobles.\n\tFor the city(?) load the workbaskets!\n\tFood supply for the city lay to one side!\n\tFor the King of Erech of the plazas,\n\tOpen the hymen(?), perform the marriage act!\n\tFor Gish, the King of Erech of the plazas,\n\tOpen the hymen(?),\n\tPerform the marriage act!\n\tWith the legitimate wife one should cohabit.\n\tSo before,\n\tAs well as in the future. [147]\n\tBy the decree pronounced by a god,\n\tFrom the cutting of his umbilical cord\n\t(Such) is his fate.\"\n\tAt the speech of the hero\n\tHis face grew pale.\n\n\n(About three lines missing.)\n\n\n\nCol. V.\n\n(About six lines missing.)\n\n\n\t[Enkidu] went [in front],\n\tAnd the courtesan behind him.\n\tHe entered into Erech of the plazas.\n\tThe people gathered about him.\n\tAs he stood in the streets\n\tOf Erech of the plazas,\n\tThe men gathered,\n\tSaying in regard to him:\n\t\"Like the form of Gish he has suddenly become;\n\tshorter in stature.\n\t[In his structure high(?)], powerful,\n\t.......... overseeing(?)\n\tIn the land strong of power has he become.\n\tMilk of cattle\n\tHe was accustomed to suck.\"\n\tSteadily(?) in Erech .....\n\tThe heroes rejoiced.\n\tHe became a leader.\n\tTo the hero of fine appearance,\n\tTo Gish, like a god,\n\tHe became a rival to him. [148]\n\tFor Ishhara a couch\n\tWas stretched, and\n\tGish [lay down, and afterwards(?)]\n\tIn the night he fled.\n\tHe approaches and\n\t[Enkidu stood] in the streets.\n\tHe blocked the path\n\tof Gish.\n\tAt the exhibit of his power,\n\n\n(About three lines missing.)\n\n\n\nCol. VI.\n\n(About four lines missing.)\n\n\n\tStrong(?) ...\n\tGish\n\tAgainst him [Enkidu proceeded],\n\t[His hair] luxuriant.\n\tHe started [to go]\n\tTowards him.\n\tThey met in the plaza of the district.\n\tEnkidu blocked the gate\n\tWith his foot,\n\tNot permitting Gish to enter.\n\tThey seized (each other), like oxen,\n\tThey fought.\n\tThe threshold they demolished;\n\tThe wall they impaired.\n\tGish and Enkidu\n\tSeized (each other).\n\tLike oxen they fought.\n\tThe threshold they demolished;\n\tThe wall they impaired.\n\tGish bent\n\tHis foot to the ground, [149]\n\tHis wrath was appeased,\n\tHis breast was quieted.\n\tWhen his breast was quieted,\n\tEnkidu to him\n\tSpoke, to Gish:\n\t\"As a unique one, thy mother\n\tbore thee.\n\tThe wild cow of the stall, [150]\n\tNinsun,\n\tHas exalted thy head above men.\n\tKingship over men\n\tEnlil has decreed for thee.\n\tSecond tablet,\n\tenlarged beyond [the original(?)].\n\t240 lines.\n\n\n\n\n\nCOMMENTARY ON THE PENNSYLVANIA TABLET.\n\n\nLine 1. The verb _tib\u00fb_ with _pas\u00e2ru_ expresses the aim of Gish to\nsecure an interpretation for his dream. This disposes of Langdon's\nnote 1 on page 211 of his edition, in which he also erroneously speaks\nof our text as \"late.\" _Pas\u00e2ru_ is not a variant of _zak\u00e2ru_. Both\nverbs occur just as here in the Assyrian version I, 5, 25.\n\nLine 3. _ina s\u00e2t musitia_, \"in this my night,\" i.e., in the course of\nthis night of mine. A curious way of putting it, but the expression\noccurs also in the Assyrian version, e.g., I, 5, 26 (parallel passage\nto ours) and II, 4a, 14. In the Yale tablet we find, similarly,\n_mu-si-it-ka_ (l. 262), \"thy night,\" i.e., \"at night to thee.\"\n\nLine 5. Before Langdon put down the strange statement of Gish\n\"wandering about in the midst of omens\" (misreading _id-da-tim _\nfor _it-lu-tim_), he might have asked himself the question, what it\ncould possibly mean. How can one walk among omens?\n\nLine 6. _ka-ka-bu s\u00e1-ma-i_ must be taken as a compound term for\n\"starry heaven.\" The parallel passage in the Assyrian version (Tablet\nI, 5, 27) has the ideograph for star, with the plural sign as a\nvariant. Literally, therefore, \"The starry heaven (or \"the stars in\nheaven\") was there,\" etc. Langdon's note 2 on page 211 rests on an\nerroneous reading.\n\nLine 7. _kisru s\u00e1 Anim_, \"mass of Anu,\" appears to be the designation\nof a meteor, which might well be described as a \"mass\" coming from Anu,\ni.e., from the god of heaven who becomes the personification of the\nheavens in general. In the Assyrian version (I, 5, 28) we have _kima\nki-is-r\u00f9_, i.e., \"something like a mass of heaven.\" Note also I, 3,\n16, where in a description of Gilgamesh, his strength is said to be\n\"strong like a mass (i.e., a meteor) of heaven.\"\n\nLine 9. For _nussasu \u00fbl ilt\u00ea_ we have a parallel in the Hebrew phrase\nNLE'ETIY NS' (Isaiah 1, 14).\n\nLine 10. _Uruk m\u00e2tum_, as the designation for the district of Erech,\noccurs in the Assyrian version, e.g., I, 5, 31, and IV, 2, 38; also\nto be supplied, I, 6, 23.\n\nFor _pahir_ the parallel in the Assyrian version has _iz-za-az_\n(I, 5, 31), but VI, 197, we find _pah-ru_ and _pah-ra_.\n\nLine 17. _mi-in-di_ does not mean \"truly\" as Langdon translates,\nbut \"some one.\" It occurs also in the Assyrian version X, 1, 13,\n_mi-in-di-e ma-an-nu-u_, \"this is some one who,\" etc.\n\nLine 18. Cf. Assyrian version I, 5, 3, and IV, 4, 7, _ina siri\n\u00e2lid_--both passages referring to Enkidu.\n\nLine 21. Cf. Assyrian version II, 3b, 38, with _malk\u00ea_, \"kings,\"\nas a synonym of _itlutum_.\n\nLine 23. _ta-tar-ra-as-s\u00fa_ from _tar\u00e2su_,  \"direct,\" \"guide,\" etc.\n\nLine 24. I take _us-ti-nim-ma_ as III, 2, from _is\u00eanu_ (YOSEN),\nthe verb underlying _sittu_, \"sleep,\" and _suttu_, \"dream.\"\n\nLine 26. Cf. Assyrian version I, 6, 21--a complete parallel.\n\nLine 28. _Uruk ri-bi-tim_, the standing phrase in both tablets of\nthe old Babylonian version, for which in the Assyrian version we\nhave _Uruk su-pu-ri_. The former term suggests the \"broad space\"\noutside of the city or the \"common\" in a village community,\nwhile _sup\u00fbri_, \"enclosed,\" would refer to the city within the\nwalls. Dr. W. F. Albright (in a private communication) suggests \"Erech\nof the plazas\" as a suitable translation for _Uruk rib\u00eetim_. A third\nterm, _Uruk m\u00e2tum_ (see above, note to line 10), though designating\nrather the district of which Erech was the capital, appears to be\nused as a synonym to _Uruk rib\u00eetim_, as may be concluded from the\nphrase _i-na ri-bi-tum ma-ti_ (l. 214 of the Pennsylvania tablet),\nwhich clearly means the \"plaza\" of the city. One naturally thinks of\nREHOBOT `IYR in Genesis 10, 11--the equivalent of Babylonian _ri-bi-tu\n\u00e2li_--which can hardly be the name of a city. It appears to be a\ngloss, as is HIY' HO`IYR HAGEDOLOH at the end of v. 12. The latter\ngloss is misplaced, since it clearly describes \"Nineveh,\" mentioned\nin v. 11. Inasmuch as REHOBOT `IYR immediately follows the mention\nof Nineveh, it seems simplest to take the phrase as designating the\n\"outside\" or \"suburbs\" of the city, a complete parallel, therefore,\nto _ri-bi-tu m\u00e2ti_ in our text. Nineveh, together with the \"suburbs,\"\nforms the \"great city.\" _Uruk rib\u00eetim_ is, therefore, a designation\nfor \"greater Erech,\" proper to a capital city, which by its gradual\ngrowth would take in more than its original confines. \"Erech of the\nplazas\" must have come to be used as a honorific designation of this\nimportant center as early as 2000 B. C., whereas later, perhaps\nbecause of its decline, the epithet no longer seemed appropriate\nand was replaced by the more modest designation of \"walled Erech,\"\nwith an allusion to the tradition which ascribed the building of the\nwall of the city to Gilgamesh. At all events, all three expressions,\n\"Erech of the plazas,\" \"Erech walled\" and \"Erech land,\" are to be\nregarded as synonymous. The position once held by Erech follows also\nfrom its ideographic designation (Br\u00fcnnow No. 4796) by the sign \"house\"\nwith a \"gunufied\" extension, which conveys the idea of Unu = _subtu_,\nor \"dwelling\" _par excellence_. The pronunciation Unug or Unuk (see\nthe gloss _u-nu-uk_, VR 23, 8a), composed of _unu_, \"dwelling,\" and\n_ki_, \"place,\" is hardly to be regarded as older than Uruk, which is\nto be resolved into _uru_, \"city,\" and _ki_, \"place,\" but rather as\na play upon the name, both Unu + ki and Uru + ki conveying the same\nidea of _the_ city or _the_ dwelling place _par excellence_. As the\nseat of the second oldest dynasty according to Babylonian traditions\n(see Poebel's list in _Historical and Grammatical Texts_ No. 2),\nErech no doubt was regarded as having been at one time \"the city,\"\ni.e., the capital of the entire Euphrates Valley.\n\nLine 31. A difficult line for which Langdon proposes the translation:\n\"Another axe seemed his visage\"!!--which may be picturesque, but\nhardly a description befitting a hero. How can a man's face seem\nto be an axe? Langdon attaches _s\u00e1-ni_ in the sense of \"second\"\nto the preceding word \"axe,\" whereas _san\u00ee bunusu_, \"change of his\ncountenance\" or \"his countenance being changed,\" is to be taken as\na phrase to convey the idea of \"being disturbed,\" \"displeased\" or\n\"angry.\" The phrase is of the same kind as the well-known _sunnu\nt\u00eamu_, \"changing of reason,\" to denote \"insanity.\" See the passages\nin Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, pp. 355 and 1068. In Hebrew,\ntoo, we have the same two phrases, e.g., VAYESANOV 'ETTA`EMOV\n(I Sam. 21, 14 = Ps. 34, 1), \"and he changed his reason,\" i.e.,\nfeigned insanity and MESANEH PONOYV (Job 14, 20), \"changing his\nface,\" to indicate a radical alteration in the frame of mind. There\nis a still closer parallel in Biblical Aramaic: Dan. 3, 19, \"The form\nof his visage was changed,\" meaning \"he was enraged.\" Fortunately,\nthe same phrase occurs also in the Yale tablet (l. 192), _s\u00e1-nu-\u00fa\nbu-nu-s\u00fa_, in a connection which leaves no doubt that the aroused\nfury of the tyrant Huwawa is described by it:\n\n\n\t\"Huwawa heard and his face was changed\"\n\n\nprecisely, therefore, as we should say--following Biblical usage--\"his\ncountenance fell.\" Cf. also the phrase _p\u00e2nusu arpu_, \"his countenance\nwas darkened\" (Assyrian version I, 2, 48), to express \"anger.\" The\nline, therefore, in the Pennsylvania tablet must describe Enkidu's\nanger. With the brandishing of the axe the hero's anger was also\nstirred up. The touch was added to prepare us for the continuation\nin which Gish describes how, despite this (or perhaps just because\nof it), Enkidu seemed so attractive that Gish instantly fell in love\nwith him. May perhaps the emphatic form _hasinumma_ (line 31) against\n_hasinu_ (line 29) have been used to indicate \"The axe it was,\" or\n\"because of the axe?\" It would be worth while to examine other texts\nof the Hammurabi period with a view of determining the scope in the\nuse and meaning of the emphatic _ma_ when added to a substantive.\n\nLine 32. The combination _amur \u00f9 ahtadu_ occurs also in the El-Amarna\nLetters, No. 18, 12.\n\nLine 34. In view of the common Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic Hobab \"to\nlove,\" it seems preferable to read here, as in the other passages in\nthe Assyrian versions (I, 4, 15; 4, 35; 6, 27, etc.), _a-ha-ab-bu-ub_,\n_ah-bu-ub_, _ih-bu-bu_, etc. (instead of with _p_), and to render\n\"embrace.\"\n\nLines 38-40, completing the column, may be supplied from the Assyrian\nversion I, 6, 30-32, in conjunction with lines 33-34 of our text. The\nbeginning of line 32 in Jensen's version is therefore to be filled\nout _[ta-ra-am-s\u00fa ki]-i_.\n\nLine 43. The restoration at the beginning of this line\n\n\n\t_En-ki-[du wa]-si-ib ma-har ha-ri-im-tim_\n\n\nenables us to restore also the beginning of the second tablet of\nthe Assyrian version (cf. the colophon of the fragment 81, 7-27, 93,\nin Jeremias, _Izdubar-Nimrod_, plate IV = Jensen, p. 134),\n\n\n\t_[d_En-ki-du wa-si-ib] ma-har-s\u00e1.\n\n\nLine 44. The restoration of this line is largely conjectural, based\non the supposition that its contents correspond in a general way to I,\n4, 16, of the Assyrian version. The reading _di-da_ is quite certain,\nas is also _ip-ti-[e]_; and since both words occur in the line of the\nAssyrian version in question, it is tempting to supply at the beginning\n_ur-[s\u00e1]_ = \"her loins\" (cf. Holma, _Namen der K\u00f6rperteile_, etc.,\np. 101), which is likewise found in the same line of the Assyrian\nversion. At all events the line describes the fascination exercised\nupon Enkidu by the woman's bodily charms, which make him forget\neverything else.\n\nLines 46-47 form a parallel to I, 4, 21, of the Assyrian version. The\nform _samkatu_, \"courtesan,\" is constant in the old Babylonian version\n(ll. 135 and 172), as against _samhatu_ in the Assyrian version (I,\n3, 19, 40, 45; 4, 16), which also uses the plural _sam-ha-a-ti_ (II,\n3b, 40). The interchange between _h_ and _k_ is not without precedent\n(cf. Meissner, _Altbabylonisches Privatrecht_, page 107, note 2,\nand more particularly Chiera, _List of Personal Names_, page 37).\n\nIn view of the evidence, set forth in the Introduction, for the\nassumption that the Enkidu story has been combined with a tale of the\nevolution of primitive man to civilized life, it is reasonable to\nsuggest that in the original Enkidu story the female companion was\ncalled _samkatu_, \"courtesan,\" whereas in the tale of the primitive\nman, which was transferred to Enkidu, the associate was _harimtu_, a\n\"woman,\" just as in the Genesis tale, the companion of Adam is simply\ncalled _ishsh\u00e2_, \"woman.\" Note that in the Assyrian parallel (Tablet I,\n4, 26) we have two readings, _ir-hi_ (imperf.) and a variant _i-ri-hi_\n(present). The former is the better reading, as our tablet shows.\n\nLines 49-59 run parallel to the Assyrian version I, 4, 33-38,\nwith slight variations which have been discussed above, p. 58, and\nfrom which we may conclude that the Assyrian version represents an\nindependent redaction. Since in our tablet we have presumably the\nrepetition of what may have been in part at least set forth in the\nfirst tablet of the old Babylonian version, we must not press the\nparallelism with the first tablet of the Assyrian version too far;\nbut it is noticeable nevertheless (1) that our tablet contains lines\n57-58 which are not represented in the Assyrian version, and (2) that\nthe second speech of the \"woman\" beginning, line 62, with _al-ka_,\n\"come\" (just as the first speech, line 54), is likewise not found\nin the first tablet of the Assyrian version; which on the other\nhand contains a line (39) not in the Babylonian version, besides\nthe detailed answer of Enkidu (I 4, 42-5, 5). Line 6, which reads\n\"Enkidu and the woman went (_il-li-ku_) to walled Erech,\" is also\nnot found in the second tablet of the old Babylonian version.\n\nLine 63. For _magr\u00fb_, \"accursed,\" see the frequent use in Astrological\ntexts (Jastrow, _Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens_ II, page 450, note\n2). Langdon, by his strange error in separating _ma-a-ag-ri-im_ into\ntwo words _ma-a-ak_ and _ri-i-im_, with a still stranger rendering:\n\"unto the place yonder of the shepherds!!\", naturally misses the\npoint of this important speech.\n\nLine 64 corresponds to I, 4, 40, of the Assyrian version, which has\nan additional line, leading to the answer of Enkidu. From here on,\nour tablet furnishes material not represented in the Assyrian version,\nbut which was no doubt included in the second tablet of that version\nof which we have only a few fragments.\n\nLine 70 must be interpreted as indicating that the woman kept one\ngarment for herself. _Ittalbas_ would accordingly mean, \"she kept\non.\" The female dress appears to have consisted of an upper and a\nlower garment.\n\nLine 72. The restoration \"like a god\" is favored by line 51, where\nEnkidu is likened to a god, and is further confirmed by l. 190.\n\nLine 73. _gupru_ is identical with _gu-up-ri_ (Thompson, _Reports of\nthe Magicians and Astrologers_, etc., 223 rev. 2 and 223a rev. 8), and\nmust be correlated to _gip\u00e2ru_ (Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_,\np. 229a), \"planted field,\" \"meadow,\" and the like. Thompson's\ntranslation \"men\" (as though a synonym of _gabru_) is to be corrected\naccordingly.\n\nLine 74. There is nothing missing between _a-sar_ and _tar-ba-si-im_.\n\nLine 75. _ri-ia-\u00fa_, which Langdon renders \"shepherd,\" is the\nequivalent of the Arabic _ri'y_ and Hebrew RE`IY \"pasturage,\"\n\"fodder.\" We have usually the feminine form _ri-i-tu_ (Muss-Arnolt,\n_Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 990b). The break at the end of the second\ncolumn is not serious. Evidently Enkidu, still accustomed to live\nlike an animal, is first led to the sheepfolds, and this suggests\na repetition of the description of his former life. Of the four or\nfive lines missing, we may conjecturally restore four, on the basis\nof the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2-5, or I, 2, 39-41. This would\nthen join on well to the beginning of column 3.\n\nLine 81. Both here and in l. 52 our text has _na-ma-\u00e1s-te-e_, as\nagainst _nam-mas-si-i_ in the Assyrian version, e.g., Tablet I,\n2, 41; 4, 5, etc.,--the feminine form, therefore, as against the\nmasculine. Langdon's note 3 on page 213 is misleading. In astrological\ntexts we also find _nam-mas-te_; e.g., Thompson, _Reports of the\nMagicians and Astrologers_, etc., No. 200, Obv. 2.\n\nLine 93. _zi-ma-at_ (for _simat_) _ba-la-ti-im_ is not \"conformity of\nlife\" as Langdon renders, but that which \"belongs to life\" like _si-mat\npag-ri-s\u00e1_, \"belonging to her body,\" in the Assyrian version III, 2a,\n3 (Jensen, page 146). \"Food,\" says the woman, \"is the staff of life.\"\n\nLine 94. Langdon's strange rendering \"of the conditions and fate\nof the land\" rests upon an erroneous reading (see the corrections,\nAppendix I), which is the more inexcusable because in line 97 the same\nideogram, K\u00e0s = _sikaru_, \"wine,\" occurs, and is correctly rendered\nby him. _Simti m\u00e2ti_ is not the \"fate of the land,\" but the \"fixed\ncustom of the land.\"\n\nLine 98. _as-sa-mi-im_ (plural of _assamu_), which Langdon takes as\nan adverb in the sense of \"times,\" is a well-known word for a large\n\"goblet,\" which occurs in Incantation texts, e.g., _CT_ XVI, 24,\nobv. 1, 19, _m\u00ea a-sa-am-mi-e s\u00fa-puk_, \"pour out goblets of water.\" Line\n18 of the passage shoves that _asammu_ is a Sumerian loan word.\n\nLine 99. _it-tap-sar_, I, 2, from _pas\u00e2ru_, \"loosen.\" In combination\nwith _kabtatum_ (from _kabitatum_, yielding two forms: _kabtatum_, by\nelision of _i_, and _kabittu_, by elision of _a_), \"liver,\" _pas\u00e2ru_\nhas the force of becoming cheerful. Cf. _ka-bit-ta-ki lip-pa-sir_\n(_ZA_ V., p. 67, line 14).\n\nLine 100, note the customary combination of \"liver\" (_kabtatum_)\nand \"heart\" (_libbu_) for \"disposition\" and \"mind,\" just as in the\nstanding phrase in penitential prayers: \"May thy liver be appeased,\nthy heart be quieted.\"\n\nLine 102. The restoration [l\u00f9S\u00da]-I = _gallabu_ \"barber\" (Delitzsch,\n_Sumer. Glossar_, p. 267) was suggested to me by Dr. H. F. Lutz. The\nideographic writing \"raising the hand\" is interesting as recalling the\ngesture of shaving or cutting. Cf. a reference to a barber in Lutz,\n_Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa_, No. 109, 6.\n\nLine 103. Langdon has correctly rendered _suhuru_ as \"hair,\" and\nhas seen that we have here a loan-word from the Sumerian Suhur =\n_kimmatu_, \"hair,\" according to the Syllabary Sb 357 (cf. Delitzsch,\n_Sumer. Glossar._, p. 253). For _kimmatu_, \"hair,\" more specifically\nhair of the head and face, see Holma, _Namen der K\u00f6rperteile_,\npage 3. The same sign Suhur or Suh (Br\u00fcnnow No. 8615), with Lal,\ni.e., \"hanging hair,\" designates the \"beard\" (_ziknu_, cf. Br\u00fcnnow,\nNo. 8620, and Holma, l. c., p. 36), and it is interesting to note\nthat we have _suhuru_ (introduced as a loan-word) for the barbershop,\naccording to II R, 21, 27c (= _CT_ XII, 41).\n\n\n\t\u00ca suhur(ra) (i.e., house of the hair) = _s\u00fa-hu-ru_.\n\n\nIn view of all this, we may regard as assured Holma's conjecture to\nread _s\u00fa-[hur-ma-s\u00fa]_ in the list 93074 obv. (_MVAG_ 1904, p. 203; and\nHolma, _Beitr\u00e4ge z. Assyr. Lexikon_, p. 36), as the Akkadian equivalent\nto Suhur-Mas-Ha and the name of a fish, so called because it appeared\nto have a double \"beard\" (cf. Holma, _Namen der K\u00f6rperteile_). One is\ntempted, furthermore, to see in the difficult word SKYRH (Isaiah 7,\n20) a loan-word from our _suhuru_, and to take the words 'ETHORO'S\nVESA`AR HORAGELAYIM \"the head and hair of the feet\" (euphemistic\nfor the hair around the privates), as an explanatory gloss to the rare\nword Skyrh for \"hair\" of the body in general--just as in the passage\nin the Pennsylvania tablet. The verse in Isaiah would then read,\n\"The Lord on that day will shave with the razor the hair (HSKYRH),\nand even the beard will be removed.\" The rest of the verse would\nrepresent a series of explanatory glosses: (a) \"Beyond the river\"\n(i.e., Assyria), a gloss to YEGALAH (b) \"with the king of Assyria,\"\na gloss to BETA`AR \"with a razor;\" and (c) \"the hair of the head and\nhair of the feet,\" a gloss to HSKYRH. For \"hair of the feet\" we have an\ninteresting equivalent in Babylonian _su-hur_ (and _s\u00fa-hu-ur_) _s\u00eapi_\n(_CT_ XII, 41, 23-24 c-d). Cf. also Boissier, _Documents Assyriens\nrelatifs aux Pr\u00e9sages_, p. 258, 4-5. The Babylonian phrase is like the\nHebrew one to be interpreted as a euphemism for the hair around the\nmale or female organ. To be sure, the change from H to K in HSKYRH\nconstitutes an objection, but not a serious one in the case of a\nloan-word, which would aim to give the _pronunciation_ of the original\nword, rather than the correct etymological equivalent. The writing with\naspirated K fulfills this condition. (Cf. _samkatum_ and _samhatum_,\nabove p. 73). The passage in Isaiah being a reference to Assyria,\nthe prophet might be tempted to use a foreign word to make his point\nmore emphatic. To take HSKYRH as \"hired,\" as has hitherto been done,\nand to translate \"with a hired razor,\" is not only to suppose a very\nwooden metaphor, but is grammatically difficult, since HSKYRH would\nbe a feminine adjective attached to a masculine substantive.\n\nComing back to our passage in the Pennsylvania tablet, it is to be\nnoted that Enkidu is described as covered \"all over his body with hair\"\n(Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 36) like an animal. To convert him\ninto a civilized man, the hair is removed.\n\nLine 107. _mutu_ does not mean \"husband\" here, as Langdon supposes,\nbut must be taken as in l. 238 in the more general sense of \"man,\"\nfor which there is good evidence.\n\nLine 109. _la-bi_ (plural form) are \"lions\"--not \"panthers\" as Langdon\nhas it. The verb _\u00fa-gi-ir-ri_ is from _g\u00e2ru_, \"to attack.\" Langdon by\nseparating _\u00fa_ from _gi-ir-ri_ gets a totally wrong and indeed absurd\nmeaning. See the corrections in the Appendix. He takes the sign _\u00fa_\nfor the copula (!!) which of course is impossible.\n\nLine 110. Read _us-sa-ak-pu_, III, 1, of _sak\u00e2pu_, which is frequently\nused for \"lying down\" and is in fact a synonym of _sal\u00e2lu_. See\nMuss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, page 758a. The original has very\nclearly S\u00edb (= _r\u00ea'u_, \"shepherd\") with the plural sign. The \"shepherds\nof the night,\" who could now rest since Enkidu had killed the lions,\nare of course the shepherds who were accustomed to watch the flocks\nduring the night.\n\nLine 111. _ut-tap-pi-is_ is II, 2, _nap\u00e2su_, \"to make a hole,\" hence\n\"to plunge\" in connection with a weapon. _Sib-ba-ri_ is, of course,\nnot \"mountain goats,\" as Langdon renders, but a by-form to _sibbiru_,\n\"stick,\" and designates some special weapon. Since on seal cylinders\ndepicting Enkidu killing lions and other animals the hero is armed\nwith a dagger, this is presumably the weapon _sibbaru_.\n\nLine 113. Langdon's translation is again out of the question and\npurely fanciful. The traces favor the restoration _na-ki-[di-e]_,\n\"shepherds,\" and since the line appears to be a parallel to line 110,\nI venture to suggest at the beginning _[it-ti]-lu_ from _na'\u00e2lu_, \"lie\ndown\"--a synonym, therefore, to _sak\u00e2pu_ in line 110. The shepherds can\nsleep quietly after Enkidu has become the \"guardian\" of the flocks. In\nthe Assyrian version (tablet II, 3a, 4) Enkidu is called a _na-kid_,\n\"shepherd,\" and in the preceding line we likewise have l\u00f9Na-Kid with\nthe plural sign, i.e., \"shepherds.\" This would point to _nakidu_\nbeing a Sumerian loan-word, unless it is _vice versa_, a word that has\ngone over into the Sumerian from Akkadian. Is perhaps the fragment\nin question (K 8574) in the Assyrian version (Haupt's ed. No. 25)\nthe _parallel_ to our passage? If in line 4 of this fragment we could\nread _s\u00fa_ for _sa_, i.e., _na-kid-s\u00fa-nu_, \"their shepherd, we would\nhave a parallel to line 114 of the Pennsylvania tablet, with _na-kid_\nas a synonym to _massaru_, \"protector.\" The preceding line would then\nbe completed as follows:\n\n\n\t_[it-ti-lu]-nim-ma na-kidmes_ [ra-bu-tum]\n\n\n(or perhaps only _it-ti-lu-ma_, since the _nim_ is not certain) and\nwould correspond to line 113 of the Pennsylvania tablet. Inasmuch\nas the writing on the tiny fragment is very much blurred, it is\nquite possible that in line 2 we must read _sib-ba-ri_ (instead\nof _bar-ba-ri_), which would furnish a parallel to line 111 of the\nPennsylvania tablet. The difference between Bar and Sib is slight,\nand the one sign might easily be mistaken for the other in the case\nof close writing. The continuation of line 2 of the fragment would\nthen correspond to line 112 of the Pennsylvania tablet, while line 1\nof the fragment might be completed _[re-e]-u-ti(?) s\u00e1 [mu-si-a-tim]_,\nthough this is by no means certain.\n\nThe break at the close of column 3 (about 5 lines) and the top\nof column 4 (about 8 lines) is a most serious interruption in the\nnarrative, and makes it difficult to pick up the thread where the\ntablet again becomes readable. We cannot be certain whether the \"strong\nman, the unique hero\" who addresses some one (lines 115-117) is Enkidu\nor Gish or some other personage, but presumably Gish is meant. In the\nAssyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 2 and 29, we find Gilgamesh described\nas the \"unique hero\" and in l. 234 of the Pennsylvania tablet Gish\nis called \"unique,\" while again, in the Assyrian version, Tablet I,\n2, 15 and 26, he is designated as _gasru_ as in our text. Assuming\nthis, whom does he address? Perhaps the shepherds? In either case\nhe receives an answer that rejoices him. If the fragment of the\nAssyrian version (K 8574) above discussed is the equivalent to the\nclose of column 3 of the Pennsylvania tablet, we may go one step\nfurther, and with some measure of assurance assume that Gish is told\nof Enkidu's exploits and that the latter is approaching Erech. This\npleases Gish, but Enkidu when he sees Gish(?) is stirred to anger and\nwants to annihilate him. At this point, the \"man\" (who is probably\nGish, though the possibility of a third personage must be admitted)\nintervenes and in a long speech sets forth the destiny and higher aims\nof mankind. The contrast between Enkidu and Gish (or the third party)\nis that between the primitive savage and the civilized being. The\ncontrast is put in the form of an opposition between the two. The\nprimitive man is the stronger and wishes to destroy the one whom he\nregards as a natural foe and rival. On the other hand, the one who\nstands on a higher plane wants to lift his fellow up. The whole of\ncolumn 4, therefore, forms part of the lesson attached to the story\nof Enkidu, who, identified with man in a primitive stage, is made the\nmedium of illustrating how the higher plane is reached through the\nguiding influences of the woman's hold on man, an influence exercised,\nto be sure, with the help of her bodily charms.\n\nLine 135. _uk-ki-si_ (imperative form) does not mean \"take away,\" as\nLangdon (who entirely misses the point of the whole passage) renders,\nbut on the contrary, \"lure him on,\" \"entrap him,\" and the like. The\nverb occurs also in the Yale tablet, ll. 183 and 186.\n\nLine 137. Langdon's note to _lu-us-s\u00fa_ had better be passed over in\nsilence. The form is II. 1, from _es\u00fb_, \"destroy.\"\n\nLine 139. Since the man whom the woman calls approaches Enkidu, the\nsubject of both verbs is the man, and the object is Enkidu; i.e.,\ntherefore, \"The man approaches Enkidu and beholds him.\"\n\nLine 140. Langdon's interpretation of this line again is purely\nfanciful. _E-di-il_ cannot, of course, be a \"phonetic variant\"\nof _edir_; and certainly the line does not describe the state of\nmind of the woman. Lines 140-141 are to be taken as an expression\nof amazement at Enkidu's appearance. The first word appears to be\nan imperative in the sense of \"Be off,\" \"Away,\" from _d\u00e2lu_, \"move,\nroam.\" The second word _e-es_, \"why,\" occurs with the same verb _d\u00e2lu_\nin the Meissner fragment: _e-es ta-da-al_ (column 3, 1), \"why dost thou\nroam about?\" The verb at the end of the line may perhaps be completed\nto _ta-hi-il-la-am_. The last sign appears to be _am_, but may be _ma_,\nin which case we should have to complete simply _ta-hi-il-ma_. _Tah\u00eel_\nwould be the second person present of _h\u00eelu_. Cf. _i-hi-il_, frequently\nin astrological texts, e.g., Virolleaud, _Adad_ No. 3, lines 21 and 33.\n\nLine 141. The reading _lim-nu_ at the beginning, instead of Langdon's\n_mi-nu_, is quite certain, as is also _ma-na-ah-ti-ka_ instead of\nwhat Langdon proposes, which gives no sense whatever. _Manahtu_ in\nthe sense of the \"toil\" and \"activity of life\" (like `OMOL throughout\nthe Book of Ecclesiastes) occurs in the introductory lines to the\nAssyrian version of the Epic I, 1, 8, _ka-lu ma-na-ah-ti-[su]_,\n\"all of his toil,\" i.e., all of his career.\n\nLine 142. The subject of the verb cannot be the woman, as Langdon\nsupposes, for the text in that case, e.g., line 49, would have said\n_pi-s\u00e1_ (\"her mouth\") not _pi-s\u00fa_ (\"his mouth\"). The long speech,\ndetailing the function and destiny of civilized man, is placed in\nthe mouth of the man who meets Enkidu.\n\nIn the Introduction it has been pointed out that lines 149 and 151\nof the speech appear to be due to later modifications of the speech\ndesigned to connect the episode with Gish. Assuming this to be the\ncase, the speech sets forth the following five distinct aims of\nhuman life: (1) establishing a home (line 144), (2) work (line 147),\n(3) storing up resources (line 148), (4) marriage (line 150), (5)\nmonogamy (line 154); all of which is put down as established for all\ntime by divine decree (lines 155-157), and as man's fate from his birth\n(lines 158-159).\n\nLine 144. _bi-ti-is e-mu-ti_ is for _b\u00eeti s\u00e1 e-mu-ti_, just as\n_kab-lu-us Ti-a-ma-ti_ (Assyrian Creation Myth, IV, 65) stands for\n_kablu s\u00e1 Tiamti_. Cf. _b\u00eet e-mu-ti_ (Assyrian version, IV, 2, 46\nand 48). The end of the line is lost beyond recovery, but the general\nsense is clear.\n\nLine 146. _tu-a-ar_ is a possible reading. It may be the construct\nof _tu-a-ru_, of frequent occurrence in legal texts and having some\nsuch meaning as \"right,\" \"claim\" or \"prerogative.\" See the passages\ngiven by Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 1139b.\n\nLine 148. The reading _uk-la-at_, \"food,\" and then in the wider\nsense \"food supply,\" \"provisions,\" is quite certain. The fourth sign\nlooks like the one for \"city.\" _E-mi-sa_ may stand for _e-mid-sa_,\n\"place it.\" The general sense of the line, at all events, is clear, as\ngiving the advice to gather resources. It fits in with the Babylonian\noutlook on life to regard work and wealth as the fruits of work and\nas a proper purpose in life.\n\nLine 150 (repeated lines 152-153) is a puzzling line. To render _piti\np\u00fbk epsi_ (or _episi_), as Langdon proposes, \"open, addressing thy\nspeech,\" is philologically and in every other respect inadmissible. The\nword _pu-uk_ (which Langdon takes for \"thy mouth\"!!) can, of course,\nbe nothing but the construct form of _pukku_, which occurs in the\nAssyrian version in the sense of \"net\" (_pu-uk-ku_ I, 2, 9 and\n21, and also in the colophon to the eleventh tablet furnishing the\nbeginning of the twelfth tablet (Haupt's edition No. 56), as well as\nin column 2, 29, and column 3, 6, of this twelfth tablet). In the two\nlast named passages _pukku_ is a synonym of _mek\u00fb_, which from the\ngeneral meaning of \"enclosure\" comes to be a euphemistic expression\nfor the female organ. So, for example, in the Assyrian Creation Myth,\nTablet IV, 66 (synonym of _kablu_, \"waist,\" etc.). See Holma, _Namen\nder K\u00f6rperteile_, page 158. Our word _pukku_ must be taken in this same\nsense as a designation of the female organ--perhaps more specifically\nthe \"hymen\" as the \"net,\" though the womb in general might also be\ndesignated as a \"net\" or \"enclosure.\" _Kak-(si)_ is no doubt to be\nread _epsi_, as Langdon correctly saw; or perhaps better, _episi_. An\nexpression like _ip-si-s\u00fa lul-la-a_ (Assyrian version, I, 4, 13;\nalso line 19, _i-pu-us-su-ma lul-la-a_), with the explanation _sipir\nzinnisti_, \"the work of woman\" (i.e., after the fashion of woman),\nshows that _ep\u00easu_ is used in connection with the sexual act. The\nphrase _pit\u00ee p\u00fbk episi a-na ha-a-a-ri_, literally \"open the net,\nperform the act for marriage,\" therefore designates the fulfillment\nof the marriage act, and the line is intended to point to marriage\nwith the accompanying sexual intercourse as one of the duties of\nman. While the general meaning is thus clear, the introduction of\nGish is puzzling, except on the supposition that lines 149 and 151\nrepresent later additions to connect the speech, detailing the advance\nto civilized life, with the hero. See above, p. 45 _seq._\n\nLine 154. _assat sim\u00e2tim_ is the \"legitimate wife,\" and the line\ninculcates monogamy as against promiscuous sexual intercourse. We know\nthat monogamy was the rule in Babylonia, though a man could in addition\nto the wife recognized as the legalized spouse take a concubine, or\nhis wife could give her husband a slave as a concubine. Even in that\ncase, according to the Hammurabi Code, \u00a7\u00a7145-146, the wife retained\nher status. The Code throughout assumes that a man has only _one_\nwife--the _assat sim\u00e2tim_ of our text. The phrase \"so\" (or \"that\")\nbefore \"as afterwards\" is to be taken as an idiomatic expression--\"so\nit was and so it should be for all times\"--somewhat like the phrase\n_mahriam \u00f9 arkiam_, \"for all times,\" in legal documents (_CT_ VIII,\n38c, 22-23). For the use of _m\u00fbk_ see Behrens, _Assyrisch-Babylonische\nBriefe_, p. 3.\n\nLine 158. _i-na bi-ti-ik a-bu-un-na-ti-s\u00fa_. Another puzzling line,\nfor which Langdon proposes \"in the work of his presence,\" which is\nas obscure as the original. In a note he says that _apunn\u00e2ti_ means\n\"nostrils,\" which is certainly wrong. There has been considerable\ndiscussion about this term (see Holma, _Namen der K\u00f6rperteile_,\npages 150 and 157), the meaning of which has been advanced by\nChristian's discussion in _OLZ_ 1914, p. 397. From this it appears\nthat it must designate a part of the body which could acquire a wider\nsignificance so as to be used as a synonym for \"totality,\" since it\nappears in a list of equivalent for Dur = _nap-ha-ru_, \"totality,\"\n_ka-lu-ma_, \"all,\" _a-bu-un-na-tum e-si-im-tum_, \"bony structure,\" and\n_kul-la-tum_, \"totality\" (_CT_ XII, 10, 7-10). Christian shows that\nit may be the \"navel,\" which could well acquire a wider significance\nfor the body in general; but we may go a step further and specify\nthe \"umbilical cord\" (tentatively suggested also by Christian) as\nthe primary meaning, then the \"navel,\" and from this the \"body\" in\ngeneral. The structure of the umbilical cord as a series of strands\nwould account for designating it by a plural form _abunn\u00e2ti_, as\nalso for the fact that one could speak of a right and left side of\nthe _appunn\u00e2ti_. To distinguish between the \"umbilical cord\" and the\n\"navel,\" the ideograph Dur (the common meaning of which is _riksu_,\n\"bond\" [Delitzsch, _Sumer. Glossar._, p. 150]), was used for the\nformer, while for the latter Li Dur was employed, though the reading\nin Akkadian in both cases was the same. The expression \"with (or at)\nthe cutting of his umbilical cord\" would mean, therefore, \"from\nhis birth\"--since the cutting of the cord which united the child\nwith the mother marks the beginning of the separate life. Lines\n158-159, therefore, in concluding the address to Enkidu, emphasize\nin a picturesque way that what has been set forth is man's fate for\nwhich he has been destined from birth. [See now Albright's remarks on\n_abunnatu_ in the Revue d'Assyriologie 16, pp. 173-175, with whose\nconclusion, however, that it means primarily \"backbone\" and then\n\"stature,\" I cannot agree.]\n\nIn the break of about three lines at the bottom of column 4, and\nof about six at the beginning of column 5, there must have been set\nforth the effect of the address on Enkidu and the indication of his\nreadiness to accept the advice; as in a former passage (line 64),\nEnkidu showed himself willing to follow the woman. At all events the\ntwo now proceed to the heart of the city. Enkidu is in front and\nthe woman behind him. The scene up to this point must have taken\nplace outside of Erech--in the suburbs or approaches to the city,\nwhere the meadows and the sheepfolds were situated.\n\nLine 174. _um-ma-nu-um_ are not the \"artisans,\" as Langdon supposes,\nbut the \"people\" of Erech, just as in the Assyrian version, Tablet\nIV, 1, 40, where the word occurs in connection with _i-dip-pi-ir_,\nwhich is perhaps to be taken as a synonym of _pah\u00e2ru_, \"gather;\"\nso also _i-dip-pir_ (Tablet I, 2, 40) \"gathers with the flock.\"\n\nLines 180-182 must have contained the description of Enkidu's\nresemblance to Gish, but the lines are too mutilated to permit of any\ncertain restoration. See the corrections (Appendix) for a suggested\nreading for the end of line 181.\n\nLine 183 can be restored with considerable probability on the basis of\nthe Assyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 3 and 30, where Enkidu is described\nas one \"whose power is strong in the land.\"\n\nLines 186-187. The puzzling word, to be read apparently _kak-ki-a-tum_,\ncan hardly mean \"weapons,\" as Langdon proposes. In that case we\nshould expect _kakk\u00ea_; and, moreover, to so render gives no sense,\nespecially since the verb _\u00fa-te-el-li-lu_ is without much question\nto be rendered \"rejoiced,\" and not \"purified.\" _Kakkiatum_--if this\nbe the correct reading--may be a designation of Erech like _rib\u00eetim_.\n\nLines 188-189 are again entirely misunderstood by Langdon, owing to\nerroneous readings. See the corrections in the Appendix.\n\nLine 190. _i-li-im_ in this line is used like Hebrew Eloh\u00eem, \"God.\"\n\nLine 191. _sakissum_ = _sakin-sum_, as correctly explained by Langdon.\n\nLine 192. With this line a new episode begins which, owing to the gap\nat the beginning of column 6, is somewhat obscure. The episode leads\nto the hostile encounter between Gish and Enkidu. It is referred\nto in column 2 of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version. Lines\n35-50--all that is preserved of this column--form in part a parallel\nto columns 5-6 of the Pennsylvania tablet, but in much briefer form,\nsince what on the Pennsylvania tablet is the incident itself is on\nthe fourth tablet of the Assyrian version merely a repeated summary of\nthe relationship between the two heroes, leading up to the expedition\nagainst Hu(m)baba. Lines 38-40 of column 2 of the Assyrian version\ncorrespond to lines 174-177 of the Pennsylvania tablet, and lines\n44-50 to lines 192-221. It would seem that Gish proceeds stealthily\nat night to go to the goddess Ishhara, who lies on a couch in the _b\u00eet\n\u00eamuti_ , the \"family house\" Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2. 46-48). He\nencounters Enkidu in the street, and the latter blocks Gish's path,\nputs his foot in the gate leading to the house where the goddess is,\nand thus prevents Gish from entering. Thereupon the two have a fierce\nencounter in which Gish is worsted. The meaning of the episode itself\nis not clear. Does Enkidu propose to deprive Gish, here viewed as a god\n(cf. line 190 of the Pennsylvania tablet = Assyrian version, Tablet\nI, 4, 45, \"like a god\"), of his spouse, the goddess Ishhara--another\nform of Ishtar? Or are the two heroes, the one a counterpart of the\nother, contesting for the possession of a goddess? Is it in this\nscene that Enkidu becomes the \"rival\" (_me-ih-r\u00f9_, line 191 of the\nPennsylvania tablet) of the divine Gish? We must content ourself with\nhaving obtained through the Pennsylvania tablet a clearer indication\nof the occasion of the fight between the two heroes, and leave the\nfurther explanation of the episode till a fortunate chance may throw\nadditional light upon it. There is perhaps a reference to the episode\nin the Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b, 35-36.\n\nLine 196. For _i-na-ag-s\u00e1-am_ (from _nag\u00e2su_), Langdon proposes the\npurely fanciful \"embracing her in sleep,\" whereas it clearly means\n\"he approaches.\" Cf. Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, page 645a.\n\nLines 197-200 appear to correspond to Tablet IV, 2, 35-37, of the\nAssyrian version, though not forming a complete parallel. We may\ntherefore supply at the beginning of line 35 of the Assyrian version\n_[ittaziz] Enkidu_, corresponding to line 197 of the Pennsylvania\ntablet. Line 36 of IV, 2, certainly appears to correspond to line 200\n(_dan-nu-ti_ = _da-na-ni-is-s\u00fa_).\n\nLine 208. The first sign looks more like _sar_, though _ur_ is\npossible.\n\nLine 211 is clearly a description of Enkidu, as is shown by a\ncomparison with the Assyrian version I, 2, 37: _[pi]-ti-ik pi-ir-ti-s\u00fa\nuh-tan-na-ba kima d_Nidaba, \"The form of his hair sprouted like\nwheat.\" We must therefore supply Enkidu in the preceding line. Tablet\nIV, 4, 6, of the Assyrian version also contains a reference to the\nflowing hair of Enkidu.\n\nLine 212. For the completion of the line cf. Harper, _Assyrian and\nBabylonian Letters_, No. 214.\n\nLine 214. For _rib\u00eetu m\u00e2ti_ see the note above to line 28 of column 1.\n\nLines 215-217 correspond almost entirely to the Assyrian version IV, 2,\n46-48. The variations _ki-ib-su_ in place of _s\u00eapu_, and _kima l\u00eem_,\n\"like oxen,\" instead of _ina b\u00e2b \u00eamuti_ (repeated from line 46), _ana\nsur\u00fbbi_ for _\u00earibam_, are slight though interesting. The Assyrian\nversion shows that the \"gate\" in line 215 is \"the gate of the family\nhouse\" in which the goddess Ishhara lies.\n\nLines 218-228. The detailed description of the fight between the two\nheroes is only partially preserved in the Assyrian version.\n\nLine 218. _li-i-im_ is evidently to be taken as plural here as\nin line 224, just as _su-ki-im_ (lines 27 and 175), _ri-bi-tim_\n(lines 4, 28, etc.), _tarbasim_ (line 74), _assamim_ (line 98) are\nplural forms. Our text furnishes, as does also the Yale tablet, an\ninteresting illustration of the vacillation in the Hammurabi period\nin the twofold use of _im_: (a) as an indication of the plural (as in\nHebrew), and (b) as a mere emphatic ending (lines 63, 73, and 232),\nwhich becomes predominant in the post-Hammurabi age.\n\nLine 227. Gilgamesh is often represented on seal cylinders as kneeling,\ne.g., Ward Seal Cylinders Nos. 159, 160, 165. Cf. also Assyrian version\nV, 3, 6, where Gilgamesh is described as kneeling, though here in\nprayer. See further the commentary to the Yale tablet, line 215.\n\nLine 229. We must of course read _uz-za-s\u00fa_, \"his anger,\" and not\n_us-sa-s\u00fa_, \"his javelin,\" as Langdon does, which gives no sense.\n\nLine 231. Langdon's note is erroneous. He again misses the point. The\nstem of the verb here as in line 230 (_i-ni-ih_) is the common _n\u00e2hu_,\nused so constantly in connection with _pas\u00e2hu_, to designate the\ncessation of anger.\n\nLine 234. _ist\u00ean_ applied to Gish designates him of course as \"unique,\"\nnot as \"an ordinary man,\" as Langdon supposes.\n\nLine 236. On this title \"wild cow of the stall\" for Ninsun, see Poebel\nin _OLZ_ 1914, page 6, to whom we owe the correct view regarding the\nname of Gilgamesh's mother.\n\nLine 238. _mu-ti_ here cannot mean \"husband,\" but \"man\" in general. See\nabove note to line 107. Langdon's strange misreading _ri-es-su_ for\n_ri-es-ka_ (\"thy head\") leads him again to miss the point, namely\nthat Enkidu comforts his rival by telling him that he is destined for\na career above that of the ordinary man. He is to be more than a mere\nprize fighter; he is to be a king, and no doubt in the ancient sense,\nas the representative of the deity. This is indicated by the statement\nthat the kingship is decreed for him by Enlil. Similarly, Hu(m)baba or\nHuwawa is designated by Enlil to inspire terror among men (Assyrian\nversion, Tablet IV, 5, 2 and 5), _i-sim-s\u00fa d_Enlil = Yale tablet,\nl. 137, where this is to be supplied. This position accorded to Enlil\nis an important index for the origin of the Epic, which is thus shown\nto date from a period when the patron deity of Nippur was acknowledged\nas the general head of the pantheon. This justifies us in going back\nseveral centuries at least before Hammurabi for the beginning of\nthe Gilgamesh story. If it had originated in the Hammurabi period,\nwe should have had Marduk introduced instead of Enlil.\n\nLine 242. As has been pointed out in the corrections to the text\n(Appendix), _s\u00fa-tu-ur_ can only be III, 1, from _at\u00e2ru_, \"to be in\nexcess of.\" It is a pity that the balance of the line is broken off,\nsince this is the first instance of a colophon beginning with the\nterm in question. In some way _sut\u00fbr_ must indicate that the copy of\nthe text has been \"enlarged.\" It is tempting to fill out the line\n_s\u00fa-tu-ur e-li [duppi labiri]_, and to render \"enlarged from an\noriginal,\" as an indication of an independent recension of the Epic\nin the Hammurabi period. All this, however, is purely conjectural,\nand we must patiently hope for more tablets of the Old Babylonian\nversion to turn up. The chances are that some portions of the same\nedition as the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets are in the hands of\ndealers at present or have been sold to European museums. The war has\nseriously interfered with the possibility of tracing the whereabouts\nof groups of tablets that ought never to have been separated.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nYALE TABLET.\n\n\nTRANSLITERATION.\n\n\n(About ten lines missing.)\n\n\n\n\nCol. I.\n\n\t.................. [ib]-ri(?)\n\t[mi-im-ma(?) s\u00e1(?)]-k\u00fa-tu wa(?)-ak-rum\n\t[am-mi-nim] ta-ah-si-ih\n\t[an-ni]-a-am [e-pi]-s\u00e1-am\n\t...... mi-im[-ma s\u00e1-k\u00fa-tu(?)]ma-\n\tdi-is\n\t[am-mi]-nim [tah]-si-ih\n\t[ur(?)]-ta-du-\u00fa [a-na ki-i]s-tim\n\tsi-ip-ra-am it-[ta-s\u00fa]-\u00fa i-na [nis\u00ea]\n\tit-ta-\u00e1s-s\u00fa-\u00fa-ma\n\ti-pu-s\u00fa ru-hu-tam\n\t.................. us-ta-di-nu\n\t............................. bu\n\t...............................\n\n\n(About 17 lines missing.)\n\n\n\t.............. nam-........\n\t.................... u ib-[ri] .....\n\t.............. \u00fa-na-i-du ......\n\t[zi-ik]-ra-am \u00fa-[t\u00ed-ir]-ru\n\t[a-na] ha-ri-[im]-tim\n\t[i]-pu(?)-s\u00fa a-na sa-[ka]-pu-ti\n\n\n\n\n\nCol. II.\n\n(About eleven lines missing.)\n\n\n\t... s\u00fa(?)-mu(?) ...............\n\tma-hi-ra-am [s\u00e1 i-si-s\u00fa]\n\ts\u00fa-uk-ni-sum-[ma] ...............\n\tla-al-la-ru-[tu] ..................\n\tum-mi d-[Gis mu-di-a-at ka-la-ma]\n\ti-na ma-[har dSamas i-di-s\u00e1 is-si]\n\ts\u00e1 \u00fa\n\ti-na- an(?)-[na am-mi-nim]\n\tta-[as-kun(?) a-na ma-ri-ia li-ib-bi la]\n\tsa-[li-la te-mid-su]\n\t.............................\n\n\n(About four lines missing.)\n\n\n\ti-na [s\u00e1 dEn-ki-du im-la-a] di-[im-tam]\n\til-[pu-ut li]-ib-ba-s\u00fa-[ma]\n\t[zar-bis(?)] us-ta-ni-[ih]\n\t[i-na s\u00e1 dEn]-ki-du im-la-a di-im-tam\n\t[il-pu-ut] li-ib-ba-s\u00fa-ma\n\t[zar-bis(?)] us-ta-ni-[ih]\n\t[dGis \u00fa-ta]-ab-bil pa-ni-s\u00fa\n\t[iz-za-kar-am] a-na dEn-ki-du\n\t[ib-ri am-mi-nim] i-na-ka\n\t[im-la-a di-im]-tam\n\t[il-pu-ut li-ib-bi]-ka\n\t[zar-bis tu-us-ta]-ni-ih\n\t[dEn-ki-du pi-s\u00fa i-pu-s\u00e1]-am-ma\n\tiz-za-[k\u00e0r-am] a-na dGis\n\tta-ab-bi-a-tum ib-ri\n\tus-ta-li-pa da- [151]da-ni-ia\n\ta-ha-a-a ir-ma-a-ma\n\te-mu-ki i-ni-is\n\tdGis pi-s\u00fa i-pu-s\u00e1-am-ma\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na   dEn-ki-du\n\n\n(About four lines missing.)\n\n\n\nCol. III.\n\n\t..... [a-di dHu]-wa-wa da-pi-nu\n\t.................. ra-[am(?)-ma]\n\t................ [\u00fa-hal]- li-ik\n\t[lu-ur-ra-du a-na ki-is-ti s\u00e1] iserini\n\t............ lam(?) hal-bu\n\t............ [li]-li-is-su\n\t.............. lu(?)-up-ti-s\u00fa\n\tdEn-ki-du pi-s\u00fa i-pu-s\u00e1-am-ma\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na dGis\n\ti-di-ma ib-ri i-na sad\u00ee(-i)\n\ti-nu-ma at-ta-la-ku it-ti bu-lim\n\ta-na ist\u00ean(-en) kas-g\u00edd-ta-a-an nu-ma-at ki-is-tum\n\t[e-di-is(?)] ur-ra-du a-na libbi-s\u00e1\n\td[Hu-wa]-wa ri-ig-ma-s\u00fa a-bu-bu\n\tpi-[s\u00fa]   dBil-gi-ma\n\tna-pi-is-s\u00fa mu-tum\n\tam-mi-nim ta-ah-si-ih\n\tan-ni-a-am e-pi-s\u00e1-am\n\tga-[ba]-al-la ma-ha-ar\n\t[s\u00fa]-pa-at dHu-wa-wa\n\t(d)Gis pi-s\u00fa i-pu-s\u00e1-am-ma\n\t[iz-za-k]\u00e0r-am a-na dEn-ki-du\n\t....... su(?)-lu-li a-s\u00e1-ki [152]-s\u00e1\n\t............. [i-na ki-is]-tim\n\t...............................\n\tik(?) .........................\n\ta-na ..........................\n\tmu-s\u00e1-ab [dHu-wa-wa] .......\n\tha-as-si-nu .................\n\tat-ta\tlu(?) .................\n\ta-na-ku lu-[ur-ra-du a-na ki-is-tim]\n\tdEn-ki-du pi-s\u00fa i-pu-[s\u00e1-am-ma]\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na [dGis]\n\tki-i ni[il]-la-ak [is-te-nis(?)]\n\ta-na ki-is-ti [s\u00e1 iserini]\n\tna-si-ir-s\u00e1 dGis muk-[tab-lu]\n\tda-a-an la sa[-li-lu(?)]\n\tdHu-wa-wa   dpi-ir-[hu sa (?)]\n\tdAdad is ..........\n\ts\u00fa-\u00fa ..................\n\n\n\nCol. IV.\n\n\t\u00e1s-s\u00fam s\u00fa-ul-lu-m[u ki-is-ti s\u00e1iserini]\n\tpu-ul-hi-a-tim 7 [s\u00fa(?) i-sim-s\u00fa dEnlil]\n\tdGis pi-s\u00fa i-pu [s\u00e1-am-ma]\n\tiz-za-k\u00e0r-am a-na [dEn-ki-du]\n\tma-an-nu ib-ri e-lu-\u00fa s\u00e1-[ru-ba(?)]\n\ti-tib-ma it-ti dSamas da-ri-is \u00fa-[me-s\u00fa]\n\ta-we-lu-tum ba-ba-nu \u00fa-tam-mu-s\u00e1-[ma]\n\tmi-im-ma s\u00e1 i-te-ni-pu-s\u00fa s\u00e1-ru-ba\n\tat-ta an-na-nu-um-ma ta-dar mu-tam\n\tul is-s\u00fa da-na-nu kar-ra-du-ti-ka\n\tlu-ul-li-ik-ma i-na pa-ni-ka\n\tpi-ka li-is-si-a-am ti-hi-e ta-du-ur\n\tsum-ma am-ta-ku-ut s\u00fa-mi lu-us-zi-iz\n\tdGis mi [153]-it-ti dHu-wa-wa da-pi-nim\n\til(?)-ku-ut is-tu\n\ti-wa-al-dam-ma tar-bi-a i-na sam-mu(?) Il(?)\n\tis-hi-it-ka-ma la-bu ka-la-ma ti-di\n\tit- ku(?) ..... [il(?)]-pu-tu-(?) ma .....\n\t.............. ka-ma\n\t.............. si pi-ti\n\t............ ki-ma re'i(?) na-gi-la sa-rak-ti\n\t.... [ta-s\u00e1-s]i-a-am tu-lim-mi-in li-ib-bi\n\t[ga-ti lu]-us-ku-un-ma\n\t[lu-u-ri]-ba-am iserini\n\t[s\u00fa-ma s\u00e1]-ta-ru-\u00fa a-na-ku lu-us-ta-ak-na\n\t[pu-tu-ku(?)] ib-ri a-na ki-is-ka-tim lu-mu-ha\n\t[be-le-e li-is-]-pu-ku i-na mah-ri-ni\n\t[pu-tu]-ku a-na ki-is-ka-ti-i i-mu-hu\n\twa-\u00e1s-bu us-ta-da-nu um-mi-a-nu\n\tpa-si is-pu-ku ra-bu-tim\n\tha-as-si-ni 3 biltu-ta-a-an is-tap-ku\n\tpa-at-ri is-pu-ku ra-bu-tim\n\tme-se-li-tum 2 biltu-ta-a-an\n\tsi-ip-ru 30 ma-na-ta-a-an s\u00e1 a-hi-si-na\n\tisid(?) pa-at-ri 30 ma-na-ta-a-an hurasi\n\t[d]Gis \u00f9 [dEn-ki-]du 10 biltu-ta-a-an s\u00e1-ak-nu]\n\t.... ul-la . .[Uruk]ki 7 i-di-il-s\u00fa\n\t...... is-me-ma um-ma-nu ib-bi-ra\n\t[us-te-(?)]-mi-a i-na s\u00fbki s\u00e1 Urukki ri-bi-tim\n\t...... [u-se(?)]-sa-s\u00fa dGis\n\t[ina s\u00fbki s\u00e1(?) Urukki] ri-bi-tim\n\t[dEn-ki-du(?) \u00fa]-s\u00e1-ab i-na mah-ri-s\u00fa\n\t..... [ki-a-am(?) i-ga]-ab-bi\n\t[........ Urukki ri]-bi-tim\n\t\t\t[ma-ha-ar-s\u00fa]\n\n\n\nCol. V.\n\n\tdGis s\u00e1 i-ga-ab-bu-\u00fa lu-mu-ur\n\ts\u00e1 s\u00fa-um-s\u00fa it-ta-nam-ma-la ma-ta-tum\n\tlu-uk-s\u00fa-su-ma i-na ki-is-ti iserini\n\tki-ma da-an-nu pi-ir-hu-um s\u00e1 Urukki\n\tlu-si-es-mi ma-tam\n\tga-ti lu-us-ku-un-ma lu-uk-[s\u00fa] [154]-su-ma iserini\n\ts\u00fa-ma s\u00e1-ta-ru-\u00fa a-na-ku lu-us-tak-nam\n\tsi-bu-tum s\u00e1 Urukki ri-bi-tim\n\tzi-ik-ra \u00fa-ti-ir-ru a-na dGis\n\tsi-ih-ri-ti-ma dGis libbi-ka na-si-ka\n\tmi-im-ma s\u00e1 te-te-ni-pu-s\u00fa la ti-di\n\tni-si-im-me-ma dHu-wa-wa s\u00e1-nu-\u00fa bu-nu-s\u00fa\n\tma-an-nu-um [us-tam]-ha-ru ka-ak-ki-s\u00fa\n\ta-na ist\u00ean(-en) [kas-g\u00edd-ta-a]-an nu-ma-at kisti\n\tma-an-nu s\u00e1 [ur-ra]-du a-na libbi-s\u00e1\n\tdHu-wa-wa ri-ig-ma-s\u00fa a-bu-bu\n\tpi-s\u00fa dBil-gi-ma na-pi-su mu-tum\n\tam-mi-nim tah-si-ih an-ni-a-am e-pi-s\u00e1\n\tga-ba-al-la ma-ha-ar s\u00fa-pa-at dHu-wa-wa\n\tis-me-e-ma dGis zi-ki-ir ma-li-[ki]-s\u00fa\n\tip-pa-al-sa-am-ma i-si-ih a-na ib-[ri-s\u00fa]\n\ti-na-an-na ib-[ri] ki-a-am [a-ga-ab-bi]\n\ta-pa-al-ah-s\u00fa-ma a-[al-la-ak a-na kisti]\n\t[lu]ul-[lik it-ti-ka a-na ki-is-ti iserini(?)]\n\n\n(About five lines missing.)\n\n\n\t........................ -ma\n\tli ............... -ka\n\tilu-ka li(?) ..............-ka\n\tharrana li-s\u00e1-[tir-ka a-na s\u00fa-ul-mi]\n\ta-na kar s\u00e1 [Urukki ri-bi-tim]\n\tka-mi-is-ma dGis [ma-ha-ar dSamas(?)]\n\ta-wa-at i-ga-ab- [bu-s\u00fa-ma]\n\ta-al-la-ak dSamas kat\u00e2-[ka a-sa-bat]\n\tul-la-nu lu-us-li-ma na-pi-[is-ti]\n\tte-ir-ra-an-ni a-na kar i-[na Urukki]\n\tsi-il-[la]m s\u00fa-ku-un [a-na ia-a-si(?)]\n\tis-si-ma dGis ib-[ri.....]\n\tte-ir-ta-s\u00fa ..........\n\tis(?) ..............\n\ttam ................\n\t........................\n\ti-nu(?)-[ma] ..................\n\n\n(About two lines missing.)\n\n\nCol. VI.\n\n\t[a-na-ku] dGis [i-ik]-ka-di ma-tum\n\t........... harrana s\u00e1 la al-[kam] ma-ti-ma\n\t.... a-ka-lu ..... la(?) i-di\n\t[ul-la-nu] lu-us-li-[mu] a-na-ku\n\t[lu-ud-lul]-ka i-na [h]u-ud li-ib-bi\n\t...... [s\u00fa]-ku-ut-[ti] la-li-ka\n\t[lu-se-sib(?)] - ka i-na kuss\u00eames\n\t....................... \u00fa-nu-su\n\t[b\u00eal\u00eames(?)\u00fa-ti-ir]-ru ra-bu-tum\n\t[ka-as-tum] \u00f9 is-pa-tum\n\t[i-na] ga-ti is-ku-nu\n\t[il-]te-ki pa-si\n\t....... -ri is-pa-as-su\n\t..... [a-na] ili s\u00e1-ni-tam\n\t[it-ti pa(?)] - tar-[s\u00fa] i-na si-ip-pi-s\u00fa\n\t........ i-ip-pu-s\u00fa a-la-kam\n\t[sa]-nis \u00fa-ga-ra-bu dGis\n\t[a-di ma]-ti tu-ut-te-ir a-na libbi Urukki\n\t[si-bu]-tum i-ka-ra-bu-s\u00fa\n\t[a-na] harrani i-ma-li-ku dGis\n\t[la t]a-at-kal dGis a-na e-[mu]-ki-ka\n\t[a-]ka-lu s\u00fa-wa-ra-ma \u00fa-sur ra-ma-an-ka\n\t[li]-il-lik dEn-ki-du i-na pa-ni-ka\n\t[ur-ha]-am a-we-ir a-lik harrana(-na)\n\t[a-di] s\u00e1 kisti ni-ri-bi-tim\n\t[s\u00e1(?)] [d]Hu-wa-wa ka-li-s\u00fa-nu si-ip-pi-ih(?)-s\u00fa\n\t[sa(?)a-lik] mah-ra tap-pa-a \u00fa-s\u00e1-lim\n\t[harrana](-na)-s\u00fa s\u00fa-wa-ra-[ma \u00fa-sur ra-ma-na-ka]\n\t[li-sak-sid]-ka ir-[ni-ta]-ka dSamas\n\t[ta]-ak-bi-a-at pi-ka li-kal-li-ma i-na-ka\n\tli-ip-ti-ku pa-da-nam pi-hi-tam\n\tharrana li-is-ta-zi-ik a-na ki-ib-si-ka\n\ts\u00e1-di-a li-is-ta-zi-ik a-na s\u00eapi-ka\n\tmu-si-it-ka aw-a-at ta-ha-du-\u00fa\n\tli-ib-la-ma dLugal-ban-da li-iz-zi-iz-ka\n\ti-na ir-ni-ti-ka\n\tki-ma si-ih-ri ir-ni-ta-ka-ma lus-mida(-da)\n\ti-na na-ri s\u00e1 dHu-wa-wa s\u00e1 tu-sa-ma-ru\n\tmi-zi si-pi-ka\n\ti-na bat-ba-ti-ka hi-ri bu-ur-tam\n\tlu-ka-a-a-nu m\u00ea ellu i-na na-di-ka\n\t[ka-]su-tim me-e a-na dSamas ta-na-di\n\t[li-is]ta-ha-sa-as dLugal-ban-da\n\t[dEn-ki-]du pi-su i-pu-s\u00e1-am-ma, iz-za-k\u00e0r a-na dGis\n\t[is(?)]-tu(?) ta-\u00e1s-dan-nu e-pu-us a-la-kam\n\t[la pa]la-ah libbi-ka ia-ti tu-uk-la-ni\n\t[s\u00fa-ku-]un i-di-a-am s\u00fa-pa-as-su\n\t[harrana(?)]s\u00e1 dHu-wa-wa it-ta-la-ku\n\t.......... ki-bi-ma te-[ir]-s\u00fa-nu-ti\n\n\n(Three lines missing.)\n\n\nL.E.\n\n\t.............. nam-ma-la\n\t............... il-li-ku it-ti-ia\n\t............... ba-ku-nu-si-im\n\t......... [ul]-la(?)-nu i-na hu-ud li-ib-bi\n\t[i-na se-me-e] an-ni-a ga-ba-s\u00fa\n\te-dis harrana(?) us-te-[zi-ik]\n\ta-lik dGis lu-[ul-lik a-na pa-ni-ka]\n\tli-lik il-ka ..........\n\tli-s\u00e1-ak-lim-[ka harrana] ......\n\tdGis \u00f9[dEn-ki-du] .......\n\tmu-di-es ..........\n\tbi-ri-[su-nu] ........\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATION.\n\n\n(About ten lines missing.)\n\n\nCol. I.\n\n\t.................. (my friend?)\n\t[Something] that is exceedingly difficult,\n\t[Why] dost thou desire\n\t[to do this?]\n\t.... something (?) that is very [difficult (?)],\n\t[Why dost thou] desire\n\t[to go down to the forest]?\n\tA message [they carried] among [men]\n\tThey carried about.\n\tThey made a ....\n\t.............. they brought\n\t..............................\n\t..............................\n\n\n(About 17 lines missing.)\n\n\n\t.............................\n\t................... my friend\n\t................ they raised .....\n\tanswer [they returned.]\n\t[To] the woman\n\tThey proceeded to the overthrowing\n\n\n\nCol. II.\n\n(About eleven lines missing.)\n\n\t.......... name(?) .............\n\t[The one who is] a rival [to him]\n\tsubdue and ................\n\tWailing ................\n\tThe mother [of Gish, who knows everything]\n\tBefore [Shamash raised her hand]\n\tWho\n\tNow(?) [why]\n\thast thou stirred up the heart for my son,\n\t[Restlessness imposed upon him (?)]\n\t............................\n\n\n(About four lines missing.)\n\n\n\tThe eyes [of Enkidu filled with tears].\n\t[He clutched] his heart;\n\t[Sadly(?)] he sighed.\n\t[The eyes of En]kidu filled with tears.\n\t[He clutched] his heart;\n\t[Sadly(?)] he sighed.\n\tThe face [of Gish was grieved].\n\t[He spoke] to Enkidu:\n\t[\"My friend, why are] thy eyes\n\t[Filled with tears]?\n\tThy [heart clutched]\n\tDost thou sigh [sadly(?)]?\"\n\t[Enkidu opened his mouth] and\n\tspoke to Gish:\n\t\"Attacks, my friend,\n\thave exhausted my strength(?).\n\tMy arms are lame,\n\tmy strength has become weak.\"\n\tGish opened his mouth and\n\tspoke to Enkidu:\n\n\n(About four lines missing.)\n\n\n\nCol. III.\n\n\t..... [until] Huwawa, [the terrible],\n\t........................\n\t............ [I destroyed].\n\t[I will go down to the] cedar forest,\n\t................... the jungle\n\t............... tambourine (?)\n\t................ I will open it.\n\tEnkidu opened his mouth and\n\tspoke to Gish:\n\t\"Know, my friend, in the mountain,\n\twhen I moved about with the cattle\n\tto a distance of one double hour into the heart of the forest,\n\t[Alone?] I penetrated within it,\n\t[To] Huwawa, whose roar is a flood,\n\twhose mouth is fire,\n\twhose breath is death.\n\tWhy dost thou desire\n\tTo do this?\n\tTo advance towards\n\tthe dwelling(?) of Huwawa?\"\n\tGish opened his mouth and\n\t[spoke to Enkidu:\n\t\"... [the covering(?)] I will destroy.\n\t....[in the forest]\n\t....................\n\t....................\n\tTo .................\n\tThe dwelling [of Huwawa]\n\tThe axe ..........\n\tThou ..........\n\tI will [go down to the forest].\"\n\tEnkidu opened his mouth and\n\tspoke to [Gish:]\n\t\"When [together(?)] we go down\n\tTo the [cedar] forest,\n\twhose guardian, O warrior Gish,\n\ta power(?) without [rest(?)],\n\tHuwawa, an offspring(?) of ....\n\tAdad ......................\n\tHe ........................\n\n\n\nCol. IV.\n\n\tTo keep safe [the cedar forest],\n\t[Enlil has decreed for it] seven-fold terror.\"\n\tGish [opened] his mouth and\n\tspoke to [Enkidu]:\n\t\"Whoever, my friend, overcomes (?) [terror(?)],\n\tit is well (for him) with Shamash for the length of [his days].\n\tMankind will speak of it at the gates.\n\tWherever terror is to be faced,\n\tThou, forsooth, art in fear of death.\n\tThy prowess lacks strength.\n\tI will go before thee.\n\tThough thy mouth calls to me; \"thou art afraid to approach.\"\n\tIf I fall, I will establish my name.\n\tGish, the corpse(?) of Huwawa, the terrible one,\n\thas snatched (?) from the time that\n\tMy offspring was born in ......\n\tThe lion restrained (?) thee, all of which thou knowest.\n\t........................\n\t.............. thee and\n\t................ open (?)\n\t........ like a shepherd(?) .....\n\t[When thou callest to me], thou afflictest my heart.\n\tI am determined\n\t[to enter] the cedar forest.\n\tI will, indeed, establish my name.\n\t[The work(?)], my friend, to the artisans I will entrust.\n\t[Weapons(?)] let them mould before us.\"\n\t[The work(?)] to the artisans they entrusted.\n\tA dwelling(?) they assigned to the workmen.\n\tHatchets the masters moulded:\n\tAxes of 3 talents each they moulded.\n\tLances the masters moulded;\n\tBlades(?) of 2 talents each,\n\tA spear of 30 mina each attached to them.\n\tThe hilt of the lances of 30 mina in gold\n\tGish and [Enki]du were equipped with 10 talents each\n\t.......... in Erech seven its ....\n\t....... the people heard and ....\n\t[proclaimed(?)] in the street of Erech of the plazas.\n\t..... Gis [brought him out(?)]\n\t[In the street (?)] of Erech of the plazas\n\t[Enkidu(?)] sat before him\n\t..... [thus] he spoke:\n\t\"........ [of Erech] of the plazas\n\t............ [before him]\n\n\n\nCol. V.\n\n\tGish of whom they speak, let me see!\n\twhose name fills the lands.\n\tI will lure him to the cedar forest,\n\tLike a strong offspring of Erech.\n\tI will let the land hear (that)\n\tI am determined to lure (him) in the cedar (forest) [155].\n\tA name I will establish.\"\n\tThe elders of Erech of the plazas\n\tbrought word to Gish:\n\t\"Thou art young, O Gish, and thy heart carries thee away.\n\tThou dost not know what thou proposest to do.\n\tWe hear that Huwawa is enraged.\n\tWho has ever opposed his weapon?\n\tTo one [double hour] in the heart of the forest,\n\tWho has ever penetrated into it?\n\tHuwawa, whose roar is a deluge,\n\twhose mouth is fire, whose breath is death.\n\tWhy dost thou desire to do this?\n\tTo advance towards the dwelling (?) of Huwawa?\"\n\tGish heard the report of his counsellors.\n\tHe saw and cried out to [his] friend:\n\t\"Now, my friend, thus [I speak].\n\tI fear him, but [I will go to the cedar forest(?)];\n\tI will go [with thee to the cedar forest].\n\n\n(About five lines missing.)\n\n\n\t..............................\n\tMay ................... thee\n\tThy god may (?) ........ thee;\n\tOn the road may he guide [thee in safety(?)].\n\tAt the rampart of [Erech of the plazas],\n\tGish kneeled down [before Shamash(?)],\n\tA word then he spoke [to him]:\n\t\"I will go, O Shamash, [thy] hands [I seize hold of].\n\tWhen I shall have saved [my life],\n\tBring me back to the rampart [in Erech].\n\tGrant protection [to me ?]!\"\n\tGish cried, \"[my friend] ......\n\tHis oracle ..................\n\t........................\n\t........................\n\t........................\n\tWhen (?)\n\n\n(About two lines missing.)\n\n\nCol. VI.\n\n\t\"[I(?)] Gish, the strong one (?) of the land.\n\t...... A road which I have never [trodden];\n\t........ food ...... do not (?) know.\n\t[When] I shall have succeeded,\n\t[I will praise] thee in the joy of my heart,\n\t[I will extol (?)] the superiority of thy power,\n\t[I will seat thee] on thrones.\"\n\t.................. his vessel(?)\n\tThe masters [brought the weapons (?)];\n\t[bow] and quiver\n\tThey placed in hand.\n\t[He took] the hatchet.\n\t................. his quiver.\n\t..... [to] the god(?) a second time\n\t[With his lance(?)] in his girdle,\n\t......... they took the road.\n\t[Again] they approached Gish!\n\t\"[How long] till thou returnest to Erech?\"\n\t[Again the elders] approached him.\n\t[For] the road they counselled Gis:\n\t\"Do [not] rely, O Gish, on thy strength!\n\tProvide food and save thyself!\n\tLet Enkidu go before thee.\n\tHe is acquainted with the way, he has trodden the road\n\t[to] the entrance of the forest.\n\tof Huwawa all of them his ......\n\t[He who goes] in advance will save the companion.\n\tProvide for his [road] and [save thyself]!\n\t(May) Shamash [carry out] thy endeavor!\n\tMay he make thy eyes see the prophecy of thy mouth.\n\tMay he track out (for thee) the closed path!\n\tMay he level the road for thy treading!\n\tMay he level the mountain for thy foot!\n\tDuring thy night [156] the word that wilt rejoice\n\tmay Lugal-banda convey, and stand by thee\n\tin thy endeavor!\n\tLike a youth may he establish thy endeavor!\n\tIn the river of Huwawa as thou plannest,\n\twash thy feet!\n\tRound about thee dig a well!\n\tMay there be pure water constantly for thy libation\n\tGoblets of water pour out to Shamash!\n\t[May] Lugal-banda take note of it!\"\n\t[Enkidu] opened his mouth and spoke to Gish:\n\t\"[Since thou art resolved] to take the road.\n\tThy heart [be not afraid,] trust to me!\n\t[Confide] to my hand his dwelling(?)!\"\n\t[on the road to] Huwawa they proceeded.\n\t....... command their return\n\n\n(Three lines missing.)\n\n\nL.E.\n\n\t............... were filled.\n\t.......... they will go with me.\n\t...............................\n\t.................. joyfully.\n\t[Upon hearing] this word of his,\n\tAlone, the road(?) [he levelled].\n\t\"Go, O Gish [I will go before thee(?)].\n\tMay thy god(?) go .........\n\tMay he show [thee the road !] .....\n\tGish and [Enkidu]\n\tKnowingly ....................\n\tBetween [them] ................\n\n\n\n\nLines 13-14 (also line 16). See for the restoration, lines 112-13.\n\nLine 62. For the restoration, see Jensen, p. 146 (Tablet III, 2a,9.)\n\nLines 64-66. Restored on the basis of the Assyrian version,\n_ib_. line 10.\n\nLine 72. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 4, 10, and restore at the\nend of this line _di-im-tam_ as in our text, instead of Jensen's\nconjecture.\n\nLines 74, 77 and 83. The restoration _zar-bis_, suggested by the\nAssyrian version, Tablet IV, 4, 4.\n\nLines 76 and 82. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 18.\n\nLine 78. _(\u00fa-ta-ab-bil_ from _ab\u00e2lu_, \"grieve\" or\n\"darkened.\" Cf. _us-ta-kal_ (Assyrian version, _ib_. line 9), where,\nperhaps, we are to restore _it-ta-[bil pa-ni-s\u00fa]_.\n\nLine 87. _us-ta-li-pa_ from _el\u00eapu_, \"exhaust.\" See Muss-Arnolt,\n_Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 49a.\n\nLine 89. Cf. Assyrian version, _ib_. line 11, and restore the end of\nthe line there to _i-ni-is_, as in our text.\n\nLine 96. For _dapinu_ as an epithet of Huwawa, see Assyrian version,\nTablet III, 2a, 17, and 3a, 12. _Dapinu_ occurs also as a description\nof an ox (Rm 618, Bezold, _Catalogue of the Kouyunjik Tablets_, etc.,\np. 1627).\n\nLine 98. The restoration on the basis of _ib._ III, 2a, 18.\n\nLines 96-98 may possibly form a parallel to _ib_. lines 17-18,\nwhich would then read about as follows: \"Until I overcome Huwawa,\nthe terrible, and all the evil in the land I shall have destroyed.\" At\nthe same time, it is possible that we are to restore _[lu-ul]-li-ik_\nat the end of line 98.\n\nLine 101. _lilissu_ occurs in the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6, 36.\n\nLine 100. For _halbu_, \"jungle,\" see Assyrian version, Tablet V, 3,\n39 (p. 160).\n\nLines 109-111. These lines enable us properly to restore Assyrian\nversion, Tablet IV, 5, 3 = Haupt's edition, p. 83 (col. 5, 3). No\ndoubt the text read as ours _mu-tum_ (or _mu-u-tum_) _na-pis-su_.\n\nLine 115. _supatu_, which occurs again in line 199 and also line\n275._s\u00fa-pa-as-su_ (= _supat-su_) must have some such meaning as\n\"dwelling,\" demanded by the context. [Dhorme refers me to _OLZ_ 1916,\np. 145].\n\nLine 129. Restored on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet IV,\n6, 38.\n\nLine 131. The restoration _muktablu_, tentatively suggested on the\nbasis of CT XVIII, 30, 7b, where _muktablu_, \"warrior,\" appears as\none of the designations of Gilgamesh, followed by _a-lik pa-na_,\n\"the one who goes in advance,\" or \"leader\"--the phrase so constantly\nused in the Huwawa episode.\n\nLine 132. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet I, 5, 18-19.\n\nLines 136-137. These two lines restored on the basis of Jensen IV, 5,\n2 and 5. The variant in the Assyrian version, _s\u00e1 nise_ (written Ukumes\nin one case and Lumes in the other), for the numeral 7 in our text\nto designate a terror of the largest and most widespread character,\nis interesting. The number 7 is similarly used as a designation of\nGilgamesh, who is called _Esigga imin_, \"seven-fold strong,\" i.e.,\nsupremely strong (CT XVIII, 30, 6-8). Similarly, Enkidu, _ib._ line\n10, is designated _a-r\u00e1 imina_, \"seven-fold.\"\n\nLine 149. A difficult line because of the uncertainty of the reading\nat the beginning of the following line. The most obvious meaning of\n_mi-it-tu_ is \"corpse,\" though in the Assyrian version _salamtu_\nis used (Assyrian version, Tablet V, 2, 42). On the other hand,\nit is possible--as Dr. Lutz suggested to me--that _mittu_, despite\nthe manner of writing, is identical with _mitt\u00fa_, the name of a\ndivine weapon, well-known from the Assyrian creation myth (Tablet\nIV, 130), and other passages. The combination _mit-tu s\u00e1-ku-\u00fa-_,\n\"lofty weapon,\" in the Bilingual text IV, R2, 18 No. 3, 31-32, would\nfavor the meaning \"weapon\" in our passage, since _[s\u00e1]-ku-tu_ is a\npossible restoration at the beginning of line 150. However, the writing\n_mi-it-ti_ points too distinctly to a derivative of the stem _m\u00e2tu_,\nand until a satisfactory explanation of lines 150-152 is forthcoming,\nwe must stick to the meaning \"corpse\" and read the verb _il-ku-ut_.\n\nLine 152. The context suggests \"lion\" for the puzzling _la-bu_.\n\nLine 156. Another puzzling line. Dr. Clay's copy is an accurate\nreproduction of what is distinguishable. At the close of the line\nthere appears to be a sign written over an erasure.\n\nLine 158. _[ga-ti lu-]us-kun_ as in line 186, literally, \"I will\nplace my hand,\" i.e., I purpose, I am determined.\n\nLine 160. The restoration on the basis of the parallel line 187. Note\nthe interesting phrase, \"writing a name\" in the sense of acquiring\n\"fame.\"\n\nLine 161. The _kiskatt\u00ea_, \"artisans,\" are introduced also in the\nAssyrian version, Tablet VI, 187, to look at the enormous size and\nweight of the horns of the slain divine bull. See for other passages\nMuss-Arnolt _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 450b. At the beginning of this\nline, we must seek for the same word as in line 163.\n\nLine 162. While the restoration _bel\u00ea_, \"weapon,\" is purely\nconjectural, the context clearly demands some such word. I choose\n_bel\u00ea_ in preference to _kakk\u00ea_, in view of the Assyrian version,\nTablet VI, 1.\n\nLine 163. _Putuku_ (or _putukku_) from _pat\u00e2ku_ would be an appropriate\nword for the fabrication of weapons.\n\nLine 165. The _rab\u00fbtim_ here, as in line 167, I take as the \"master\nmechanics\" as contrasted with the _ummianu_, \"common workmen,\" or\njourneymen. A parallel to this forging of the weapons for the two\nheroes is to be found in the Sumerian fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic\npublished by Langdon, _Historical and Religious Texts from the Temple\nLibrary of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914), No. 55, 1-15.\n\nLines 168-170 describe the forging of the various parts of the\nlances for the two heroes. The _sipru_ is the spear point Muss-Arnolt,\n_Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 886b; the _isid patri_ is clearly the \"hilt,\"\nand the _meselitum_ I therefore take as the \"blade\" proper. The word\noccurs here for the first time, so far as I can see. For 30 minas,\nsee Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 189, as the weight of the two horns\nof the divine bull. Each axe weighing 3 _biltu_, and the lance with\npoint and hilt 3 _biltu_ we would have to assume 4 _biltu_ for each\n_pasu_, so as to get a total of 10 _biltu_ as the weight of the weapons\nfor each hero. The lance is depicted on seal cylinders representing\nGilgamesh and Enkidu, for example, Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, No. 199,\nand also in Nos. 184 and 191 in the field, with the broad hilt;\nand in an enlarged form in No. 648. Note the clear indication of the\nhilt. The two figures are Gilgamesh and Enkidu--not two Gilgameshes,\nas Ward assumed. See above, page 34. A different weapon is the club or\nmace, as seen in Ward, Nos. 170 and 173. This appears also to be the\nweapon which Gilgamesh holds in his hand on the colossal figure from\nthe palace of Sargon (Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_,\nPl. LVII), though it has been given a somewhat grotesque character by\na perhaps intentional approach to the scimitar, associated with Marduk\n(see Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, Chap. XXVII). The exact determination of\nthe various weapons depicted on seal-cylinders merits a special study.\n\nLine 181. Begins a speech of Huwawa, extending to line 187, reported\nto Gish by the elders (line 188-189), who add a further warning to\nthe youthful and impetuous hero.\n\nLine 183. _lu-uk-s\u00fa-su_ (also l. 186), from _ak\u00e2su_, \"drive on\" or\n\"lure on,\" occurs on the Pennsylvania tablet, line 135, _uk-ki-si_,\n\"lure on\" or \"entrap,\" which Langdon erroneously renders \"take away\"\nand thereby misses the point completely. See the comment to the line\nof the Pennsylvania tablet in question.\n\nLine 192. On the phrase _san\u00fb bunu_, \"change of countenance,\" in the\nsense of \"enraged,\" see the note to the Pennsylvania tablet, l.31.\n\nLine 194. _nu-ma-at_ occurs in a tablet published by Meissner,\n_Altbabyl. Privatrecht_, No. 100, with _b\u00eet abi_, which shows that the\ntotal confine of a property is meant; here, therefore, the \"interior\"\nof the forest or heart. It is hardly a \"by-form\" of _nuptum_ as\nMuss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 690b, and others have supposed,\nthough _nu-um-tum_ in one passage quoted by Muss-Arnolt, _ib._ p. 705a,\nmay have arisen from an aspirate pronunciation of the _p_ in _nubtum_.\n\nLine 215. The kneeling attitude of prayer is an interesting\ntouch. It symbolizes submission, as is shown by the description of\nGilgamesh's defeat in the encounter with Enkidu (Pennsylvania tablet,\nl. 227), where Gilgamesh is represented as forced to \"kneel\" to the\nground. Again in the Assyrian version, Tablet V, 4, 6, Gilgamesh kneels\ndown (though the reading _ka-mis_ is not certain) and has a vision.\n\nLine 229. It is much to be regretted that this line is so badly\npreserved, for it would have enabled us definitely to restore the\nopening line of the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh Epic. The\nfragment published by Jeremias in his appendix to his _Izdubar-Nimrod_,\nPlate IV, gives us the end of the colophon line to the Epic, reading\n......... _di ma-a-ti_ (cf. _ib._, Pl. I, 1.  ... _a-ti_). Our text\nevidently reproduces the same phrase and enables us to supply _ka_,\nas well as the name of the hero Gish of which there are distinct\ntraces. The missing word, therefore, describes the hero as the\nruler, or controller of the land. But what are the two signs before\n_ka_? A participial form from _pak\u00e2du_, which one naturally thinks\nof, is impossible because of the _ka_, and for the same reason one\ncannot supply the word for shepherd (_nakidu_). One might think of\n_ka-ak-ka-du_, except that _kakkadu_ is not used for \"head\" in the\nsense of \"chief\" of the land. I venture to restore _[i-ik-]ka-di_,\n\"strong one.\" Our text at all events disposes of Haupt's conjecture\n_is-di ma-a-ti_ (_JAOS_ 22, p. 11), \"Bottom of the earth,\" as also of\nUngnad's proposed _[a-di pa]-a-ti_, \"to the ends\" (Ungnad-Gressmann,\n_Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 6, note), or a reading _di-ma-a-ti_,\n\"pillars.\" The first line of the Assyrian version would now read\n\n\n\t_s\u00e1 nak-ba i-mu-ru [d_Gis-gi(n)-mas i-ik-ka]-di ma-a-ti,\n\n\ni.e., \"The one who saw everything, Gilgamesh the strong one (?) of\nthe land.\"\n\nWe may at all events be quite certain that the name of the hero\noccurred in the first line and that he was described by some epithet\nindicating his superior position.\n\nLines 229-235 are again an address of Gilgamesh to the sun-god, after\nhaving received a favorable \"oracle\" from the god (line 222). The\nhero promises to honor and to celebrate the god, by erecting thrones\nfor him.\n\nLines 237-244 describe the arming of the hero by the \"master\"\ncraftsman. In addition to the _pasu_ and _patru_, the bow (?) and\nquiver are given to him.\n\nLine 249 is paralleled in the new fragment of the Assyrian version\npublished by King in _PSBA_ 1914, page 66 (col. 1, 2), except that\nthis fragment adds _gi-mir_ to _e-mu-ki-ka_.\n\nLines 251-252 correspond to column 1, 6-8, of King's fragment, with\ninteresting variations \"battle\" and \"fight\" instead of \"way\" and\n\"road,\" which show that in the interval between the old Babylonian and\nthe Assyrian version, the real reason why Enkidu should lead the way,\nnamely, because he knows the country in which Huwawa dwells (lines\n252-253), was supplemented by describing Enkidu also as being more\nexperienced in battle than Gilgamesh.\n\nLine 254. I am unable to furnish a satisfactory rendering for this\nline, owing to the uncertainty of the word at the end. Can it be\n\"his household,\" from the stem which in Hebrew gives us MISEPOHOH\n\"family?\"\n\nLine 255. Is paralleled by col. 1, 4, of King's new fragment. The\nepisode of Gish and Enkidu proceeding to Ninsun, the mother of Gish,\nto obtain her counsel, which follows in King's fragment, appears to\nhave been omitted in the old Babylonian version. Such an elaboration of\nthe tale is exactly what we should expect as it passed down the ages.\n\nLine 257. Our text shows that _irnittu_ (lines 257, 264, 265) means\nprimarily \"endeavor,\" and then success in one's endeavor, or \"triumph.\"\n\nLines 266-270. Do not appear to refer to rites performed after a\nvictory, as might at a first glance appear, but merely voice the hope\nthat Gish will completely take possession of Huwawa's territory, so\nas to wash up after the fight in Huwawa's own stream; and the hope\nis also expressed that he may find pure water in Huwawa's land in\nabundance, to offer a libation to Shamash.\n\nLine 275. _On s\u00fa-pa-as-su_ = _supat-su_, see above, to l. 115.\n\n\n[Note on Sabitum (above, p. 11)\n\nIn a communication before the Oriental Club of Philadelphia (Feb. 10,\n1920), Prof. Haupt made the suggestion that _sa-bi-tum_ (or _tu_),\nhitherto regarded as a proper name, is an epithet describing the\nwoman who dwells at the seashore which Gilgamesh in the course of his\nwanderings reaches, as an \"innkeeper\". It is noticeable that the term\nalways appears without the determinative placed before proper names;\nand since in the old Babylonian version (so far as preserved) and\nin the Assyrian version, the determinative is invariably used, its\nconsistent absence in the case of _sabitum_ (Assyrian Version, Tablet\nX, 1, 1, 10, 15, 20; 2, 15-16 [_sa-bit_]; Meissner fragment col. 2,\n11-12) speaks in favor of Professor Haupt's suggestion. The meaning\n\"innkeeper\", while not as yet found in Babylonian-Assyrian literature\nis most plausible, since we have _sabu_ as a general name for 'drink',\nthough originally designating perhaps more specifically sesame wine\n(Muss-Arnolt, Assyrian Dictionary, p. 745b) or distilled brandy,\naccording to Prof. Haupt. Similarly, in the Aramaic dialects, _se_bha\nis used for \"to drink\" and in the Pael to \"furnish drink\". Muss-Arnolt\nin his Assyrian Dictionary, 746b, has also recognized that _sabitum_\nwas originally an epithet and compares the Aramaic _se_bhoy\u00e2th\u00e2(p1)\n\"barmaids\". In view of the bad reputation of inns in ancient Babylonia\nas brothels, it would be natural for an epithet like _sabitum_ to\nbecome the equivalent to \"public\" women, just as the inn was a \"public\"\nhouse. Sabitum would, therefore, have the same force as _samhatu_\n(the \"harlot\"), used in the Gilgamesh Epic by the side of _harimtu_\n\"woman\" (see the note to line 46 of Pennsylvania Tablet). The Sumerian\nterm for the female innkeeper is Sal Gestinna \"the woman of the wine,\"\nknown to us from the Hammurabi Code \u00a7\u00a7108-111. The bad reputation of\ninns is confirmed by these statutes, for the house of the Sal Gestinna\nis a gathering place for outlaws. The punishment of a female devotee\nwho enters the \"house of a wine woman\" (b\u00eet Sal Gestinna \u00a7110) is\ndeath. It was not \"prohibition\" that prompted so severe a punishment,\nbut the recognition of the purpose for which a devotee would enter\nsuch a house of ill repute. The speech of the _sabitum_ or innkeeper\nto Gilgamesh (above, p. 12) was, therefore, an invitation to stay with\nher, instead of seeking for life elsewhere. Viewed as coming from a\n\"public woman\" the address becomes significant. The invitation would\nbe parallel to the temptation offered by the _harimtu_ in the first\ntablet of the Enkidu, and to which Enkidu succumbs. The incident\nin the tablet would, therefore, form a parallel in the adventures\nof Gilgamesh to the one that originally belonged to the Enkidu\ncycle. Finally, it is quite possible that _sabitum_ is actually the\nAkkadian equivalent of the Sumerian Sal Gestinna, though naturally\nuntil this equation is confirmed by a syllabary or by other direct\nevidence, it remains a conjecture. See now also Albright's remarks\non Sabitum in the A. J. S. L. 36, pp. 269 _seq._]\n\n\n\n\n\nCORRECTIONS TO THE TEXT OF LANGDON'S EDITION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA\nTABLET. [157]\n\n\n\nColumn 1.\n\n\n5. Read _it-lu-tim_ (\"heroes\") instead of _id-da-tim_ (\"omens\").\n\n6. Read _ka-ka-bu_ instead of _ka-ka-'a_. This disposes of Langdon's\nnote 2 on p. 211.\n\n9 Read _\u00fa-ni-is-s\u00fa-ma_, \"I became weak\" (from _en\u00easu_, \"weak\") instead\nof _ilam is-s\u00fa-ma_, \"He bore a net\"(!). This disposes of Langdon's\nnote 5 on page 211.\n\n10. Read _Urukki_ instead of _ad-ki_. Langdon's note 7 is wrong.\n\n12. Langdon's note 8 is wrong. _\u00fa-um-mid-ma pu-ti_ does not mean\n\"he attained my front.\"\n\n14. Read _ab-ba-la-\u00e1s-s\u00fa_ instead of _at-ba-la-\u00e1s-s\u00fa_.\n\n15. Read _mu-di-a-at_ instead of _mu-u-da-a-at_.\n\n20. Read _ta-ha-du_ instead of an impossible _[sa]-ah-ha-ta_--two\nmistakes in one word. Supply _kima Sal_ before _tahadu_.\n\n22. Read _\u00e1s-s\u00fa_ instead of _s\u00fa_; and at the end of the line read\n_[tu-ut]-tu-\u00fa-ma_ instead of _s\u00fa-\u00fa-zu_.\n\n23. Read _ta-tar-ra-[as-su]_.\n\n24. Read _[us]-ti-nim-ma_ instead of _[is]-ti-lam-ma_.\n\n28. Read at the beginning _s\u00e1_ instead of _ina_.\n\n29. Langdon's text and transliteration of the first word do not\ntally. Read _ha-as-si-nu_, just as in line 31.\n\n32. Read _ah-ta-du_ (\"I rejoiced\") instead of _ah-ta-ta_.\n\n\n\nColumn 2.\n\n\n4. Read at the end of the line _di-da-s\u00e1(?) ip-t\u00ed-[e]_ instead of\n_Di-?-al-lu-un_ (!).\n\n5. Supply _d_En-ki-du at the beginning. Traces point to this reading.\n\n19. Read _[gi]-it-ma-[lu]_ after _d_Gis, as suggested by the Assyrian\nversion, Tablet I, 4, 38, where _em\u00fbku_ (\"strength\") replaces _nepistu_\nof our text.\n\n20. Read _at-[ta kima Sal ta-ha]-bu-[ub]-s\u00fa_.\n\n21. Read _ta-[ra-am-s\u00fa ki-ma]_.\n\n23. Read as one word _ma-a-ag-ri-i-im_ (\"accursed\"), spelled in\ncharacteristic Hammurabi fashion, instead of dividing into two words\n_ma-a-ak_ and _ri-i-im_, as Langdon does, who suggests as a translation\n\"unto the place yonder(?) of the shepherd\"(!).\n\n24. Read _im-ta-har_ instead of _im-ta-gar_.\n\n32. Supply _ili_(?) after _ki-ma_.\n\n33. Read _s\u00e1-ri-i-im_ as one word.\n\n35. Read _i-na [\u00e1s]-ri-s\u00fa [im]-hu-ru_.\n\n36. Traces at beginning point to either _\u00f9_ or _ki_ (=\n_itti_). Restoration of lines 36-39 (perhaps to be distributed into\nfive lines) on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2-5.\n\n\n\nColumn 3.\n\n\n14. Read _K\u00e0s_ (= _sikaram_, \"wine\") _si-ti_, \"drink,\" as in line 17,\ninstead of _bi-is-ti_, which leads Langdon to render this perfectly\nsimple line \"of the conditions and the fate of the land\"(!).\n\n21. Read _it-tam-ru_ instead of _it-ta-bir-ru_.\n\n22. Supply _[l\u00f9_S\u00fa]-I.\n\n29. Read _\u00fa-gi-ir-ri_ from _gar\u00fb_ (\"attack), instead of separating into\n_\u00fa_ and _gi-ir-ri_, as Langdon does, who translates \"and the lion.\" The\nsign used can _never_ stand for the copula! Nor is _girru_, \"lion!\"\n\n30. Read _S\u00edbmes_, \"shepherds,\" instead of _sab-[si]-es_!\n\n31. _sib-ba-ri_ is not \"mountain goat,\" nor can _ut-tap-pi-is_ mean\n\"capture.\" The first word means \"dagger,\" and the second \"he drew out.\"\n\n33. Read _it-ti-[lu] na-ki-[di-e]_, instead of _itti immer nakie_\nwhich yields no sense. Langdon's rendering, even on the basis of his\nreading of the line, is a grammatical monstrosity.\n\n35. Read _gis_ instead of _wa_.\n\n37. Read perhaps _a-na [na-ki-di-e i]- za-ak-ki-ir_.\n\n\n\nColumn 4.\n\n\n4. The first sign is clearly _iz_, not _ta_, as Langdon has it in\nnote 1 on page 216.\n\n9. The fourth sign is _su_, not _s\u00fa_.\n\n10. Separate _e-es_ (\"why\") from the following. Read _ta-hi-[il]_,\nfollowed, perhaps, by _la_. The last sign is not certain; it may\nbe _ma_.\n\n11. Read _lim-nu_ instead of _mi-nu_. In the same line read _a-la-ku\nma-na-ah-[ti]-ka_ instead of _a-la-ku-zu_(!) _na-ah ... ma_, which,\nnaturally, Langdon cannot translate.\n\n16. Read _e-lu-tim_ instead of _pa-a-ta-tim_. The first sign of\nthe line, _tu_, is not certain, because apparently written over an\nerasure. The second sign may be _a_. Some one has scratched the tablet\nat this point.\n\n18. Read _uk-la-at \u00e2li_ (?) instead of _ug-ad-ad-lil_, which gives\nno possible sense!\n\n\n\nColumn 5.\n\n\n2. Read _[wa]-ar-ki-s\u00fa_.\n\n8. Read _i-ta-wa-a_ instead of _i-ta-me-a_. The word _pi-it-tam_\nbelongs to line 9! The sign _pi_ is unmistakable. This disposes of\nnote 1 on p. 218.\n\n9. Read Mi = _salmu_, \"image.\" This disposes of Langdon's note 2 on\npage 218. Of six notes on this page, four are wrong.\n\n11. The first sign appears to be _si_ and the second _ma_. At the\nend we are perhaps to supply _[s\u00e1-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul_, on the basis\nof the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 45, _s\u00e1-ki-i pu-[uk-ku-ul]_.\n\n12. Traces at end of line suggest _i-pa(?)-ka-du_.\n\n13. Read _i-[na m\u00e2ti da-an e-mu]-ki i-wa_.\n\n18. Read _ur-s\u00e1-nu_ instead of _ip-s\u00e1-nu_.\n\n19. Read _i-s\u00e1-ru_ instead of _i-tu-ru_.\n\n24. The reading _it-ti_ after _d_Gis is suggested by the traces.\n\n25. Read _in-ni-[ib-bi-it]_ at the end of the line.\n\n28. Read _ip-ta-ra-[as a-la]-ak-tam_ at the end of the line, as in\nthe Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 37.\n\n30. The conjectural restoration is based on the Assyrian version,\nTablet IV, 2, 36.\n\n\n\nColumn 6.\n\n\n3. Read _i-na si-ri-[s\u00fa]_.\n\n5. Supply _[il-li-ik]_.\n\n21. Langdon's text has a superfluous _ga_.\n\n22. Read _uz-za-s\u00fa_, \"his anger,\" instead of _us-sa-s\u00fa_, \"his javelin\"\n(!).\n\n23. Read _i-ni-ih i-ra-as-su_, i.e., \"his breast was quieted,\" in\nthe sense of \"his anger was appeased.\"\n\n31. Read _ri-es-ka_ instead of _ri-es-su_.\n\nIn general, it should be noted that the indications of the number of\nlines missing at the bottom of columns 1-3 and at the top of columns\n4-6 as given by Langdon are misleading. Nor should he have drawn\nany lines at the bottom of columns 1-3 as though the tablet were\ncomplete. Besides in very many cases the space indications of what\nis missing within a line are inaccurate. Dr. Langdon also omitted to\ncopy the statement on the edge: _4 s\u00fa-si_, i.e., \"240 lines;\" and\nin the colophon he mistranslates _s\u00fa-tu-ur_, \"written,\" as though\nfrom _sat\u00e2ru_, \"write,\" whereas the form is the permansive III, 1,\nof _at\u00e2ru_, \"to be in excess of.\" The sign _tu_ never has the value\n_tu_! In all, Langdon has misread the text or mistransliterated it in\nover forty places, and of the 204 preserved lines he has mistranslated\nabout one-half.\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] See for further details of this royal library, Jastrow,\n_Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 21 _seq_.\n\n[2] _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_ (Leipzig, 1884-1891), supplemented\nby Haupt's article _Die Zw\u00f6lfte Tafel des Babylonischen Nimrodepos_ in\n_BA_ I, pp. 48-79, containing the fragments of the twelfth tablet. The\nfragments of the Epic in Ashurbanapal's library--some sixty--represent\nportions of several copies. Sin-lik\u00ee-unnini--perhaps from Erech,\nsince this name appears as that of a family in tablets from Erech\n(see Clay, _Legal Documents from Erech_, Index, p. 73)--is named in a\nlist of texts (K 9717--Haupt's edition No. 51, line 18) as the editor\nof the Epic, though probably he was not the only compiler. Since the\npublication of Haupt's edition, a few fragments were added by him\nas an appendix to Alfred Jeremias _Izdubar-Nimrod_ (Leipzig, 1891)\nPlates II-IV, and two more are embodied in Jensen's transliteration\nof all the fragments in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_ VI;\npp. 116-265, with elaborate notes, pp. 421-531. Furthermore a\nfragment, obtained from supplementary excavations at Kouyunjik,\nhas been published by L. W. King in his _Supplement to the Catalogue\nof the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British\nCuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum_\nNo. 56 and _PSBA_ Vol. 36, pp. 64-68. Recently a fragment of the 6th\ntablet from the excavations at Assur has been published by Ebeling,\n_Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religi\u00f6sen Inhalts_ No. 115, and one may\nexpect further portions to turn up.\n\nThe designation \"Nimrod Epic\" on the supposition that the hero of\nthe Babylonian Epic is identical with Nimrod, the \"mighty hunter\"\nof Genesis 10, has now been generally abandoned, in the absence of\nany evidence that the Babylonian hero bore a name like Nimrod. For\nall that, the description of Nimrod as the \"mighty hunter\" and the\noccurrence of a \"hunter\" in the Babylonian Epic (Assyrian version\nTablet I)--though he is not the hero--points to a confusion in\nthe Hebrew form of the borrowed tradition between Gilgamesh and\nNimrod. The latest French translation of the Epic is by Dhorme,\n_Choix de Textes Religieux Assyro-Babyloniens_ (Paris, 1907),\npp. 182-325; the latest German translation by Ungnad-Gressmann,\n_Das Gilgamesch-Epos_ (G\u00f6ttingen, 1911), with a valuable analysis\nand discussion. These two translations now supersede Jensen's\ntranslation in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, which, however,\nis still valuable because of the detailed notes, containing a wealth\nof lexicographical material. Ungnad also gave a partial translation in\nGressmann-Ranke, _Altorientalische Texte and Bilder_ I, pp. 39-61. In\nEnglish, we have translations of substantial portions by Muss-Arnolt\nin Harper's _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_ (New York, 1901),\npp. 324-368; by Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston,\n1898), Chap. XXIII; by Clay in _Light on the Old Testament from Babel_,\npp. 78-84; by Rogers in _Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament_,\npp. 80-103; and most recently by Jastrow in _Sacred Books and Early\nLiterature of the East_ (ed. C. F. Horne, New York, 1917), Vol. I,\npp. 187-220.\n\n[3] See Luckenbill in _JAOS_, Vol. 37, p. 452 _seq._ Prof. Clay,\nit should be added, clings to the older reading, Hammurabi, which is\nretained in this volume.\n\n[4] _ZA_, Vol. 14, pp. 277-292.\n\n[5] The survivor of the Deluge is usually designated as Ut-napishtim\nin the Epic, but in one passage (Assyrian version, Tablet XI, 196),\nhe is designated as Atra-hasis \"the very wise one.\" Similarly, in\na second version of the Deluge story, also found in Ashurbanapal's\nlibrary (IV R2 additions, p. 9, line 11). The two names clearly\npoint to two versions, which in accordance with the manner of ancient\ncompositions were merged into one. See an article by Jastrow in _ZA_,\nVol. 13, pp. 288-301.\n\n[6] Published by Scheil in _Recueil des Travaux_, etc. Vol. 20,\npp. 55-58.\n\n[7] The text does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, as the colophon,\ndiffering from the one attached to the Epic, shows.\n\n[8] _Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos_ (_MVAG_ 1902,\nNo. 1).\n\n[9] On these variant forms of the two names see the discussion below,\np. 24.\n\n[10] The passage is paralleled by Ecc. 9, 7-9. See Jastrow, _A Gentle\nCynic_, p. 172 _seq._\n\n[11] Among the Nippur tablets in the collection of the University\nof Pennsylvania Museum. The fragment was published by Dr. Poebel in\nhis _Historical and Grammatical Texts_ No. 23. See also Poebel in the\n_Museum Journal_, Vol. IV, p. 47, and an article by Dr. Langdon in the\nsame Journal, Vol. VII, pp. 178-181, though Langdon fails to credit\nDr. Poebel with the discovery and publication of the important tablet.\n\n[12] No. 55 in Langdon's _Historical and Religious Texts from the\nTemple Library of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914).\n\n[13] No. 5 in his _Sumerian Liturgical Texts_. (Philadelphia, 1917)\n\n[14] See on this name below, p. 23.\n\n[15] See further below, p. 37 _seq_.\n\n[16] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, No. 1, and\nJastrow in _JAOS_, Vol. 36, pp. 122-131 and 274-299.\n\n[17] See an article by Jastrow, _Sumerian and Akkadian Views of\nBeginnings_ (_JAOS_ Vol. 36, pp. 274-299).\n\n[18] See on this point Eduard Meyer, _Sumerier und Semiten in\nBabylonien_ (Berlin, 1906), p. 107 _seq_., whose view is followed\nin Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 121. See\nalso Clay, _Empire of the Amorites_ (Yale University Press, 1919),\np. 23 _et seq_.\n\n[19] See the discussion below, p. 24 _seq_.\n\n[20] Dr. Poebel published an article on the tablet in _OLZ_, 1914,\npp. 4-6, in which he called attention to the correct name for the\nmother of Gilgamesh, which was settled by the tablet as Ninsun.\n\n[21] _Historical Texts_ No. 2, Column 2, 26. See the discussion in\n_Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123, _seq._\n\n[22] See Fostat in _OLZ_, 1915, p. 367.\n\n[23] _Publications of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Babylonian\nSection_, Vol. X, No. 3 (Philadelphia, 1917). It is to be regretted\nthat Dr. Langdon should not have given full credit to Dr. Poebel for\nhis discovery of the tablet. He merely refers in an obscure footnote\nto Dr. Poebel's having made a copy.\n\n[24] E.g., in the very first note on page 211, and again in a note\non page 213.\n\n[25] Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs _4 s\u00fa-si_ = 240 which\nappear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word\n_s\u00fa-tu-ur_ in the colophon which he translated \"written,\" taking\nthe word from a stem _sat\u00e2ru_, \"write.\" The form _s\u00fa-tu-ur_ is III,\n1, from _at\u00e2ru_, \"to be in excess of,\" and indicates, presumably,\nthat the text is a copy \"enlarged\" from an older original. See the\nCommentary to the colophon, p. 86.\n\n[26] _Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, p. 29.\n\n[27] See below, p. 23.\n\n[28] I follow the enumeration of tablets, columns and lines in Jensen's\nedition, though some fragments appear to have been placed by him in\na wrong position.\n\n[29] According to Bezold's investigation, _Verbalsuffixformen als\nAlterskriterien babylonisch-assyrischer Inschriften_ (Heidelberg\nAkad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Klasse, 1910, 9te Abhandlung), the\nbulk of the tablets in Ashurbanapal's library are copies of originals\ndating from about 1500 B.C. It does not follow, however, that all\nthe copies date from originals of the same period. Bezold reaches\nthe conclusion on the basis of various forms for verbal suffixes,\nthat the fragments from the Ashurbanapal Library actually date from\nthree distinct periods ranging from before c. 1450 to c. 700 B.C.\n\n[30] \"Before thou comest from the mountain, Gilgamesh in Erech will\nsee thy dreams,\" after which the dreams are recounted by the woman\nto Enkidu. The expression \"thy dreams\" means here \"dreams about\nthee.\" (Tablet I, 5, 23-24).\n\n[31] Lines 100-101.\n\n[32] In a paper read before the American Oriental Society at New Haven,\nApril 4, 1918.\n\n[33] See the commentary to col. 4 of the Yale tablet for further\ndetails.\n\n[34] This is no doubt the correct reading of the three signs which\nused to be read Iz-tu-bar or Gish-du-bar. The first sign has commonly\nthe value Gish, the second can be read Gin or Gi (Br\u00fcnnow No. 11900)\nand the third Mash as well as Bar. See Ungnad in Ungnad-Gressmann,\n_Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 76, and Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical\nTexts_, p. 123.\n\n[35] So also in Sumerian (Zimmern, _Sumerische Kultlieder aus\naltbabylonischer Zeit_, No. 196, rev. 14 and 16.)\n\n[36] The sign used, LUM (Br\u00fcnnow No. 11183), could have the value hu\nas well as hum.\n\n[37] The addition \"father-in-law of Moses\" to the name Hobab b. Re'uel\nin this passage must refer to Re'uel, and not to Hobab. In Judges 4,\n11, the gloss \"of the Bene Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses\" must\nbe separated into two: (1) \"Bene Hobab,\" and (2) \"father-in-law of\nMoses.\" The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or is\nintended as a brief reminder that Hobab is identical with the son\nof Re'uel.\n\n[38] See his _List of Personal Names from the Temple School of\nNippur_, p. 122. _Hu-um-ba-bi-tu_ and _si-kin hu-wa-wa_ also occur\nin Omen Texts (_CT_ XXVII, 4, 8-9 = Pl. 3, 17 = Pl. 6, 3-4 = _CT_\nXXVIII, 14, 12). The contrast to _huwawa_ is _ligru_, \"dwarf\" (_CT_\nXXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow, _Religion\nBabyloniens und Assyriens_, II, p. 913, Note 7. Huwawa, therefore,\nhas the force of \"monster.\"\n\n[39] Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 111 _seq._\n\n[40] Ungnad, 1. c. p. 77, called attention to this name, but failed\nto draw the conclusion that Hu(m)baba therefore belongs to the West\nand not to the East.\n\n[41] First pointed out by Ungnad in _OLZ_ 1910, p. 306, on the basis\nof _CT_ XVIII, 30, 10, where En-gi-d\u00fa appears in the column furnishing\n_phonetic_ readings.\n\n[42] See Clay _Amurru_, pp. 74, 129, etc.\n\n[43] Tablet I, 2, 39-40; 3, 6-7 and 33-34; 4, 3-4.\n\n[44] Tablet I, 2, 1 and IX, 2, 16. Note also the statement about\nGilgamesh that \"his body is flesh of the gods\" (Tablet IX, 2, 14; X,\n1, 7).\n\n[45] _BOR_ IV, p. 264.\n\n[46] Lewin, _Die Scholien des Theodor bar Koni zur\nPatriarchengeschichte_ (Berlin, 1905), p. 2. See Gressmann in\nUngnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 83, who points out that\nthe first element of GLMGVS compared with the second of GMYGMVS gives\nthe exact form that we require, namely, Gilgamos.\n\n[47] Tablet I, col. 2, is taken up with this episode.\n\n[48] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123.\n\n[49] See Poebel, _Historical Texts_ No. 2, col. 2, 26.\n\n[50] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_ I, 1 No. 26.\n\n[51] Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesest\u00fccke_, p. 88, VI, 2-3. Cf. also\n_CT_ XXV, 28(K 7659) 3, where we must evidently supply [Esigga]-tuk,\nfor which in the following line we have again Gish-bil-ga-mesh as an\nequivalent. See Meissner, _OLZ_ 1910, 99.\n\n[52] See, e.g., Barton, _Haverford Collection_ II No. 27, Col. I,\n14, etc.\n\n[53] Deimel, _Pantheon Babylonicum_, p. 95.\n\n[54] _CT_ XII, 50 (K 4359) obv. 17.\n\n[55] See Barton, _Origin and Development of Babylonian Writing_, II,\np. 99 _seq._, for various explanations, though all centering around\nthe same idea of the picture of fire in some form.\n\n[56] See the passages quoted by Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical\nTexts_, p. 126.\n\n[57] E.g., Genesis 4, 20, Jabal, \"the father of tent-dwelling and\ncattle holding;\" Jubal (4, 21), \"the father of harp and pipe striking.\"\n\n[58] See particularly the plays (in the J. Document) upon the names of\nthe twelve sons of Jacob, which are brought forward either as tribal\ncharacteristics, or as suggested by some incident or utterance by\nthe mother at the birth of each son.\n\n[59] The designation is variously explained by Arabic writers. See\nBeidhawi's _Commentary_ (ed. Fleischer), to S\u00fara 18, 82.\n\n[60] The writing Gish-gi-mash as an approach to the pronunciation\nGilgamesh would thus represent the beginning of the artificial process\nwhich seeks to interpret the first syllable as \"hero.\"\n\n[61] See above, p. 27.\n\n[62] Poebel, _Historical Texts_, p. 115 _seq_.\n\n[63] Many years ago (_BA_ III, p. 376) I equated Etana with Ethan in\nthe Old Testament--therefore a West Semitic name.\n\n[64] See Clay, _The Empire of the Amorites_, p. 80.\n\n[65] Professor Clay strongly favors an Amoritic origin also\nfor Gilgamesh. His explanation of the name is set forth in his\nrecent work on _The Empire of the Amorites_, page 89, and is also\nreferred to in his work on _Amurru_, page 79, and in his volume\nof _Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection_,\npage 3, note. According to Professor Clay the original form of the\nhero's name was West Semitic, and was something like _Bilga-Mash_,\nthe meaning of which was perhaps \"the offspring of Mash.\" For the\nfirst element in this division of the name cf. Pilikam, the name of\na ruler of an early dynasty, and Balak of the Old Testament. In view\nof the fact that the axe figures so prominently in the Epic as an\ninstrument wielded by Gilgamesh, Professor Clay furthermore thinks it\nreasonable to assume that the name was interpreted by the Babylonian\nscribe as \"the axe of Mash.\" In this way he would account for the\nuse of the determinative for weapons, which is also the sign Gish,\nin the name. It is certainly noteworthy that the ideogram Gish-T\u00fan in\nthe later form of _Gish-T\u00fan-mash_ = _pasu_, \"axe,\" _CT_ XVI, 38:14b,\netc. _Tun_ also = _pilaku_ \"axe,\" _CT_ xii, 10:34b. Names with similar\nelement (besides Pilikam) are Belaku of the Hammurabi period, Bilakku\nof the Cassite period, etc.\n\nIt is only proper to add that Professor Jastrow assumes the\nresponsibility for the explanation of the form and etymology of the\nname Gilgamesh proposed in this volume. The question is one in regard\nto which legitimate differences of opinion will prevail among scholars\nuntil through some chance a definite decision, one way or the other,\ncan be reached.\n\n[66] _me-ih-r\u00f9_ (line 191).\n\n[67] Tablet I, 5, 23. Cf. I, 3, 2 and 29.\n\n[68] Tablet IV, 4, 7 and I, 5, 3.\n\n[69] Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b 34, in an address of Shamash\nto Enkidu.\n\n[70] So Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 11. Also supplied VIII, 5,\n20 and 21; and X, 1, 46-47 and 5, 6-7.\n\n[71] Tablet XII, 3, 25.\n\n[72] Ward, _Seal Cylinders of Western Asia_, Chap. X, and the\nsame author's _Cylinders and other Ancient Oriental Seals_--Morgan\ncollection Nos. 19-50.\n\n[73] E.g., Ward No. 192, Enkidu has human legs like Gilgamesh;\nalso No. 189, where it is difficult to say which is Gilgamesh, and\nwhich is Enkidu. The clothed one is probably Gilgamesh, though not\ninfrequently Gilgamesh is also represented as nude, or merely with\na girdle around his waist.\n\n[74] E.g., Ward, Nos. 173, 174, 190, 191, 195 as well as 189 and 192.\n\n[75] On the other hand, in Ward Nos. 459 and 461, the conflict\nbetween the two heroes is depicted with the heroes distinguished\nin more conventional fashion, Enkidu having the hoofs of an animal,\nand also with a varying arrangement of beard and hair.\n\n[76] See Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston, 1898),\np. 468 _seq._\n\n[77] Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 90 _seq._\n\n[78] Pennsylvania tablet, l. 198 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 37.\n\n[79] \"Enkidu blocked the gate\" (Pennsylvania tablet, line 215) =\nAssyrian version Tablet IV, 2, 46: \"Enkidu interposed his foot at\nthe gate of the family house.\"\n\n[80] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 218 and 224.\n\n[81] Yale tablet, line 198; also to be supplied lines 13-14.\n\n[82] Yale tablet, lines 190 and 191.\n\n[83] _PSBA_ 1914, 65 _seq._ = Jensen III, 1a, 4-11, which can now be\ncompleted and supplemented by the new fragment.\n\n[84] I.e., Enkidu will save Gilgamesh.\n\n[85] These two lines impress one as popular sayings--here applied\nto Enkidu.\n\n[86] King's fragment, col. I, 13-27, which now enables us to complete\nJensen III, 1a, 12-21.\n\n[87] Yale tablet, lines 252-253.\n\n[88] Yale tablet, lines 143-148 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6,\n26 _seq._\n\n[89] Assyrian version, Tablet III, 2a, 13-14.\n\n[90] Lines 215-222.\n\n[91] Assyrian version, Tablet V, Columns 3-4. We have to assume that\nin line 13 of column 4 (Jensen, p. 164), Enkidu takes up the thread\nof conversation, as is shown by line 22: \"Enkidu brought his dream\nto him and spoke to Gilgamesh.\"\n\n[92] Assyrian version, Tablet VI, lines 146-147.\n\n[93] Lines 178-183.\n\n[94] Lines 176-177.\n\n[95] Tablet VII, Column 6.\n\n[96] Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 200-203. These words are put into\nthe mouth of Gilgamesh (lines 198-199). It is, therefore, unlikely\nthat he would sing his own praise. Both Jensen and Ungnad admit that\nEnkidu is to be supplied in at least one of the lines.\n\n[97] Lines 109 and 112.\n\n[98] Assyrian version, Tablet IX, 1, 8-9.\n\n[99] Tablet VIII, 5, 2-6.\n\n[100] So also Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_,\np. 97, regards Enkidu as the older figure.\n\n[101] See Jastrow, _Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature, AJSL_,\nVol. 15, pp. 193-214.\n\n[102] Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 31-36.\n\n[103] It will be recalled that Enkidu is always spoken of as \"born\nin the field.\"\n\n[104] Note the repetition _ibtani_ \"created\" in line 33 of the \"man\nof Anu\" and in line 35 of the offspring of Ninib. The creation of the \nformer is by the \"heart,\" i.e., by the will of Aruru, the creation of \nthe latter is an act of moulding out of clay.\n\n[105] Tablet I, Column 3.\n\n[106] Following as usual the enumeration of lines in Jensen's edition.\n\n[107] An analogy does not involve a dependence of one tale upon the\nother, but merely that both rest on similar traditions, which _may_\nhave arisen independently.\n\n[108] Note that the name of Eve is not mentioned till after the\nfall (Genesis 3, 20). Before that she is merely _ishsha_, i.e.,\n\"woman,\" just as in the Babylonian tale the woman who guides Enkidu\nis _harimtu_, \"woman.\"\n\n[109] \"And he drank and became drunk\" (Genesis 9, 21).\n\n[110] \"His heart became glad and his face shone\" (Pennsylvania Tablet,\nlines 100-101).\n\n[111] That in the combination of this Enkidu with tales of primitive\nman, inconsistent features should have been introduced, such as the\nunion of Enkidu with the woman as the beginning of a higher life,\nwhereas the presence of a hunter and his father shows that human\nsociety was already in existence, is characteristic of folk-tales,\nwhich are indifferent to details that may be contradictory to the\ngeneral setting of the story.\n\n[112] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 102-104.\n\n[113] Line 105.\n\n[114] Tablet I, 1, 9. See also the reference to the wall of Erech as\nan \"old construction\" of Gilgamesh, in the inscription of An-Am in\nthe days of Sin-gamil (Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I,\nNo. 26.) Cf IV R2 52, 3, 53.\n\n[115] The invariable designation in the Assyrian version as against\n_Uruk rib\u00eetim_, \"Erech of the plazas,\" in the old Babylonian version.\n\n[116] In Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 123 _seq._\n\n[117] See Jensen, p. 266. Gilgamesh is addressed as \"judge,\" as the\none who inspects the divisions of the earth, precisely as Shamash is\ncelebrated. In line 8 of the hymn in question, Gilgamesh is in fact\naddressed as Shamash.\n\n[118] The darkness is emphasized with each advance in the hero's\nwanderings (Tablet IX, col. 5).\n\n[119] This tale is again a nature myth, marking the change from the\ndry to the rainy season. The Deluge is an annual occurrence in the\nEuphrates Valley through the overflow of the two rivers. Only the\ncanal system, directing the overflow into the fields, changed the\ncurse into a blessing. In contrast to the Deluge, we have in the\nAssyrian creation story the drying up of the primeval waters so\nthat the earth makes its appearance with the change from the rainy\nto the dry season. The world is created in the spring, according to\nthe Akkadian view which is reflected in the Biblical creation story,\nas related in the P. document. See Jastrow, _Sumerian and Akkadian\nViews of Beginnings_ (_JAOS_, Vol 36, p. 295 seq.).\n\n[120] As-am in Sumerian corresponding to the Akkadian Sabatu, which\nconveys the idea of destruction.\n\n[121] The month is known as the \"Mission of Ishtar\" in Sumerian, in\nallusion to another nature myth which describes Ishtar's disappearance\nfrom earth and her mission to the lower world.\n\n[122] _Historical Texts_ No. 1. The Sumerian name of the survivor\nis Zi-u-g\u00edd-du or perhaps Zi-u-su-du (cf. King, _Legends of Babylon\nand Egypt_, p. 65, note 4), signifying \"He who lengthened the day of\nlife,\" i.e., the one of long life, of which Ut-napishtim (\"Day of\nLife\") in the Assyrian version seems to be an abbreviated Akkadian\nrendering, with the omission of the verb. So King's view, which is\nhere followed. See also _CT_ XVIII, 30, 9, and Langdon, _Sumerian Epic\nof Paradise_, p. 90, who, however, enters upon further speculations\nthat are fanciful.\n\n[123] See the translation in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_,\npp. 69, _seq._ and 73.\n\n[124] According to Professor Clay, quite certainly Amurru, just as\nin the case of Enkidu.\n\n[125] Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 100\n_seq._ touches upon this _motif_, but fails to see the main point that\nthe companions are also twins or at least brothers. Hence such examples\nas Abraham and Lot, David and Jonathan, Achilles and Patroclus,\nEteokles and Polyneikes, are not parallels to Gilgamesh-Enkidu, but\nbelong to the _enlargement_ of the _motif_ so as to include companions\nwho are _not_ regarded as brothers.\n\n[126] Or Romus. See Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 59, note 2.\n\n[127] One might also include the primeval pair Yama-Yami with their\nequivalents in Iranian mythology (Carnoy, _Iranian Mythology_,\np. 294 _seq._).\n\n[128] Becoming, however, a triad and later increased to\nseven. Cf. Rendell Harris, l. c., p. 32.\n\n[129] I am indebted to my friend, Professor A. J. Carnoy, of the\nUniversity of Louvain, for having kindly gathered and placed at my\ndisposal material on the \"twin-brother\" _motif_ from Indo-European\nsources, supplemental to Rendell Harris' work.\n\n[130] On the other hand, _Uruk m\u00e2tum_ for the district of Erech, i.e.,\nthe territory over which the city holds sway, appears in both versions\n(Pennsylvania tablet, 1. 10 = Assyrian version I, 5, 36).\n\n[131] \"My likeness\" (line 27). It should be noted, however, that\nlines 32-44 of I, 5, in Jensen's edition are part of a fragment K 9245\n(not published, but merely copied by Bezold and Johns, and placed at\nJensen's disposal), which may represent a _duplicate_ to I, 6, 23-34,\nwith which it agrees entirely except for one line, viz., line 34 of\nK 9245 which is not found in column 6, 23-34. If this be correct,\nthen there is lacking after line 31 of column 5, the interpretation\nof the dream given in the Pennsylvania tablet in lines 17-23.\n\n[132] _ina sap-li-ki_, literally, \"below thee,\" whereas in the old\nBabylonian version we have _ana si-ri-ka_, \"towards thee.\"\n\n[133] Repeated I, 6, 28.\n\n[134] _ul-tap-rid ki-is-su-s\u00fa-ma_. The verb is from _par\u00e2du_,\n\"violent.\" For _kissu_, \"strong,\" see _CT_ XVI, 25, 48-49. Langdon\n(_Gilgamesh Epic_, p. 211, note 5) renders the phrase: \"he shook his\nmurderous weapon!!\"--another illustration of his haphazard way of\ntranslating texts.\n\n[135] Shown by the colophon (Jeremias, _Izdubar-Nimrod_, Plate IV.)\n\n[136] Lines 42-43 must be taken as part of the narrative of the\ncompiler, who tells us that after the woman had informed Enkidu that\nGilgamesh already knew of Enkidu's coming through dreams interpreted\nby Ninsun, Gilgamesh actually set out and encountered Enkidu.\n\n[137] Tablet I, col. 4. See also above, p. 19.\n\n[138] IV, 2, 44-50. The word _ullanum_, (l.43) \"once\" or \"since,\"\npoints to the following being a reference to a former recital, and\nnot an original recital.\n\n[139] Only the lower half (Haupt's edition, p. 82) is preserved.\n\n[140] \"The eyes of Enkidu were filled with tears,\" corresponding to\nIV, 4, 10.\n\n[141] Unless indeed the number \"seven\" is a slip for the sign sa. See\nthe commentary to the line.\n\n[142] I.e., paid homage to the meteor.\n\n[143] I.e., the heroes of Erech raised me to my feet, or perhaps in\nthe sense of \"supported me.\"\n\n[144] I.e., Enkidu.\n\n[145] I.e., \"thy way of life.\"\n\n[146] I.e., the man.\n\n[147] I.e., an idiomatic phrase meaning \"for all times.\"\n\n[148] I.e., Enkidu became like Gish, godlike. Cf. col. 2, 11.\n\n[149] He was thrown and therefore vanquished.\n\n[150] Epithet given to Ninsun. See the commentary to the line.\n\n[151] Scribal error for _an_.\n\n[152] Text apparently _di_.\n\n[153] Hardly _ul_.\n\n[154] Omitted by scribe.\n\n[155] _Kisti_ omitted by scribe.\n\n[156] I.e., at night to thee, may Lugal-banda, etc.\n\n[157] The enumeration here is according to Langdon's edition.","title":"An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":37440}