Chapter IV: Part 4

Lines 197-200 appear to correspond to Tablet IV, 2, 35-37, of the Assyrian version, though not forming a complete parallel. We may therefore supply at the beginning of line 35 of the Assyrian version _[ittaziz] Enkidu_, corresponding to line 197 of the Pennsylvania tablet. Line 36 of IV, 2, certainly appears to correspond to line 200 (_dan-nu-ti_ = _da-na-ni-is-sú_).

Line 208. The first sign looks more like _sar_, though _ur_ is possible.

Line 211 is clearly a description of Enkidu, as is shown by a comparison with the Assyrian version I, 2, 37: _[pi]-ti-ik pi-ir-ti-sú uh-tan-na-ba kima d_Nidaba, "The form of his hair sprouted like wheat." We must therefore supply Enkidu in the preceding line. Tablet IV, 4, 6, of the Assyrian version also contains a reference to the flowing hair of Enkidu.

Line 212. For the completion of the line cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Letters_, No. 214.

Line 214. For _ribîtu mâti_ see the note above to line 28 of column 1.

Lines 215-217 correspond almost entirely to the Assyrian version IV, 2, 46-48. The variations _ki-ib-su_ in place of _sêpu_, and _kima lîm_, "like oxen," instead of _ina bâb êmuti_ (repeated from line 46), _ana surûbi_ for _êribam_, are slight though interesting. The Assyrian version shows that the "gate" in line 215 is "the gate of the family house" in which the goddess Ishhara lies.

Lines 218-228. The detailed description of the fight between the two heroes is only partially preserved in the Assyrian version.

Line 218. _li-i-im_ is evidently to be taken as plural here as in line 224, just as _su-ki-im_ (lines 27 and 175), _ri-bi-tim_ (lines 4, 28, etc.), _tarbasim_ (line 74), _assamim_ (line 98) are plural forms. Our text furnishes, as does also the Yale tablet, an interesting illustration of the vacillation in the Hammurabi period in the twofold use of _im_: (a) as an indication of the plural (as in Hebrew), and (b) as a mere emphatic ending (lines 63, 73, and 232), which becomes predominant in the post-Hammurabi age.

Line 227. Gilgamesh is often represented on seal cylinders as kneeling, e.g., Ward Seal Cylinders Nos. 159, 160, 165. Cf. also Assyrian version V, 3, 6, where Gilgamesh is described as kneeling, though here in prayer. See further the commentary to the Yale tablet, line 215.

Line 229. We must of course read _uz-za-sú_, "his anger," and not _us-sa-sú_, "his javelin," as Langdon does, which gives no sense.

Line 231. Langdon's note is erroneous. He again misses the point. The stem of the verb here as in line 230 (_i-ni-ih_) is the common _nâhu_, used so constantly in connection with _pasâhu_, to designate the cessation of anger.

Line 234. _istên_ applied to Gish designates him of course as "unique," not as "an ordinary man," as Langdon supposes.

Line 236. On this title "wild cow of the stall" for Ninsun, see Poebel in _OLZ_ 1914, page 6, to whom we owe the correct view regarding the name of Gilgamesh's mother.

Line 238. _mu-ti_ here cannot mean "husband," but "man" in general. See above note to line 107. Langdon's strange misreading _ri-es-su_ for _ri-es-ka_ ("thy head") leads him again to miss the point, namely that Enkidu comforts his rival by telling him that he is destined for a career above that of the ordinary man. He is to be more than a mere prize fighter; he is to be a king, and no doubt in the ancient sense, as the representative of the deity. This is indicated by the statement that the kingship is decreed for him by Enlil. Similarly, Hu(m)baba or Huwawa is designated by Enlil to inspire terror among men (Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 5, 2 and 5), _i-sim-sú d_Enlil = Yale tablet, l. 137, where this is to be supplied. This position accorded to Enlil is an important index for the origin of the Epic, which is thus shown to date from a period when the patron deity of Nippur was acknowledged as the general head of the pantheon. This justifies us in going back several centuries at least before Hammurabi for the beginning of the Gilgamesh story. If it had originated in the Hammurabi period, we should have had Marduk introduced instead of Enlil.

Line 242. As has been pointed out in the corrections to the text (Appendix), _sú-tu-ur_ can only be III, 1, from _atâru_, "to be in excess of." It is a pity that the balance of the line is broken off, since this is the first instance of a colophon beginning with the term in question. In some way _sutûr_ must indicate that the copy of the text has been "enlarged." It is tempting to fill out the line _sú-tu-ur e-li [duppi labiri]_, and to render "enlarged from an original," as an indication of an independent recension of the Epic in the Hammurabi period. All this, however, is purely conjectural, and we must patiently hope for more tablets of the Old Babylonian version to turn up. The chances are that some portions of the same edition as the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets are in the hands of dealers at present or have been sold to European museums. The war has seriously interfered with the possibility of tracing the whereabouts of groups of tablets that ought never to have been separated.

YALE TABLET.

TRANSLITERATION.

(About ten lines missing.)

Col. I.

.................. [ib]-ri(?) [mi-im-ma(?) sá(?)]-kú-tu wa(?)-ak-rum [am-mi-nim] ta-ah-si-ih [an-ni]-a-am [e-pi]-sá-am ...... mi-im[-ma sá-kú-tu(?)]ma- di-is [am-mi]-nim [tah]-si-ih [ur(?)]-ta-du-ú [a-na ki-i]s-tim si-ip-ra-am it-[ta-sú]-ú i-na [nisê] it-ta-ás-sú-ú-ma i-pu-sú ru-hu-tam .................. us-ta-di-nu ............................. bu ...............................

(About 17 lines missing.)

.............. nam-........ .................... u ib-[ri] ..... .............. ú-na-i-du ...... [zi-ik]-ra-am ú-[tí-ir]-ru [a-na] ha-ri-[im]-tim [i]-pu(?)-sú a-na sa-[ka]-pu-ti

Col. II.

(About eleven lines missing.)

... sú(?)-mu(?) ............... ma-hi-ra-am [sá i-si-sú] sú-uk-ni-sum-[ma] ............... la-al-la-ru-[tu] .................. um-mi d-[Gis mu-di-a-at ka-la-ma] i-na ma-[har dSamas i-di-sá is-si] sá ú i-na- an(?)-[na am-mi-nim] ta-[as-kun(?) a-na ma-ri-ia li-ib-bi la] sa-[li-la te-mid-su] .............................

(About four lines missing.)

i-na [sá dEn-ki-du im-la-a] di-[im-tam] il-[pu-ut li]-ib-ba-sú-[ma] [zar-bis(?)] us-ta-ni-[ih] [i-na sá dEn]-ki-du im-la-a di-im-tam [il-pu-ut] li-ib-ba-sú-ma [zar-bis(?)] us-ta-ni-[ih] [dGis ú-ta]-ab-bil pa-ni-sú [iz-za-kar-am] a-na dEn-ki-du [ib-ri am-mi-nim] i-na-ka [im-la-a di-im]-tam [il-pu-ut li-ib-bi]-ka [zar-bis tu-us-ta]-ni-ih [dEn-ki-du pi-sú i-pu-sá]-am-ma iz-za-[kàr-am] a-na dGis ta-ab-bi-a-tum ib-ri us-ta-li-pa da- [151]da-ni-ia a-ha-a-a ir-ma-a-ma e-mu-ki i-ni-is dGis pi-sú i-pu-sá-am-ma iz-za-kàr-am a-na dEn-ki-du

(About four lines missing.)

Col. III.

..... [a-di dHu]-wa-wa da-pi-nu .................. ra-[am(?)-ma] ................ [ú-hal]- li-ik [lu-ur-ra-du a-na ki-is-ti sá] iserini ............ lam(?) hal-bu ............ [li]-li-is-su .............. lu(?)-up-ti-sú dEn-ki-du pi-sú i-pu-sá-am-ma iz-za-kàr-am a-na dGis i-di-ma ib-ri i-na sadî(-i) i-nu-ma at-ta-la-ku it-ti bu-lim a-na istên(-en) kas-gíd-ta-a-an nu-ma-at ki-is-tum [e-di-is(?)] ur-ra-du a-na libbi-sá d[Hu-wa]-wa ri-ig-ma-sú a-bu-bu pi-[sú] dBil-gi-ma na-pi-is-sú mu-tum am-mi-nim ta-ah-si-ih an-ni-a-am e-pi-sá-am ga-[ba]-al-la ma-ha-ar [sú]-pa-at dHu-wa-wa (d)Gis pi-sú i-pu-sá-am-ma [iz-za-k]àr-am a-na dEn-ki-du ....... su(?)-lu-li a-sá-ki [152]-sá ............. [i-na ki-is]-tim ............................... ik(?) ......................... a-na .......................... mu-sá-ab [dHu-wa-wa] ....... ha-as-si-nu ................. at-ta lu(?) ................. a-na-ku lu-[ur-ra-du a-na ki-is-tim] dEn-ki-du pi-sú i-pu-[sá-am-ma] iz-za-kàr-am a-na [dGis] ki-i ni[il]-la-ak [is-te-nis(?)] a-na ki-is-ti [sá iserini] na-si-ir-sá dGis muk-[tab-lu] da-a-an la sa[-li-lu(?)] dHu-wa-wa dpi-ir-[hu sa (?)] dAdad is .......... sú-ú ..................

Col. IV.

ás-súm sú-ul-lu-m[u ki-is-ti sáiserini] pu-ul-hi-a-tim 7 [sú(?) i-sim-sú dEnlil] dGis pi-sú i-pu [sá-am-ma] iz-za-kàr-am a-na [dEn-ki-du] ma-an-nu ib-ri e-lu-ú sá-[ru-ba(?)] i-tib-ma it-ti dSamas da-ri-is ú-[me-sú] a-we-lu-tum ba-ba-nu ú-tam-mu-sá-[ma] mi-im-ma sá i-te-ni-pu-sú sá-ru-ba at-ta an-na-nu-um-ma ta-dar mu-tam ul is-sú da-na-nu kar-ra-du-ti-ka lu-ul-li-ik-ma i-na pa-ni-ka pi-ka li-is-si-a-am ti-hi-e ta-du-ur sum-ma am-ta-ku-ut sú-mi lu-us-zi-iz dGis mi [153]-it-ti dHu-wa-wa da-pi-nim il(?)-ku-ut is-tu i-wa-al-dam-ma tar-bi-a i-na sam-mu(?) Il(?) is-hi-it-ka-ma la-bu ka-la-ma ti-di it- ku(?) ..... [il(?)]-pu-tu-(?) ma ..... .............. ka-ma .............. si pi-ti ............ ki-ma re'i(?) na-gi-la sa-rak-ti .... [ta-sá-s]i-a-am tu-lim-mi-in li-ib-bi [ga-ti lu]-us-ku-un-ma [lu-u-ri]-ba-am iserini [sú-ma sá]-ta-ru-ú a-na-ku lu-us-ta-ak-na [pu-tu-ku(?)] ib-ri a-na ki-is-ka-tim lu-mu-ha [be-le-e li-is-]-pu-ku i-na mah-ri-ni [pu-tu]-ku a-na ki-is-ka-ti-i i-mu-hu wa-ás-bu us-ta-da-nu um-mi-a-nu pa-si is-pu-ku ra-bu-tim ha-as-si-ni 3 biltu-ta-a-an is-tap-ku pa-at-ri is-pu-ku ra-bu-tim me-se-li-tum 2 biltu-ta-a-an si-ip-ru 30 ma-na-ta-a-an sá a-hi-si-na isid(?) pa-at-ri 30 ma-na-ta-a-an hurasi [d]Gis ù [dEn-ki-]du 10 biltu-ta-a-an sá-ak-nu] .... ul-la . .[Uruk]ki 7 i-di-il-sú ...... is-me-ma um-ma-nu ib-bi-ra [us-te-(?)]-mi-a i-na sûki sá Urukki ri-bi-tim ...... [u-se(?)]-sa-sú dGis [ina sûki sá(?) Urukki] ri-bi-tim [dEn-ki-du(?) ú]-sá-ab i-na mah-ri-sú ..... [ki-a-am(?) i-ga]-ab-bi [........ Urukki ri]-bi-tim [ma-ha-ar-sú]

Col. V.

dGis sá i-ga-ab-bu-ú lu-mu-ur sá sú-um-sú it-ta-nam-ma-la ma-ta-tum lu-uk-sú-su-ma i-na ki-is-ti iserini ki-ma da-an-nu pi-ir-hu-um sá Urukki lu-si-es-mi ma-tam ga-ti lu-us-ku-un-ma lu-uk-[sú] [154]-su-ma iserini sú-ma sá-ta-ru-ú a-na-ku lu-us-tak-nam si-bu-tum sá Urukki ri-bi-tim zi-ik-ra ú-ti-ir-ru a-na dGis si-ih-ri-ti-ma dGis libbi-ka na-si-ka mi-im-ma sá te-te-ni-pu-sú la ti-di ni-si-im-me-ma dHu-wa-wa sá-nu-ú bu-nu-sú ma-an-nu-um [us-tam]-ha-ru ka-ak-ki-sú a-na istên(-en) [kas-gíd-ta-a]-an nu-ma-at kisti ma-an-nu sá [ur-ra]-du a-na libbi-sá dHu-wa-wa ri-ig-ma-sú a-bu-bu pi-sú dBil-gi-ma na-pi-su mu-tum am-mi-nim tah-si-ih an-ni-a-am e-pi-sá ga-ba-al-la ma-ha-ar sú-pa-at dHu-wa-wa is-me-e-ma dGis zi-ki-ir ma-li-[ki]-sú ip-pa-al-sa-am-ma i-si-ih a-na ib-[ri-sú] i-na-an-na ib-[ri] ki-a-am [a-ga-ab-bi] a-pa-al-ah-sú-ma a-[al-la-ak a-na kisti] [lu]ul-[lik it-ti-ka a-na ki-is-ti iserini(?)]

(About five lines missing.)

........................ -ma li ............... -ka ilu-ka li(?) ..............-ka harrana li-sá-[tir-ka a-na sú-ul-mi] a-na kar sá [Urukki ri-bi-tim] ka-mi-is-ma dGis [ma-ha-ar dSamas(?)] a-wa-at i-ga-ab- [bu-sú-ma] a-al-la-ak dSamas katâ-[ka a-sa-bat] ul-la-nu lu-us-li-ma na-pi-[is-ti] te-ir-ra-an-ni a-na kar i-[na Urukki] si-il-[la]m sú-ku-un [a-na ia-a-si(?)] is-si-ma dGis ib-[ri.....] te-ir-ta-sú .......... is(?) .............. tam ................ ........................ i-nu(?)-[ma] ..................

(About two lines missing.)

Col. VI.

[a-na-ku] dGis [i-ik]-ka-di ma-tum ........... harrana sá la al-[kam] ma-ti-ma .... a-ka-lu ..... la(?) i-di [ul-la-nu] lu-us-li-[mu] a-na-ku [lu-ud-lul]-ka i-na [h]u-ud li-ib-bi ...... [sú]-ku-ut-[ti] la-li-ka [lu-se-sib(?)] - ka i-na kussêmes ....................... ú-nu-su [bêlêmes(?)ú-ti-ir]-ru ra-bu-tum [ka-as-tum] ù is-pa-tum [i-na] ga-ti is-ku-nu [il-]te-ki pa-si ....... -ri is-pa-as-su ..... [a-na] ili sá-ni-tam [it-ti pa(?)] - tar-[sú] i-na si-ip-pi-sú ........ i-ip-pu-sú a-la-kam [sa]-nis ú-ga-ra-bu dGis [a-di ma]-ti tu-ut-te-ir a-na libbi Urukki [si-bu]-tum i-ka-ra-bu-sú [a-na] harrani i-ma-li-ku dGis [la t]a-at-kal dGis a-na e-[mu]-ki-ka [a-]ka-lu sú-wa-ra-ma ú-sur ra-ma-an-ka [li]-il-lik dEn-ki-du i-na pa-ni-ka [ur-ha]-am a-we-ir a-lik harrana(-na) [a-di] sá kisti ni-ri-bi-tim [sá(?)] [d]Hu-wa-wa ka-li-sú-nu si-ip-pi-ih(?)-sú [sa(?)a-lik] mah-ra tap-pa-a ú-sá-lim [harrana](-na)-sú sú-wa-ra-[ma ú-sur ra-ma-na-ka] [li-sak-sid]-ka ir-[ni-ta]-ka dSamas [ta]-ak-bi-a-at pi-ka li-kal-li-ma i-na-ka li-ip-ti-ku pa-da-nam pi-hi-tam harrana li-is-ta-zi-ik a-na ki-ib-si-ka sá-di-a li-is-ta-zi-ik a-na sêpi-ka mu-si-it-ka aw-a-at ta-ha-du-ú li-ib-la-ma dLugal-ban-da li-iz-zi-iz-ka i-na ir-ni-ti-ka ki-ma si-ih-ri ir-ni-ta-ka-ma lus-mida(-da) i-na na-ri sá dHu-wa-wa sá tu-sa-ma-ru mi-zi si-pi-ka i-na bat-ba-ti-ka hi-ri bu-ur-tam lu-ka-a-a-nu mê ellu i-na na-di-ka [ka-]su-tim me-e a-na dSamas ta-na-di [li-is]ta-ha-sa-as dLugal-ban-da [dEn-ki-]du pi-su i-pu-sá-am-ma, iz-za-kàr a-na dGis [is(?)]-tu(?) ta-ás-dan-nu e-pu-us a-la-kam [la pa]la-ah libbi-ka ia-ti tu-uk-la-ni [sú-ku-]un i-di-a-am sú-pa-as-su [harrana(?)]sá dHu-wa-wa it-ta-la-ku .......... ki-bi-ma te-[ir]-sú-nu-ti

(Three lines missing.)

L.E.

.............. nam-ma-la ............... il-li-ku it-ti-ia ............... ba-ku-nu-si-im ......... [ul]-la(?)-nu i-na hu-ud li-ib-bi [i-na se-me-e] an-ni-a ga-ba-sú e-dis harrana(?) us-te-[zi-ik] a-lik dGis lu-[ul-lik a-na pa-ni-ka] li-lik il-ka .......... li-sá-ak-lim-[ka harrana] ...... dGis ù[dEn-ki-du] ....... mu-di-es .......... bi-ri-[su-nu] ........

TRANSLATION.

(About ten lines missing.)

Col. I.

.................. (my friend?) [Something] that is exceedingly difficult, [Why] dost thou desire [to do this?] .... something (?) that is very [difficult (?)], [Why dost thou] desire [to go down to the forest]? A message [they carried] among [men] They carried about. They made a .... .............. they brought .............................. ..............................

(About 17 lines missing.)

............................. ................... my friend ................ they raised ..... answer [they returned.] [To] the woman They proceeded to the overthrowing

Col. II.

(About eleven lines missing.)

.......... name(?) ............. [The one who is] a rival [to him] subdue and ................ Wailing ................ The mother [of Gish, who knows everything] Before [Shamash raised her hand] Who Now(?) [why] hast thou stirred up the heart for my son, [Restlessness imposed upon him (?)] ............................

(About four lines missing.)

The eyes [of Enkidu filled with tears]. [He clutched] his heart; [Sadly(?)] he sighed. [The eyes of En]kidu filled with tears. [He clutched] his heart; [Sadly(?)] he sighed. The face [of Gish was grieved]. [He spoke] to Enkidu: ["My friend, why are] thy eyes [Filled with tears]? Thy [heart clutched] Dost thou sigh [sadly(?)]?" [Enkidu opened his mouth] and spoke to Gish: "Attacks, my friend, have exhausted my strength(?). My arms are lame, my strength has become weak." Gish opened his mouth and spoke to Enkidu:

(About four lines missing.)

Col. III.

..... [until] Huwawa, [the terrible], ........................ ............ [I destroyed]. [I will go down to the] cedar forest, ................... the jungle ............... tambourine (?) ................ I will open it. Enkidu opened his mouth and spoke to Gish: "Know, my friend, in the mountain, when I moved about with the cattle to a distance of one double hour into the heart of the forest, [Alone?] I penetrated within it, [To] Huwawa, whose roar is a flood, whose mouth is fire, whose breath is death. Why dost thou desire To do this? To advance towards the dwelling(?) of Huwawa?" Gish opened his mouth and [spoke to Enkidu: "... [the covering(?)] I will destroy. ....[in the forest] .................... .................... To ................. The dwelling [of Huwawa] The axe .......... Thou .......... I will [go down to the forest]." Enkidu opened his mouth and spoke to [Gish:] "When [together(?)] we go down To the [cedar] forest, whose guardian, O warrior Gish, a power(?) without [rest(?)], Huwawa, an offspring(?) of .... Adad ...................... He ........................

Col. IV.

To keep safe [the cedar forest], [Enlil has decreed for it] seven-fold terror." Gish [opened] his mouth and spoke to [Enkidu]: "Whoever, my friend, overcomes (?) [terror(?)], it is well (for him) with Shamash for the length of [his days]. Mankind will speak of it at the gates. Wherever terror is to be faced, Thou, forsooth, art in fear of death. Thy prowess lacks strength. I will go before thee. Though thy mouth calls to me; "thou art afraid to approach." If I fall, I will establish my name. Gish, the corpse(?) of Huwawa, the terrible one, has snatched (?) from the time that My offspring was born in ...... The lion restrained (?) thee, all of which thou knowest. ........................ .............. thee and ................ open (?) ........ like a shepherd(?) ..... [When thou callest to me], thou afflictest my heart. I am determined [to enter] the cedar forest. I will, indeed, establish my name. [The work(?)], my friend, to the artisans I will entrust. [Weapons(?)] let them mould before us." [The work(?)] to the artisans they entrusted. A dwelling(?) they assigned to the workmen. Hatchets the masters moulded: Axes of 3 talents each they moulded. Lances the masters moulded; Blades(?) of 2 talents each, A spear of 30 mina each attached to them. The hilt of the lances of 30 mina in gold Gish and [Enki]du were equipped with 10 talents each .......... in Erech seven its .... ....... the people heard and .... [proclaimed(?)] in the street of Erech of the plazas. ..... Gis [brought him out(?)] [In the street (?)] of Erech of the plazas [Enkidu(?)] sat before him ..... [thus] he spoke: "........ [of Erech] of the plazas ............ [before him]

Col. V.

Gish of whom they speak, let me see! whose name fills the lands. I will lure him to the cedar forest, Like a strong offspring of Erech. I will let the land hear (that) I am determined to lure (him) in the cedar (forest) [155]. A name I will establish." The elders of Erech of the plazas brought word to Gish: "Thou art young, O Gish, and thy heart carries thee away. Thou dost not know what thou proposest to do. We hear that Huwawa is enraged. Who has ever opposed his weapon? To one [double hour] in the heart of the forest, Who has ever penetrated into it? Huwawa, whose roar is a deluge, whose mouth is fire, whose breath is death. Why dost thou desire to do this? To advance towards the dwelling (?) of Huwawa?" Gish heard the report of his counsellors. He saw and cried out to [his] friend: "Now, my friend, thus [I speak]. I fear him, but [I will go to the cedar forest(?)]; I will go [with thee to the cedar forest].

(About five lines missing.)

.............................. May ................... thee Thy god may (?) ........ thee; On the road may he guide [thee in safety(?)]. At the rampart of [Erech of the plazas], Gish kneeled down [before Shamash(?)], A word then he spoke [to him]: "I will go, O Shamash, [thy] hands [I seize hold of]. When I shall have saved [my life], Bring me back to the rampart [in Erech]. Grant protection [to me ?]!" Gish cried, "[my friend] ...... His oracle .................. ........................ ........................ ........................ When (?)

(About two lines missing.)

Col. VI.

"[I(?)] Gish, the strong one (?) of the land. ...... A road which I have never [trodden]; ........ food ...... do not (?) know. [When] I shall have succeeded, [I will praise] thee in the joy of my heart, [I will extol (?)] the superiority of thy power, [I will seat thee] on thrones." .................. his vessel(?) The masters [brought the weapons (?)]; [bow] and quiver They placed in hand. [He took] the hatchet. ................. his quiver. ..... [to] the god(?) a second time [With his lance(?)] in his girdle, ......... they took the road. [Again] they approached Gish! "[How long] till thou returnest to Erech?" [Again the elders] approached him. [For] the road they counselled Gis: "Do [not] rely, O Gish, on thy strength! Provide food and save thyself! Let Enkidu go before thee. He is acquainted with the way, he has trodden the road [to] the entrance of the forest. of Huwawa all of them his ...... [He who goes] in advance will save the companion. Provide for his [road] and [save thyself]! (May) Shamash [carry out] thy endeavor! May he make thy eyes see the prophecy of thy mouth. May he track out (for thee) the closed path! May he level the road for thy treading! May he level the mountain for thy foot! During thy night [156] the word that wilt rejoice may Lugal-banda convey, and stand by thee in thy endeavor! Like a youth may he establish thy endeavor! In the river of Huwawa as thou plannest, wash thy feet! Round about thee dig a well! May there be pure water constantly for thy libation Goblets of water pour out to Shamash! [May] Lugal-banda take note of it!" [Enkidu] opened his mouth and spoke to Gish: "[Since thou art resolved] to take the road. Thy heart [be not afraid,] trust to me! [Confide] to my hand his dwelling(?)!" [on the road to] Huwawa they proceeded. ....... command their return

(Three lines missing.)

L.E.

............... were filled. .......... they will go with me. ............................... .................. joyfully. [Upon hearing] this word of his, Alone, the road(?) [he levelled]. "Go, O Gish [I will go before thee(?)]. May thy god(?) go ......... May he show [thee the road !] ..... Gish and [Enkidu] Knowingly .................... Between [them] ................

Lines 13-14 (also line 16). See for the restoration, lines 112-13.

Line 62. For the restoration, see Jensen, p. 146 (Tablet III, 2a,9.)

Lines 64-66. Restored on the basis of the Assyrian version, _ib_. line 10.

Line 72. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 4, 10, and restore at the end of this line _di-im-tam_ as in our text, instead of Jensen's conjecture.

Lines 74, 77 and 83. The restoration _zar-bis_, suggested by the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 4, 4.

Lines 76 and 82. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 18.

Line 78. _(ú-ta-ab-bil_ from _abâlu_, "grieve" or "darkened." Cf. _us-ta-kal_ (Assyrian version, _ib_. line 9), where, perhaps, we are to restore _it-ta-[bil pa-ni-sú]_.

Line 87. _us-ta-li-pa_ from _elêpu_, "exhaust." See Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 49a.

Line 89. Cf. Assyrian version, _ib_. line 11, and restore the end of the line there to _i-ni-is_, as in our text.

Line 96. For _dapinu_ as an epithet of Huwawa, see Assyrian version, Tablet III, 2a, 17, and 3a, 12. _Dapinu_ occurs also as a description of an ox (Rm 618, Bezold, _Catalogue of the Kouyunjik Tablets_, etc., p. 1627).

Line 98. The restoration on the basis of _ib._ III, 2a, 18.

Lines 96-98 may possibly form a parallel to _ib_. lines 17-18, which would then read about as follows: "Until I overcome Huwawa, the terrible, and all the evil in the land I shall have destroyed." At the same time, it is possible that we are to restore _[lu-ul]-li-ik_ at the end of line 98.

Line 101. _lilissu_ occurs in the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6, 36.

Line 100. For _halbu_, "jungle," see Assyrian version, Tablet V, 3, 39 (p. 160).

Lines 109-111. These lines enable us properly to restore Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 5, 3 = Haupt's edition, p. 83 (col. 5, 3). No doubt the text read as ours _mu-tum_ (or _mu-u-tum_) _na-pis-su_.

Line 115. _supatu_, which occurs again in line 199 and also line 275._sú-pa-as-su_ (= _supat-su_) must have some such meaning as "dwelling," demanded by the context. [Dhorme refers me to _OLZ_ 1916, p. 145].

Line 129. Restored on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6, 38.

Line 131. The restoration _muktablu_, tentatively suggested on the basis of CT XVIII, 30, 7b, where _muktablu_, "warrior," appears as one of the designations of Gilgamesh, followed by _a-lik pa-na_, "the one who goes in advance," or "leader"--the phrase so constantly used in the Huwawa episode.

Line 132. Cf. Assyrian version, Tablet I, 5, 18-19.

Lines 136-137. These two lines restored on the basis of Jensen IV, 5, 2 and 5. The variant in the Assyrian version, _sá nise_ (written Ukumes in one case and Lumes in the other), for the numeral 7 in our text to designate a terror of the largest and most widespread character, is interesting. The number 7 is similarly used as a designation of Gilgamesh, who is called _Esigga imin_, "seven-fold strong," i.e., supremely strong (CT XVIII, 30, 6-8). Similarly, Enkidu, _ib._ line 10, is designated _a-rá imina_, "seven-fold."

Line 149. A difficult line because of the uncertainty of the reading at the beginning of the following line. The most obvious meaning of _mi-it-tu_ is "corpse," though in the Assyrian version _salamtu_ is used (Assyrian version, Tablet V, 2, 42). On the other hand, it is possible--as Dr. Lutz suggested to me--that _mittu_, despite the manner of writing, is identical with _mittú_, the name of a divine weapon, well-known from the Assyrian creation myth (Tablet IV, 130), and other passages. The combination _mit-tu sá-ku-ú-_, "lofty weapon," in the Bilingual text IV, R2, 18 No. 3, 31-32, would favor the meaning "weapon" in our passage, since _[sá]-ku-tu_ is a possible restoration at the beginning of line 150. However, the writing _mi-it-ti_ points too distinctly to a derivative of the stem _mâtu_, and until a satisfactory explanation of lines 150-152 is forthcoming, we must stick to the meaning "corpse" and read the verb _il-ku-ut_.

Line 152. The context suggests "lion" for the puzzling _la-bu_.

Line 156. Another puzzling line. Dr. Clay's copy is an accurate reproduction of what is distinguishable. At the close of the line there appears to be a sign written over an erasure.

Line 158. _[ga-ti lu-]us-kun_ as in line 186, literally, "I will place my hand," i.e., I purpose, I am determined.

Line 160. The restoration on the basis of the parallel line 187. Note the interesting phrase, "writing a name" in the sense of acquiring "fame."

Line 161. The _kiskattê_, "artisans," are introduced also in the Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 187, to look at the enormous size and weight of the horns of the slain divine bull. See for other passages Muss-Arnolt _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 450b. At the beginning of this line, we must seek for the same word as in line 163.

Line 162. While the restoration _belê_, "weapon," is purely conjectural, the context clearly demands some such word. I choose _belê_ in preference to _kakkê_, in view of the Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 1.

Line 163. _Putuku_ (or _putukku_) from _patâku_ would be an appropriate word for the fabrication of weapons.

Line 165. The _rabûtim_ here, as in line 167, I take as the "master mechanics" as contrasted with the _ummianu_, "common workmen," or journeymen. A parallel to this forging of the weapons for the two heroes is to be found in the Sumerian fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic published by Langdon, _Historical and Religious Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914), No. 55, 1-15.

Lines 168-170 describe the forging of the various parts of the lances for the two heroes. The _sipru_ is the spear point Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 886b; the _isid patri_ is clearly the "hilt," and the _meselitum_ I therefore take as the "blade" proper. The word occurs here for the first time, so far as I can see. For 30 minas, see Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 189, as the weight of the two horns of the divine bull. Each axe weighing 3 _biltu_, and the lance with point and hilt 3 _biltu_ we would have to assume 4 _biltu_ for each _pasu_, so as to get a total of 10 _biltu_ as the weight of the weapons for each hero. The lance is depicted on seal cylinders representing Gilgamesh and Enkidu, for example, Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, No. 199, and also in Nos. 184 and 191 in the field, with the broad hilt; and in an enlarged form in No. 648. Note the clear indication of the hilt. The two figures are Gilgamesh and Enkidu--not two Gilgameshes, as Ward assumed. See above, page 34. A different weapon is the club or mace, as seen in Ward, Nos. 170 and 173. This appears also to be the weapon which Gilgamesh holds in his hand on the colossal figure from the palace of Sargon (Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, Pl. LVII), though it has been given a somewhat grotesque character by a perhaps intentional approach to the scimitar, associated with Marduk (see Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, Chap. XXVII). The exact determination of the various weapons depicted on seal-cylinders merits a special study.

Line 181. Begins a speech of Huwawa, extending to line 187, reported to Gish by the elders (line 188-189), who add a further warning to the youthful and impetuous hero.

Line 183. _lu-uk-sú-su_ (also l. 186), from _akâsu_, "drive on" or "lure on," occurs on the Pennsylvania tablet, line 135, _uk-ki-si_, "lure on" or "entrap," which Langdon erroneously renders "take away" and thereby misses the point completely. See the comment to the line of the Pennsylvania tablet in question.

Line 192. On the phrase _sanû bunu_, "change of countenance," in the sense of "enraged," see the note to the Pennsylvania tablet, l.31.

Line 194. _nu-ma-at_ occurs in a tablet published by Meissner, _Altbabyl. Privatrecht_, No. 100, with _bît abi_, which shows that the total confine of a property is meant; here, therefore, the "interior" of the forest or heart. It is hardly a "by-form" of _nuptum_ as Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 690b, and others have supposed, though _nu-um-tum_ in one passage quoted by Muss-Arnolt, _ib._ p. 705a, may have arisen from an aspirate pronunciation of the _p_ in _nubtum_.

Line 215. The kneeling attitude of prayer is an interesting touch. It symbolizes submission, as is shown by the description of Gilgamesh's defeat in the encounter with Enkidu (Pennsylvania tablet, l. 227), where Gilgamesh is represented as forced to "kneel" to the ground. Again in the Assyrian version, Tablet V, 4, 6, Gilgamesh kneels down (though the reading _ka-mis_ is not certain) and has a vision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Note on Sabitum (above, p. 11)

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

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

Column 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28. Read at the beginning _sá_ instead of _ina_.

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

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

Column 2.

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

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

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

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

21. Read _ta-[ra-am-sú ki-ma]_.

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

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

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

33. Read _sá-ri-i-im_ as one word.

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

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

Column 3.

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

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

22. Supply _[lù_Sú]-I.

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

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

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

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

35. Read _gis_ instead of _wa_.

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

Column 4.

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

9. The fourth sign is _su_, not _sú_.

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

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

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

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

Column 5.

2. Read _[wa]-ar-ki-sú_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column 6.

3. Read _i-na si-ri-[sú]_.

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

21. Langdon's text has a superfluous _ga_.

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

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

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

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

NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[27] See below, p. 23.

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

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

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

[31] Lines 100-101.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[45] _BOR_ IV, p. 264.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[61] See above, p. 27.

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

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

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

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

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

[66] _me-ih-rù_ (line 191).

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

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

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

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

[71] Tablet XII, 3, 25.