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-s-su (also l. 186), from aksu, "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 san 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 bt 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 pakdu, 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

s nak-ba i-mu-ru [dGis-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 s-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, sebha 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 sebhoyth(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" (bt 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 -ni-is-s-ma, "I became weak" (from ensu, "weak") instead of ilam is-s-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. -um-mid-ma pu-ti does not mean "he attained my front."

14. Read ab-ba-la-s-s instead of at-ba-la-s-s.

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 s-s instead of s; and at the end of the line read [tu-ut]-tu—ma instead of s—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 s 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-s(?) ip-t-[e] instead of Di-?-al-lu-un (!).

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

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

20. Read at-[ta kima Sal ta-ha]-bu-[ub]-s.

21. Read ta-[ra-am-s 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 s-ri-i-im as one word.

35. Read i-na [s]-ri-s [im]-hu-ru.

36. Traces at beginning point to either _ 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 Ks (= 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 [lS]-I.

29. Read _-gi-ir-ri_ from _gar_ ("attack), instead of separating into _ 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 Sbmes, "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 s.

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 li (?) instead of ug-ad-ad-lil, which gives no possible sense!



Column 5.

2. Read [wa]-ar-ki-s.

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 [s-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul, on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 45, s-ki-i pu-[uk-ku-ul].

12. Traces at end of line suggest i-pa(?)-ka-du.

13. Read i-[na mti da-an e-mu]-ki i-wa.

18. Read ur-s-nu instead of ip-s-nu.

19. Read i-s-ru instead of i-tu-ru.

24. The reading it-ti after dGis 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-[s].

5. Supply [il-li-ik].

21. Langdon's text has a superfluous ga.

22. Read uz-za-s, "his anger," instead of us-sa-s, "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 s-si, i.e., "240 lines;" and in the colophon he mistranslates s-tu-ur, "written," as though from satru, "write," whereas the form is the permansive III, 1, of atru, "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 Zwlfte 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-lik-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 Religisen 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 (Gttingen, 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 s-si = 240 which appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word s-tu-ur in the colophon which he translated "written," taking the word from a stem satru, "write." The form s-tu-ur is III, 1, from atru, "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 (Brnnow 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 (Brnnow 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-d 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 Lesestcke, 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 Sra 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-Tn in the later form of Gish-Tn-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-r (line 191).

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

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

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

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

[71] Tablet XII, 3, 25.

[72] Ward, Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, Chap. X, and the same author's Cylinders and other Ancient Oriental Seals—Morgan collection Nos. 19-50.

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

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

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

[76] See Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), p. 468 seq.

[77] Ungnad-Gressmann, Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 90 seq.

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

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

[80] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 218 and 224.

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

[82] Yale tablet, lines 190 and 191.

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

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

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

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

[87] Yale tablet, lines 252-253.

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

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

[90] Lines 215-222.

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

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

[93] Lines 178-183.

[94] Lines 176-177.

[95] Tablet VII, Column 6.

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

[97] Lines 109 and 112.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[105] Tablet I, Column 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[112] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 102-104.

[113] Line 105.

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

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

[116] In Ungnad-Gressmann, Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 123 seq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[123] See the translation in Ungnad-Gressmann, Das Gilgamesch-Epos, pp. 69, seq. and 73.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[132] ina sap-li-ki, literally, "below thee," whereas in the old Babylonian version we have ana si-ri-ka, "towards thee."

[133] Repeated I, 6, 28.

[134] ul-tap-rid ki-is-su-s-ma. The verb is from pardu, "violent." For kissu, "strong," see CT XVI, 25, 48-49. Langdon (Gilgamesh Epic, p. 211, note 5) renders the phrase: "he shook his murderous weapon!!"—another illustration of his haphazard way of translating texts.

[135] Shown by the colophon (Jeremias, Izdubar-Nimrod, Plate IV.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[144] I.e., Enkidu.

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

[146] I.e., the man.

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

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

[149] He was thrown and therefore vanquished.

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

[151] Scribal error for an.

[152] Text apparently di.

[153] Hardly ul.

[154] Omitted by scribe.

[155] Kisti omitted by scribe.

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

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

THE END