Yale Oriental Series

							 Researches

							 Volume IV

								Part III

 Published from the fund given to the university in memory of Mary							Stevens Hammond

			Yale Oriental Series. Researches, Volume IV, 3. 

			An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic

			 On the Basis of Recently Discovered Texts

								 By

					Morris Jastrow Jr. , Ph. D. , LL. D. 	 Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Pennsylvania

								 And

				 Albert T. Clay, Ph. D. , LL. D. , Litt. D. Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature, Yale University

			 Copyright, 1920, by Yale University Press

							 In Memory of						 William Max Müller							 (1863-1919)			Whose life was devoted to Egyptological research					 which he greatly enriched						 by many contributions

PREFATORY NOTE

The Introduction, the Commentary to the two tablets, and theAppendix, are by Professor Jastrow, and for these he assumes the soleresponsibility. The text of the Yale tablet is by Professor Clay. Thetransliteration and the translation of the two tablets representthe joint work of the two authors. In the transliteration of the twotablets, C. E. Keiser's "System of Accentuation for Sumero-Akkadiansigns" (Yale Oriental Researches--VOL. IX, Appendix, New Haven, 1919)has been followed. 

INTRODUCTION. 

I. 

The Gilgamesh Epic is the most notable literary product of Babylonia asyet discovered in the mounds of Mesopotamia. It recounts the exploitsand adventures of a favorite hero, and in its final form covers twelvetablets, each tablet consisting of six columns (three on the obverseand three on the reverse) of about 50 lines for each column, or a totalof about 3600 lines. Of this total, however, barely more than one-halfhas been found among the remains of the great collection of cuneiformtablets gathered by King Ashurbanapal (668-626 B. C. ) in his palaceat Nineveh, and discovered by Layard in 1854 [1] in the course of hisexcavations of the mound Kouyunjik (opposite Mosul). The fragments ofthe epic painfully gathered--chiefly by George Smith--from the _circa_30, 000 tablets and bits of tablets brought to the British Museum werepublished in model form by Professor Paul Haupt; [2] and that editionstill remains the primary source for our study of the Epic. 

For the sake of convenience we may call the form of the Epic in thefragments from the library of Ashurbanapal the Assyrian version, though like most of the literary productions in the library it notonly reverts to a Babylonian original, but represents a late copy ofa much older original. The absence of any reference to Assyria inthe fragments recovered justifies us in assuming that the Assyrianversion received its present form in Babylonia, perhaps in Erech;though it is of course possible that some of the late features, particularly the elaboration of the teachings of the theologians orschoolmen in the eleventh and twelfth tablets, may have been producedat least in part under Assyrian influence. A definite indicationthat the Gilgamesh Epic reverts to a period earlier than Hammurabi(or Hammurawi) [3] i. E. , beyond 2000 B. C. , was furnished by thepublication of a text clearly belonging to the first Babyloniandynasty (of which Hammurabi was the sixth member) in _CT_. VI, 5;which text Zimmern [4] recognized as a part of the tale of Atra-hasis, one of the names given to the survivor of the deluge, recounted onthe eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. [5] This was confirmedby the discovery [6] of a fragment of the deluge story dated in theeleventh year of Ammisaduka, i. E. , c. 1967 B. C. In this text, likewise, the name of the deluge hero appears as Atra-hasis (col. VIII, 4). [7]But while these two tablets do not belong to the Gilgamesh Epic andmerely introduce an episode which has also been incorporated into theEpic, Dr. Bruno Meissner in 1902 published a tablet, dating, as thewriting and the internal evidence showed, from the Hammurabi period, which undoubtedly is a portion of what by way of distinction we maycall an old Babylonian version. [8] It was picked up by Dr. Meissnerat a dealer's shop in Bagdad and acquired for the Berlin Museum. Thetablet consists of four columns (two on the obverse and two on thereverse) and deals with the hero's wanderings in search of a curefrom disease with which he has been smitten after the death of hiscompanion Enkidu. The hero fears that the disease will be fatal andlongs to escape death. It corresponds to a portion of Tablet X ofthe Assyrian version. Unfortunately, only the lower portion of theobverse and the upper of the reverse have been preserved (57 linesin all); and in default of a colophon we do not know the numerationof the tablet in this old Babylonian edition. Its chief value, apart from its furnishing a proof for the existence of the Epicas early as 2000 B. C. , lies (a) in the writing _Gish_ instead ofGish-gi(n)-mash in the Assyrian version, for the name of the hero, (b) in the writing En-ki-du--abbreviated from dug--"Enki isgood" for En-ki-dú in the Assyrian version, [9] and (c) in theremarkable address of the maiden Sabitum, dwelling at the seaside, to whom Gilgamesh comes in the course of his wanderings. From theAssyrian version we know that the hero tells the maiden of his grieffor his lost companion, and of his longing to escape the dire fate ofEnkidu. In the old Babylonian fragment the answer of Sabitum is givenin full, and the sad note that it strikes, showing how hopeless itis for man to try to escape death which is in store for all mankind, is as remarkable as is the philosophy of "eat, drink and be merry"which Sabitum imparts. The address indicates how early the tendencyarose to attach to ancient tales the current religious teachings. 

	"Why, O Gish, does thou run about?	The life that thou seekest, thou wilt not find. 	When the gods created mankind, 	Death they imposed on mankind;	Life they kept in their power. 	Thou, O Gish, fill thy belly, 	Day and night do thou rejoice, 	Daily make a rejoicing!	Day and night a renewal of jollification!	Let thy clothes be clean, 	Wash thy head and pour water over thee!	Care for the little one who takes hold of thy hand!	Let the wife rejoice in thy bosom!"

Such teachings, reminding us of the leading thought in the BiblicalBook of Ecclesiastes, [10] indicate the _didactic_ character given toancient tales that were of popular origin, but which were modifiedand elaborated under the influence of the schools which arose inconnection with the Babylonian temples. The story itself belongs, therefore, to a still earlier period than the form it received in thisold Babylonian version. The existence of this tendency at so early adate comes to us as a genuine surprise, and justifies the assumptionthat the attachment of a lesson to the deluge story in the Assyrianversion, to wit, the limitation in attainment of immortality to thosesingled out by the gods as exceptions, dates likewise from the oldBabylonian period. The same would apply to the twelfth tablet, whichis almost entirely didactic, intended to illustrate the impossibilityof learning anything of the fate of those who have passed out of thisworld. It also emphasizes the necessity of contenting oneself with thecomfort that the care of the dead, by providing burial and food anddrink offerings for them affords, as the only means of ensuring forthem rest and freedom from the pangs of hunger and distress. However, it is of course possible that the twelfth tablet, which impressesone as a supplement to the adventures of Gilgamesh, ending with hisreturn to Uruk (i. E. , Erech) at the close of the eleventh tablet, mayrepresent a _later_ elaboration of the tendency to connect religiousteachings with the exploits of a favorite hero. 

II. 

We now have further evidence both of the extreme antiquity of theliterary form of the Gilgamesh Epic and also of the disposition tomake the Epic the medium of illustrating aspects of life and thedestiny of mankind. The discovery by Dr. Arno Poebel of a Sumerianform of the tale of the descent of Ishtar to the lower world and herrelease [11]--apparently a nature myth to illustrate the change ofseason from summer to winter and back again to spring--enables us topass beyond the Akkadian (or Semitic) form of tales current in theEuphrates Valley to the Sumerian form. Furthermore, we are indebtedto Dr. Langdon for the identification of two Sumerian fragments in theNippur Collection which deal with the adventures of Gilgamesh, one inConstantinople, [12] the other in the collection of the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum. [13] The former, of which only 25 lines arepreserved (19 on the obverse and 6 on the reverse), appears to be adescription of the weapons of Gilgamesh with which he arms himselffor an encounter--presumably the encounter with Humbaba or Huwawa, the ruler of the cedar forest in the mountain. [14] The latter dealswith the building operations of Gilgamesh in the city of Erech. Atext in Zimmern's _Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit_(Leipzig, 1913), No. 196, appears likewise to be a fragment of theSumerian version of the Gilgamesh Epic, bearing on the episode ofGilgamesh's and Enkidu's relations to the goddess Ishtar, covered inthe sixth and seventh tablets of the Assyrian version. [15]

Until, however, further fragments shall have turned up, it wouldbe hazardous to institute a comparison between the Sumerian and theAkkadian versions. All that can be said for the present is that thereis every reason to believe in the existence of a literary form of theEpic in Sumerian which presumably antedated the Akkadian recension, just as we have a Sumerian form of Ishtar's descent into the netherworld, and Sumerian versions of creation myths, as also of theDeluge tale. [16] It does not follow, however, that the Akkadianversions of the Gilgamesh Epic are translations of the Sumerian, any more than that the Akkadian creation myths are translations ofa Sumerian original. Indeed, in the case of the creation myths, the striking difference between the Sumerian and Akkadian viewsof creation [17] points to the independent production of creationstories on the part of the Semitic settlers of the Euphrates Valley, though no doubt these were worked out in part under Sumerian literaryinfluences. The same is probably true of Deluge tales, which wouldbe given a distinctly Akkadian coloring in being reproduced andsteadily elaborated by the Babylonian _literati_ attached to thetemples. The presumption is, therefore, in favor of an independent_literary_ origin for the Semitic versions of the Gilgamesh Epic, though naturally with a duplication of the episodes, or at least ofsome of them, in the Sumerian narrative. Nor does the existence of aSumerian form of the Epic necessarily prove that it originated withthe Sumerians in their earliest home before they came to the EuphratesValley. They may have adopted it after their conquest of southernBabylonia from the Semites who, there are now substantial grounds forbelieving, were the earlier settlers in the Euphrates Valley. [18]We must distinguish, therefore, between the earliest _literary_ form, which was undoubtedly Sumerian, and the _origin_ of the episodesembodied in the Epic, including the chief actors, Gilgamesh and hiscompanion Enkidu. It will be shown that one of the chief episodes, the encounter of the two heroes with a powerful guardian or rulerof a cedar forest, points to a western region, more specifically toAmurru, as the scene. The names of the two chief actors, moreover, appear to have been "Sumerianized" by an artificial process, [19]and if this view turns out to be correct, we would have a furtherground for assuming the tale to have originated among the Akkadiansettlers and to have been taken over from them by the Sumerians. 

III. 

New light on the earliest Babylonian version of the Epic, as wellas on the Assyrian version, has been shed by the recovery of twosubstantial fragments of the form which the Epic had assumed inBabylonia in the Hammurabi period. The study of this important newmaterial also enables us to advance the interpretation of the Epicand to perfect the analysis into its component parts. In the springof 1914, the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania acquired bypurchase a large tablet, the writing of which as well as the styleand the manner of spelling verbal forms and substantives pointeddistinctly to the time of the first Babylonian dynasty. The tabletwas identified by Dr. Arno Poebel as part of the Gilgamesh Epic; and, as the colophon showed, it formed the second tablet of the series. Hecopied it with a view to publication, but the outbreak of the war whichfound him in Germany--his native country--prevented him from carryingout this intention. [20] He, however, utilized some of its contents inhis discussion of the historical or semi-historical traditions aboutGilgamesh, as revealed by the important list of partly mythical andpartly historical dynasties, found among the tablets of the Nippurcollection, in which Gilgamesh occurs [21] as a King of an Erechdynasty, whose father was Â, a priest of Kulab. [22]

The publication of the tablet was then undertaken by Dr. StephenLangdon in monograph form under the title, "The Epic ofGilgamish. " [23] In a preliminary article on the tablet in the_Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, pages 29-38, Dr. Langdon took thetablet to be of the late Persian period (i. E. , between the sixthand third century B. C. ), but his attention having been called tothis error of some _1500 years_, he corrected it in his introductionto his edition of the text, though he neglected to change some ofhis notes in which he still refers to the text as "late. " [24] Inaddition to a copy of the text, accompanied by a good photograph, Dr. Langdon furnished a transliteration and translation with somenotes and a brief introduction. The text is unfortunately badlycopied, being full of errors; and the translation is likewise verydefective. A careful collation with the original tablet was made withthe assistance of Dr. Edward Chiera, and as a consequence we are in aposition to offer to scholars a correct text. We beg to acknowledgeour obligations to Dr. Gordon, the Director of the Museum of theUniversity of Pennsylvania, for kindly placing the tablet at ourdisposal. Instead of republishing the text, I content myself withgiving a full list of corrections in the appendix to this volumewhich will enable scholars to control our readings, and which will, I believe, justify the translation in the numerous passages in whichit deviates from Dr. Langdon's rendering. While credit should be givento Dr. Langdon for having made this important tablet accessible, theinterests of science demand that attention be called to his failure tograsp the many important data furnished by the tablet, which escapedhim because of his erroneous readings and faulty translations. 

The tablet, consisting of six columns (three on the obverse and threeon the reverse), comprised, according to the colophon, 240 lines[25] and formed the second tablet of the series. Of the total, 204lines are preserved in full or in part, and of the missing thirty-sixquite a number can be restored, so that we have a fairly completetablet. The most serious break occurs at the top of the reverse, whereabout eight lines are missing. In consequence of this the connectionbetween the end of the obverse (where about five lines are missing)and the beginning of the reverse is obscured, though not to the extentof our entirely losing the thread of the narrative. 

About the same time that the University of Pennsylvania Museumpurchased this second tablet of the Gilgamesh Series, Yale Universityobtained a tablet from the same dealer, which turned out to be acontinuation of the University of Pennsylvania tablet. That the twobelong to the same edition of the Epic is shown by their agreementin the dark brown color of the clay, in the writing as well as inthe size of the tablet, though the characters on the Yale tabletare somewhat cramped and in consequence more difficult to read. Bothtablets consist of six columns, three on the obverse and three on thereverse. The measurements of both are about the same, the Pennsylvaniatablet being estimated at about 7 inches high, as against 7 2/16 inchesfor the Yale tablet, while the width of both is 6 1/2 inches. TheYale tablet is, however, more closely written and therefore has alarger number of lines than the Pennsylvania tablet. The colophon tothe Yale tablet is unfortunately missing, but from internal evidenceit is quite certain that the Yale tablet follows immediately uponthe Pennsylvania tablet and, therefore, may be set down as the thirdof the series. The obverse is very badly preserved, so that only ageneral view of its contents can be secured. The reverse containsserious gaps in the first and second columns. The scribe evidentlyhad a copy before him which he tried to follow exactly, but findingthat he could not get all of the copy before him in the six columns, he continued the last column on the edge. In this way we obtain for thesixth column 64 lines as against 45 for column IV, and 47 for column V, and a total of 292 lines for the six columns. Subtracting the 16 lineswritten on the edge leaves us 276 lines for our tablet as against 240for its companion. The width of each column being the same on bothtablets, the difference of 36 lines is made up by the closer writing. 

Both tablets have peculiar knobs at the sides, the purpose of whichis evidently not to facilitate holding the tablet in one's hand whilewriting or reading it, as Langdon assumed [26] (it would be quiteimpracticable for this purpose), but simply to protect the tablet inits position on a shelf, where it would naturally be placed on theedge, just as we arrange books on a shelf. Finally be it noted thatthese two tablets of the old Babylonian version do not belong to thesame edition as the Meissner tablet above described, for the latterconsists of two columns each on obverse and reverse, as againstthree columns each in the case of our two tablets. We thus havethe interesting proof that as early as 2000 B. C. There were alreadyseveral editions of the Epic. As to the provenance of our two tablets, there are no definite data, but it is likely that they were found bynatives in the mounds at Warka, from which about the year 1913, manytablets came into the hands of dealers. It is likely that where twotablets of a series were found, others of the series were also dug up, and we may expect to find some further portions of this old Babylonianversion turning up in the hands of other dealers or in museums. 

IV. 

Coming to the contents of the two tablets, the Pennsylvania tabletdeals with the meeting of the two heroes, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, their conflict, followed by their reconciliation, while the Yaletablet in continuation takes up the preparations for the encounter ofthe two heroes with the guardian of the cedar forest, Humbaba--butprobably pronounced Hubaba [27]--or, as the name appears in the oldBabylonian version, Huwawa. The two tablets correspond, therefore, to portions of Tablets I to V of the Assyrian version; [28] but, as will be shown in detail further on, the number of _completely_parallel passages is not large, and the Assyrian version shows anindependence of the old Babylonian version that is larger than wehad reason to expect. In general, it may be said that the Assyrianversion is more elaborate, which points to its having received itspresent form at a considerably later period than the old Babylonianversion. [29] On the other hand, we already find in the Babylonianversion the tendency towards repetition, which is characteristicof Babylonian-Assyrian tales in general. Through the two Babyloniantablets we are enabled to fill out certain details of the two episodeswith which they deal: (1) the meeting of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and(2) the encounter with Huwawa; while their greatest value consistsin the light that they throw on the gradual growth of the Epic untilit reached its definite form in the text represented by the fragmentsin Ashurbanapal's Library. Let us now take up the detailed analysis, first of the Pennsylvania tablet and then of the Yale tablet. ThePennsylvania tablet begins with two dreams recounted by Gilgameshto his mother, which the latter interprets as presaging the comingof Enkidu to Erech. In the one, something like a heavy meteor fallsfrom heaven upon Gilgamesh and almost crushes him. With the help ofthe heroes of Erech, Gilgamesh carries the heavy burden to his motherNinsun. The burden, his mother explains, symbolizes some one who, like Gilgamesh, is born in the mountains, to whom all will pay homageand of whom Gilgamesh will become enamoured with a love as strong asthat for a woman. In a second dream, Gilgamesh sees some one who islike him, who brandishes an axe, and with whom he falls in love. Thispersonage, the mother explains, is again Enkidu. 

Langdon is of the opinion that these dreams are recounted toEnkidu by a woman with whom Enkidu cohabits for six days and sevennights and who weans Enkidu from association with animals. This, however, cannot be correct. The scene between Enkidu and the womanmust have been recounted in detail in the first tablet, as in theAssyrian version, [30] whereas here in the second tablet we have thecontinuation of the tale with Gilgamesh recounting his dreams directlyto his mother. The story then continues with the description of thecoming of Enkidu, conducted by the woman to the outskirts of Erech, where food is given him. The main feature of the incident is theconversion of Enkidu to civilized life. Enkidu, who hitherto hadgone about naked, is clothed by the woman. Instead of sucking milkand drinking from a trough like an animal, food and strong drink areplaced before him, and he is taught how to eat and drink in humanfashion. In human fashion he also becomes drunk, and his "spree" isnaïvely described: "His heart became glad and his face shone. " [31]Like an animal, Enkidu's body had hitherto been covered with hair, which is now shaved off. He is anointed with oil, and clothed "likea man. " Enkidu becomes a shepherd, protecting the fold against wildbeasts, and his exploit in dispatching lions is briefly told. At thispoint--the end of column 3 (on the obverse), i. E. , line 117, and thebeginning of column 4 (on the reverse), i. E. , line 131--a gap of 13lines--the tablet is obscure, but apparently the story of Enkidu'sgradual transformation from savagery to civilized life is continued, with stress upon his introduction to domestic ways with the wifechosen or decreed for him, and with work as part of his fate. Allthis has no connection with Gilgamesh, and it is evident that thetale of Enkidu was originally an _independent_ tale to illustrate theevolution of man's career and destiny, how through intercourse witha woman he awakens to the sense of human dignity, how he becomesaccustomed to the ways of civilization, how he passes through thepastoral stage to higher walks of life, how the family is instituted, and how men come to be engaged in the labors associated with humanactivities. In order to connect this tale with the Gilgamesh story, the two heroes are brought together; the woman taking on herself, in addition to the rôle of civilizer, that of the medium throughwhich Enkidu is brought to Gilgamesh. The woman leads Enkidu fromthe outskirts of Erech into the city itself, where the people onseeing him remark upon his likeness to Gilgamesh. He is the verycounterpart of the latter, though somewhat smaller in stature. Therefollows the encounter between the two heroes in the streets of Erech, where they engage in a fierce combat. Gilgamesh is overcome by Enkiduand is enraged at being thrown to the ground. The tablet closes withthe endeavor of Enkidu to pacify Gilgamesh. Enkidu declares that themother of Gilgamesh has exalted her son above the ordinary mortal, and that Enlil himself has singled him out for royal prerogatives. 

After this, we may assume, the two heroes become friends and togetherproceed to carry out certain exploits, the first of which is an attackupon the mighty guardian of the cedar forest. This is the main episodein the Yale tablet, which, therefore, forms the third tablet of theold Babylonian version. 

In the first column of the obverse of the Yale tablet, which is badlypreserved, it would appear that the elders of Erech (or perhaps thepeople) are endeavoring to dissuade Gilgamesh from making the attemptto penetrate to the abode of Huwawa. If this is correct, then theclose of the first column may represent a conversation between theseelders and the woman who accompanies Enkidu. It would be the elderswho are represented as "reporting the speech to the woman, " which ispresumably the determination of Gilgamesh to fight Huwawa. The eldersapparently desire Enkidu to accompany Gilgamesh in this perilousadventure, and with this in view appeal to the woman. In the secondcolumn after an obscure reference to the mother of Gilgamesh--perhapsappealing to the sun-god--we find Gilgamesh and Enkidu again face toface. From the reference to Enkidu's eyes "filled with tears, " we mayconclude that he is moved to pity at the thought of what will happen toGilgamesh if he insists upon carrying out his purpose. Enkidu, also, tries to dissuade Gilgamesh. This appears to be the main purport ofthe dialogue between the two, which begins about the middle of thesecond column and extends to the end of the third column. Enkidupleads that even his strength is insufficient, 	"My arms are lame, 	My strength has become weak. " (lines 88-89)

Gilgamesh apparently asks for a description of the terrible tyrantwho thus arouses the fear of Enkidu, and in reply Enkidu tellshim how at one time, when he was roaming about with the cattle, hepenetrated into the forest and heard the roar of Huwawa which waslike that of a deluge. The mouth of the tyrant emitted fire, and hisbreath was death. It is clear, as Professor Haupt has suggested, [32]that Enkidu furnishes the description of a volcano in eruption, withits mighty roar, spitting forth fire and belching out a suffocatingsmoke. Gilgamesh is, however, undaunted and urges Enkidu to accompanyhim in the adventure. 

"I will go down to the forest, " says Gilgamesh, if the conjecturalrestoration of the line in question (l. 126) is correct. Enkidu repliesby again drawing a lurid picture of what will happen "When we go(together) to the forest. . . . . . . " This speech of Enkidu is continued onthe reverse. In reply Gilgamesh emphasizes his reliance upon the goodwill of Shamash and reproaches Enkidu with cowardice. He declareshimself superior to Enkidu's warning, and in bold terms says thathe prefers to perish in the attempt to overcome Huwawa rather thanabandon it. 

	"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 shouts to me: 'thou art afraid to approach, '	If I fall, I will establish my name. " (lines 143-148)

There follows an interesting description of the forging of theweapons for the two heroes in preparation for the encounter. [33]The elders of Erech when they see these preparations are strickenwith fear. They learn of Huwawa's threat to annihilate Gilgamesh ifhe dares to enter the cedar forest, and once more try to dissuadeGilgamesh from the undertaking. 

	"Thou art young, O Gish, and thy heart carries thee away, 	Thou dost not know what thou proposest to do. " (lines 190-191)

They try to frighten Gilgamesh by repeating the description ofthe terrible Huwawa. Gilgamesh is still undaunted and prays to hispatron deity Shamash, who apparently accords him a favorable "oracle"(_têrtu_). The two heroes arm themselves for the fray, and the eldersof Erech, now reconciled to the perilous undertaking, counsel Gilgameshto take provision along for the undertaking. They urge Gilgamesh toallow Enkidu to take the lead, for

	"He is acquainted with the way, he has trodden the road	[to] the entrance of the forest. " (lines 252-253)

The elders dismiss Gilgamesh with fervent wishes that Enkidu may trackout the "closed path" for Gilgamesh, and commit him to the care ofLugalbanda--here perhaps an epithet of Shamash. They advise Gilgameshto perform certain rites, to wash his feet in the stream of Huwawa andto pour out a libation of water to Shamash. Enkidu follows in a speechlikewise intended to encourage the hero; and with the actual beginningof the expedition against Huwawa the tablet ends. The encounter itself, with the triumph of the two heroes, must have been described in thefourth tablet. 

V. 

Now before taking up the significance of the additions to ourknowledge of the Epic gained through these two tablets, it will bewell to discuss the forms in which the names of the two heroes andof the ruler of the cedar forest occur in our tablets. 

As in the Meissner fragment, the chief hero is invariably designatedas dGish in both the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets; and we maytherefore conclude that this was the common form in the Hammurabiperiod, as against the writing dGish-gì(n)-mash [34] in the Assyrianversion. Similarly, as in the Meissner fragment, the second hero'sname is always written En-ki-du [35] (abbreviated from dúg) asagainst En-ki-dú in the Assyrian version. Finally, we encounter inthe Yale tablet for the first time the writing Hu-wa-wa as the nameof the guardian of the cedar forest, as against Hum-ba-ba in theAssyrian version, though in the latter case, as we may now concludefrom the Yale tablet, the name should rather be read Hu-ba-ba. [36]The variation in the writing of the latter name is interestingas pointing to the aspirate pronunciation of the labial in bothinstances. The name would thus present a complete parallel to theHebrew name Howawa (or Hobab) who appears as the brother-in-lawof Moses in the P document, Numbers 10, 29. [37] Since the namealso occurs, written precisely as in the Yale tablet, among the"Amoritic" names in the important lists published by Dr. Chiera, [38] there can be no doubt that Huwawa or Hubaba is a West Semiticname. This important fact adds to the probability that the "cedarforest" in which Huwawa dwells is none other than the Lebanon district, famed since early antiquity for its cedars. This explanation of thename Huwawa disposes of suppositions hitherto brought forward for anElamitic origin. Gressmann [39] still favors such an origin, thoughrealizing that the description of the cedar forest points to the Amanusor Lebanon range. In further confirmation of the West Semitic origin ofthe name, we have in Lucian, _De Dea Syria_, § 19, the name Kombabos[40] (the guardian of Stratonika), which forms a perfect parallel toHu(m)baba. Of the important bearings of this western character of thename Huwawa on the interpretation and origin of the Gilgamesh Epic, suggesting that the episode of the encounter between the tyrant andthe two heroes rests upon a tradition of an expedition against theWest or Amurru land, we shall have more to say further on. 

The variation in the writing of the name Enkidu is likewiseinteresting. It is evident that the form in the old Babylonianversion with the sign du (i. E. , dúg) is the original, for it furnishesus with a suitable etymology "Enki is good. " The writing with dúg, pronounced du, also shows that the sign dú as the third element in theform which the name has in the Assyrian version is to be read dú, andthat former readings like Ea-bani must be definitely abandoned. [41]The form with dú is clearly a _phonetic_ writing of the Sumerian name, the sign dú being chosen to indicate the _pronunciation_ (not theideograph) of the third element dúg. This is confirmed by the writingEn-gi-dú in the syllabary _CT_ XVIII, 30, 10. The phonetic writingis, therefore, a warning against any endeavor to read the name byan Akkadian transliteration of the signs. This would not of itselfprove that Enkidu is of Sumerian _origin_, for it might well be thatthe writing En-ki-dú is an endeavor to give a Sumerian _aspect_ toa name that _may_ have been foreign. The element dúg corresponds tothe Semitic _tâbu_, "good, " and En-ki being originally a designationof a deity as the "lord of the land, " which would be the Sumerianmanner of indicating a Semitic Baal, it is not at all impossiblethat En-ki-dúg may be the "Sumerianized" form of a Semitic BA`L TZOB"Baal is good. " It will be recalled that in the third column of theYale tablet, Enkidu speaks of himself in his earlier period whilestill living with cattle, as wandering into the cedar forest ofHuwawa, while in another passage (ll. 252-253) he is described as"acquainted with the way . . . To the entrance of the forest. " Thiswould clearly point to the West as the original home of Enkidu. Weare thus led once more to Amurru--taken as a general designation ofthe West--as playing an important role in the Gilgamesh Epic. [42] IfGilgamesh's expedition against Huwawa of the Lebanon district recallsa Babylonian campaign against Amurru, Enkidu's coming from his home, where, as we read repeatedly in the Assyrian version, 	"He ate herbs with the gazelles, 	Drank out of a trough with cattle, " [43]

may rest on a tradition of an Amorite invasion of Babylonia. Thefight between Gilgamesh and Enkidu would fit in with this tradition, while the subsequent reconciliation would be the form in which thetradition would represent the enforced union between the invadersand the older settlers. 

Leaving this aside for the present, let us proceed to a considerationof the relationship of the form dGish, for the chief personagein the Epic in the old Babylonian version, to dGish-gi(n)-mash inthe Assyrian version. Of the meaning of Gish there is fortunatelyno doubt. It is clearly the equivalent to the Akkadian _zikaru_, "man" (Brünnow No. 5707), or possibly _rabû_, "great" (BrünnowNo. 5704). Among various equivalents, the preference is to be givento _itlu_, "hero. " The determinative for deity stamps the person sodesignated as deified, or as in part divine, and this is in accordwith the express statement in the Assyrian version of the GilgameshEpic which describes the hero as

	"Two-thirds god and one-third human. " [44]

Gish is, therefore, the hero-god _par excellence_; and this showsthat we are not dealing with a genuine proper name, but rather with adescriptive attribute. Proper names are not formed in this way, eitherin Sumerian or Akkadian. Now what relation does this form Gish bear to

 [FIGURE]

as the name of the hero is invariably written in the Assyrian version, the form which was at first read dIz-tu-bar or dGish-du-bar byscholars, until Pinches found in a neo-Babylonian syllabary [45]the equation of it with Gi-il-ga-mesh? Pinches' discovery pointedconclusively to the popular pronunciation of the hero's name asGilgamesh; and since Aelian (_De natura Animalium_ XII, 2) mentionsa Babylonian personage Gilgamos (though what he tells us of Gilgamosdoes not appear in our Epic, but seems to apply to Etana, anotherfigure of Babylonian mythology), there seemed to be no further reasonto question that the problem had been solved. Besides, in a laterSyriac list of Babylonian kings found in the Scholia of Theodor barKoni, the name GLMGVM with a variant GMYGMVS occurs, [46] and itis evident that we have here again the Gi-il-ga-mesh, discovered byPinches. The existence of an old Babylonian hero Gilgamesh who waslikewise a king is thus established, as well as his identification with

 [FIGURE]

It is evident that we cannot read this name as Iz-tu-bar orGish-du-bar, but that we must read the first sign as Gish and thethird as Mash, while for the second we must assume a reading Gìn orGi. This would give us Gish-gì(n)-mash which is clearly again (likeEn-ki-dú) not an etymological writing but a _phonetic_ one, intendedto convey an _approach_ to the popular pronunciation. Gi-il-ga-meshmight well be merely a variant for Gish-ga-mesh, or _vice versa_, and this would come close to Gish-gi-mash. Now, when we have a namethe pronunciation of which is not definite but approximate, and whichis written in various ways, the probabilities are that the name isforeign. A foreign name might naturally be spelled in various ways. TheEpic in the Assyrian version clearly depicts dGish-gì(n)-mash as aconqueror of Erech, who forces the people into subjection, and whoseautocratic rule leads the people of Erech to implore the goddessAruru to create a rival to him who may withstand him. In responseto this appeal dEnkidu is formed out of dust by Aruru and eventuallybrought to Erech. [47] Gish-gì(n)-mash or Gilgamesh is therefore inall probability a foreigner; and the simplest solution suggested by theexistence of the two forms (1) Gish in the old Babylonian version and(2) Gish-gì(n)-mash in the Assyrian version, is to regard the formeras an abbreviation, which seemed appropriate, because the short nameconveyed the idea of the "hero" _par excellence_. If Gish-gì(n)-mashis a foreign name, one would think in the first instance of Sumerian;but here we encounter a difficulty in the circumstance that outside ofthe Epic this conqueror and ruler of Erech appears in quite a differentform, namely, as dGish-bil-ga-mesh, with dGish-gibil(or bìl)-ga-meshand dGish-bil-ge-mesh as variants. [48] In the remarkable list ofpartly mythological and partly historical dynasties, published byPoebel, [49] the fifth member of the first dynasty of Erech appearsas dGish-bil-ga-mesh; and similarly in an inscription of the days ofSin-gamil, dGish-bil-ga-mesh is mentioned as the builder of the wallof Erech. [50] Moreover, in the several fragments of the Sumerianversion of the Epic we have invariably the form dGish-bil-ga-mesh. Itis evident, therefore, that this is the genuine form of the name inSumerian and presumably, therefore, the oldest form. By way of furtherconfirmation we have in the syllabary above referred to, CT, XVIII, 30, 6-8, three designations of our hero, viz:

	dGish-gibil(or bíl)-ga-mesh	_muk-tab-lu_ ("warrior")	_a-lik pa-na_ ("leader")

All three designations are set down as the equivalent of the SumerianEsigga imin i. E. , "the seven-fold hero. "

Of the same general character is the equation in another syllabary:[51]

	Esigga-tuk and its equivalent Gish-tuk = "the one who is	a hero. "

Furthermore, the name occurs frequently in "Temple" documents of the Urdynasty in the form dGish-bil-ga-mesh [52] with dGish-bil-gi(n)-meshas a variant. [53] In a list of deities (_CT_ XXV, 28, K 7659)we likewise encounter dGish-gibil(or bíl)-ga-mesh, and lastly in asyllabary we have the equation [54]

	dGish-gi-mas-[si?] = dGish-bil-[ga-mesh]. 

The variant Gish-gibil for Gish-bil may be disposed of readily, in viewof the frequent confusion or interchange of the two signs Bil (BrünnowNo. 4566) and Gibil or Bíl (Brünnow No. 4642) which has also the valueGi (Brünnow 4641), so that we might also read Gish-gi-ga-mesh. Bothsigns convey the idea of "fire, " "renew, " etc. ; both revert to thepicture of flames of fire, in the one case with a bowl (or somesuch obiect) above it, in the other the flames issuing apparentlyfrom a torch. [55] The meaning of the name is not affected whetherwe read dGish-bil-ga-mesh or dGish-gibil(or bíl)-ga-mesh, for themiddle element in the latter case being identical with the fire-god, written dBil-gi and to be pronounced in the inverted form as Gibilwith _-ga_ (or _ge_) as the phonetic complement; it is equivalent, therefore, to the writing bil-ga in the former case. Now Gish-gibilor Gish-bíl conveys the idea of _abu_, "father" (Brünnow No. 5713), just as Bil (Brünnow No. 4579) has this meaning, while Pa-gibil-(ga)or Pa-bíl-ga is _abu abi_, "grandfather. " [56] This meaning may bederived from Gibil, as also from Bíl = _isatu_, "fire, " then _essu_, "new, " then _abu_, "father, " as the renewer or creator. Gish with Bílor Gibil would, therefore, be "the father-man" or "the father-hero, "i. E. , again the hero _par excellence_, the original hero, just as inHebrew and Arabic _ab_ is used in this way. [57] The syllable _ga_being a phonetic complement, the element _mesh_ is to be takenby itself and to be explained, as Poebel suggested, as "hero"(_itlu_. Brünnow No. 5967). 

We would thus obtain an entirely artificial combination, "man (orhero), father, hero, " which would simply convey in an emphatic mannerthe idea of the _Ur-held_, the original hero, the father of heroes asit were--practically the same idea, therefore, as the one conveyedby Gish alone, as the hero _par excellence_. Our investigation thusleads us to a substantial identity between Gish and the longer formGish-bil(or bíl)-ga-mesh, and the former might, therefore, well be usedas an abbreviation of the latter. Both the shorter and the longer formsare _descriptive epithets _based on naive folk etymology, rather thanpersonal names, just as in the designation of our hero as _muktablu_, the "fighter, " or as _âlik pâna_, "the leader, " or as _Esigga imin_, "the seven-fold hero, " or _Esigga tuk_, "the one who is a hero, " aredescriptive epithets, and as Atra-hasis, "the very wise one, " is suchan epithet for the hero of the deluge story. The case is different withGi-il-ga-mesh, or Gish-gì(n)-mash, which represent the popular andactual pronunciation of the name, or at least the _approach_ to suchpronunciation. Such forms, stripped as they are of all artificiality, impress one as genuine names. The conclusion to which we are thus ledis that Gish-bil(or bíl)-ga-mesh is a play upon the genuine name, to convey to those to whom the real name, as that of a foreigner, would suggest no meaning an interpretation _fitting in with hischaracter_. In other words, Gish-bil-ga-mesh is a "Sumerianized"form of the name, introduced into the Sumerian version of the talewhich became a folk-possession in the Euphrates Valley. Such playsupon names to suggest the character of an individual or some incidentare familiar to us from the narratives in Genesis. [58] They do notconstitute genuine etymologies and are rarely of use in leading to acorrect etymology. Reuben, e. G. , certainly does not mean "Yahweh hasseen my affliction, " which the mother is supposed to have exclaimedat the birth (Genesis 29, 32), with a play upon _ben_ and _be'onyi_, any more than Judah means "I praise Yahweh" (v. 35), though it doescontain the divine name (_Ye_hô) as an element. The play on thename may be close or remote, as long as it fulfills its function of_suggesting_ an etymology that is complimentary or appropriate. 

In this way, an artificial division and at the same time adistortion of a foreign name like Gilgamesh into several elements, Gish-bil-ga-mesh, is no more violent than, for example, the explanationof Issachar or rather Issaschar as "God has given my hire" (Genesis30, 18) with a play upon the element _se_char, and as though thename were to be divided into _Yah_ ("God") and _se_char ("hire");or the popular name of Alexander among the Arabs as _Zu'l Karnaini_, "the possessor of the two horns. " with a suggestion of his conquestof two hemispheres, or what not. [59] The element Gil in Gilgameshwould be regarded as a contraction of Gish-bil or gi-bil, in orderto furnish the meaning "father-hero, " or Gil might be looked uponas a variant for Gish, which would give us the "phonetic" form inthe Assyrian version dGish-gi-mash, [60] as well as such a variantwriting dGish-gi-mas-(si). Now a name like Gilgamesh, upon which wemay definitely settle as coming closest to the genuine form, certainlyimpresses one as foreign, i. E. , it is neither Sumerian nor Akkadian;and we have already suggested that the circumstance that the hero ofthe Epic is portrayed as a conqueror of Erech, and a rather ruthlessone at that, points to a tradition of an invasion of the EuphratesValley as the background for the episode in the first tablet of theseries. Now it is significant that many of the names in the "mythical"dynasties, as they appear in Poebel's list, [61] are likewise foreign, such as Mes-ki-in-ga-se-ir, son of the god Shamash (and the founderof the "mythical" dynasty of Erech of which dGish-bil-ga-mesh isthe fifth member), [62] and En-me-ir-kár his son. In a still earlier"mythical" dynasty, we encounter names like Ga-lu-mu-um, Zu-ga-gi-ib, Ar-pi, E-ta-na, [63] which are distinctly foreign, while such names asEn-me(n)-nun-na and Bar-sal-nun-na strike one again as "Sumerianized"names rather than as genuine Sumerian formations. [64]

Some of these names, as Galumum, Arpi and Etana, are so Amoriticin appearance, that one may hazard the conjecture of their westernorigin. May Gilgamesh likewise belong to the Amurru [65] region, ordoes he represent a foreigner from the East in contrast to Enkidu, whose name, we have seen, may have been Baal-Tôb in the West, withwhich region he is according to the Epic so familiar? It must beconfessed that the second element _ga-mesh_ would fit in well witha Semitic origin for the name, for the element impresses one asthe participial form of a Semitic stem G-M-S, just as in the secondelement of Meskin-gaser we have such a form. Gil might then be thename of a West-Semitic deity. Such conjectures, however, can for thepresent not be substantiated, and we must content ourselves with theconclusion that Gilgamesh as the real name of the hero, or at leastthe form which comes closest to the real name, points to a foreignorigin for the hero, and that such forms as dGish-bil-ga-mesh anddGish-bíl-gi-mesh and other variants are "Sumerianized" forms for whichan artificial etymology was brought forward to convey the idea of the"original hero" or the hero _par excellence_. By means of this "play"on the name, which reverts to the compilers of the Sumerian versionof the Epic, Gilgamesh was converted into a Sumerian figure, just asthe name Enkidu may have been introduced as a Sumerian translationof his Amoritic name. DGish at all events is an abbreviated form ofthe "Sumerianized" name, introduced by the compilers of the earliestAkkadian version, which was produced naturally under the influenceof the Sumerian version. Later, as the Epic continued to grow, aphonetic writing was introduced, dGish-gi-mash, which is in a measurea compromise between the genuine name and the "Sumerianized" form, but at the same time an _approach_ to the real pronunciation. 

VI. 

Next to the new light thrown upon the names and original characterof the two main figures of the Epic, one of the chief points ofinterest in the Pennsylvania fragment is the proof that it furnishesfor a striking resemblance of the two heroes, Gish and Enkidu, to oneanother. In interpreting the dream of Gish, his mother. Ninsun, laysstress upon the fact that the dream portends the coming of someonewho is like Gish, "born in the field and reared in the mountain"(lines 18-19). Both, therefore, are shown by this description tohave come to Babylonia from a mountainous region, i. E. , they areforeigners; and in the case of Enkidu we have seen that the mountainin all probability refers to a region in the West, while the same mayalso be the case with Gish. The resemblance of the two heroes to oneanother extends to their personal appearance. When Enkidu appears onthe streets of Erech, the people are struck by this resemblance. Theyremark that he is "like Gish, " though "shorter in stature" (lines179-180). Enkidu is described as a rival or counterpart. [66]

This relationship between the two is suggested also by the Assyrianversion. In the creation of Enkidu by Aruru, the people urge thegoddess to create the "counterpart" (_zikru_) of Gilgamesh, someone whowill be like him (_ma-si-il_) (Tablet I, 2, 31). Enkidu not only comesfrom the mountain, [67] but the mountain is specifically designated ashis birth-place (I, 4, 2), precisely as in the Pennsylvania tablet, while in another passage he is also described, as in our tablet, as"born in the field. " [68] Still more significant is the designation ofGilgamesh as the _talimu_, "younger brother, " of Enkidu. [69] In accordwith this, we find Gilgamesh in his lament over Enkidu describinghim as a "younger brother" (_ku-ta-ni_); [70] and again in the lasttablet of the Epic, Gilgamesh is referred to as the "brother" ofEnkidu. [71] This close relationship reverts to the Sumerian version, for the Constantinople fragment (Langdon, above, p. 13) begins with thedesignation of Gish-bil-ga-mesh as "his brother. " By "his" no doubtEnkidu is meant. Likewise in the Sumerian text published by Zimmern(above, p. 13) Gilgamesh appears as the brother of Enkidu (rev. 1, 17). 

Turning to the numerous representations of Gilgamesh and Enkidu onSeal Cylinders, [72] we find this resemblance of the two heroes to eachother strikingly confirmed. Both are represented as bearded, with thestrands arranged in the same fashion. The face in both cases is broad, with curls protruding at the side of the head, though at times thesecurls are lacking in the case of Enkidu. What is particularly strikingis to find Gilgamesh generally _a little taller_ than Enkidu, thusbearing out the statement in the Pennsylvania tablet that Enkidu is"shorter in stature. " There are, to be sure, also some distinguishingmarks between the two. Thus Enkidu is generally represented withanimal hoofs, but not always. [73] Enkidu is commonly portrayed withthe horns of a bison, but again this sign is wanting in quite a numberof instances. [74] The hoofs and the horns mark the period when Enkidulived with animals and much like an animal. Most remarkable, however, of all are cylinders on which we find the two heroes almost exactlyalike as, for example, Ward No. 199 where two figures, the one aduplicate of the other (except that one is just a shade taller), are inconflict with each other. Dr. Ward was puzzled by this representationand sets it down as a "fantastic" scene in which "each Gilgameshis stabbing the other. " In the light of the Pennsylvania tablet, this scene is clearly the conflict between the two heroes describedin column 6, preliminary to their forming a friendship. Even in therealm of myth the human experience holds good that there is nothinglike a good fight as a basis for a subsequent alliance. The fragmentdescribes this conflict as a furious one in which Gilgamesh is worsted, and his wounded pride assuaged by the generous victor, who comforts hisvanquished enemy by the assurance that he was destined for somethinghigher than to be a mere "Hercules. " He was singled out for theexercise of royal authority. True to the description of the two heroesin the Pennsylvania tablet as alike, one the counterpart of the other, the seal cylinder portrays them almost exactly alike, as alike as twobrothers could possibly be; with just enough distinction to make itclear on close inspection that two figures are intended and not onerepeated for the sake of symmetry. There are slight variations in themanner in which the hair is worn, and slightly varying expressionsof the face, just enough to make it evident that the one is intendedfor Gilgamesh and the other for Enkidu. When, therefore, in anotherspecimen, No. 173, we find a Gilgamesh holding his counterpart by thelegs, it is merely another aspect of the fight between the two heroes, one of whom is intended to represent Enkidu, and not, as Dr. Wardsupposed, a grotesque repetition of Gilgamesh. [75]

The description of Enkidu in the Pennsylvania tablet as a parallelfigure to Gilgamesh leads us to a consideration of the relationshipof the two figures to one another. Many years ago it was pointedout that the Gilgamesh Epic was a composite tale in which variousstories of an independent origin had been combined and brought intomore or less artificial connection with the _heros eponymos_ ofsouthern Babylonia. [76] We may now go a step further and point outthat not only is Enkidu originally an entirely independent figure, having no connection with Gish or Gilgamesh, but that the latter isreally depicted in the Epic as the counterpart of Enkidu, a reflectionwho has been given the traits of extraordinary physical power thatbelong to Enkidu. This is shown in the first place by the fact thatin the encounter it is Enkidu who triumphs over Gilgamesh. The entireanalysis of the episode of the meeting between the two heroes as givenby Gressmann [77] must be revised. It is not Enkidu who is terrifiedand who is warned against the encounter. It is Gilgamesh who, duringthe night on his way from the house in which the goddess Ishharalies, encounters Enkidu on the highway. Enkidu "blocks the path"[78] of Gilgamesh. He prevents Gilgamesh from re-entering the house, [79] and the two attack each other "like oxen. " [80] They grapplewith each other, and Enkidu forces Gilgamesh to the ground. Enkiduis, therefore, the real hero whose traits of physical prowess areafterwards transferred to Gilgamesh. 

Similarly in the next episode, the struggle against Huwawa, the Yaletablet makes it clear that in the original form of the tale Enkiduis the real hero. All warn Gish against the undertaking--the eldersof Erech, Enkidu, and also the workmen. "Why dost thou desire to dothis?" [81] they say to him. "Thou art young, and thy heart carriesthee away. Thou knowest not what thou proposest to do. " [82] This partof the incident is now better known to us through the latest fragmentof the Assyrian version discovered and published by King. [83] Theelders say to Gilgamesh:

	"Do not trust, O Gilgamesh, in thy strength!	Be warned(?) against trusting to thy attack!	The one who goes before will save his companion, [84]	He who has foresight will save his friend. [85]	Let Enkidu go before thee. 	He knows the roads to the cedar forest;	He is skilled in battle and has seen fight. "

Gilgamesh is sufficiently impressed by this warning to invite Enkiduto accompany him on a visit to his mother, Ninsun, for the purposeof receiving her counsel. [86]

It is only after Enkidu, who himself hesitates and tries to dissuadeGish, decides to accompany the latter that the elders of Erechare reconciled and encourage Gish for the fray. The two in concertproceed against Huwawa. Gilgamesh alone cannot carry out the plan. Nowwhen a tale thus associates two figures in one deed, one of thetwo has been added to the original tale. In the present case therecan be little doubt that Enkidu, without whom Gish cannot proceed, who is specifically described as "acquainted with the way . . . To theentrance of the forest" [87] in which Huwawa dwells is the _original_vanquisher. Naturally, the Epic aims to conceal this fact as muchas possible _ad majorem gloriam_ of Gilgamesh. It tries to put theone who became the favorite hero into the foreground. Therefore, inboth the Babylonian and the Assyrian version Enkidu is representedas hesitating, and Gilgamesh as determined to go ahead. Gilgamesh, in fact, accuses Enkidu of cowardice and boldly declares that hewill proceed even though failure stare him in the face. [88] Tracesof the older view, however, in which Gilgamesh is the one for whomone fears the outcome, crop out; as, for example, in the complaint ofGilgamesh's mother to Shamash that the latter has stirred the heartof her son to take the distant way to Hu(m)baba, 	"To a fight unknown to him, he advances, 	An expedition unknown to him he undertakes. " [89]

Ninsun evidently fears the consequences when her son informs herof his intention and asks her counsel. The answer of Shamash is notpreserved, but no doubt it was of a reassuring character, as was theanswer of the Sun-god to Gish's appeal and prayer as set forth inthe Yale tablet. [90]

Again, as a further indication that Enkidu is the real conqueror ofHuwawa, we find the coming contest revealed to Enkidu no less thanthree times in dreams, which Gilgamesh interprets. [91] Since theperson who dreams is always the one to whom the dream applies, we maysee in these dreams a further trace of the primary rôle originallyassigned to Enkidu. 

Another exploit which, according to the Assyrian version, the twoheroes perform in concert is the killing of a bull, sent by Anu atthe instance of Ishtar to avenge an insult offered to the goddessby Gilgamesh, who rejects her offer of marriage. In the fragmentarydescription of the contest with the bull, we find Enkidu "seizing"the monster by "its tail. " [92]

That Enkidu originally played the part of the slayer is also shownby the statement that it is he who insults Ishtar by throwing apiece of the carcass into the goddess' face, [93] adding also aninsulting speech; and this despite the fact that Ishtar in her rageaccuses Gilgamesh of killing the bull. [94] It is thus evident thatthe Epic alters the original character of the episodes in order tofind a place for Gilgamesh, with the further desire to assign to thelatter the _chief_ rôle. Be it noted also that Enkidu, not Gilgamesh, is punished for the insult to Ishtar. Enkidu must therefore in theoriginal form of the episode have been the guilty party, who isstricken with mortal disease as a punishment to which after twelvedays he succumbs. [95] In view of this, we may supply the name ofEnkidu in the little song introduced at the close of the encounterwith the bull, and not Gilgamesh as has hitherto been done. 

	"Who is distinguished among the heroes?	Who is glorious among men?	[Enkidu] is distinguished among heroes, 	[Enkidu] is glorious among men. " [96]

Finally, the killing of lions is directly ascribed to Enkidu in thePennsylvania tablet:

	"Lions he attacked	*     *     *     *     *	Lions he overcame" [97]

whereas Gilgamesh appears to be afraid of lions. On his long searchfor Utnapishtim he says:

	"On reaching the entrance of the mountain at night	I saw lions and was afraid. " [98]

He prays to Sin and Ishtar to protect and save him. When, therefore, in another passage some one celebrates Gilgamesh as the one whoovercame the "guardian, " who dispatched Hu(m)baba in the cedar forest, who killed lions and overthrew the bull, [99] we have the completionof the process which transferred to Gilgamesh exploits and powerswhich originally belonged to Enkidu, though ordinarily the processstops short at making Gilgamesh a _sharer_ in the exploits; with thenatural tendency, to be sure, to enlarge the share of the favorite. 

We can now understand why the two heroes are described in thePennsylvania tablet as alike, as born in the same place, aye, asbrothers. Gilgamesh in the Epic is merely a reflex of Enkidu. Thelatter is the real hero and presumably, therefore, the olderfigure. [100] Gilgamesh resembles Enkidu, because he _is_ originallyEnkidu. The "resemblance" _motif_ is merely the manner in whichin the course of the partly popular, partly literary transfer, therecollection is preserved that Enkidu is the original, and Gilgameshthe copy. 

The artificiality of the process which brings the two heroes togetheris apparent in the dreams of Gilgamesh which are interpreted byhis mother as portending the coming of Enkidu. Not the conflict isforeseen, but the subsequent close association, naïvely described asdue to the personal charm which Enkidu exercises, which will leadGilgamesh to fall in love with the one whom he is to meet. The twowill become one, like man and wife. 

On the basis of our investigations, we are now in a position toreconstruct in part the cycle of episodes that once formed part ofan Enkidu Epic. The fight between Enkidu and Gilgamesh, in whichthe former is the victor, is typical of the kind of tales told ofEnkidu. He is the real prototype of the Greek Hercules. He slayslions, he overcomes a powerful opponent dwelling in the forests ofLebanon, he kills the bull, and he finally succumbs to disease sentas a punishment by an angry goddess. The death of Enkidu naturallyformed the close of the Enkidu Epic, which in its original form may, of course, have included other exploits besides those taken over intothe Gilgamesh Epic. 

VII. 

There is another aspect of the figure of Enkidu which is broughtforward in the Pennsylvania tablet more clearly than had hitherto beenthe case. Many years ago attention was called to certain strikingresemblances between Enkidu and the figure of the first man asdescribed in the early chapters of Genesis. [101] At that time we hadmerely the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh Epic at our disposal, and the main point of contact was the description of Enkidu livingwith the animals, drinking and feeding like an animal, until a womanis brought to him with whom he engages in sexual intercourse. Thissuggested that Enkidu was a picture of primeval man, while thewoman reminded one of Eve, who when she is brought to Adam becomeshis helpmate and inseparable companion. The Biblical tale stands, of course, on a much higher level, and is introduced, as are othertraditions and tales of primitive times, in the style of a parableto convey certain religious teachings. For all that, suggestionsof earlier conceptions crop out in the picture of Adam surroundedby animals to which he assigns names. Such a phrase as "there was nohelpmate corresponding to him" becomes intelligible on the suppositionof an existing tradition or belief, that man once lived and, indeed, cohabited with animals. The tales in the early chapters of Genesismust rest on very early popular traditions, which have been clearedof mythological and other objectionable features in order to adaptthem to the purpose of the Hebrew compilers, to serve as a medium forillustrating certain religious teachings regarding man's place innature and his higher destiny. From the resemblance between Enkiduand Adam it does not, of course, follow that the latter is modelledupon the former, but only that both rest on similar traditions ofthe condition under which men lived in primeval days prior to thebeginnings of human culture. 

We may now pass beyond these general indications and recognize in thestory of Enkidu as revealed by the Pennsylvania tablet an attemptto trace the evolution of primitive man from low beginnings to theregular and orderly family life associated with advanced culture. Thenew tablet furnishes a further illustration for the surprisingly earlytendency among the Babylonian _literati_ to connect with popular talesteachings of a religious or ethical character. Just as the episodebetween Gilgamesh and the maiden Sabitum is made the occasion forintroducing reflections on the inevitable fate of man to encounterdeath, so the meeting of Enkidu with the woman becomes the mediumof impressing the lesson of human progress through the substitutionof bread and wine for milk and water, through the institution ofthe family, and through work and the laying up of resources. Thisis the significance of the address to Enkidu in column 4 of thePennsylvania tablet, even though certain expressions in it aresomewhat obscure. The connection of the entire episode of Enkidu andthe woman with Gilgamesh is very artificial; and it becomes much moreintelligible if we disassociate it from its present entanglement inthe Epic. In Gilgamesh's dream, portending the meeting with Enkidu, nothing is said of the woman who is the companion of the latter. Thepassage in which Enkidu is created by Aruru to oppose Gilgamesh [102]betrays evidence of having been worked over in order to bring Enkiduinto association with the longing of the people of Erech to get ridof a tyrannical character. The people in their distress appeal toAruru to create a rival to Gilgamesh. In response, 	"Aruru upon hearing this created a man of Anu in her heart. "

Now this "man of Anu" cannot possibly be Enkidu, for the sufficientreason that a few lines further on Enkidu is described as an offspringof Ninib. Moreover, the being created is not a "counterpart"of Gilgamesh, but an animal-man, as the description that followsshows. We must separate lines 30-33 in which the creation of the "Anuman" is described from lines 34-41 in which the creation of Enkidu isnarrated. Indeed, these lines strike one as the proper _beginning_of the original Enkidu story, which would naturally start out withhis birth and end with his death. The description is clearly anaccount of the creation of the first man, in which capacity Enkiduis brought forward. 

	"Aruru washed her hands, broke off clay, 	threw it on the field [103]	. . . Created Enkidu, the hero, a lofty	offspring of the host of Ninib. " [104]

The description of Enkidu follows, with his body covered with hairlike an animal, and eating and drinking with the animals. Therefollows an episode [105] which has no connection whatsoever withthe Gilgamesh Epic, but which is clearly intended to illustrate howEnkidu came to abandon the life with the animals. A hunter sees Enkiduand is amazed at the strange sight--an animal and yet a man. Enkidu, as though resenting his condition, becomes enraged at the sight ofthe hunter, and the latter goes to his father and tells him of thestrange creature whom he is unable to catch. In reply, the fatheradvises his son to take a woman with him when next he goes out onhis pursuit, and to have the woman remove her dress in the presenceof Enkidu, who will then approach her, and after intercourse withher will abandon the animals among whom he lives. By this device hewill catch the strange creature. Lines 14-18 of column 3 in the firsttablet in which the father of the hunter refers to Gilgamesh must beregarded as a later insertion, a part of the reconstruction of thetale to connect the episode with Gilgamesh. The advice of the fatherto his son, the hunter, begins, line 19, 	"Go my hunter, take with thee a woman. "

In the reconstructed tale, the father tells his son to go to Gilgameshto relate to him the strange appearance of the animal-man; but thereis clearly no purpose in this, as is shown by the fact that when thehunter does so, Gilgamesh makes _precisely the same speech_ as doesthe father of the hunter. Lines 40-44 of column 3, in which Gilgameshis represented as speaking to the hunter form a complete _doublet_to lines 19-24, beginning

	"Go, my hunter, take with thee a woman, etc. "

and similarly the description of Enkidu appears twice, lines 2-12in an address of the hunter to his father, and lines 29-39 in theaddress of the hunter to Gilgamesh. 

The artificiality of the process of introducing Gilgamesh intothe episode is revealed by this awkward and entirely meaninglessrepetition. We may therefore reconstruct the first two scenes in theEnkidu Epic as follows: [106]

Tablet I, col. 2, 34-35: Creation of Enkidu by Aruru. 

36-41: Description of Enkidu's hairy body and of his life with theanimals. 

42-50: The hunter sees Enkidu, who shows his anger, as also his woe, at his condition. 

3, 1-12: The hunter tells his father of the strange being who pullsup the traps which the hunter digs, and who tears the nets so thatthe hunter is unable to catch him or the animals. 

19-24: The father of the hunter advises his son on his next expeditionto take a woman with him in order to lure the strange being from hislife with the animals. 

Line 25, beginning "On the advice of his father, " must have set forth, in the original form of the episode, how the hunter procured thewoman and took her with him to meet Enkidu. 

Column 4 gives in detail the meeting between the two, and naïvelydescribes how the woman exposes her charms to Enkidu, who is captivatedby her and stays with her six days and seven nights. The animals seethe change in Enkidu and run away from him. He has been transformedthrough the woman. So far the episode. In the Assyrian version therefollows an address of the woman to Enkidu beginning (col. 4, 34):

	"Beautiful art thou, Enkidu, like a god art thou. "

We find her urging him to go with her to Erech, there to meet Gilgameshand to enjoy the pleasures of city life with plenty of beautifulmaidens. Gilgamesh, she adds, will expect Enkidu, for the comingof the latter to Erech has been foretold in a dream. It is evidentthat here we have again the later transformation of the Enkidu Epicin order to bring the two heroes together. Will it be considered toobold if we assume that in the original form the address of the womanand the construction of the episode were such as we find preserved inpart in columns 2 to 4 of the Pennsylvania tablet, which forms partof the new material that can now be added to the Epic? The addressof the woman begins in line 51 of the Pennsylvania tablet:

	"I gaze upon thee, Enkidu, like a god art thou. "

This corresponds to the line in the Assyrian version (I, 4, 34)as given above, just as lines 52-53:

	"Why with the cattle	Dost thou roam across the field?"

correspond to I, 4, 35, of the Assyrian version. There follows in boththe old Babylonian and the Assyrian version the appeal of the womanto Enkidu, to allow her to lead him to Erech where Gilgamesh dwells(Pennsylvania tablet lines 54-61 = Assyrian version I, 4, 36-39);but in the Pennsylvania tablet we now have a _second_ speech (lines62-63) beginning like the first one with _al-ka_, "come:"

	"Come, arise from the accursed ground. "

Enkidu consents, and now the woman takes off her garments and clothesthe naked Enkidu, while putting another garment on herself. She takeshold of his hand and leads him to the sheepfolds (not to Erech!!), where bread and wine are placed before him. Accustomed hithertoto sucking milk with cattle, Enkidu does not know what to do withthe strange food until encouraged and instructed by the woman. Theentire third column is taken up with this introduction of Enkiduto civilized life in a pastoral community, and the scene ends withEnkidu becoming a guardian of flocks. Now all this has nothing todo with Gilgamesh, and clearly sets forth an entirely differentidea from the one embodied in the meeting of the two heroes. In theoriginal Enkidu tale, the animal-man is looked upon as the type of aprimitive savage, and the point of the tale is to illustrate in thenaïve manner characteristic of folklore the evolution to the higherform of pastoral life. This aspect of the incident is, therefore, to be separated from the other phase which has as its chief _motif_the bringing of the two heroes together. 

We now obtain, thanks to the new section revealed by the Pennsylvaniatablet, a further analogy [107] with the story of Adam and Eve, but with this striking difference, that whereas in the Babyloniantale the woman is the medium leading man to the higher life, in theBiblical story the woman is the tempter who brings misfortune toman. This contrast is, however, not inherent in the Biblical story, but due to the point of view of the Biblical writer, who is somewhatpessimistically inclined and looks upon primitive life, when man wentnaked and lived in a garden, eating of fruits that grew of themselves, as the blessed life in contrast to advanced culture which leadsto agriculture and necessitates hard work as the means of securingone's substance. Hence the woman through whom Adam eats of the treeof knowledge and becomes conscious of being naked is looked upon asan evil tempter, entailing the loss of the primeval life of bliss ina gorgeous Paradise. The Babylonian point of view is optimistic. Thechange to civilized life--involving the wearing of clothes and theeating of food that is cultivated (bread and wine) is looked upon as anadvance. Hence the woman is viewed as the medium of raising man to ahigher level. The feature common to the Biblical and Babylonian talesis the attachment of a lesson to early folk-tales. The story of Adamand Eve, [108] as the story of Enkidu and the woman, is told _witha purpose_. Starting with early traditions of men's primitive lifeon earth, that may have arisen independently, Hebrew and Babylonianwriters diverged, each group going its own way, each reflecting theparticular point of view from which the evolution of human societywas viewed. 

Leaving the analogy between the Biblical and Babylonian tales aside, the main point of value for us in the Babylonian story of Enkiduand the woman is the proof furnished by the analysis, made possiblethrough the Pennsylvania tablet, that the tale can be separatedfrom its subsequent connection with Gilgamesh. We can continue thisprocess of separation in the fourth column, where the woman instructsEnkidu in the further duty of living his life with the woman decreedfor him, to raise a family, to engage in work, to build cities andto gather resources. All this is looked upon in the same optimisticspirit as marking progress, whereas the Biblical writer, consistentwith his point of view, looks upon work as a curse, and makes Cain, the murderer, also the founder of cities. The step to the higherforms of life is not an advance according to the J document. It isinteresting to note that even the phrase the "cursed ground" occursin both the Babylonian and Biblical tales; but whereas in the latter(Gen. 3, 17) it is because of the hard work entailed in raising theproducts of the earth that the ground is cursed, in the former (lines62-63) it is the place in which Enkidu lives _before_ he advances tothe dignity of human life that is "cursed, " and which he is askedto leave. Adam is expelled from Paradise as a punishment, whereasEnkidu is implored to leave it as a necessary step towards _progress_to a higher form of existence. The contrast between the Babylonianand the Biblical writer extends to the view taken of viniculture. TheBiblical writer (again the J document) looks upon Noah's drunkennessas a disgrace. Noah loses his sense of shame and uncovers himself(Genesis 9, 21), whereas in the Babylonian description Enkidu's jollyspirit after he has drunk seven jars of wine meets with approval. TheBiblical point of view is that he who drinks wine becomes drunk;[109] the Babylonian says, if you drink wine you become happy. [110]

If the thesis here set forth of the original character and importof the episode of Enkidu with the woman is correct, we may againregard lines 149-153 of the Pennsylvania tablet, in which Gilgameshis introduced, as a later addition to bring the two heroes intoassociation. The episode in its original form ended with theintroduction of Enkidu first to pastoral life, and then to the stillhigher city life with regulated forms of social existence. 

Now, to be sure, this Enkidu has little in common with the Enkiduwho is described as a powerful warrior, a Hercules, who kills lions, overcomes the giant Huwawa, and dispatches a great bull, but it isthe nature of folklore everywhere to attach to traditions abouta favorite hero all kinds of tales with which originally he hadnothing to do. Enkidu, as such a favorite, is viewed also as thetype of primitive man, [111] and so there arose gradually an Epicwhich began with his birth, pictured him as half-animal half-man, told how he emerged from this state, how he became civilized, wasclothed, learned to eat food and drink wine, how he shaved off thehair with which his body was covered, [112] anointed himself--in short, 	"He became manlike. " [113]

Thereupon he is taught his duties as a husband, is introduced tothe work of building, and to laying aside supplies, and the like. Thefully-developed and full-fledged hero then engages in various exploits, of which _some_ are now embodied in the Gilgamesh Epic. Who this Enkiduwas, we are not in a position to determine, but the suggestion hasbeen thrown out above that he is a personage foreign to Babylonia, that his home appears to be in the undefined Amurru district, andthat he conquers that district. The original tale of Enkidu, if thisview be correct, must therefore have been carried to the EuphratesValley, at a very remote period, with one of the migratory waves thatbrought a western people as invaders into Babylonia. Here the talewas combined with stories current of another hero, Gilgamesh--perhapsalso of Western origin--whose conquest of Erech likewise representsan invasion of Babylonia. The center of the Gilgamesh tale was Erech, and in the process of combining the stories of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, Enkidu is brought to Erech and the two perform exploits in common. Insuch a combination, the aim would be to utilize all the incidents of_both_ tales. The woman who accompanies Enkidu, therefore, becomesthe medium of bringing the two heroes together. The story of theevolution of primitive man to civilized life is transformed into thetale of Enkidu's removal to Erech, and elaborated with all kinds ofdetails, among which we have, as perhaps embodying a genuine historicaltradition, the encounter of the two heroes. 

Before passing on, we have merely to note the very large part takenin both the old Babylonian and the Assyrian version by the struggleagainst Huwawa. The entire Yale tablet--forming, as we have seen, the third of the series--is taken up with the preparation for thestruggle, and with the repeated warnings given to Gilgamesh againstthe dangerous undertaking. The fourth tablet must have recounted thestruggle itself, and it is not improbable that this episode extendedinto the fifth tablet, since in the Assyrian version this is thecase. The elaboration of the story is in itself an argument in favorof assuming some historical background for it--the recollection ofthe conquest of Amurru by some powerful warrior; and we have seenthat this conquest must be ascribed to Enkidu and not to Gilgamesh. 

VIII. 

If, now, Enkidu is not only the older figure but the one who is thereal hero of the most notable episode in the Gilgamesh Epic; if, furthermore, Enkidu is the Hercules who kills lions and dispatchesthe bull sent by an enraged goddess, what becomes of Gilgamesh? Whatis left for him?

In the first place, he is definitely the conqueror of Erech. He buildsthe wall of Erech, [114] and we may assume that the designation ofthe city as _Uruk supûri_, "the walled Erech, " [115] rests upon thistradition. He is also associated with the great temple Eanna, "theheavenly house, " in Erech. To Gilgamesh belongs also the unenviabletradition of having exercised his rule in Erech so harshly that thepeople are impelled to implore Aruru to create a rival who may ridthe district of the cruel tyrant, who is described as snatching sonsand daughters from their families, and in other ways terrifying thepopulation--an early example of "Schrecklichkeit. " Tablets II toV inclusive of the Assyrian version being taken up with the Huwawaepisode, modified with a view of bringing the two heroes together, we come at once to the sixth tablet, which tells the story of howthe goddess Ishtar wooed Gilgamesh, and of the latter's rejectionof her advances. This tale is distinctly a nature myth. The attemptof Gressmann [116] to find some historical background to the episodeis a failure. The goddess Ishtar symbolizes the earth which woos thesun in the spring, but whose love is fatal, for after a few monthsthe sun's power begins to wane. Gilgamesh, who in incantation hymnsis invoked in terms which show that he was conceived as a sun-god, [117] recalls to the goddess how she changed her lovers into animals, like Circe of Greek mythology, and brought them to grief. Enraged atGilgamesh's insult to her vanity, she flies to her father Anu and criesfor revenge. At this point the episode of the creation of the bull isintroduced, but if the analysis above given is correct it is Enkiduwho is the hero in dispatching the bull, and we must assume that thesickness with which Gilgamesh is smitten is the punishment sent by Anuto avenge the insult to his daughter. This sickness symbolizes thewaning strength of the sun after midsummer is past. The sun recedesfrom the earth, and this was pictured in the myth as the sun-god'srejection of Ishtar; Gilgamesh's fear of death marks the approachof the winter season, when the sun appears to have lost its vigorcompletely and is near to death. The entire episode is, therefore, a nature myth, symbolical of the passing of spring to midsummer andthen to the bare season. The myth has been attached to Gilgamesh asa favorite figure, and then woven into a pattern with the episodeof Enkidu and the bull. The bull episode can be detached from thenature myth without any loss to the symbolism of the tale of Ishtarand Gilgamesh. 

As already suggested, with Enkidu's death after this conquestof the bull the original Enkidu Epic came to an end. In order toconnect Gilgamesh with Enkidu, the former is represented as sharingin the struggle against the bull. Enkidu is punished with death, while Gilgamesh is smitten with disease. Since both shared equallyin the guilt, the punishment should have been the same for both. Thedifferentiation may be taken as an indication that Gilgamesh's diseasehas nothing to do with the bull episode, but is merely part of thenature myth. 

Gilgamesh now begins a series of wanderings in search ofthe restoration of his vigor, and this _motif_ is evidently acontinuation of the nature myth to symbolize the sun's wanderingsduring the dark winter in the hope of renewed vigor with the comingof the spring. Professor Haupt's view is that the disease from whichGilgamesh is supposed to be suffering is of a venereal character, affecting the organs of reproduction. This would confirm the positionhere taken that the myth symbolizes the loss of the sun's vigor. Thesun's rays are no longer strong enough to fertilize the earth. Inaccord with this, Gilgamesh's search for healing leads him to thedark regions [118] in which the scorpion-men dwell. The terrors ofthe region symbolize the gloom of the winter season. At last Gilgameshreaches a region of light again, described as a landscape situated atthe sea. The maiden in control of this region bolts the gate againstGilgamesh's approach, but the latter forces his entrance. It is thepicture of the sun-god bursting through the darkness, to emerge asthe youthful reinvigorated sun-god of the spring. 

Now with the tendency to attach to popular tales and nature mythslessons illustrative of current beliefs and aspirations, Gilgamesh'ssearch for renewal of life is viewed as man's longing for eternallife. The sun-god's waning power after midsummer is past suggestsman's growing weakness after the meridian of life has been leftbehind. Winter is death, and man longs to escape it. Gilgamesh'swanderings are used as illustration of this longing, and accordinglythe search for life becomes also the quest for immortality. Can theprecious boon of eternal life be achieved? Popular fancy createdthe figure of a favorite of the gods who had escaped a destructivedeluge in which all mankind had perished. [119] Gilgamesh hears ofthis favorite and determines to seek him out and learn from him thesecret of eternal life. The deluge story, again a pure nature myth, symbolical of the rainy season which destroys all life in nature, is thus attached to the Epic. Gilgamesh after many adventures findshimself in the presence of the survivor of the Deluge who, althoughhuman, enjoys immortal life among the gods. He asks the survivorhow he came to escape the common fate of mankind, and in replyUtnapishtim tells the story of the catastrophe that brought aboutuniversal destruction. The moral of the tale is obvious. Only thosesingled out by the special favor of the gods can hope to be removedto the distant "source of the streams" and live forever. The rest ofmankind must face death as the end of life. 

That the story of the Deluge is told in the eleventh tablet of theseries, corresponding to the eleventh month, known as the month of"rain curse" [120] and marking the height of the rainy season, maybe intentional, just as it may not be accidental that Gilgamesh'srejection of Ishtar is recounted in the sixth tablet, corresponding tothe sixth month, [121] which marks the end of the summer season. Thetwo tales may have formed part of a cycle of myths, distributedamong the months of the year. The Gilgamesh Epic, however, doesnot form such a cycle. Both myths have been artificially attachedto the adventures of the hero. For the deluge story we now have thedefinite proof for its independent existence, through Dr. Poebel'spublication of a Sumerian text which embodies the tale, [122] andwithout any reference to Gilgamesh. Similarly, Scheil and Hilprechthave published fragments of deluge stories written in Akkadian andlikewise without any connection with the Gilgamesh Epic. [123]

In the Epic the story leads to another episode attached to Gilgamesh, namely, the search for a magic plant growing in deep water, which hasthe power of restoring old age to youth. Utnapishtim, the survivor ofthe deluge, is moved through pity for Gilgamesh, worn out by his longwanderings. At the request of his wife, Utnapishtim decides to tellGilgamesh of this plant, and he succeeds in finding it. He plucks itand decides to take it back to Erech so that all may enjoy the benefit, but on his way stops to bathe in a cool cistern. A serpent comes alongand snatches the plant from him, and he is forced to return to Erechwith his purpose unachieved. Man cannot hope, when old age comes on, to escape death as the end of everything. 

Lastly, the twelfth tablet of the Assyrian version of the GilgameshEpic is of a purely didactic character, bearing evidence of havingbeen added as a further illustration of the current belief that thereis no escape from the nether world to which all must go after life hascome to an end. Proper burial and suitable care of the dead representall that can be done in order to secure a fairly comfortable rest forthose who have passed out of this world. Enkidu is once more introducedinto this episode. His shade is invoked by Gilgamesh and rises up outof the lower world to give a discouraging reply to Gilgamesh's request, 	"Tell me, my friend, tell me, my friend, 	The law of the earth which thou hast	experienced, tell me, "

The mournful message comes back:

	"I cannot tell thee, my friend, I cannot tell. "

Death is a mystery and must always remain such. The historicalGilgamesh has clearly no connection with the figure introduced intothis twelfth tablet. Indeed, as already suggested, the Gilgamesh Epicmust have ended with the return to Erech, as related at the close ofthe eleventh tablet. The twelfth tablet was added by some school-men ofBabylonia (or perhaps of Assyria), purely for the purpose of conveyinga summary of the teachings in regard to the fate of the dead. Whetherthese six episodes covering the sixth to the twelfth tablets, (1) thenature myth, (2) the killing of the divine bull, (3) the punishmentof Gilgamesh and the death of Enkidu, (4) Gilgamesh's wanderings, (5) the Deluge, (6) the search for immortality, were all includedat the time that the old Babylonian version was compiled cannot, ofcourse, be determined until we have that version in a more completeform. Since the two tablets thus far recovered show that as early as2000 B. C. The Enkidu tale had already been amalgamated with the currentstories about Gilgamesh, and the endeavor made to transfer the traitsof the former to the latter, it is eminently likely that the story ofIshtar's unhappy love adventure with Gilgamesh was included, as wellas Gilgamesh's punishment and the death of Enkidu. With the evidencefurnished by Meissner's fragment of a version of the old Babylonianrevision and by our two tablets, of the early disposition to makepopular tales the medium of illustrating current beliefs and theteachings of the temple schools, it may furthermore be concluded thatthe death of Enkidu and the punishment of Gilgamesh were utilized fordidactic purposes in the old Babylonian version. On the other hand, the proof for the existence of the deluge story in the Hammurabiperiod and some centuries later, _independent_ of any connectionwith the Gilgamesh Epic, raises the question whether in the oldBabylonian version, of which our two tablets form a part, the delugetale was already woven into the pattern of the Epic. At all events, till proof to the contrary is forthcoming, we may assume that thetwelfth tablet of the Assyrian version, though also reverting to aBabylonian original, dates as the _latest_ addition to the Epic froma period subsequent to 2000 B. C. ; and that the same is probably thecase with the eleventh tablet. 

IX. 

To sum up, there are four main currents that flow together in theGilgamesh Epic even in its old Babylonian form: (1) the adventures ofa mighty warrior Enkidu, resting perhaps on a faint tradition of theconquest of Amurru by the hero; (2) the more definite recollectionof the exploits of a foreign invader of Babylonia by the name ofGilgamesh, whose home appears likewise to have been in the West; [124](3) nature myths and didactic tales transferred to Enkidu and Gilgameshas popular figures; and (4) the process of weaving the traditions, exploits, myths and didactic tales together, in the course of whichprocess Gilgamesh becomes the main hero, and Enkidu his companion. 

Furthermore, our investigation has shown that to Enkidu belongs theepisode with the woman, used to illustrate the evolution of primitiveman to the ways and conditions of civilized life, the conquest ofHuwawa in the land of Amurru, the killing of lions and also of thebull, while Gilgamesh is the hero who conquers Erech. Identified withthe sun-god, the nature myth of the union of the sun with the earth andthe subsequent separation of the two is also transferred to him. Thewanderings of the hero, smitten with disease, are a continuation ofthe nature myth, symbolizing the waning vigor of the sun with theapproach of the wintry season. 

The details of the process which led to making Gilgamesh the favoritefigure, to whom the traits and exploits of Enkidu and of the sun-godare transferred, escape us, but of the fact that Enkidu is the _older_figure, of whom certain adventures were set forth in a tale thatonce had an independent existence, there can now be little doubt inthe face of the evidence furnished by the two tablets of the oldBabylonian version; just as the study of these tablets shows thatin the combination of the tales of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, the formeris the prototype of which Gilgamesh is the copy. If the two areregarded as brothers, as born in the same place, even resembling oneanother in appearance and carrying out their adventures in common, it is because in the process of combination Gilgamesh becomes the_reflex_ of Enkidu. That Enkidu is not the figure created by Aruru torelieve Erech of its tyrannical ruler is also shown by the fact thatGilgamesh remains in control of Erech. It is to Erech that he returnswhen he fails of his purpose to learn the secret of escape from oldage and death. Erech is, therefore, not relieved of the presence ofthe ruthless ruler through Enkidu. The "Man of Anu" formed by Aruruas a deliverer is confused in the course of the growth of the Epicwith Enkidu, the offspring of Ninib, and in this way we obtain thestrange contradiction of Enkidu and Gilgamesh appearing first as bitterrivals and then as close and inseparable friends. It is of the natureof Epic compositions everywhere to eliminate unnecessary figures byconcentrating on one favorite the traits belonging to another or toseveral others. 

The close association of Enkidu and Gilgamesh which becomes one ofthe striking features in the combination of the tales of these twoheroes naturally recalls the "Heavenly Twins" _motif_, which has beenso fully and so suggestively treated by Professor J. Rendell Harrisin his _Cult of the Heavenly Twins_, (London, 1906). Professor Harrishas conclusively shown how widespread the tendency is to associatetwo divine or semi-divine beings in myths and legends as inseparablecompanions [125] or twins, like Castor and Pollux, Romulus and Remus, [126] the Acvins in the Rig-Veda, [127] Cain and Abel, Jacob andEsau in the Old Testament, the Kabiri of the Phoenicians, [128]Herakles and Iphikles in Greek mythology, Ambrica and Fidelio inTeutonic mythology, Patollo and Potrimpo in old Prussian mythology, Cautes and Cautopates in Mithraism, Jesus and Thomas (according tothe Syriac Acts of Thomas), and the various illustrations of "Dioscuriin Christian Legends, " set forth by Dr. Harris in his work under thistitle, which carries the _motif_ far down into the period of legendsabout Christian Saints who appear in pairs, including the referenceto such a pair in Shakespeare's Henry V:

	"And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by	From that day to the ending of the world. "--(_Act, IV, 	3, 57-58. _)

There are indeed certain parallels which suggest that Enkidu-Gilgameshmay represent a Babylonian counterpart to the "Heavenly Twins. " Inthe Indo-Iranian, Greek and Roman mythology, the twins almostinvariably act together. In unison they proceed on expeditions topunish enemies. [129]

But after all, the parallels are of too general a character to be ofmuch moment; and moreover the parallels stop short at the criticalpoint, for Gilgamesh though worsted is _not_ killed by Enkidu, whereas one of the "Heavenly Twins" is always killed by the brother, as Abel is by Cain, and Iphikles by his twin brother Herakles. Eventhe trait which is frequent in the earliest forms of the "HeavenlyTwins, " according to which one is immortal and the other is mortal, though applying in a measure to Enkidu who is killed by Ishtar, whileGilgamesh the offspring of a divine pair is only smitten with disease, is too unsubstantial to warrant more than a general comparison betweenthe Enkidu-Gilgamesh pair and the various forms of the "twin" _motif_found throughout the ancient world. For all that, the point is of someinterest that in the Gilgamesh Epic we should encounter two figures whoare portrayed as possessing the same traits and accomplishing feats incommon, which suggest a partial parallel to the various forms in whichthe twin-_motif_ appears in the mythologies, folk-lore and legendsof many nations; and it may be that in some of these instances theduplication is due, as in the case of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, to anactual transfer of the traits of one figure to another who usurpedhis place. 

X. 

In concluding this study of the two recently discovered tablets ofthe old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic which has brought usseveral steps further in the interpretation and in our understandingof the method of composition of the most notable literary productionof ancient Babylonia, it will be proper to consider the _literary_relationship of the old Babylonian to the Assyrian version. 

We have already referred to the different form in which the namesof the chief figures appear in the old Babylonian version, dGish asagainst dGish-gì(n)-mash, dEn-ki-du as against dEn-ki-dú, Hu-wa-waas against Hu(m)-ba-ba. Erech appears as _Uruk ribîtim_, "Erech ofthe Plazas, " as against _Uruk supûri_, "walled Erech" (or "Erechwithin the walls"), in the Assyrian version. [130] These variationspoint to an _independent_ recension for the Assyrian revision; andthis conclusion is confirmed by a comparison of parallel passages inour two tablets with the Assyrian version, for such parallels rarelyextend to verbal agreements in details, and, moreover, show that theAssyrian version has been elaborated. 

Beginning with the Pennsylvania tablet, column I is covered in theAssyrian version by tablet I, 5, 25, to 6, 33, though, as pointed outabove, in the Assyrian version we have the anticipation of the dreamsof Gilgamesh and their interpretation through their recital to Enkiduby his female companion, whereas in the old Babylonian version wehave the dreams _directly_ given in a conversation between Gilgameshand his mother. In the anticipation, there would naturally be someomissions. So lines 4-5 and 12-13 of the Pennsylvania tablet do notappear in the Assyrian version, but in their place is a line (I, 5, 35), to be restored to

	"[I saw him and like] a woman I fell in love with him. "

which occurs in the old Babylonian version only in connection withthe second dream. The point is of importance as showing that in theBabylonian version the first dream lays stress upon the omen ofthe falling meteor, as symbolizing the coming of Enkidu, whereasthe second dream more specifically reveals Enkidu as a man, [131]of whom Gilgamesh is instantly enamored. Strikingly variant lines, though conveying the same idea, are frequent. Thus line 14 of theBabylonian version reads

	"I bore it and carried it to thee"

and appears in the Assyrian version (I, 5, 35_b_ supplied from 6, 26)

	"I threw it (or him) at thy feet" [132]

with an additional line in elaboration

	"Thou didst bring him into contact with me" [133]

which anticipates the speech of the mother

	(Line 41 = Assyrian version I, 6, 33). 

Line 10 of the Pennsylvania tablet has _pa-hi-ir_ as against _iz-za-az_I, 5, 31. 

Line 8 has _ik-ta-bi-it_ as against _da-an_ in the Assyrian version I, 5, 29. 

More significant is the variant to line 9

	"I became weak and its weight I could not bear"

as against I, 5, 30. 

	"Its strength was overpowering, [134] and I could not endure	its weight. "

The important lines 31-36 are not found in the Assyrian version, with the exception of I, 6, 27, which corresponds to lines 33-34, but this lack of correspondence is probably due to the fact that theAssyrian version represents the anticipation of the dreams which, as already suggested, might well omit some details. As against thiswe have in the Assyrian version I, 6, 23-25, an elaboration of line30 in the Pennsylvania tablet and taken over from the recital ofthe first dream. Through the Assyrian version I, 6, 31-32, we canrestore the closing lines of column I of the Pennsylvania tablet, while with line 33 = line 45 of the Pennsylvania tablet, the parallelbetween the two versions comes to an end. Lines 34-43 of the Assyrianversion (bringing tablet I to a close) [135] represent an elaborationof the speech of Ninsun, followed by a further address of Gilgameshto his mother, and by the determination of Gilgamesh to seek outEnkidu. [136] Nothing of this sort appears to have been included inthe old Babylonian version. Our text proceeds with the scene betweenEnkidu and the woman, in which the latter by her charms and her appealendeavors to lead Enkidu away from his life with the animals. Fromthe abrupt manner in which the scene is introduced in line 43 of thePennsylvania tablet, it is evident that this cannot be the _first_mention of the woman. The meeting must have been recounted in thefirst tablet, as is the case in the Assyrian version. [137] The secondtablet takes up the direct recital of the dreams of Gilgamesh andthen continues the narrative. Whether in the old Babylonian versionthe scene between Enkidu and the woman was described with the samenaïve details, as in the Assyrian version, of the sexual intercoursebetween the two for six days and seven nights cannot of course bedetermined, though presumably the Assyrian version, with the tendencyof epics to become more elaborate as they pass from age to age, addedsome realistic touches. Assuming that lines 44-63 of the Pennsylvaniatablet--the cohabitation of Enkidu and the address of the woman--isa repetition of what was already described in the first tablet, thecomparison with the Assyrian version I, 4, 16-41, not only points tothe elaboration of the later version, but likewise to an independentrecension, even where parallel lines can be picked out. Only lines46-48 of the Pennsylvania tablet form a complete parallel to line 21of column 4 of the Assyrian version. The description in lines 22-32of column 4 is missing, though it may, of course, have been includedin part in the recital in the first tablet of the old Babylonianversion. Lines 49-59 of the Pennsylvania tablet are covered by 33-39, the only slight difference being the specific mention in line 58 ofthe Pennsylvania tablet of Eanna, the temple in Erech, described as"the dwelling of Anu, " whereas in the Assyrian version Eanna is merelyreferred to as the "holy house" and described as "the dwelling ofAnu and Ishtar, " where Ishtar is clearly a later addition. 

Leaving aside lines 60-61, which may be merely a variant (thoughindependent) of line 39 of column 4 of the Assyrian version, we nowhave in the Pennsylvania tablet a second speech of the woman to Enkidu(not represented in the Assyrian version) beginning like the firstone with _alka_, "Come" (lines 62-63), in which she asks Enkidu toleave the "accursed ground" in which he dwells. This speech, as thedescription which follows, extending into columns 3-4, and telling howthe woman clothed Enkidu, how she brought him to the sheep folds, howshe taught him to eat bread and to drink wine, and how she instructedhim in the ways of civilization, must have been included in the secondtablet of the Assyrian version which has come down to us in a veryimperfect form. Nor is the scene in which Enkidu and Gilgamesh havetheir encounter found in the preserved portions of the second (orpossibly the third) tablet of the Assyrian version, but only a briefreference to it in the fourth tablet, [138] in which in Epic style thestory is repeated, leading up to the second exploit--the joint campaignof Enkidu and Gilgamesh against Huwawa. This reference, covering onlyseven lines, corresponds to lines 192-231 of the Pennsylvania tablet;but the former being the repetition and the latter the originalrecital, the comparison to be instituted merely reveals again theindependence of the Assyrian version, as shown in the use of _kibsu_, "tread" (IV, 2, 46), for _sêpu_, "foot" (l. 216), _i-na-us_, "quake"(line 5C), as against _ir-tu-tu_ (ll. 221 and 226). 

Such variants as

	_d_Gish êribam ûl iddin (l. 217)

against

	_d_Gilgamesh ana surûbi ûl namdin, (IV, 2, 47). 

and again

	_issabtûma kima lîm_ "they grappled at the gate of the family	house" (IV, 2, 48), against

	_issabtûma ina bâb bît emuti_, "they grappled at the gate of	the family house" (IV, 2, 48), all point once more to the literary independence of the Assyrianversion. The end of the conflict and the reconciliation of the twoheroes is likewise missing in the Assyrian version. It may have beenreferred to at the beginning of column 3 [139] of Tablet IV. 

Coming to the Yale tablet, the few passages in which a comparison maybe instituted with the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version, to whichin a general way it must correspond, are not sufficient to warrant anyconclusions, beyond the confirmation of the literary independence ofthe Assyrian version. The section comprised within lines 72-89, whereEnkidu's grief at his friend's decision to fight Huwawa is described[140], and he makes confession of his own physical exhaustion, _may_correspond to Tablet IV, column 4, of the Assyrian version. Thiswould fit in with the beginning of the reverse, the first two linesof which (136-137) correspond to column 5 of the fourth tablet of theAssyrian version, with a variation "seven-fold fear" [141] as against"fear of men" in the Assyrian version. If lines 138-139 (in column4) of the Yale tablet correspond to line 7 of column 5 of Tablet IVof the Assyrian version, we would again have an illustration of theelaboration of the later version by the addition of lines 3-6. Butbeyond this we have merely the comparison of the description of Huwawa

	"Whose roar is a flood, whose mouth is fire, and whose breath	is death"

which occurs twice in the Yale tablet (lines 110-111 and 196-197), with the same phrase in the Assyrian version Tablet IV, 5, 3--but here, as just pointed out, with an elaboration. 

Practically, therefore, the entire Yale tablet represents an additionto our knowledge of the Huwawa episode, and until we are fortunateenough to discover more fragments of the fourth tablet of the Assyrianversion, we must content ourselves with the conclusions reached froma comparison of the Pennsylvania tablet with the parallels in theAssyrian version. 

It may be noted as a general point of resemblance in the exterior formof the old Babylonian and Assyrian versions that both were inscribedon tablets containing six columns, three on the obverse and three onthe reverse; and that the length of the tablets--an average of 40 to50 lines--was about the same, thus revealing in the external forma conventiona1 size for the tablets in the older period, which wascarried over into later times. 

PENNSYLVANIA TABLET

The 240 lines of the six columns of the text are enumerated insuccession, with an indication on the margin where a new columnbegins. This method, followed also in the case of the Yale tablet, seems preferable to Langdon's breaking up of the text into Obverse andReverse, with a separate enumeration for each of the six columns. Inorder, however, to facilitate a comparison with Langdon's edition, a table is added:

	Obverse Col. I, 1	= Line 1 of our text. 	, ,			 I, 5	=	, , 5, ,, ,	, ,			 I, 10	=	, , 10, ,, ,	, ,		 I, 15	=	, , 15, ,, ,	, , I, 20	=	, , 20, ,, ,	, ,			 I, 25	=	, , 25, ,, ,	, ,			 I, 30	=	, , 30, ,, ,	, ,			 I, 35	=	, , 35, ,, ,	Col. II, 1	= Line 41	, ,, 	, ,	, , II, 5	=	, , 45, ,, ,	, , II, 10	=	, , 50, ,, ,	, , II, 15	=	, , 55, ,, ,	, , II, 20	=	, , 60, ,, ,	, , II, 25	=	, , 65, ,, ,	, , II, 30	=	, , 70, ,, ,	, , II, 35	=	, , 75, ,, ,	Col. III, 1	= Line 81	, ,, 	, ,	, , III, 5	=	, , 85, ,, ,	, , III, 10	=	, , 90, ,, ,	, , III, 15	=	, , 95, ,, ,	, , III, 26	=	, , 100, ,, ,	, , III, 25	=	, , 105, ,, ,	, , III, 30	=	, , 110, ,, ,	, , III, 35	=	, , 115, ,, , 	Reverse Col. I, 1 (= Col. IV) = Line 131 of our text. 	, , I, 5			 =, , 135, ,, 	, ,	, , I, 10			 =, , 140, ,, 	, ,	, , I, 15			 =, , 145, ,, 	, ,	, , I, 20			 =, , 150, ,, 	, ,	, , I, 25			 =, , 155, ,, 	, ,	, , I, 30			 =, , 160, ,, 	, ,	, , II, 1 (= Col. V) = Line 171, ,, ,	, , II, 5			 =, , 175, ,, 	, ,	, , II, 10			 =, , 180, ,, 	, ,	, , II, 15			 =, , 185, ,, 	, ,	, , II, 20			 =, , 190, ,, 	, ,	, , II, 25			 =, , 195, ,, 	, ,	, , II, 30			 =, , 200, ,, 	, ,	, , III, 1 (= Col. VI) = Line 208, ,, ,	, , III, 5			 =, , 212, ,, 	, ,	, , III, 10			 =, , 217, ,, 	, ,	, , III, 15			 =, , 222, ,, 	, ,	, , III, 20			 =, , 227, ,, 	, ,	, , III, 25			 =, , 232, ,, 	, ,	, , III, 30			 =, , 237, ,, 	, ,	, , III, 33			 =, , 240, ,, 	, , PENNSYLVANIA TABLET. 

TRANSLITERATION. 

Col. I. 

	it-bi-e-ma dGis sú-na-tam i-pa-ás-sar	iz-za-kàr-am a-na um-mi-sú	um-mi i-na sá-at mu-si-ti-ia	sá-am-ha-ku-ma at-ta-na-al-la-ak	i-na bi-ri-it it-lu-tim	ib-ba-sú-nim-ma ka-ka-bu sá-ma-i	[ki]-is-rù sá A-nim im-ku-ut a-na si-ri-ia	ás-si-sú-ma ik-ta-bi-it e-li-ia	ú-ni-is-sú-ma nu-us-sá-sú ú-ul il-ti-'i	Urukki ma-tum pa-hi-ir e-li-sú	it-lu-tum ú-na-sá-ku si-pi-sú	ú-um-mi-id-ma pu-ti	i-mi-du ia-ti	ás-si-a-sú-ma ab-ba-la-ás-sú a-na si-ri-ki	um-mi dGis mu-di-a-at ka-la-ma	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dGis	mi-in-di dGis sá ki-ma ka-ti	i-na si-ri i-wa-li-id-ma	ú-ra-ab-bi-sú sá-du-ú	ta-mar-sú-ma [kima Sal(?)] ta-ha-du at-ta	it-lu-tum ú-na-sá-ku si-pi-sú	tí-it-ti-ra-ás-[sú tu-ut]-tu-ú-ma	ta-tar-ra-[as-su] a-na si-[ri]-ia	[us]-ti-nim-ma i-ta-mar sá-ni-tam	[sú-na]-ta i-ta-wa-a-am a-na um-mi-sú	[um-mi] a-ta-mar sá-ni-tam	[sú-na-tu a-ta]-mar e-mi-a i-na su-ki-im	[sá Uruk]ki ri-bi-tim	ha-as-si-nu na-di-i-ma	e-li-sú pa-ah-ru	ha-as-si-nu-um-ma sá-ni bu-nu-sú	a-mur-sú-ma ah-ta-du a-na-ku	a-ra-am-sú-ma ki-ma ás-sá-tim	a-ha-ab-bu-ub el-sú	el-ki-sú-ma ás-ta-ka-an-sú	a-na a-hi-ia	um-mi dGis mu-da-at [ka]-la-ma	[iz-za-kàr-am a-na dGis]	[dGis sá ta-mu-ru amêlu]	[ta-ha-ab-bu-ub ki-ma ás-sá-tim el-sú]

Col. II. 

	ás-sum us-[ta]-ma-ha-ru it-ti-ka	dGis sú-na-tam i-pa-sar	dEn-ki-[du wa]-si-ib ma-har ha-ri-im-tim	ur-[sá ir]-ha-mu di-da-sá(?) ip-tí-[e]	[dEn-ki]-du im-ta-si a-sar i-wa-al-du	ûm, 6 ù 7 mu-si-a-tim	dEn-[ki-du] ti-bi-i-ma	sá-[am-ka-ta] ir-hi	ha-[ri-im-tum pa-a]-sá i-pu-sá-am-ma	iz-za-[kàr-am] a-na dEn-ki-du	a-na-tal-ka dEn-ki-du ki-ma ili ta-ba-ás-si	am-mi-nim it-ti na-ma-ás-te-e	ta-at-ta-[na-al]-ak si-ra-am	al-kam lu-úr-di-ka	a-na libbi [Urukki] ri-bi-tim	a-na bît [el]-lim mu-sá-bi sá A-nim	dEn-ki-du ti-bi lu-ru-ka	a-na Ê-[an]-na mu-sá-bi sá A-nim	a-sar [dGis gi]-it-ma-[lu] ne-pi-si-tim	ù at-[ta] ki-[ma Sal ta-ha]-bu-[ub]-sú	ta-[ra-am-sú ki-ma] ra-ma-an-ka	al-ka ti-ba i-[na] ga-ag-ga-ri	ma-a-ag-ri-i-im	is-me a-wa-as-sa im-ta-har ga-ba-sá	mi-il-[kum] sá assatim	im-ta-ku-ut a-na libbi-sú	is-hu-ut li-ib-sá-am	is-ti-nam ú-la-ab-bi-is-sú	li-ib-[sá-am] sá-ni-a-am	si-i it-ta-al-ba-ás	sa-ab-tat ga-as-su	ki-ma [ili] i-ri-id-di-sú	a-na gu-up-ri sá-ri-i-im	a-sar tar-ba-si-im	i-na [ás]-ri-sú [im]-hu-ruri-ia-ú	[ù sú-u dEn-ki-du i-lit-ta-sú sá-du-um-ma]	[it-ti sabâti-ma ik-ka-la sam-ma]	[it-ti bu-lim mas-ka-a i-sat-ti]	[it-ti na-ma-ás-te-e mê i-tab lib-ba-sú]

(Perhaps one additional line missing. )

Col. III. 

	si-iz-ba sá na-ma-ás-te-e	i-te-en-ni-ik	a-ka-lam is-ku-nu ma-har-sú	ib-tí-ik-ma i-na-at-tal	ù ip-pa-al-la-as	ú-ul i-di dEn-ki-du	aklam a-na a-ka-lim	sikaram a-na sá-te-e-im	la-a lum-mu-ud	ha-ri-im-tum pi-sá i-pu-sá-am-ma	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dEn-ki-du	a-ku-ul ak-lam dEn-ki-du	zi-ma-at ba-la-ti-im	sikaram si-ti si-im-ti ma-ti	i-ku-ul a-ak-lam dEn-ki-du	a-di si-bi-e-sú	sikaram is-ti-a-am	7 as-sa-am-mi-im	it-tap-sar kab-ta-tum i-na-an-gu	i-li-is libba-sú-ma	pa-nu-sú [it]-tam-ru	ul-tap-pi-it [lùSÚ]-I	sú-hu-ra-am pa-ga-ar-sú	sá-am-nam ip-ta-sá-ás-ma	a-we-li-is i-we	il-ba-ás li-ib-sá-am	ki-ma mu-ti i-ba-ás-si	il-ki ka-ak-ka-sú	la-bi ú-gi-ir-ri	us-sa-ak-pu re'ûti mu-si-a-tim	ut-tap-pi-is sib-ba-ri	la-bi uk-ta-si-id	it-ti-[lu] na-ki-[di-e] ra-bu-tum	dEn-ki-du ma-as-sa-ar-sú-nu	a-we-lum gis-ru-um	is-te-en it-lum	a-na [na-ki-di-e(?) i]-za-ak-ki-ir

(About five lines missing. )

Col. IV. 

(About eight lines missing. )

	i-ip-pu-us ul-sa-am	is-si-ma i-ni-i-sú	i-ta-mar a-we-lam	iz-za-kàr-am a-na harimtim	sá-am-ka-at uk-ki-si a-we-lam	a-na mi-nim il-li-kam	zi-ki-ir-sú lu-us-sú	ha-ri-im-tum is-ta-si a-we-lam	i-ba-us-su-um-ma i-ta-mar-sú	e-di-il e-es ta-hi-[il-la]-am	lim-nu a-la-ku ma-na-ah-[ti]-ka	e-pi-sú i-pu-sá-am-ma	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dEn-[ki-du]	bi-ti-is e-mu-tim ik . . . . . . 	si-ma-a-at ni-si-i-ma	tu-a-(?)-ar e-lu-tim	a-na âli(?) dup-sak-ki-i e-si-en	uk-la-at âli(?) e-mi-sa a-a-ha-tim	a-na sarri sá Urukki ri-bi-tim	pi-ti pu-uk episi(-si) a-na ha-a-a-ri	a-na dGis sarri sá Urukki ri-bi-tim	pi-ti pu-uk episi(-si)	a-na ha-a-a-ri	ás-sa-at si-ma-tim i-ra-ah-hi	sú-ú pa-na-nu-um-ma	mu-uk wa-ar-ka-nu	i-na mi-il-ki sá ili ga-bi-ma	i-na bi-ti-ik a-bu-un-na-ti-sú	si-ma-as-su	a-na zi-ik-ri it-li-im	i-ri-ku pa-nu-sú

(About three lines missing. )

Col. V. 

(About six lines missing. )

	i-il-la-ak [dEn-ki-du i-na pa-ni]	u-sá-am-ka-at [wa]-ar-ki-sú	i-ru-ub-ma a-na libbi Urukki ri-bi-tim	ip-hur um-ma-nu-um i-na si-ri-sú	iz-zi-za-am-ma i-na su-ki-im	sá Urukki ri-bi-tim	pa-ah-ra-a-ma ni-sú	i-ta-wa-a i-na si-ri-sú	a-na salam dGis ma-si-il pi-it-tam	la-nam sá-pi-il	si-ma . . . . [sá-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul	. . . . . . . . . . . . . I-pa-ka-du	i-[na mâti da-an e-mu]-ki i-wa	si-iz-ba sá na-ma-as-te-e	i-te-en-ni-ik	ka-a-a-na i-na [libbi] Urukki kak-ki-a-tum	it-lu-tum ú-te-el-li-lu	sá-ki-in ur-sá-nu	a-na itli sá i-sá-ru zi-mu-sú	a-na dGis ki-ma i-li-im	sá-ki-is-sum me-ih-rù	a-na dIs-ha-ra ma-a-a-lum	na-di-i-ma	dGis it-[ti-il-ma wa-ar-ka-tim]	i-na mu-si in-ni-[ib-bi]-it	i-na-ag-sá-am-ma	it-ta-[zi-iz dEn-ki-du] i-na sûkim	ip-ta-ra-[as a-la]-ak-tam	sá dGis	[a-na e-pi-is] da-na-ni-is-sú

(About three lines missing. )

Col. VI. 

(About four lines missing. )

	sar(?)-ha	dGis . . . 	i-na si-ri-[sú il-li-ka-am dEn-ki-du]	i-ha-an-ni-ib [pi-ir-ta-sú]	it-bi-ma [il-li-ik]	a-na pa-ni-sú	it-tam-ha-ru i-na ri-bi-tum ma-ti	dEn-ki-du ba-ba-am ip-ta-ri-ik	i-na si-pi-sú	dGis e-ri-ba-am ú-ul id-di-in	is-sa-ab-tu-ma ki-ma li-i-im	i-lu-du	zi-ip-pa-am 'i-bu-tu	i-ga-rum ir-tu-tu	dGis ù dEn-ki-du	is-sa-ab-tu-ú-ma	ki-ma li-i-im i-lu-du	zi-ip-pa-am 'i-bu-tu	i-ga-rum ir-tu-tú	ik-mi-is-ma dGis	i-na ga-ag-ga-ri si-ip-sú	ip-si-ih uz-za-sú-ma	i-ni-ih i-ra-as-su	is-tu i-ra-su i-ni-hu	dEn-ki-du a-na sá-si-im	iz-za-kàr-am a-na dGis	ki-ma is-te-en-ma um-ma-ka	ú-li-id-ka	ri-im-tum sá su-pu-ri	dNin-sun-na	ul-lu e-li mu-ti ri-es-ka	sar-ru-tú sá ni-si	i-si-im-kum dEn-lil		duppu 2 kam-ma	sú-tu-ur e-li . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 		4 sú-si

TRANSLATION. 

Col. I. 

	Gish sought to interpret the dream;	Spoke to his mother:	"My mother, during my night	I became strong and moved about	among the heroes;	And from the starry heaven	A meteor(?) of Anu fell upon me:	I bore it and it grew heavy upon me, 	I became weak and its weight I could not endure. 	The land of Erech gathered about it. 	The heroes kissed its feet. [142]	It was raised up before me. 	They stood me up. [143]	I bore it and carried it to thee. "	The mother of Gish, who knows all things, 	Spoke to Gish:	"Some one, O Gish, who like thee	In the field was born and	Whom the mountain has reared, 	Thou wilt see (him) and [like a woman(?)] thou wilt rejoice. 	Heroes will kiss his feet. 	Thou wilt spare [him and wilt endeavor]	To lead him to me. "	He slept and saw another	Dream, which he reported to his mother:	["My mother, ] I have seen another	[Dream. ] My likeness I have seen in the streets	[Of Erech] of the plazas. 	An axe was brandished, and	They gathered about him;	And the axe made him angry. 	I saw him and I rejoiced, 	I loved him as a woman, 	I embraced him. 	I took him and regarded him	As my brother. "	The mother of Gish, who knows all things, 	[Spoke to Gish]:	["O Gish, the man whom thou sawest, ]	[Whom thou didst embrace like a woman]. 

Col II. 

	(means) that he is to be associated with thee. "	Gish understood the dream. 	[As] Enki[du] was sitting before the woman, 	[Her] loins(?) he embraced, her vagina(?) he opened. 	[Enkidu] forgot the place where he was born. 	Six days and seven nights	Enkidu continued	To cohabit with [the courtesan]. 	[The woman] opened her [mouth] and	Spoke to Enkidu:	"I gaze upon thee, O Enkidu, like a god art thou!	Why with the cattle	Dost thou [roam] across the field?	Come, let me lead thee	into [Erech] of the plazas, 	to the holy house, the dwelling of Anu, 	O, Enkidu arise, let me conduct thee	To Eanna, the dwelling of Anu, 	The place [where Gish is, perfect] in vitality. 	And thou [like a wife wilt embrace] him. 	Thou [wilt love him like] thyself. 	Come, arise from the ground	(that is) cursed. "	He heard her word and accepted her speech. 	The counsel of the woman	Entered his heart. 	She stripped off a garment, 	Clothed him with one. 	Another garment	She kept on herself. 	She took hold of his hand. 	Like [a god(?)] she brought him	To the fertile meadow, 	The place of the sheepfolds. 	In that place they received food;	[For he, Enkidu, whose birthplace was the mountain, ]	[With the gazelles he was accustomed to eat herbs, ]	[With the cattle to drink water, ]	[With the water beings he was happy. ]

(Perhaps one additional line missing. )

Col. III. 

	Milk of the cattle	He was accustomed to suck. 	Food they placed before him, 	He broke (it) off and looked	And gazed. 	Enkidu had not known	To eat food. 	To drink wine	He had not been taught. 	The woman opened her mouth and	Spoke to Enkidu:	"Eat food, O Enkidu, 	The provender of life!	Drink wine, the custom of the land!"	Enkidu ate food	Till he was satiated. 	Wine he drank, 	Seven goblets. 	His spirit was loosened, he became hilarious. 	His heart became glad and	His face shone. 	[The barber(?)] removed	The hair on his body. 	He was anointed with oil. 	He became manlike. 	He put on a garment, 	He was like a man. 	He took his weapon;	Lions he attacked, 	(so that) the night shepherds could rest. 	He plunged the dagger;	Lions he overcame. 	The great [shepherds] lay down;	Enkidu was their protector. 	The strong man, 	The unique hero, 	To [the shepherds(?)] he speaks:

(About five lines missing. )

Col. IV. 

(About eight lines missing. )

	Making merry. 	He lifted up his eyes, 	He sees the man. 	He spoke to the woman:	"O, courtesan, lure on the man. 	Why has he come to me?	His name I will destroy. "	The woman called to the man	Who approaches to him [144] and he beholds him. 	"Away! why dost thou [quake(?)]	Evil is the course of thy activity. " [145]	Then he [146] opened his mouth and	Spoke to Enkidu:	"[To have (?)] a family home	Is the destiny of men, and	The prerogative(?) of the nobles. 	For the city(?) load the workbaskets!	Food supply for the city lay to one side!	For the King of Erech of the plazas, 	Open the hymen(?), perform the marriage act!	For Gish, the King of Erech of the plazas, 	Open the hymen(?), 	Perform the marriage act!	With the legitimate wife one should cohabit. 	So before, 	As well as in the future. [147]	By the decree pronounced by a god, 	From the cutting of his umbilical cord	(Such) is his fate. "	At the speech of the hero	His face grew pale. 

(About three lines missing. )

Col. V. 

(About six lines missing. )

	[Enkidu] went [in front], 	And the courtesan behind him. 	He entered into Erech of the plazas. 	The people gathered about him. 	As he stood in the streets	Of Erech of the plazas, 	The men gathered, 	Saying in regard to him:	"Like the form of Gish he has suddenly become;	shorter in stature. 	[In his structure high(?)], powerful, 	. . . . . . . . . . Overseeing(?)	In the land strong of power has he become. 	Milk of cattle	He was accustomed to suck. "	Steadily(?) in Erech . . . . . 	The heroes rejoiced. 	He became a leader. 	To the hero of fine appearance, 	To Gish, like a god, 	He became a rival to him. [148]	For Ishhara a couch	Was stretched, and	Gish [lay down, and afterwards(?)]	In the night he fled. 	He approaches and	[Enkidu stood] in the streets. 	He blocked the path	of Gish. 	At the exhibit of his power, (About three lines missing. )

Col. VI. 

(About four lines missing. )

	Strong(?) . . . 	Gish	Against him [Enkidu proceeded], 	[His hair] luxuriant. 	He started [to go]	Towards him. 	They met in the plaza of the district. 	Enkidu blocked the gate	With his foot, 	Not permitting Gish to enter. 	They seized (each other), like oxen, 	They fought. 	The threshold they demolished;	The wall they impaired. 	Gish and Enkidu	Seized (each other). 	Like oxen they fought. 	The threshold they demolished;	The wall they impaired. 	Gish bent	His foot to the ground, [149]	His wrath was appeased, 	His breast was quieted. 	When his breast was quieted, 	Enkidu to him	Spoke, to Gish:	"As a unique one, thy mother	bore thee. 	The wild cow of the stall, [150]	Ninsun, 	Has exalted thy head above men. 	Kingship over men	Enlil has decreed for thee. 	Second tablet, 	enlarged beyond [the original(?)]. 	240 lines. 

COMMENTARY ON THE PENNSYLVANIA TABLET. 

Line 1. The verb _tibû_ with _pasâru_ expresses the aim of Gish tosecure an interpretation for his dream. This disposes of Langdon'snote 1 on page 211 of his edition, in which he also erroneously speaksof our text as "late. " _Pasâru_ is not a variant of _zakâru_. Bothverbs occur just as here in the Assyrian version I, 5, 25. 

Line 3. _ina sât musitia_, "in this my night, " i. E. , in the course ofthis night of mine. A curious way of putting it, but the expressionoccurs also in the Assyrian version, e. G. , I, 5, 26 (parallel passageto ours) and II, 4a, 14. In the Yale tablet we find, similarly, _mu-si-it-ka_ (l. 262), "thy night, " i. E. , "at night to thee. "

Line 5. Before Langdon put down the strange statement of Gish"wandering about in the midst of omens" (misreading _id-da-tim _for _it-lu-tim_), he might have asked himself the question, what itcould possibly mean. How can one walk among omens?

Line 6. _ka-ka-bu sá-ma-i_ must be taken as a compound term for"starry heaven. " The parallel passage in the Assyrian version (TabletI, 5, 27) has the ideograph for star, with the plural sign as avariant. Literally, therefore, "The starry heaven (or "the stars inheaven") was there, " etc. Langdon's note 2 on page 211 rests on anerroneous reading. 

Line 7. _kisru sá Anim_, "mass of Anu, " appears to be the designationof a meteor, which might well be described as a "mass" coming from Anu, i. E. , from the god of heaven who becomes the personification of theheavens in general. In the Assyrian version (I, 5, 28) we have _kimaki-is-rù_, i. E. , "something like a mass of heaven. " Note also I, 3, 16, where in a description of Gilgamesh, his strength is said to be"strong like a mass (i. E. , a meteor) of heaven. "

Line 9. For _nussasu ûl iltê_ we have a parallel in the Hebrew phraseNLE'ETIY NS' (Isaiah 1, 14). 

Line 10. _Uruk mâtum_, as the designation for the district of Erech, occurs in the Assyrian version, e. G. , I, 5, 31, and IV, 2, 38; alsoto be supplied, I, 6, 23. 

For _pahir_ the parallel in the Assyrian version has _iz-za-az_(I, 5, 31), but VI, 197, we find _pah-ru_ and _pah-ra_. 

Line 17. _mi-in-di_ does not mean "truly" as Langdon translates, but "some one. " It occurs also in the Assyrian version X, 1, 13, _mi-in-di-e ma-an-nu-u_, "this is some one who, " etc. 

Line 18. Cf. Assyrian version I, 5, 3, and IV, 4, 7, _ina siriâlid_--both passages referring to Enkidu. 

Line 21. Cf. Assyrian version II, 3b, 38, with _malkê_, "kings, "as a synonym of _itlutum_. 

Line 23. _ta-tar-ra-as-sú_ from _tarâsu_, "direct, " "guide, " etc. 

Line 24. I take _us-ti-nim-ma_ as III, 2, from _isênu_ (YOSEN), the verb underlying _sittu_, "sleep, " and _suttu_, "dream. "

Line 26. Cf. Assyrian version I, 6, 21--a complete parallel. 

Line 28. _Uruk ri-bi-tim_, the standing phrase in both tablets ofthe old Babylonian version, for which in the Assyrian version wehave _Uruk su-pu-ri_. The former term suggests the "broad space"outside of the city or the "common" in a village community, while _supûri_, "enclosed, " would refer to the city within thewalls. Dr. W. F. Albright (in a private communication) suggests "Erechof the plazas" as a suitable translation for _Uruk ribîtim_. A thirdterm, _Uruk mâtum_ (see above, note to line 10), though designatingrather the district of which Erech was the capital, appears to beused as a synonym to _Uruk ribîtim_, as may be concluded from thephrase _i-na ri-bi-tum ma-ti_ (l. 214 of the Pennsylvania tablet), which clearly means the "plaza" of the city. One naturally thinks ofREHOBOT `IYR in Genesis 10, 11--the equivalent of Babylonian _ri-bi-tuâli_--which can hardly be the name of a city. It appears to be agloss, as is HIY' HO`IYR HAGEDOLOH at the end of v. 12. The lattergloss is misplaced, since it clearly describes "Nineveh, " mentionedin v. 11. Inasmuch as REHOBOT `IYR immediately follows the mentionof Nineveh, it seems simplest to take the phrase as designating the"outside" or "suburbs" of the city, a complete parallel, therefore, to _ri-bi-tu mâti_ in our text. Nineveh, together with the "suburbs, "forms the "great city. " _Uruk ribîtim_ is, therefore, a designationfor "greater Erech, " proper to a capital city, which by its gradualgrowth would take in more than its original confines. "Erech of theplazas" must have come to be used as a honorific designation of thisimportant center as early as 2000 B. C. , whereas later, perhapsbecause of its decline, the epithet no longer seemed appropriateand was replaced by the more modest designation of "walled Erech, "with an allusion to the tradition which ascribed the building of thewall of the city to Gilgamesh. At all events, all three expressions, "Erech of the plazas, " "Erech walled" and "Erech land, " are to beregarded as synonymous. The position once held by Erech follows alsofrom its ideographic designation (Brünnow No. 4796) by the sign "house"with a "gunufied" extension, which conveys the idea of Unu = _subtu_, or "dwelling" _par excellence_. The pronunciation Unug or Unuk (seethe gloss _u-nu-uk_, VR 23, 8a), composed of _unu_, "dwelling, " and_ki_, "place, " is hardly to be regarded as older than Uruk, which isto be resolved into _uru_, "city, " and _ki_, "place, " but rather asa play upon the name, both Unu + ki and Uru + ki conveying the sameidea of _the_ city or _the_ dwelling place _par excellence_. As theseat of the second oldest dynasty according to Babylonian traditions(see Poebel's list in _Historical and Grammatical Texts_ No. 2), Erech no doubt was regarded as having been at one time "the city, "i. E. , the capital of the entire Euphrates Valley. 

Line 31. A difficult line for which Langdon proposes the translation:"Another axe seemed his visage"!!--which may be picturesque, buthardly a description befitting a hero. How can a man's face seemto be an axe? Langdon attaches _sá-ni_ in the sense of "second"to the preceding word "axe, " whereas _sanî bunusu_, "change of hiscountenance" or "his countenance being changed, " is to be taken asa phrase to convey the idea of "being disturbed, " "displeased" or"angry. " The phrase is of the same kind as the well-known _sunnutêmu_, "changing of reason, " to denote "insanity. " See the passagesin Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, pp. 355 and 1068. In Hebrew, too, we have the same two phrases, e. G. , VAYESANOV 'ETTA`EMOV(I Sam. 21, 14 = Ps. 34, 1), "and he changed his reason, " i. E. , feigned insanity and MESANEH PONOYV (Job 14, 20), "changing hisface, " to indicate a radical alteration in the frame of mind. Thereis a still closer parallel in Biblical Aramaic: Dan. 3, 19, "The formof his visage was changed, " meaning "he was enraged. " Fortunately, the same phrase occurs also in the Yale tablet (l. 192), _sá-nu-úbu-nu-sú_, in a connection which leaves no doubt that the arousedfury of the tyrant Huwawa is described by it:

	"Huwawa heard and his face was changed"

precisely, therefore, as we should say--following Biblical usage--"hiscountenance fell. " Cf. Also the phrase _pânusu arpu_, "his countenancewas darkened" (Assyrian version I, 2, 48), to express "anger. " Theline, therefore, in the Pennsylvania tablet must describe Enkidu'sanger. With the brandishing of the axe the hero's anger was alsostirred up. The touch was added to prepare us for the continuationin which Gish describes how, despite this (or perhaps just becauseof it), Enkidu seemed so attractive that Gish instantly fell in lovewith him. May perhaps the emphatic form _hasinumma_ (line 31) against_hasinu_ (line 29) have been used to indicate "The axe it was, " or"because of the axe?" It would be worth while to examine other textsof the Hammurabi period with a view of determining the scope in theuse and meaning of the emphatic _ma_ when added to a substantive. 

Line 32. The combination _amur ù ahtadu_ occurs also in the El-AmarnaLetters, No. 18, 12. 

Line 34. In view of the common Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic Hobab "tolove, " it seems preferable to read here, as in the other passages inthe Assyrian versions (I, 4, 15; 4, 35; 6, 27, etc. ), _a-ha-ab-bu-ub_, _ah-bu-ub_, _ih-bu-bu_, etc. (instead of with _p_), and to render"embrace. "

Lines 38-40, completing the column, may be supplied from the Assyrianversion I, 6, 30-32, in conjunction with lines 33-34 of our text. Thebeginning of line 32 in Jensen's version is therefore to be filledout _[ta-ra-am-sú ki]-i_. 

Line 43. The restoration at the beginning of this line

	_En-ki-[du wa]-si-ib ma-har ha-ri-im-tim_

enables us to restore also the beginning of the second tablet ofthe Assyrian version (cf. The colophon of the fragment 81, 7-27, 93, in Jeremias, _Izdubar-Nimrod_, plate IV = Jensen, p. 134), 	_[d_En-ki-du wa-si-ib] ma-har-sá. 

Line 44. The restoration of this line is largely conjectural, basedon the supposition that its contents correspond in a general way to I, 4, 16, of the Assyrian version. The reading _di-da_ is quite certain, as is also _ip-ti-[e]_; and since both words occur in the line of theAssyrian version in question, it is tempting to supply at the beginning_ur-[sá]_ = "her loins" (cf. Holma, _Namen der Körperteile_, etc. , p. 101), which is likewise found in the same line of the Assyrianversion. At all events the line describes the fascination exercisedupon Enkidu by the woman's bodily charms, which make him forgeteverything else. 

Lines 46-47 form a parallel to I, 4, 21, of the Assyrian version. Theform _samkatu_, "courtesan, " is constant in the old Babylonian version(ll. 135 and 172), as against _samhatu_ in the Assyrian version (I, 3, 19, 40, 45; 4, 16), which also uses the plural _sam-ha-a-ti_ (II, 3b, 40). The interchange between _h_ and _k_ is not without precedent(cf. Meissner, _Altbabylonisches Privatrecht_, page 107, note 2, and more particularly Chiera, _List of Personal Names_, page 37). 

In view of the evidence, set forth in the Introduction, for theassumption that the Enkidu story has been combined with a tale of theevolution of primitive man to civilized life, it is reasonable tosuggest that in the original Enkidu story the female companion wascalled _samkatu_, "courtesan, " whereas in the tale of the primitiveman, which was transferred to Enkidu, the associate was _harimtu_, a"woman, " just as in the Genesis tale, the companion of Adam is simplycalled _ishshâ_, "woman. " Note that in the Assyrian parallel (Tablet I, 4, 26) we have two readings, _ir-hi_ (imperf. ) and a variant _i-ri-hi_(present). The former is the better reading, as our tablet shows. 

Lines 49-59 run parallel to the Assyrian version I, 4, 33-38, with slight variations which have been discussed above, p. 58, andfrom which we may conclude that the Assyrian version represents anindependent redaction. Since in our tablet we have presumably therepetition of what may have been in part at least set forth in thefirst tablet of the old Babylonian version, we must not press theparallelism with the first tablet of the Assyrian version too far;but it is noticeable nevertheless (1) that our tablet contains lines57-58 which are not represented in the Assyrian version, and (2) thatthe second speech of the "woman" beginning, line 62, with _al-ka_, "come" (just as the first speech, line 54), is likewise not foundin the first tablet of the Assyrian version; which on the otherhand contains a line (39) not in the Babylonian version, besidesthe detailed answer of Enkidu (I 4, 42-5, 5). Line 6, which reads"Enkidu and the woman went (_il-li-ku_) to walled Erech, " is alsonot found in the second tablet of the old Babylonian version. 

Line 63. For _magrû_, "accursed, " see the frequent use in Astrologicaltexts (Jastrow, _Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens_ II, page 450, note2). Langdon, by his strange error in separating _ma-a-ag-ri-im_ intotwo words _ma-a-ak_ and _ri-i-im_, with a still stranger rendering:"unto the place yonder of the shepherds!!", naturally misses thepoint of this important speech. 

Line 64 corresponds to I, 4, 40, of the Assyrian version, which hasan additional line, leading to the answer of Enkidu. From here on, our tablet furnishes material not represented in the Assyrian version, but which was no doubt included in the second tablet of that versionof which we have only a few fragments. 

Line 70 must be interpreted as indicating that the woman kept onegarment for herself. _Ittalbas_ would accordingly mean, "she kepton. " The female dress appears to have consisted of an upper and alower garment. 

Line 72. The restoration "like a god" is favored by line 51, whereEnkidu is likened to a god, and is further confirmed by l. 190. 

Line 73. _gupru_ is identical with _gu-up-ri_ (Thompson, _Reports ofthe Magicians and Astrologers_, etc. , 223 rev. 2 and 223a rev. 8), andmust be correlated to _gipâru_ (Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 229a), "planted field, " "meadow, " and the like. Thompson'stranslation "men" (as though a synonym of _gabru_) is to be correctedaccordingly. 

Line 74. There is nothing missing between _a-sar_ and _tar-ba-si-im_. 

Line 75. _ri-ia-ú_, which Langdon renders "shepherd, " is theequivalent of the Arabic _ri'y_ and Hebrew RE`IY "pasturage, ""fodder. " We have usually the feminine form _ri-i-tu_ (Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 990b). The break at the end of the secondcolumn is not serious. Evidently Enkidu, still accustomed to livelike an animal, is first led to the sheepfolds, and this suggestsa repetition of the description of his former life. Of the four orfive lines missing, we may conjecturally restore four, on the basisof the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2-5, or I, 2, 39-41. This wouldthen join on well to the beginning of column 3. 

Line 81. Both here and in l. 52 our text has _na-ma-ás-te-e_, asagainst _nam-mas-si-i_ in the Assyrian version, e. G. , Tablet I, 2, 41; 4, 5, etc. , --the feminine form, therefore, as against themasculine. Langdon's note 3 on page 213 is misleading. In astrologicaltexts we also find _nam-mas-te_; e. G. , Thompson, _Reports of theMagicians and Astrologers_, etc. , No. 200, Obv. 2. 

Line 93. _zi-ma-at_ (for _simat_) _ba-la-ti-im_ is not "conformity oflife" as Langdon renders, but that which "belongs to life" like _si-matpag-ri-sá_, "belonging to her body, " in the Assyrian version III, 2a, 3 (Jensen, page 146). "Food, " says the woman, "is the staff of life. "

Line 94. Langdon's strange rendering "of the conditions and fateof the land" rests upon an erroneous reading (see the corrections, Appendix I), which is the more inexcusable because in line 97 the sameideogram, Kàs = _sikaru_, "wine, " occurs, and is correctly renderedby him. _Simti mâti_ is not the "fate of the land, " but the "fixedcustom of the land. "

Line 98. _as-sa-mi-im_ (plural of _assamu_), which Langdon takes asan adverb in the sense of "times, " is a well-known word for a large"goblet, " which occurs in Incantation texts, e. G. , _CT_ XVI, 24, obv. 1, 19, _mê a-sa-am-mi-e sú-puk_, "pour out goblets of water. " Line18 of the passage shoves that _asammu_ is a Sumerian loan word. 

Line 99. _it-tap-sar_, I, 2, from _pasâru_, "loosen. " In combinationwith _kabtatum_ (from _kabitatum_, yielding two forms: _kabtatum_, byelision of _i_, and _kabittu_, by elision of _a_), "liver, " _pasâru_has the force of becoming cheerful. Cf. _ka-bit-ta-ki lip-pa-sir_(_ZA_ V. , p. 67, line 14). 

Line 100, note the customary combination of "liver" (_kabtatum_)and "heart" (_libbu_) for "disposition" and "mind, " just as in thestanding phrase in penitential prayers: "May thy liver be appeased, thy heart be quieted. "

Line 102. The restoration [lùSÚ]-I = _gallabu_ "barber" (Delitzsch, _Sumer. Glossar_, p. 267) was suggested to me by Dr. H. F. Lutz. Theideographic writing "raising the hand" is interesting as recalling thegesture of shaving or cutting. Cf. A reference to a barber in Lutz, _Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa_, No. 109, 6. 

Line 103. Langdon has correctly rendered _suhuru_ as "hair, " andhas seen that we have here a loan-word from the Sumerian Suhur =_kimmatu_, "hair, " according to the Syllabary Sb 357 (cf. Delitzsch, _Sumer. Glossar. _, p. 253). For _kimmatu_, "hair, " more specificallyhair of the head and face, see Holma, _Namen der Körperteile_, page 3. The same sign Suhur or Suh (Brünnow No. 8615), with Lal, i. E. , "hanging hair, " designates the "beard" (_ziknu_, cf. Brünnow, No. 8620, and Holma, l. C. , p. 36), and it is interesting to notethat we have _suhuru_ (introduced as a loan-word) for the barbershop, according to II R, 21, 27c (= _CT_ XII, 41). 

	Ê suhur(ra) (i. E. , house of the hair) = _sú-hu-ru_. 

In view of all this, we may regard as assured Holma's conjecture toread _sú-[hur-ma-sú]_ in the list 93074 obv. (_MVAG_ 1904, p. 203; andHolma, _Beiträge z. Assyr. Lexikon_, p. 36), as the Akkadian equivalentto Suhur-Mas-Ha and the name of a fish, so called because it appearedto have a double "beard" (cf. Holma, _Namen der Körperteile_). One istempted, furthermore, to see in the difficult word SKYRH (Isaiah 7, 20) a loan-word from our _suhuru_, and to take the words 'ETHORO'SVESA`AR HORAGELAYIM "the head and hair of the feet" (euphemisticfor the hair around the privates), as an explanatory gloss to the rareword Skyrh for "hair" of the body in general--just as in the passagein the Pennsylvania tablet. The verse in Isaiah would then read, "The Lord on that day will shave with the razor the hair (HSKYRH), and even the beard will be removed. " The rest of the verse wouldrepresent a series of explanatory glosses: (a) "Beyond the river"(i. E. , Assyria), a gloss to YEGALAH (b) "with the king of Assyria, "a gloss to BETA`AR "with a razor;" and (c) "the hair of the head andhair of the feet, " a gloss to HSKYRH. For "hair of the feet" we have aninteresting equivalent in Babylonian _su-hur_ (and _sú-hu-ur_) _sêpi_(_CT_ XII, 41, 23-24 c-d). Cf. Also Boissier, _Documents Assyriensrelatifs aux Présages_, p. 258, 4-5. The Babylonian phrase is like theHebrew one to be interpreted as a euphemism for the hair around themale or female organ. To be sure, the change from H to K in HSKYRHconstitutes an objection, but not a serious one in the case of aloan-word, which would aim to give the _pronunciation_ of the originalword, rather than the correct etymological equivalent. The writing withaspirated K fulfills this condition. (Cf. _samkatum_ and _samhatum_, above p. 73). The passage in Isaiah being a reference to Assyria, the prophet might be tempted to use a foreign word to make his pointmore emphatic. To take HSKYRH as "hired, " as has hitherto been done, and to translate "with a hired razor, " is not only to suppose a verywooden metaphor, but is grammatically difficult, since HSKYRH wouldbe a feminine adjective attached to a masculine substantive. 

Coming back to our passage in the Pennsylvania tablet, it is to benoted that Enkidu is described as covered "all over his body with hair"(Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 36) like an animal. To convert himinto a civilized man, the hair is removed. 

Line 107. _mutu_ does not mean "husband" here, as Langdon supposes, but must be taken as in l. 238 in the more general sense of "man, "for which there is good evidence. 

Line 109. _la-bi_ (plural form) are "lions"--not "panthers" as Langdonhas it. The verb _ú-gi-ir-ri_ is from _gâru_, "to attack. " Langdon byseparating _ú_ from _gi-ir-ri_ gets a totally wrong and indeed absurdmeaning. See the corrections in the Appendix. He takes the sign _ú_for the copula (!!) which of course is impossible. 

Line 110. Read _us-sa-ak-pu_, III, 1, of _sakâpu_, which is frequentlyused for "lying down" and is in fact a synonym of _salâlu_. SeeMuss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, page 758a. The original has veryclearly Síb (= _rê'u_, "shepherd") with the plural sign. The "shepherdsof the night, " who could now rest since Enkidu had killed the lions, are of course the shepherds who were accustomed to watch the flocksduring the night. 

Line 111. _ut-tap-pi-is_ is II, 2, _napâsu_, "to make a hole, " hence"to plunge" in connection with a weapon. _Sib-ba-ri_ is, of course, not "mountain goats, " as Langdon renders, but a by-form to _sibbiru_, "stick, " and designates some special weapon. Since on seal cylindersdepicting Enkidu killing lions and other animals the hero is armedwith a dagger, this is presumably the weapon _sibbaru_. 

Line 113. Langdon's translation is again out of the question andpurely fanciful. The traces favor the restoration _na-ki-[di-e]_, "shepherds, " and since the line appears to be a parallel to line 110, I venture to suggest at the beginning _[it-ti]-lu_ from _na'âlu_, "liedown"--a synonym, therefore, to _sakâpu_ in line 110. The shepherds cansleep quietly after Enkidu has become the "guardian" of the flocks. Inthe Assyrian version (tablet II, 3a, 4) Enkidu is called a _na-kid_, "shepherd, " and in the preceding line we likewise have lùNa-Kid withthe plural sign, i. E. , "shepherds. " This would point to _nakidu_being a Sumerian loan-word, unless it is _vice versa_, a word that hasgone over into the Sumerian from Akkadian. Is perhaps the fragmentin question (K 8574) in the Assyrian version (Haupt's ed. No. 25)the _parallel_ to our passage? If in line 4 of this fragment we couldread _sú_ for _sa_, i. E. , _na-kid-sú-nu_, "their shepherd, we wouldhave a parallel to line 114 of the Pennsylvania tablet, with _na-kid_as a synonym to _massaru_, "protector. " The preceding line would thenbe completed as follows:

	_[it-ti-lu]-nim-ma na-kidmes_ [ra-bu-tum]

(or perhaps only _it-ti-lu-ma_, since the _nim_ is not certain) andwould correspond to line 113 of the Pennsylvania tablet. Inasmuchas the writing on the tiny fragment is very much blurred, it isquite possible that in line 2 we must read _sib-ba-ri_ (insteadof _bar-ba-ri_), which would furnish a parallel to line 111 of thePennsylvania tablet. The difference between Bar and Sib is slight, and the one sign might easily be mistaken for the other in the caseof close writing. The continuation of line 2 of the fragment wouldthen correspond to line 112 of the Pennsylvania tablet, while line 1of the fragment might be completed _[re-e]-u-ti(?) sá [mu-si-a-tim]_, though this is by no means certain. 

The break at the close of column 3 (about 5 lines) and the topof column 4 (about 8 lines) is a most serious interruption in thenarrative, and makes it difficult to pick up the thread where thetablet again becomes readable. We cannot be certain whether the "strongman, the unique hero" who addresses some one (lines 115-117) is Enkiduor Gish or some other personage, but presumably Gish is meant. In theAssyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 2 and 29, we find Gilgamesh describedas the "unique hero" and in l. 234 of the Pennsylvania tablet Gishis called "unique, " while again, in the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 15 and 26, he is designated as _gasru_ as in our text. Assumingthis, whom does he address? Perhaps the shepherds? In either casehe receives an answer that rejoices him. If the fragment of theAssyrian version (K 8574) above discussed is the equivalent to theclose of column 3 of the Pennsylvania tablet, we may go one stepfurther, and with some measure of assurance assume that Gish is toldof Enkidu's exploits and that the latter is approaching Erech. Thispleases Gish, but Enkidu when he sees Gish(?) is stirred to anger andwants to annihilate him. At this point, the "man" (who is probablyGish, though the possibility of a third personage must be admitted)intervenes and in a long speech sets forth the destiny and higher aimsof mankind. The contrast between Enkidu and Gish (or the third party)is that between the primitive savage and the civilized being. Thecontrast is put in the form of an opposition between the two. Theprimitive man is the stronger and wishes to destroy the one whom heregards as a natural foe and rival. On the other hand, the one whostands on a higher plane wants to lift his fellow up. The whole ofcolumn 4, therefore, forms part of the lesson attached to the storyof Enkidu, who, identified with man in a primitive stage, is made themedium of illustrating how the higher plane is reached through theguiding influences of the woman's hold on man, an influence exercised, to be sure, with the help of her bodily charms. 

Line 135. _uk-ki-si_ (imperative form) does not mean "take away, " asLangdon (who entirely misses the point of the whole passage) renders, but on the contrary, "lure him on, " "entrap him, " and the like. Theverb occurs also in the Yale tablet, ll. 183 and 186. 

Line 137. Langdon's note to _lu-us-sú_ had better be passed over insilence. The form is II. 1, from _esû_, "destroy. "

Line 139. Since the man whom the woman calls approaches Enkidu, thesubject of both verbs is the man, and the object is Enkidu; i. E. , therefore, "The man approaches Enkidu and beholds him. "

Line 140. Langdon's interpretation of this line again is purelyfanciful. _E-di-il_ cannot, of course, be a "phonetic variant"of _edir_; and certainly the line does not describe the state ofmind of the woman. Lines 140-141 are to be taken as an expressionof amazement at Enkidu's appearance. The first word appears to bean imperative in the sense of "Be off, " "Away, " from _dâlu_, "move, roam. " The second word _e-es_, "why, " occurs with the same verb _dâlu_in the Meissner fragment: _e-es ta-da-al_ (column 3, 1), "why dost thouroam about?" The verb at the end of the line may perhaps be completedto _ta-hi-il-la-am_. The last sign appears to be _am_, but may be _ma_, in which case we should have to complete simply _ta-hi-il-ma_. _Tahîl_would be the second person present of _hîlu_. Cf. _i-hi-il_, frequentlyin astrological texts, e. G. , Virolleaud, _Adad_ No. 3, lines 21 and 33. 

Line 141. The reading _lim-nu_ at the beginning, instead of Langdon's_mi-nu_, is quite certain, as is also _ma-na-ah-ti-ka_ instead ofwhat Langdon proposes, which gives no sense whatever. _Manahtu_ inthe sense of the "toil" and "activity of life" (like `OMOL throughoutthe Book of Ecclesiastes) occurs in the introductory lines to theAssyrian version of the Epic I, 1, 8, _ka-lu ma-na-ah-ti-[su]_, "all of his toil, " i. E. , all of his career. 

Line 142. The subject of the verb cannot be the woman, as Langdonsupposes, for the text in that case, e. G. , line 49, would have said_pi-sá_ ("her mouth") not _pi-sú_ ("his mouth"). The long speech, detailing the function and destiny of civilized man, is placed inthe mouth of the man who meets Enkidu. 

In the Introduction it has been pointed out that lines 149 and 151of the speech appear to be due to later modifications of the speechdesigned to connect the episode with Gish. Assuming this to be thecase, the speech sets forth the following five distinct aims ofhuman life: (1) establishing a home (line 144), (2) work (line 147), (3) storing up resources (line 148), (4) marriage (line 150), (5)monogamy (line 154); all of which is put down as established for alltime by divine decree (lines 155-157), and as man's fate from his birth(lines 158-159). 

Line 144. _bi-ti-is e-mu-ti_ is for _bîti sá e-mu-ti_, just as_kab-lu-us Ti-a-ma-ti_ (Assyrian Creation Myth, IV, 65) stands for_kablu sá Tiamti_. Cf. _bît e-mu-ti_ (Assyrian version, IV, 2, 46and 48). The end of the line is lost beyond recovery, but the generalsense is clear. 

Line 146. _tu-a-ar_ is a possible reading. It may be the constructof _tu-a-ru_, of frequent occurrence in legal texts and having somesuch meaning as "right, " "claim" or "prerogative. " See the passagesgiven by Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, p. 1139b. 

Line 148. The reading _uk-la-at_, "food, " and then in the widersense "food supply, " "provisions, " is quite certain. The fourth signlooks like the one for "city. " _E-mi-sa_ may stand for _e-mid-sa_, "place it. " The general sense of the line, at all events, is clear, asgiving the advice to gather resources. It fits in with the Babylonianoutlook on life to regard work and wealth as the fruits of work andas a proper purpose in life. 

Line 150 (repeated lines 152-153) is a puzzling line. To render _pitipûk epsi_ (or _episi_), as Langdon proposes, "open, addressing thyspeech, " is philologically and in every other respect inadmissible. Theword _pu-uk_ (which Langdon takes for "thy mouth"!!) can, of course, be nothing but the construct form of _pukku_, which occurs in theAssyrian version in the sense of "net" (_pu-uk-ku_ I, 2, 9 and21, and also in the colophon to the eleventh tablet furnishing thebeginning of the twelfth tablet (Haupt's edition No. 56), as well asin column 2, 29, and column 3, 6, of this twelfth tablet). In the twolast named passages _pukku_ is a synonym of _mekû_, which from thegeneral meaning of "enclosure" comes to be a euphemistic expressionfor the female organ. So, for example, in the Assyrian Creation Myth, Tablet IV, 66 (synonym of _kablu_, "waist, " etc. ). See Holma, _Namender Körperteile_, page 158. Our word _pukku_ must be taken in this samesense as a designation of the female organ--perhaps more specificallythe "hymen" as the "net, " though the womb in general might also bedesignated as a "net" or "enclosure. " _Kak-(si)_ is no doubt to beread _epsi_, as Langdon correctly saw; or perhaps better, _episi_. Anexpression like _ip-si-sú lul-la-a_ (Assyrian version, I, 4, 13;also line 19, _i-pu-us-su-ma lul-la-a_), with the explanation _sipirzinnisti_, "the work of woman" (i. E. , after the fashion of woman), shows that _epêsu_ is used in connection with the sexual act. Thephrase _pitî pûk episi a-na ha-a-a-ri_, literally "open the net, perform the act for marriage, " therefore designates the fulfillmentof the marriage act, and the line is intended to point to marriagewith the accompanying sexual intercourse as one of the duties ofman. While the general meaning is thus clear, the introduction ofGish is puzzling, except on the supposition that lines 149 and 151represent later additions to connect the speech, detailing the advanceto civilized life, with the hero. See above, p. 45 _seq. _

Line 154. _assat simâtim_ is the "legitimate wife, " and the lineinculcates monogamy as against promiscuous sexual intercourse. We knowthat monogamy was the rule in Babylonia, though a man could in additionto the wife recognized as the legalized spouse take a concubine, orhis wife could give her husband a slave as a concubine. Even in thatcase, according to the Hammurabi Code, §§145-146, the wife retainedher status. The Code throughout assumes that a man has only _one_wife--the _assat simâtim_ of our text. The phrase "so" (or "that")before "as afterwards" is to be taken as an idiomatic expression--"soit was and so it should be for all times"--somewhat like the phrase_mahriam ù arkiam_, "for all times, " in legal documents (_CT_ VIII, 38c, 22-23). For the use of _mûk_ see Behrens, _Assyrisch-BabylonischeBriefe_, p. 3. 

Line 158. _i-na bi-ti-ik a-bu-un-na-ti-sú_. Another puzzling line, for which Langdon proposes "in the work of his presence, " which isas obscure as the original. In a note he says that _apunnâti_ means"nostrils, " which is certainly wrong. There has been considerablediscussion about this term (see Holma, _Namen der Körperteile_, pages 150 and 157), the meaning of which has been advanced byChristian's discussion in _OLZ_ 1914, p. 397. From this it appearsthat it must designate a part of the body which could acquire a widersignificance so as to be used as a synonym for "totality, " since itappears in a list of equivalent for Dur = _nap-ha-ru_, "totality, "_ka-lu-ma_, "all, " _a-bu-un-na-tum e-si-im-tum_, "bony structure, " and_kul-la-tum_, "totality" (_CT_ XII, 10, 7-10). Christian shows thatit may be the "navel, " which could well acquire a wider significancefor the body in general; but we may go a step further and specifythe "umbilical cord" (tentatively suggested also by Christian) asthe primary meaning, then the "navel, " and from this the "body" ingeneral. The structure of the umbilical cord as a series of strandswould account for designating it by a plural form _abunnâti_, asalso for the fact that one could speak of a right and left side ofthe _appunnâti_. To distinguish between the "umbilical cord" and the"navel, " the ideograph Dur (the common meaning of which is _riksu_, "bond" [Delitzsch, _Sumer. Glossar. _, p. 150]), was used for theformer, while for the latter Li Dur was employed, though the readingin Akkadian in both cases was the same. The expression "with (or at)the cutting of his umbilical cord" would mean, therefore, "fromhis birth"--since the cutting of the cord which united the childwith the mother marks the beginning of the separate life. Lines158-159, therefore, in concluding the address to Enkidu, emphasizein a picturesque way that what has been set forth is man's fate forwhich he has been destined from birth. [See now Albright's remarks on_abunnatu_ in the Revue d'Assyriologie 16, pp. 173-175, with whoseconclusion, however, that it means primarily "backbone" and then"stature, " I cannot agree. ]

In the break of about three lines at the bottom of column 4, andof about six at the beginning of column 5, there must have been setforth the effect of the address on Enkidu and the indication of hisreadiness to accept the advice; as in a former passage (line 64), Enkidu showed himself willing to follow the woman. At all events thetwo now proceed to the heart of the city. Enkidu is in front andthe woman behind him. The scene up to this point must have takenplace outside of Erech--in the suburbs or approaches to the city, where the meadows and the sheepfolds were situated. 

Line 174. _um-ma-nu-um_ are not the "artisans, " as Langdon supposes, but the "people" of Erech, just as in the Assyrian version, TabletIV, 1, 40, where the word occurs in connection with _i-dip-pi-ir_, which is perhaps to be taken as a synonym of _pahâru_, "gather;"so also _i-dip-pir_ (Tablet I, 2, 40) "gathers with the flock. "

Lines 180-182 must have contained the description of Enkidu'sresemblance to Gish, but the lines are too mutilated to permit of anycertain restoration. See the corrections (Appendix) for a suggestedreading for the end of line 181. 

Line 183 can be restored with considerable probability on the basis ofthe Assyrian version, Tablet I, 3, 3 and 30, where Enkidu is describedas one "whose power is strong in the land. "

Lines 186-187. The puzzling word, to be read apparently _kak-ki-a-tum_, can hardly mean "weapons, " as Langdon proposes. In that case weshould expect _kakkê_; and, moreover, to so render gives no sense, especially since the verb _ú-te-el-li-lu_ is without much questionto be rendered "rejoiced, " and not "purified. " _Kakkiatum_--if thisbe the correct reading--may be a designation of Erech like _ribîtim_. 

Lines 188-189 are again entirely misunderstood by Langdon, owing toerroneous readings. See the corrections in the Appendix. 

Line 190. _i-li-im_ in this line is used like Hebrew Elohîm, "God. "

Line 191. _sakissum_ = _sakin-sum_, as correctly explained by Langdon. 

Line 192. With this line a new episode begins which, owing to the gapat the beginning of column 6, is somewhat obscure. The episode leadsto the hostile encounter between Gish and Enkidu. It is referredto in column 2 of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version. Lines35-50--all that is preserved of this column--form in part a parallelto columns 5-6 of the Pennsylvania tablet, but in much briefer form, since what on the Pennsylvania tablet is the incident itself is onthe fourth tablet of the Assyrian version merely a repeated summary ofthe relationship between the two heroes, leading up to the expeditionagainst Hu(m)baba. Lines 38-40 of column 2 of the Assyrian versioncorrespond to lines 174-177 of the Pennsylvania tablet, and lines44-50 to lines 192-221. It would seem that Gish proceeds stealthilyat night to go to the goddess Ishhara, who lies on a couch in the _bîtêmuti_, the "family house" Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2. 46-48). Heencounters Enkidu in the street, and the latter blocks Gish's path, puts his foot in the gate leading to the house where the goddess is, and thus prevents Gish from entering. Thereupon the two have a fierceencounter in which Gish is worsted. The meaning of the episode itselfis not clear. Does Enkidu propose to deprive Gish, here viewed as a god(cf. Line 190 of the Pennsylvania tablet = Assyrian version, TabletI, 4, 45, "like a god"), of his spouse, the goddess Ishhara--anotherform of Ishtar? Or are the two heroes, the one a counterpart of theother, contesting for the possession of a goddess? Is it in thisscene that Enkidu becomes the "rival" (_me-ih-rù_, line 191 of thePennsylvania tablet) of the divine Gish? We must content ourself withhaving obtained through the Pennsylvania tablet a clearer indicationof the occasion of the fight between the two heroes, and leave thefurther explanation of the episode till a fortunate chance may throwadditional light upon it. There is perhaps a reference to the episodein the Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b, 35-36. 

Line 196. For _i-na-ag-sá-am_ (from _nagâsu_), Langdon proposes thepurely fanciful "embracing her in sleep, " whereas it clearly means"he approaches. " Cf. Muss-Arnolt, _Assyrian Dictionary_, page 645a. 

Lines 197-200 appear to correspond to Tablet IV, 2, 35-37, of theAssyrian version, though not forming a complete parallel. We maytherefore supply at the beginning of line 35 of the Assyrian version_[ittaziz] Enkidu_, corresponding to line 197 of the Pennsylvaniatablet. 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_ ispossible. 

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

Line 212. For the completion of the line cf. Harper, _Assyrian andBabylonian 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), _anasurûbi_ for _êribam_, are slight though interesting. The Assyrianversion shows that the "gate" in line 215 is "the gate of the familyhouse" in which the goddess Ishhara lies. 

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

Line 218. _li-i-im_ is evidently to be taken as plural here asin line 224, just as _su-ki-im_ (lines 27 and 175), _ri-bi-tim_(lines 4, 28, etc. ), _tarbasim_ (line 74), _assamim_ (line 98) areplural forms. Our text furnishes, as does also the Yale tablet, aninteresting illustration of the vacillation in the Hammurabi periodin the twofold use of _im_: (a) as an indication of the plural (as inHebrew), 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 versionV, 3, 6, where Gilgamesh is described as kneeling, though here inprayer. 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. Thestem of the verb here as in line 230 (_i-ni-ih_) is the common _nâhu_, used so constantly in connection with _pasâhu_, to designate thecessation 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 Poebelin _OLZ_ 1914, page 6, to whom we owe the correct view regarding thename of Gilgamesh's mother. 

Line 238. _mu-ti_ here cannot mean "husband, " but "man" in general. Seeabove note to line 107. Langdon's strange misreading _ri-es-su_ for_ri-es-ka_ ("thy head") leads him again to miss the point, namelythat Enkidu comforts his rival by telling him that he is destined fora career above that of the ordinary man. He is to be more than a mereprize 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 statementthat the kingship is decreed for him by Enlil. Similarly, Hu(m)baba orHuwawa is designated by Enlil to inspire terror among men (Assyrianversion, 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 Enlilis an important index for the origin of the Epic, which is thus shownto date from a period when the patron deity of Nippur was acknowledgedas the general head of the pantheon. This justifies us in going backseveral centuries at least before Hammurabi for the beginning ofthe 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 inexcess 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 theterm in question. In some way _sutûr_ must indicate that the copy ofthe text has been "enlarged. " It is tempting to fill out the line_sú-tu-ur e-li [duppi labiri]_, and to render "enlarged from anoriginal, " as an indication of an independent recension of the Epicin the Hammurabi period. All this, however, is purely conjectural, and we must patiently hope for more tablets of the Old Babylonianversion to turn up. The chances are that some portions of the sameedition as the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets are in the hands ofdealers at present or have been sold to European museums. The war hasseriously interfered with the possibility of tracing the whereaboutsof 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 theend of this line _di-im-tam_ as in our text, instead of Jensen'sconjecture. 

Lines 74, 77 and 83. The restoration _zar-bis_, suggested by theAssyrian 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 ofthe 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 descriptionof 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. " Atthe 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 Assyrianversion, Tablet IV, 5, 3 = Haupt's edition, p. 83 (col. 5, 3). Nodoubt 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 line275. _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 thebasis of CT XVIII, 30, 7b, where _muktablu_, "warrior, " appears asone of the designations of Gilgamesh, followed by _a-lik pa-na_, "the one who goes in advance, " or "leader"--the phrase so constantlyused 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 Ukumesin one case and Lumes in the other), for the numeral 7 in our textto designate a terror of the largest and most widespread character, is interesting. The number 7 is similarly used as a designation ofGilgamesh, who is called _Esigga imin_, "seven-fold strong, " i. E. , supremely strong (CT XVIII, 30, 6-8). Similarly, Enkidu, _ib. _ line10, is designated _a-rá imina_, "seven-fold. "

Line 149. A difficult line because of the uncertainty of the readingat 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_, despitethe manner of writing, is identical with _mittú_, the name of adivine weapon, well-known from the Assyrian creation myth (TabletIV, 130), and other passages. The combination _mit-tu sá-ku-ú-_, "lofty weapon, " in the Bilingual text IV, R2, 18 No. 3, 31-32, wouldfavor the meaning "weapon" in our passage, since _[sá]-ku-tu_ is apossible 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 accuratereproduction of what is distinguishable. At the close of the linethere appears to be a sign written over an erasure. 

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

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

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

Line 162. While the restoration _belê_, "weapon, " is purelyconjectural, 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 appropriateword for the fabrication of weapons. 

Line 165. The _rabûtim_ here, as in line 167, I take as the "mastermechanics" as contrasted with the _ummianu_, "common workmen, " orjourneymen. A parallel to this forging of the weapons for the twoheroes is to be found in the Sumerian fragment of the Gilgamesh Epicpublished by Langdon, _Historical and Religious Texts from the TempleLibrary of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914), No. 55, 1-15. 

Lines 168-170 describe the forging of the various parts of thelances 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 wordoccurs 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 hornsof the divine bull. Each axe weighing 3 _biltu_, and the lance withpoint 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 weaponsfor each hero. The lance is depicted on seal cylinders representingGilgamesh 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 thehilt. The two figures are Gilgamesh and Enkidu--not two Gilgameshes, as Ward assumed. See above, page 34. A different weapon is the club ormace, as seen in Ward, Nos. 170 and 173. This appears also to be theweapon which Gilgamesh holds in his hand on the colossal figure fromthe palace of Sargon (Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, Pl. LVII), though it has been given a somewhat grotesque character bya perhaps intentional approach to the scimitar, associated with Marduk(see Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, Chap. XXVII). The exact determination ofthe various weapons depicted on seal-cylinders merits a special study. 

Line 181. Begins a speech of Huwawa, extending to line 187, reportedto Gish by the elders (line 188-189), who add a further warning tothe 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 lineof the Pennsylvania tablet in question. 

Line 192. On the phrase _sanû bunu_, "change of countenance, " in thesense 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 thetotal confine of a property is meant; here, therefore, the "interior"of the forest or heart. It is hardly a "by-form" of _nuptum_ asMuss-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 interestingtouch. It symbolizes submission, as is shown by the description ofGilgamesh's defeat in the encounter with Enkidu (Pennsylvania tablet, l. 227), where Gilgamesh is represented as forced to "kneel" to theground. Again in the Assyrian version, Tablet V, 4, 6, Gilgamesh kneelsdown (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 badlypreserved, for it would have enabled us definitely to restore theopening line of the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh Epic. Thefragment 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 textevidently reproduces the same phrase and enables us to supply _ka_, as well as the name of the hero Gish of which there are distincttraces. The missing word, therefore, describes the hero as theruler, or controller of the land. But what are the two signs before_ka_? A participial form from _pakâdu_, which one naturally thinksof, is impossible because of the _ka_, and for the same reason onecannot supply the word for shepherd (_nakidu_). One might think of_ka-ak-ka-du_, except that _kakkadu_ is not used for "head" in thesense 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 ofUngnad'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 (?) ofthe land. "

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

Lines 229-235 are again an address of Gilgamesh to the sun-god, afterhaving received a favorable "oracle" from the god (line 222). Thehero promises to honor and to celebrate the god, by erecting thronesfor him. 

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

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

Lines 251-252 correspond to column 1, 6-8, of King's fragment, withinteresting variations "battle" and "fight" instead of "way" and"road, " which show that in the interval between the old Babylonian andthe Assyrian version, the real reason why Enkidu should lead the way, namely, because he knows the country in which Huwawa dwells (lines252-253), was supplemented by describing Enkidu also as being moreexperienced in battle than Gilgamesh. 

Line 254. I am unable to furnish a satisfactory rendering for thisline, 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. Theepisode of Gish and Enkidu proceeding to Ninsun, the mother of Gish, to obtain her counsel, which follows in King's fragment, appears tohave been omitted in the old Babylonian version. Such an elaboration ofthe tale is exactly what we should expect as it passed down the ages. 

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

Lines 266-270. Do not appear to refer to rites performed after avictory, as might at a first glance appear, but merely voice the hopethat Gish will completely take possession of Huwawa's territory, soas to wash up after the fight in Huwawa's own stream; and the hopeis also expressed that he may find pure water in Huwawa's land inabundance, 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 thewoman who dwells at the seashore which Gilgamesh in the course of hiswanderings reaches, as an "innkeeper". It is noticeable that the termalways appears without the determinative placed before proper names;and since in the old Babylonian version (so far as preserved) andin the Assyrian version, the determinative is invariably used, itsconsistent absence in the case of _sabitum_ (Assyrian Version, TabletX, 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 literatureis 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_bhais used for "to drink" and in the Pael to "furnish drink". Muss-Arnoltin 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 Babyloniaas brothels, it would be natural for an epithet like _sabitum_ tobecome 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 Sumerianterm for the female innkeeper is Sal Gestinna "the woman of the wine, "known to us from the Hammurabi Code §§108-111. The bad reputation ofinns is confirmed by these statutes, for the house of the Sal Gestinnais a gathering place for outlaws. The punishment of a female devoteewho enters the "house of a wine woman" (bît Sal Gestinna §110) isdeath. It was not "prohibition" that prompted so severe a punishment, but the recognition of the purpose for which a devotee would entersuch a house of ill repute. The speech of the _sabitum_ or innkeeperto Gilgamesh (above, p. 12) was, therefore, an invitation to stay withher, instead of seeking for life elsewhere. Viewed as coming from a"public woman" the address becomes significant. The invitation wouldbe parallel to the temptation offered by the _harimtu_ in the firsttablet of the Enkidu, and to which Enkidu succumbs. The incidentin the tablet would, therefore, form a parallel in the adventuresof Gilgamesh to the one that originally belonged to the Enkiducycle. Finally, it is quite possible that _sabitum_ is actually theAkkadian equivalent of the Sumerian Sal Gestinna, though naturallyuntil this equation is confirmed by a syllabary or by other directevidence, it remains a conjecture. See now also Albright's remarkson Sabitum in the A. J. S. L. 36, pp. 269 _seq. _]

CORRECTIONS TO THE TEXT OF LANGDON'S EDITION OF THE PENNSYLVANIATABLET. [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'snote 2 on p. 211. 

9 Read _ú-ni-is-sú-ma_, "I became weak" (from _enêsu_, "weak") insteadof _ilam is-sú-ma_, "He bore a net"(!). This disposes of Langdon'snote 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_--twomistakes 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 nottally. 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 Assyrianversion, 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 incharacteristic 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 intofive 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 perfectlysimple 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. " Thesign 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 hisreading 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 innote 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 maybe _ma_. 

11. Read _lim-nu_ instead of _mi-nu_. In the same line read _a-la-kuma-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 ofthe line, _tu_, is not certain, because apparently written over anerasure. The second sign may be _a_. Some one has scratched the tabletat this point. 

18. Read _uk-la-at âli_ (?) instead of _ug-ad-ad-lil_, which givesno 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 ofnote 1 on p. 218. 

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

11. The first sign appears to be _si_ and the second _ma_. At theend we are perhaps to supply _[sá-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul_, on the basisof 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 inthe 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, " inthe 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 oflines missing at the bottom of columns 1-3 and at the top of columns4-6 as given by Langdon are misleading. Nor should he have drawnany lines at the bottom of columns 1-3 as though the tablet werecomplete. Besides in very many cases the space indications of whatis missing within a line are inaccurate. Dr. Langdon also omitted tocopy the statement on the edge: _4 sú-si_, i. E. , "240 lines;" andin the colophon he mistranslates _sú-tu-ur_, "written, " as thoughfrom _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 inover forty places, and of the 204 preserved lines he has mistranslatedabout 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), supplementedby Haupt's article _Die Zwölfte Tafel des Babylonischen Nimrodepos_ in_BA_ I, pp. 48-79, containing the fragments of the twelfth tablet. Thefragments of the Epic in Ashurbanapal's library--some sixty--representportions 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 alist of texts (K 9717--Haupt's edition No. 51, line 18) as the editorof the Epic, though probably he was not the only compiler. Since thepublication of Haupt's edition, a few fragments were added by himas an appendix to Alfred Jeremias _Izdubar-Nimrod_ (Leipzig, 1891)Plates II-IV, and two more are embodied in Jensen's transliterationof all the fragments in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_ VI;pp. 116-265, with elaborate notes, pp. 421-531. Furthermore afragment, obtained from supplementary excavations at Kouyunjik, has been published by L. W. King in his _Supplement to the Catalogueof the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the BritishCuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum_No. 56 and _PSBA_ Vol. 36, pp. 64-68. Recently a fragment of the 6thtablet from the excavations at Assur has been published by Ebeling, _Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts_ No. 115, and one mayexpect further portions to turn up. 

The designation "Nimrod Epic" on the supposition that the hero ofthe Babylonian Epic is identical with Nimrod, the "mighty hunter"of Genesis 10, has now been generally abandoned, in the absence ofany evidence that the Babylonian hero bore a name like Nimrod. Forall that, the description of Nimrod as the "mighty hunter" and theoccurrence of a "hunter" in the Babylonian Epic (Assyrian versionTablet I)--though he is not the hero--points to a confusion inthe Hebrew form of the borrowed tradition between Gilgamesh andNimrod. 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 analysisand discussion. These two translations now supersede Jensen'stranslation in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, which, however, is still valuable because of the detailed notes, containing a wealthof lexicographical material. Ungnad also gave a partial translation inGressmann-Ranke, _Altorientalische Texte and Bilder_ I, pp. 39-61. InEnglish, we have translations of substantial portions by Muss-Arnoltin 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 EarlyLiterature 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 isretained in this volume. 

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

[5] The survivor of the Deluge is usually designated as Ut-napishtimin the Epic, but in one passage (Assyrian version, Tablet XI, 196), he is designated as Atra-hasis "the very wise one. " Similarly, ina second version of the Deluge story, also found in Ashurbanapal'slibrary (IV R2 additions, p. 9, line 11). The two names clearlypoint to two versions, which in accordance with the manner of ancientcompositions 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 GentleCynic_, p. 172 _seq. _

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

[12] No. 55 in Langdon's _Historical and Religious Texts from theTemple 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, andJastrow in _JAOS_, Vol. 36, pp. 122-131 and 274-299. 

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

[18] See on this point Eduard Meyer, _Sumerier und Semiten inBabylonien_ (Berlin, 1906), p. 107 _seq_. , whose view is followedin Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 121. Seealso 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 themother 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, BabylonianSection_, Vol. X, No. 3 (Philadelphia, 1917). It is to be regrettedthat Dr. Langdon should not have given full credit to Dr. Poebel forhis discovery of the tablet. He merely refers in an obscure footnoteto Dr. Poebel's having made a copy. 

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

[25] Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs _4 sú-si_ = 240 whichappear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word_sú-tu-ur_ in the colophon which he translated "written, " takingthe 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 theCommentary 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'sedition, though some fragments appear to have been placed by him ina wrong position. 

[29] According to Bezold's investigation, _Verbalsuffixformen alsAlterskriterien babylonisch-assyrischer Inschriften_ (HeidelbergAkad. D. Wiss. , Philos. -Histor. Klasse, 1910, 9te Abhandlung), thebulk of the tablets in Ashurbanapal's library are copies of originalsdating from about 1500 B. C. It does not follow, however, that allthe copies date from originals of the same period. Bezold reachesthe conclusion on the basis of various forms for verbal suffixes, that the fragments from the Ashurbanapal Library actually date fromthree distinct periods ranging from before c. 1450 to c. 700 B. C. 

[30] "Before thou comest from the mountain, Gilgamesh in Erech willsee thy dreams, " after which the dreams are recounted by the womanto Enkidu. The expression "thy dreams" means here "dreams aboutthee. " (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 furtherdetails. 

[34] This is no doubt the correct reading of the three signs whichused to be read Iz-tu-bar or Gish-du-bar. The first sign has commonlythe 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 GrammaticalTexts_, p. 123. 

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

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

[37] The addition "father-in-law of Moses" to the name Hobab b. Re'uelin 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" mustbe separated into two: (1) "Bene Hobab, " and (2) "father-in-law ofMoses. " The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or isintended as a brief reminder that Hobab is identical with the sonof Re'uel. 

[38] See his _List of Personal Names from the Temple School ofNippur_, p. 122. _Hu-um-ba-bi-tu_ and _si-kin hu-wa-wa_ also occurin 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, _ReligionBabyloniens 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 failedto draw the conclusion that Hu(m)baba therefore belongs to the Westand not to the East. 

[41] First pointed out by Ungnad in _OLZ_ 1910, p. 306, on the basisof _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 aboutGilgamesh 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 zurPatriarchengeschichte_ (Berlin, 1905), p. 2. See Gressmann inUngnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 83, who points out thatthe first element of GLMGVS compared with the second of GMYGMVS givesthe 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 anequivalent. 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 aroundthe same idea of the picture of fire in some form. 

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

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

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

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

[60] The writing Gish-gi-mash as an approach to the pronunciationGilgamesh would thus represent the beginning of the artificial processwhich 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 inthe 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 alsofor Gilgamesh. His explanation of the name is set forth in hisrecent work on _The Empire of the Amorites_, page 89, and is alsoreferred to in his work on _Amurru_, page 79, and in his volumeof _Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection_, page 3, note. According to Professor Clay the original form of thehero's name was West Semitic, and was something like _Bilga-Mash_, the meaning of which was perhaps "the offspring of Mash. " For thefirst element in this division of the name cf. Pilikam, the name ofa ruler of an early dynasty, and Balak of the Old Testament. In viewof the fact that the axe figures so prominently in the Epic as aninstrument wielded by Gilgamesh, Professor Clay furthermore thinks itreasonable to assume that the name was interpreted by the Babylonianscribe as "the axe of Mash. " In this way he would account for theuse of the determinative for weapons, which is also the sign Gish, in the name. It is certainly noteworthy that the ideogram Gish-Tún inthe later form of _Gish-Tún-mash_ = _pasu_, "axe, " _CT_ XVI, 38:14b, etc. _Tun_ also = _pilaku_ "axe, " _CT_ xii, 10:34b. Names with similarelement (besides Pilikam) are Belaku of the Hammurabi period, Bilakkuof the Cassite period, etc. 

It is only proper to add that Professor Jastrow assumes theresponsibility for the explanation of the form and etymology of thename Gilgamesh proposed in this volume. The question is one in regardto which legitimate differences of opinion will prevail among scholarsuntil 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 Shamashto 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 thesame author's _Cylinders and other Ancient Oriental Seals_--Morgancollection 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, andwhich is Enkidu. The clothed one is probably Gilgamesh, though notinfrequently Gilgamesh is also represented as nude, or merely witha 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 conflictbetween the two heroes is depicted with the heroes distinguishedin 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 atthe 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 becompleted and supplemented by the new fragment. 

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

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

[86] King's fragment, col. I, 13-27, which now enables us to completeJensen 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 thatin line 13 of column 4 (Jensen, p. 164), Enkidu takes up the threadof conversation, as is shown by line 22: "Enkidu brought his dreamto 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 intothe mouth of Gilgamesh (lines 198-199). It is, therefore, unlikelythat he would sing his own praise. Both Jensen and Ungnad admit thatEnkidu 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 "bornin the field. "

[104] Note the repetition _ibtani_ "created" in line 33 of the "manof 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 theother, 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 thefall (Genesis 3, 20). Before that she is merely _ishsha_, i. E. , "woman, " just as in the Babylonian tale the woman who guides Enkiduis _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 primitiveman, inconsistent features should have been introduced, such as theunion of Enkidu with the woman as the beginning of a higher life, whereas the presence of a hunter and his father shows that humansociety was already in existence, is characteristic of folk-tales, which are indifferent to details that may be contradictory to thegeneral 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 asan "old construction" of Gilgamesh, in the inscription of An-Am inthe days of Sin-gamil (Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I, No. 26. ) Cf IV R2 52, 3, 53. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[122] _Historical Texts_ No. 1. The Sumerian name of the survivoris Zi-u-gíd-du or perhaps Zi-u-su-du (cf. King, _Legends of Babylonand Egypt_, p. 65, note 4), signifying "He who lengthened the day oflife, " i. E. , the one of long life, of which Ut-napishtim ("Day ofLife") in the Assyrian version seems to be an abbreviated Akkadianrendering, with the omission of the verb. So King's view, which ishere followed. See also _CT_ XVIII, 30, 9, and Langdon, _Sumerian Epicof Paradise_, p. 90, who, however, enters upon further speculationsthat 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 asin 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 thatthe companions are also twins or at least brothers. Hence such examplesas Abraham and Lot, David and Jonathan, Achilles and Patroclus, Eteokles and Polyneikes, are not parallels to Gilgamesh-Enkidu, butbelong to the _enlargement_ of the _motif_ so as to include companionswho 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 theirequivalents in Iranian mythology (Carnoy, _Iranian Mythology_, p. 294 _seq. _). 

[128] Becoming, however, a triad and later increased toseven. Cf. Rendell Harris, l. C. , p. 32. 

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

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

[131] "My likeness" (line 27). It should be noted, however, thatlines 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 atJensen's disposal), which may represent a _duplicate_ to I, 6, 23-34, with which it agrees entirely except for one line, viz. , line 34 ofK 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 interpretationof the dream given in the Pennsylvania tablet in lines 17-23. 

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

[133] Repeated I, 6, 28. 

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

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

[136] Lines 42-43 must be taken as part of the narrative of thecompiler, who tells us that after the woman had informed Enkidu thatGilgamesh already knew of Enkidu's coming through dreams interpretedby 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, andnot 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 toIV, 4, 10. 

[141] Unless indeed the number "seven" is a slip for the sign sa. Seethe 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 inthe 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.