This eBook was produced by Jeroen Hellingman.
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 the
Appendix, are by Professor Jastrow, and for these he assumes the sole
responsibility. The text of the Yale tablet is by Professor Clay. The
transliteration and the translation of the two tablets represent
the joint work of the two authors. In the transliteration of the two
tablets, C. E. Keiser's "System of Accentuation for Sumero-Akkadian
signs" (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 as
yet discovered in the mounds of Mesopotamia. It recounts the exploits
and adventures of a favorite hero, and in its final form covers twelve
tablets, each tablet consisting of six columns (three on the obverse
and three on the reverse) of about 50 lines for each column, or a total
of about 3600 lines. Of this total, however, barely more than one-half
has been found among the remains of the great collection of cuneiform
tablets gathered by King Ashurbanapal (668-626 B.C.) in his palace
at Nineveh, and discovered by Layard in 1854 [1] in the course of his
excavations of the mound Kouyunjik (opposite Mosul). The fragments of
the epic painfully gathered--chiefly by George Smith--from the _circa_
30,000 tablets and bits of tablets brought to the British Museum were
published in model form by Professor Paul Haupt; [2] and that edition
still remains the primary source for our study of the Epic.
For the sake of convenience we may call the form of the Epic in the
fragments from the library of Ashurbanapal the Assyrian version,
though like most of the literary productions in the library it not
only reverts to a Babylonian original, but represents a late copy of
a much older original. The absence of any reference to Assyria in
the fragments recovered justifies us in assuming that the Assyrian
version 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 or
schoolmen in the eleventh and twelfth tablets, may have been produced
at least in part under Assyrian influence. A definite indication
that the Gilgamesh Epic reverts to a period earlier than Hammurabi
(or Hammurawi) [3] i.e., beyond 2000 B. C., was furnished by the
publication of a text clearly belonging to the first Babylonian
dynasty (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 on
the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. [5] This was confirmed
by the discovery [6] of a fragment of the deluge story dated in the
eleventh 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 and
merely introduce an episode which has also been incorporated into the
Epic, Dr. Bruno Meissner in 1902 published a tablet, dating, as the
writing and the internal evidence showed, from the Hammurabi period,
which undoubtedly is a portion of what by way of distinction we may
call an old Babylonian version. [8] It was picked up by Dr. Meissner
at a dealer's shop in Bagdad and acquired for the Berlin Museum. The
tablet consists of four columns (two on the obverse and two on the
reverse) and deals with the hero's wanderings in search of a cure
from disease with which he has been smitten after the death of his
companion Enkidu. The hero fears that the disease will be fatal and
longs to escape death. It corresponds to a portion of Tablet X of
the Assyrian version. Unfortunately, only the lower portion of the
obverse and the upper of the reverse have been preserved (57 lines
in all); and in default of a colophon we do not know the numeration
of the tablet in this old Babylonian edition. Its chief value,
apart from its furnishing a proof for the existence of the Epic
as early as 2000 B. C., lies (a) in the writing _Gish_ instead of
Gish-gi(n)-mash in the Assyrian version, for the name of the hero,
(b) in the writing En-ki-du--abbreviated from dug--"Enki is
good" for En-ki-dú in the Assyrian version, [9] and (c) in the
remarkable address of the maiden Sabitum, dwelling at the seaside,
to whom Gilgamesh comes in the course of his wanderings. From the
Assyrian version we know that the hero tells the maiden of his grief
for his lost companion, and of his longing to escape the dire fate of
Enkidu. In the old Babylonian fragment the answer of Sabitum is given
in full, and the sad note that it strikes, showing how hopeless it
is 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 tendency
arose 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 Biblical
Book of Ecclesiastes, [10] indicate the _didactic_ character given to
ancient tales that were of popular origin, but which were modified
and elaborated under the influence of the schools which arose in
connection with the Babylonian temples. The story itself belongs,
therefore, to a still earlier period than the form it received in this
old Babylonian version. The existence of this tendency at so early a
date comes to us as a genuine surprise, and justifies the assumption
that the attachment of a lesson to the deluge story in the Assyrian
version, to wit, the limitation in attainment of immortality to those
singled out by the gods as exceptions, dates likewise from the old
Babylonian period. The same would apply to the twelfth tablet, which
is almost entirely didactic, intended to illustrate the impossibility
of learning anything of the fate of those who have passed out of this
world. It also emphasizes the necessity of contenting oneself with the
comfort that the care of the dead, by providing burial and food and
drink offerings for them affords, as the only means of ensuring for
them rest and freedom from the pangs of hunger and distress. However,
it is of course possible that the twelfth tablet, which impresses
one as a supplement to the adventures of Gilgamesh, ending with his
return to Uruk (i.e., Erech) at the close of the eleventh tablet, may
represent a _later_ elaboration of the tendency to connect religious
teachings with the exploits of a favorite hero.
II.
We now have further evidence both of the extreme antiquity of the
literary form of the Gilgamesh Epic and also of the disposition to
make the Epic the medium of illustrating aspects of life and the
destiny of mankind. The discovery by Dr. Arno Poebel of a Sumerian
form of the tale of the descent of Ishtar to the lower world and her
release [11]--apparently a nature myth to illustrate the change of
season from summer to winter and back again to spring--enables us to
pass beyond the Akkadian (or Semitic) form of tales current in the
Euphrates Valley to the Sumerian form. Furthermore, we are indebted
to Dr. Langdon for the identification of two Sumerian fragments in the
Nippur Collection which deal with the adventures of Gilgamesh, one in
Constantinople, [12] the other in the collection of the University
of Pennsylvania Museum. [13] The former, of which only 25 lines are
preserved (19 on the obverse and 6 on the reverse), appears to be a
description of the weapons of Gilgamesh with which he arms himself
for an encounter--presumably the encounter with Humbaba or Huwawa,
the ruler of the cedar forest in the mountain. [14] The latter deals
with the building operations of Gilgamesh in the city of Erech. A
text in Zimmern's _Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit_
(Leipzig, 1913), No. 196, appears likewise to be a fragment of the
Sumerian version of the Gilgamesh Epic, bearing on the episode of
Gilgamesh's and Enkidu's relations to the goddess Ishtar, covered in
the sixth and seventh tablets of the Assyrian version. [15]
Until, however, further fragments shall have turned up, it would
be hazardous to institute a comparison between the Sumerian and the
Akkadian versions. All that can be said for the present is that there
is every reason to believe in the existence of a literary form of the
Epic in Sumerian which presumably antedated the Akkadian recension,
just as we have a Sumerian form of Ishtar's descent into the nether
world, and Sumerian versions of creation myths, as also of the
Deluge tale. [16] It does not follow, however, that the Akkadian
versions of the Gilgamesh Epic are translations of the Sumerian,
any more than that the Akkadian creation myths are translations of
a Sumerian original. Indeed, in the case of the creation myths,
the striking difference between the Sumerian and Akkadian views
of creation [17] points to the independent production of creation
stories on the part of the Semitic settlers of the Euphrates Valley,
though no doubt these were worked out in part under Sumerian literary
influences. The same is probably true of Deluge tales, which would
be given a distinctly Akkadian coloring in being reproduced and
steadily elaborated by the Babylonian _literati_ attached to the
temples. 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 of
some of them, in the Sumerian narrative. Nor does the existence of a
Sumerian form of the Epic necessarily prove that it originated with
the Sumerians in their earliest home before they came to the Euphrates
Valley. They may have adopted it after their conquest of southern
Babylonia from the Semites who, there are now substantial grounds for
believing, 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 episodes
embodied in the Epic, including the chief actors, Gilgamesh and his
companion Enkidu. It will be shown that one of the chief episodes,
the encounter of the two heroes with a powerful guardian or ruler
of a cedar forest, points to a western region, more specifically to
Amurru, 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 further
ground for assuming the tale to have originated among the Akkadian
settlers and to have been taken over from them by the Sumerians.
III.
New light on the earliest Babylonian version of the Epic, as well
as on the Assyrian version, has been shed by the recovery of two
substantial fragments of the form which the Epic had assumed in
Babylonia in the Hammurabi period. The study of this important new
material also enables us to advance the interpretation of the Epic
and to perfect the analysis into its component parts. In the spring
of 1914, the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania acquired by
purchase a large tablet, the writing of which as well as the style
and the manner of spelling verbal forms and substantives pointed
distinctly to the time of the first Babylonian dynasty. The tablet
was identified by Dr. Arno Poebel as part of the Gilgamesh Epic; and,
as the colophon showed, it formed the second tablet of the series. He
copied it with a view to publication, but the outbreak of the war which
found him in Germany--his native country--prevented him from carrying
out this intention. [20] He, however, utilized some of its contents in
his discussion of the historical or semi-historical traditions about
Gilgamesh, as revealed by the important list of partly mythical and
partly historical dynasties, found among the tablets of the Nippur
collection, in which Gilgamesh occurs [21] as a King of an Erech
dynasty, whose father was Â, a priest of Kulab. [22]
The publication of the tablet was then undertaken by Dr. Stephen
Langdon in monograph form under the title, "The Epic of
Gilgamish." [23] In a preliminary article on the tablet in the
_Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, pages 29-38, Dr. Langdon took the
tablet to be of the late Persian period (i.e., between the sixth
and third century B. C.), but his attention having been called to
this error of some _1500 years_, he corrected it in his introduction
to his edition of the text, though he neglected to change some of
his notes in which he still refers to the text as "late." [24] In
addition to a copy of the text, accompanied by a good photograph,
Dr. Langdon furnished a transliteration and translation with some
notes and a brief introduction. The text is unfortunately badly
copied, being full of errors; and the translation is likewise very
defective. A careful collation with the original tablet was made with
the assistance of Dr. Edward Chiera, and as a consequence we are in a
position to offer to scholars a correct text. We beg to acknowledge
our obligations to Dr. Gordon, the Director of the Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania, for kindly placing the tablet at our
disposal. Instead of republishing the text, I content myself with
giving a full list of corrections in the appendix to this volume
which will enable scholars to control our readings, and which will,
I believe, justify the translation in the numerous passages in which
it deviates from Dr. Langdon's rendering. While credit should be given
to Dr. Langdon for having made this important tablet accessible, the
interests of science demand that attention be called to his failure to
grasp the many important data furnished by the tablet, which escaped
him because of his erroneous readings and faulty translations.
The tablet, consisting of six columns (three on the obverse and three
on the reverse), comprised, according to the colophon, 240 lines
[25] and formed the second tablet of the series. Of the total, 204
lines are preserved in full or in part, and of the missing thirty-six
quite a number can be restored, so that we have a fairly complete
tablet. The most serious break occurs at the top of the reverse, where
about eight lines are missing. In consequence of this the connection
between the end of the obverse (where about five lines are missing)
and the beginning of the reverse is obscured, though not to the extent
of our entirely losing the thread of the narrative.
About the same time that the University of Pennsylvania Museum
purchased this second tablet of the Gilgamesh Series, Yale University
obtained a tablet from the same dealer, which turned out to be a
continuation of the University of Pennsylvania tablet. That the two
belong to the same edition of the Epic is shown by their agreement
in the dark brown color of the clay, in the writing as well as in
the size of the tablet, though the characters on the Yale tablet
are somewhat cramped and in consequence more difficult to read. Both
tablets consist of six columns, three on the obverse and three on the
reverse. The measurements of both are about the same, the Pennsylvania
tablet being estimated at about 7 inches high, as against 7 2/16 inches
for the Yale tablet, while the width of both is 6 1/2 inches. The
Yale tablet is, however, more closely written and therefore has a
larger number of lines than the Pennsylvania tablet. The colophon to
the Yale tablet is unfortunately missing, but from internal evidence
it is quite certain that the Yale tablet follows immediately upon
the Pennsylvania tablet and, therefore, may be set down as the third
of the series. The obverse is very badly preserved, so that only a
general view of its contents can be secured. The reverse contains
serious gaps in the first and second columns. The scribe evidently
had a copy before him which he tried to follow exactly, but finding
that 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 the
sixth 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 lines
written on the edge leaves us 276 lines for our tablet as against 240
for its companion. The width of each column being the same on both
tablets, the difference of 36 lines is made up by the closer writing.
Both tablets have peculiar knobs at the sides, the purpose of which
is evidently not to facilitate holding the tablet in one's hand while
writing or reading it, as Langdon assumed [26] (it would be quite
impracticable for this purpose), but simply to protect the tablet in
its position on a shelf, where it would naturally be placed on the
edge, just as we arrange books on a shelf. Finally be it noted that
these two tablets of the old Babylonian version do not belong to the
same edition as the Meissner tablet above described, for the latter
consists of two columns each on obverse and reverse, as against
three columns each in the case of our two tablets. We thus have
the interesting proof that as early as 2000 B.C. there were already
several 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 by
natives in the mounds at Warka, from which about the year 1913, many
tablets came into the hands of dealers. It is likely that where two
tablets 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 Babylonian
version turning up in the hands of other dealers or in museums.
IV.
Coming to the contents of the two tablets, the Pennsylvania tablet
deals with the meeting of the two heroes, Gilgamesh and Enkidu,
their conflict, followed by their reconciliation, while the Yale
tablet in continuation takes up the preparations for the encounter of
the two heroes with the guardian of the cedar forest, Humbaba--but
probably pronounced Hubaba [27]--or, as the name appears in the old
Babylonian 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 an
independence of the old Babylonian version that is larger than we
had reason to expect. In general, it may be said that the Assyrian
version is more elaborate, which points to its having received its
present form at a considerably later period than the old Babylonian
version. [29] On the other hand, we already find in the Babylonian
version the tendency towards repetition, which is characteristic
of Babylonian-Assyrian tales in general. Through the two Babylonian
tablets we are enabled to fill out certain details of the two episodes
with which they deal: (1) the meeting of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and
(2) the encounter with Huwawa; while their greatest value consists
in the light that they throw on the gradual growth of the Epic until
it reached its definite form in the text represented by the fragments
in Ashurbanapal's Library. Let us now take up the detailed analysis,
first of the Pennsylvania tablet and then of the Yale tablet. The
Pennsylvania tablet begins with two dreams recounted by Gilgamesh
to his mother, which the latter interprets as presaging the coming
of Enkidu to Erech. In the one, something like a heavy meteor falls
from heaven upon Gilgamesh and almost crushes him. With the help of
the heroes of Erech, Gilgamesh carries the heavy burden to his mother
Ninsun. The burden, his mother explains, symbolizes some one who,
like Gilgamesh, is born in the mountains, to whom all will pay homage
and of whom Gilgamesh will become enamoured with a love as strong as
that for a woman. In a second dream, Gilgamesh sees some one who is
like him, who brandishes an axe, and with whom he falls in love. This
personage, the mother explains, is again Enkidu.
Langdon is of the opinion that these dreams are recounted to
Enkidu by a woman with whom Enkidu cohabits for six days and seven
nights and who weans Enkidu from association with animals. This,
however, cannot be correct. The scene between Enkidu and the woman
must have been recounted in detail in the first tablet, as in the
Assyrian version, [30] whereas here in the second tablet we have the
continuation of the tale with Gilgamesh recounting his dreams directly
to his mother. The story then continues with the description of the
coming of Enkidu, conducted by the woman to the outskirts of Erech,
where food is given him. The main feature of the incident is the
conversion of Enkidu to civilized life. Enkidu, who hitherto had
gone about naked, is clothed by the woman. Instead of sucking milk
and drinking from a trough like an animal, food and strong drink are
placed before him, and he is taught how to eat and drink in human
fashion. In human fashion he also becomes drunk, and his "spree" is
naïvely 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 "like
a man." Enkidu becomes a shepherd, protecting the fold against wild
beasts, and his exploit in dispatching lions is briefly told. At this
point--the end of column 3 (on the obverse), i.e., line 117, and the
beginning of column 4 (on the reverse), i.e., line 131--a gap of 13
lines--the tablet is obscure, but apparently the story of Enkidu's
gradual transformation from savagery to civilized life is continued,
with stress upon his introduction to domestic ways with the wife
chosen or decreed for him, and with work as part of his fate. All
this has no connection with Gilgamesh, and it is evident that the
tale of Enkidu was originally an _independent_ tale to illustrate the
evolution of man's career and destiny, how through intercourse with
a woman he awakens to the sense of human dignity, how he becomes
accustomed to the ways of civilization, how he passes through the
pastoral stage to higher walks of life, how the family is instituted,
and how men come to be engaged in the labors associated with human
activities. 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 through
which Enkidu is brought to Gilgamesh. The woman leads Enkidu from
the outskirts of Erech into the city itself, where the people on
seeing him remark upon his likeness to Gilgamesh. He is the very
counterpart of the latter, though somewhat smaller in stature. There
follows the encounter between the two heroes in the streets of Erech,
where they engage in a fierce combat. Gilgamesh is overcome by Enkidu
and is enraged at being thrown to the ground. The tablet closes with
the endeavor of Enkidu to pacify Gilgamesh. Enkidu declares that the
mother 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 together
proceed to carry out certain exploits, the first of which is an attack
upon the mighty guardian of the cedar forest. This is the main episode
in the Yale tablet, which, therefore, forms the third tablet of the
old Babylonian version.
In the first column of the obverse of the Yale tablet, which is badly
preserved, it would appear that the elders of Erech (or perhaps the
people) are endeavoring to dissuade Gilgamesh from making the attempt
to penetrate to the abode of Huwawa. If this is correct, then the
close of the first column may represent a conversation between these
elders and the woman who accompanies Enkidu. It would be the elders
who are represented as "reporting the speech to the woman," which is
presumably the determination of Gilgamesh to fight Huwawa. The elders
apparently desire Enkidu to accompany Gilgamesh in this perilous
adventure, and with this in view appeal to the woman. In the second
column after an obscure reference to the mother of Gilgamesh--perhaps
appealing to the sun-god--we find Gilgamesh and Enkidu again face to
face. From the reference to Enkidu's eyes "filled with tears," we may
conclude that he is moved to pity at the thought of what will happen to
Gilgamesh if he insists upon carrying out his purpose. Enkidu, also,
tries to dissuade Gilgamesh. This appears to be the main purport of
the dialogue between the two, which begins about the middle of the
second column and extends to the end of the third column. Enkidu
pleads 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 tyrant
who thus arouses the fear of Enkidu, and in reply Enkidu tells
him how at one time, when he was roaming about with the cattle, he
penetrated into the forest and heard the roar of Huwawa which was
like that of a deluge. The mouth of the tyrant emitted fire, and his
breath was death. It is clear, as Professor Haupt has suggested, [32]
that Enkidu furnishes the description of a volcano in eruption, with
its mighty roar, spitting forth fire and belching out a suffocating
smoke. Gilgamesh is, however, undaunted and urges Enkidu to accompany
him in the adventure.
"I will go down to the forest," says Gilgamesh, if the conjectural
restoration of the line in question (l. 126) is correct. Enkidu replies
by again drawing a lurid picture of what will happen "When we go
(together) to the forest......." This speech of Enkidu is continued on
the reverse. In reply Gilgamesh emphasizes his reliance upon the good
will of Shamash and reproaches Enkidu with cowardice. He declares
himself superior to Enkidu's warning, and in bold terms says that
he prefers to perish in the attempt to overcome Huwawa rather than
abandon 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 the
weapons for the two heroes in preparation for the encounter. [33]
The elders of Erech when they see these preparations are stricken
with fear. They learn of Huwawa's threat to annihilate Gilgamesh if
he dares to enter the cedar forest, and once more try to dissuade
Gilgamesh 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 of
the terrible Huwawa. Gilgamesh is still undaunted and prays to his
patron deity Shamash, who apparently accords him a favorable "oracle"
(_têrtu_). The two heroes arm themselves for the fray, and the elders
of Erech, now reconciled to the perilous undertaking, counsel Gilgamesh
to take provision along for the undertaking. They urge Gilgamesh to
allow 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 track
out the "closed path" for Gilgamesh, and commit him to the care of
Lugalbanda--here perhaps an epithet of Shamash. They advise Gilgamesh
to perform certain rites, to wash his feet in the stream of Huwawa and
to pour out a libation of water to Shamash. Enkidu follows in a speech
likewise intended to encourage the hero; and with the actual beginning
of the expedition against Huwawa the tablet ends. The encounter itself,
with the triumph of the two heroes, must have been described in the
fourth tablet.
V.
Now before taking up the significance of the additions to our
knowledge of the Epic gained through these two tablets, it will be
well to discuss the forms in which the names of the two heroes and
of the ruler of the cedar forest occur in our tablets.
As in the Meissner fragment, the chief hero is invariably designated
as dGish in both the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets; and we may
therefore conclude that this was the common form in the Hammurabi
period, as against the writing dGish-gì(n)-mash [34] in the Assyrian
version. Similarly, as in the Meissner fragment, the second hero's
name is always written En-ki-du [35] (abbreviated from dúg) as
against En-ki-dú in the Assyrian version. Finally, we encounter in
the Yale tablet for the first time the writing Hu-wa-wa as the name
of the guardian of the cedar forest, as against Hum-ba-ba in the
Assyrian version, though in the latter case, as we may now conclude
from the Yale tablet, the name should rather be read Hu-ba-ba. [36]
The variation in the writing of the latter name is interesting
as pointing to the aspirate pronunciation of the labial in both
instances. The name would thus present a complete parallel to the
Hebrew name Howawa (or Hobab) who appears as the brother-in-law
of Moses in the P document, Numbers 10, 29. [37] Since the name
also 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 Semitic
name. This important fact adds to the probability that the "cedar
forest" in which Huwawa dwells is none other than the Lebanon district,
famed since early antiquity for its cedars. This explanation of the
name Huwawa disposes of suppositions hitherto brought forward for an
Elamitic origin. Gressmann [39] still favors such an origin, though
realizing that the description of the cedar forest points to the Amanus
or Lebanon range. In further confirmation of the West Semitic origin of
the name, we have in Lucian, _De Dea Syria_, § 19, the name Kombabos
[40] (the guardian of Stratonika), which forms a perfect parallel to
Hu(m)baba. Of the important bearings of this western character of the
name Huwawa on the interpretation and origin of the Gilgamesh Epic,
suggesting that the episode of the encounter between the tyrant and
the two heroes rests upon a tradition of an expedition against the
West or Amurru land, we shall have more to say further on.
The variation in the writing of the name Enkidu is likewise
interesting. It is evident that the form in the old Babylonian
version with the sign du (i.e., dúg) is the original, for it furnishes
us with a suitable etymology "Enki is good." The writing with dúg,
pronounced du, also shows that the sign dú as the third element in the
form which the name has in the Assyrian version is to be read dú, and
that 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 the
ideograph) of the third element dúg. This is confirmed by the writing
En-gi-dú in the syllabary _CT_ XVIII, 30, 10. The phonetic writing
is, therefore, a warning against any endeavor to read the name by
an Akkadian transliteration of the signs. This would not of itself
prove that Enkidu is of Sumerian _origin_, for it might well be that
the writing En-ki-dú is an endeavor to give a Sumerian _aspect_ to
a name that _may_ have been foreign. The element dúg corresponds to
the Semitic _tâbu_, "good," and En-ki being originally a designation
of a deity as the "lord of the land," which would be the Sumerian
manner of indicating a Semitic Baal, it is not at all impossible
that 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 the
Yale tablet, Enkidu speaks of himself in his earlier period while
still living with cattle, as wandering into the cedar forest of
Huwawa, while in another passage (ll. 252-253) he is described as
"acquainted with the way ... to the entrance of the forest." This
would clearly point to the West as the original home of Enkidu. We
are thus led once more to Amurru--taken as a general designation of
the West--as playing an important role in the Gilgamesh Epic. [42] If
Gilgamesh's expedition against Huwawa of the Lebanon district recalls
a 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. The
fight between Gilgamesh and Enkidu would fit in with this tradition,
while the subsequent reconciliation would be the form in which the
tradition would represent the enforced union between the invaders
and the older settlers.
Leaving this aside for the present, let us proceed to a consideration
of the relationship of the form dGish, for the chief personage
in the Epic in the old Babylonian version, to dGish-gi(n)-mash in
the Assyrian version. Of the meaning of Gish there is fortunately
no doubt. It is clearly the equivalent to the Akkadian _zikaru_,
"man" (Brünnow No. 5707), or possibly _rabû_, "great" (Brünnow
No. 5704). Among various equivalents, the preference is to be given
to _itlu_, "hero." The determinative for deity stamps the person so
designated as deified, or as in part divine, and this is in accord
with the express statement in the Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh
Epic which describes the hero as
"Two-thirds god and one-third human." [44]
Gish is, therefore, the hero-god _par excellence_; and this shows
that we are not dealing with a genuine proper name, but rather with a
descriptive attribute. Proper names are not formed in this way, either
in 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 by
scholars, until Pinches found in a neo-Babylonian syllabary [45]
the equation of it with Gi-il-ga-mesh? Pinches' discovery pointed
conclusively to the popular pronunciation of the hero's name as
Gilgamesh; and since Aelian (_De natura Animalium_ XII, 2) mentions
a Babylonian personage Gilgamos (though what he tells us of Gilgamos
does not appear in our Epic, but seems to apply to Etana, another
figure of Babylonian mythology), there seemed to be no further reason
to question that the problem had been solved. Besides, in a later
Syriac list of Babylonian kings found in the Scholia of Theodor bar
Koni, the name GLMGVM with a variant GMYGMVS occurs, [46] and it
is evident that we have here again the Gi-il-ga-mesh, discovered by
Pinches. The existence of an old Babylonian hero Gilgamesh who was
likewise 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 or
Gish-du-bar, but that we must read the first sign as Gish and the
third as Mash, while for the second we must assume a reading Gìn or
Gi. This would give us Gish-gì(n)-mash which is clearly again (like
En-ki-dú) not an etymological writing but a _phonetic_ one, intended
to convey an _approach_ to the popular pronunciation. Gi-il-ga-mesh
might 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 name
the pronunciation of which is not definite but approximate, and which
is written in various ways, the probabilities are that the name is
foreign. A foreign name might naturally be spelled in various ways. The
Epic in the Assyrian version clearly depicts dGish-gì(n)-mash as a
conqueror of Erech, who forces the people into subjection, and whose
autocratic rule leads the people of Erech to implore the goddess
Aruru to create a rival to him who may withstand him. In response
to this appeal dEnkidu is formed out of dust by Aruru and eventually
brought to Erech. [47] Gish-gì(n)-mash or Gilgamesh is therefore in
all probability a foreigner; and the simplest solution suggested by the
existence 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 former
as an abbreviation, which seemed appropriate, because the short name
conveyed the idea of the "hero" _par excellence_. If Gish-gì(n)-mash
is a foreign name, one would think in the first instance of Sumerian;
but here we encounter a difficulty in the circumstance that outside of
the Epic this conqueror and ruler of Erech appears in quite a different
form, namely, as dGish-bil-ga-mesh, with dGish-gibil(or bìl)-ga-mesh
and dGish-bil-ge-mesh as variants. [48] In the remarkable list of
partly mythological and partly historical dynasties, published by
Poebel, [49] the fifth member of the first dynasty of Erech appears
as dGish-bil-ga-mesh; and similarly in an inscription of the days of
Sin-gamil, dGish-bil-ga-mesh is mentioned as the builder of the wall
of Erech. [50] Moreover, in the several fragments of the Sumerian
version of the Epic we have invariably the form dGish-bil-ga-mesh. It
is evident, therefore, that this is the genuine form of the name in
Sumerian and presumably, therefore, the oldest form. By way of further
confirmation 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 Sumerian
Esigga 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 Ur
dynasty in the form dGish-bil-ga-mesh [52] with dGish-bil-gi(n)-mesh
as 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 a
syllabary 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 view
of the frequent confusion or interchange of the two signs Bil (Brünnow
No. 4566) and Gibil or Bíl (Brünnow No. 4642) which has also the value
Gi (Brünnow 4641), so that we might also read Gish-gi-ga-mesh. Both
signs convey the idea of "fire," "renew," etc.; both revert to the
picture of flames of fire, in the one case with a bowl (or some
such obiect) above it, in the other the flames issuing apparently
from a torch. [55] The meaning of the name is not affected whether
we read dGish-bil-ga-mesh or dGish-gibil(or bíl)-ga-mesh, for the
middle element in the latter case being identical with the fire-god,
written dBil-gi and to be pronounced in the inverted form as Gibil
with _-ga_ (or _ge_) as the phonetic complement; it is equivalent,
therefore, to the writing bil-ga in the former case. Now Gish-gibil
or 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 be
derived from Gibil, as also from Bíl = _isatu_, "fire," then _essu_,
"new," then _abu_, "father," as the renewer or creator. Gish with Bíl
or Gibil would, therefore, be "the father-man" or "the father-hero,"
i.e., again the hero _par excellence_, the original hero, just as in
Hebrew and Arabic _ab_ is used in this way. [57] The syllable _ga
_being a phonetic complement, the element _mesh_ is to be taken
by itself and to be explained, as Poebel suggested, as "hero"
(_itlu_. Brünnow No. 5967).
We would thus obtain an entirely artificial combination, "man (or
hero), father, hero," which would simply convey in an emphatic manner
the idea of the _Ur-held_, the original hero, the father of heroes as
it were--practically the same idea, therefore, as the one conveyed
by Gish alone, as the hero _par excellence_. Our investigation thus
leads us to a substantial identity between Gish and the longer form
Gish-bil(or bíl)-ga-mesh, and the former might, therefore, well be used
as an abbreviation of the latter. Both the shorter and the longer forms
are _descriptive epithets _based on naive folk etymology, rather than
personal 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," are
descriptive epithets, and as Atra-hasis, "the very wise one," is such
an epithet for the hero of the deluge story. The case is different with
Gi-il-ga-mesh, or Gish-gì(n)-mash, which represent the popular and
actual pronunciation of the name, or at least the _approach_ to such
pronunciation. Such forms, stripped as they are of all artificiality,
impress one as genuine names. The conclusion to which we are thus led
is 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 his
character_. In other words, Gish-bil-ga-mesh is a "Sumerianized"
form of the name, introduced into the Sumerian version of the tale
which became a folk-possession in the Euphrates Valley. Such plays
upon names to suggest the character of an individual or some incident
are familiar to us from the narratives in Genesis. [58] They do not
constitute genuine etymologies and are rarely of use in leading to a
correct etymology. Reuben, e.g., certainly does not mean "Yahweh has
seen my affliction," which the mother is supposed to have exclaimed
at 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 does
contain the divine name (_Ye_hô) as an element. The play on the
name 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 a
distortion of a foreign name like Gilgamesh into several elements,
Gish-bil-ga-mesh, is no more violent than, for example, the explanation
of Issachar or rather Issaschar as "God has given my hire" (Genesis
30, 18) with a play upon the element _se_char, and as though the
name 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 conquest
of two hemispheres, or what not. [59] The element Gil in Gilgamesh
would be regarded as a contraction of Gish-bil or gi-bil, in order
to furnish the meaning "father-hero," or Gil might be looked upon
as a variant for Gish, which would give us the "phonetic" form in
the Assyrian version dGish-gi-mash, [60] as well as such a variant
writing dGish-gi-mas-(si). Now a name like Gilgamesh, upon which we
may definitely settle as coming closest to the genuine form, certainly
impresses one as foreign, i.e., it is neither Sumerian nor Akkadian;
and we have already suggested that the circumstance that the hero of
the Epic is portrayed as a conqueror of Erech, and a rather ruthless
one at that, points to a tradition of an invasion of the Euphrates
Valley as the background for the episode in the first tablet of the
series. 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 founder
of the "mythical" dynasty of Erech of which dGish-bil-ga-mesh is
the 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 as
En-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 Amoritic
in appearance, that one may hazard the conjecture of their western
origin. May Gilgamesh likewise belong to the Amurru [65] region, or
does he represent a foreigner from the East in contrast to Enkidu,
whose name, we have seen, may have been Baal-Tôb in the West, with
which region he is according to the Epic so familiar? It must be
confessed that the second element _ga-mesh_ would fit in well with
a Semitic origin for the name, for the element impresses one as
the participial form of a Semitic stem G-M-S, just as in the second
element of Meskin-gaser we have such a form. Gil might then be the
name of a West-Semitic deity. Such conjectures, however, can for the
present not be substantiated, and we must content ourselves with the
conclusion that Gilgamesh as the real name of the hero, or at least
the form which comes closest to the real name, points to a foreign
origin for the hero, and that such forms as dGish-bil-ga-mesh and
dGish-bíl-gi-mesh and other variants are "Sumerianized" forms for which
an 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 version
of the Epic, Gilgamesh was converted into a Sumerian figure, just as
the name Enkidu may have been introduced as a Sumerian translation
of his Amoritic name. dGish at all events is an abbreviated form of
the "Sumerianized" name, introduced by the compilers of the earliest
Akkadian version, which was produced naturally under the influence
of the Sumerian version. Later, as the Epic continued to grow, a
phonetic writing was introduced, dGish-gi-mash, which is in a measure
a 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 character
of the two main figures of the Epic, one of the chief points of
interest in the Pennsylvania fragment is the proof that it furnishes
for a striking resemblance of the two heroes, Gish and Enkidu, to one
another. In interpreting the dream of Gish, his mother. Ninsun, lays
stress upon the fact that the dream portends the coming of someone
who is like Gish, "born in the field and reared in the mountain"
(lines 18-19). Both, therefore, are shown by this description to
have come to Babylonia from a mountainous region, i.e., they are
foreigners; and in the case of Enkidu we have seen that the mountain
in all probability refers to a region in the West, while the same may
also be the case with Gish. The resemblance of the two heroes to one
another extends to their personal appearance. When Enkidu appears on
the streets of Erech, the people are struck by this resemblance. They
remark that he is "like Gish," though "shorter in stature" (lines
179-180). Enkidu is described as a rival or counterpart. [66]