the main point of value for us in the Babylonian story of Enkidu
and the woman is the proof furnished by the analysis, made possible
through the Pennsylvania tablet, that the tale can be separated
from its subsequent connection with Gilgamesh. We can continue this
process of separation in the fourth column, where the woman instructs
Enkidu in the further duty of living his life with the woman decreed
for him, to raise a family, to engage in work, to build cities and
to gather resources. All this is looked upon in the same optimistic
spirit as marking progress, whereas the Biblical writer, consistent
with his point of view, looks upon work as a curse, and makes Cain,
the murderer, also the founder of cities. The step to the higher
forms of life is not an advance according to the J document. It is
interesting to note that even the phrase the "cursed ground" occurs
in both the Babylonian and Biblical tales; but whereas in the latter
(Gen. 3, 17) it is because of the hard work entailed in raising the
products of the earth that the ground is cursed, in the former (lines
62-63) it is the place in which Enkidu lives _before_ he advances to
the dignity of human life that is "cursed," and which he is asked
to leave. Adam is expelled from Paradise as a punishment, whereas
Enkidu is implored to leave it as a necessary step towards _progress_
to a higher form of existence. The contrast between the Babylonian
and the Biblical writer extends to the view taken of viniculture. The
Biblical writer (again the J document) looks upon Noah's drunkenness
as a disgrace. Noah loses his sense of shame and uncovers himself
(Genesis 9, 21), whereas in the Babylonian description Enkidu's jolly
spirit after he has drunk seven jars of wine meets with approval. The
Biblical 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 import
of the episode of Enkidu with the woman is correct, we may again
regard lines 149-153 of the Pennsylvania tablet, in which Gilgamesh
is introduced, as a later addition to bring the two heroes into
association. The episode in its original form ended with the
introduction of Enkidu first to pastoral life, and then to the still
higher city life with regulated forms of social existence.
Now, to be sure, this Enkidu has little in common with the Enkidu
who is described as a powerful warrior, a Hercules, who kills lions,
overcomes the giant Huwawa, and dispatches a great bull, but it is
the nature of folklore everywhere to attach to traditions about
a favorite hero all kinds of tales with which originally he had
nothing to do. Enkidu, as such a favorite, is viewed also as the
type of primitive man, [111] and so there arose gradually an Epic
which began with his birth, pictured him as half-animal half-man,
told how he emerged from this state, how he became civilized, was
clothed, learned to eat food and drink wine, how he shaved off the
hair 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 to
the work of building, and to laying aside supplies, and the like. The
fully-developed and full-fledged hero then engages in various exploits,
of which _some_ are now embodied in the Gilgamesh Epic. Who this Enkidu
was, we are not in a position to determine, but the suggestion has
been thrown out above that he is a personage foreign to Babylonia,
that his home appears to be in the undefined Amurru district, and
that he conquers that district. The original tale of Enkidu, if this
view be correct, must therefore have been carried to the Euphrates
Valley, at a very remote period, with one of the migratory waves that
brought a western people as invaders into Babylonia. Here the tale
was combined with stories current of another hero, Gilgamesh--perhaps
also of Western origin--whose conquest of Erech likewise represents
an 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. In
such a combination, the aim would be to utilize all the incidents of
_both_ tales. The woman who accompanies Enkidu, therefore, becomes
the medium of bringing the two heroes together. The story of the
evolution of primitive man to civilized life is transformed into the
tale of Enkidu's removal to Erech, and elaborated with all kinds of
details, among which we have, as perhaps embodying a genuine historical
tradition, the encounter of the two heroes.
Before passing on, we have merely to note the very large part taken
in both the old Babylonian and the Assyrian version by the struggle
against Huwawa. The entire Yale tablet--forming, as we have seen,
the third of the series--is taken up with the preparation for the
struggle, and with the repeated warnings given to Gilgamesh against
the dangerous undertaking. The fourth tablet must have recounted the
struggle itself, and it is not improbable that this episode extended
into the fifth tablet, since in the Assyrian version this is the
case. The elaboration of the story is in itself an argument in favor
of assuming some historical background for it--the recollection of
the conquest of Amurru by some powerful warrior; and we have seen
that 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 the
real hero of the most notable episode in the Gilgamesh Epic; if,
furthermore, Enkidu is the Hercules who kills lions and dispatches
the bull sent by an enraged goddess, what becomes of Gilgamesh? What
is left for him?
In the first place, he is definitely the conqueror of Erech. He builds
the wall of Erech, [114] and we may assume that the designation of
the city as _Uruk supûri_, "the walled Erech," [115] rests upon this
tradition. He is also associated with the great temple Eanna, "the
heavenly house," in Erech. To Gilgamesh belongs also the unenviable
tradition of having exercised his rule in Erech so harshly that the
people are impelled to implore Aruru to create a rival who may rid
the district of the cruel tyrant, who is described as snatching sons
and daughters from their families, and in other ways terrifying the
population--an early example of "Schrecklichkeit." Tablets II to
V inclusive of the Assyrian version being taken up with the Huwawa
episode, modified with a view of bringing the two heroes together,
we come at once to the sixth tablet, which tells the story of how
the goddess Ishtar wooed Gilgamesh, and of the latter's rejection
of her advances. This tale is distinctly a nature myth. The attempt
of Gressmann [116] to find some historical background to the episode
is a failure. The goddess Ishtar symbolizes the earth which woos the
sun in the spring, but whose love is fatal, for after a few months
the sun's power begins to wane. Gilgamesh, who in incantation hymns
is 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 at
Gilgamesh's insult to her vanity, she flies to her father Anu and cries
for revenge. At this point the episode of the creation of the bull is
introduced, but if the analysis above given is correct it is Enkidu
who is the hero in dispatching the bull, and we must assume that the
sickness with which Gilgamesh is smitten is the punishment sent by Anu
to avenge the insult to his daughter. This sickness symbolizes the
waning strength of the sun after midsummer is past. The sun recedes
from the earth, and this was pictured in the myth as the sun-god's
rejection of Ishtar; Gilgamesh's fear of death marks the approach
of the winter season, when the sun appears to have lost its vigor
completely and is near to death. The entire episode is, therefore,
a nature myth, symbolical of the passing of spring to midsummer and
then to the bare season. The myth has been attached to Gilgamesh as
a favorite figure, and then woven into a pattern with the episode
of Enkidu and the bull. The bull episode can be detached from the
nature myth without any loss to the symbolism of the tale of Ishtar
and Gilgamesh.
As already suggested, with Enkidu's death after this conquest
of the bull the original Enkidu Epic came to an end. In order to
connect Gilgamesh with Enkidu, the former is represented as sharing
in the struggle against the bull. Enkidu is punished with death,
while Gilgamesh is smitten with disease. Since both shared equally
in the guilt, the punishment should have been the same for both. The
differentiation may be taken as an indication that Gilgamesh's disease
has nothing to do with the bull episode, but is merely part of the
nature myth.
Gilgamesh now begins a series of wanderings in search of
the restoration of his vigor, and this _motif_ is evidently a
continuation of the nature myth to symbolize the sun's wanderings
during the dark winter in the hope of renewed vigor with the coming
of the spring. Professor Haupt's view is that the disease from which
Gilgamesh is supposed to be suffering is of a venereal character,
affecting the organs of reproduction. This would confirm the position
here taken that the myth symbolizes the loss of the sun's vigor. The
sun's rays are no longer strong enough to fertilize the earth. In
accord with this, Gilgamesh's search for healing leads him to the
dark regions [118] in which the scorpion-men dwell. The terrors of
the region symbolize the gloom of the winter season. At last Gilgamesh
reaches a region of light again, described as a landscape situated at
the sea. The maiden in control of this region bolts the gate against
Gilgamesh's approach, but the latter forces his entrance. It is the
picture of the sun-god bursting through the darkness, to emerge as
the youthful reinvigorated sun-god of the spring.
Now with the tendency to attach to popular tales and nature myths
lessons illustrative of current beliefs and aspirations, Gilgamesh's
search for renewal of life is viewed as man's longing for eternal
life. The sun-god's waning power after midsummer is past suggests
man's growing weakness after the meridian of life has been left
behind. Winter is death, and man longs to escape it. Gilgamesh's
wanderings are used as illustration of this longing, and accordingly
the search for life becomes also the quest for immortality. Can the
precious boon of eternal life be achieved? Popular fancy created
the figure of a favorite of the gods who had escaped a destructive
deluge in which all mankind had perished. [119] Gilgamesh hears of
this favorite and determines to seek him out and learn from him the
secret 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 finds
himself in the presence of the survivor of the Deluge who, although
human, enjoys immortal life among the gods. He asks the survivor
how he came to escape the common fate of mankind, and in reply
Utnapishtim tells the story of the catastrophe that brought about
universal destruction. The moral of the tale is obvious. Only those
singled out by the special favor of the gods can hope to be removed
to the distant "source of the streams" and live forever. The rest of
mankind must face death as the end of life.
That the story of the Deluge is told in the eleventh tablet of the
series, corresponding to the eleventh month, known as the month of
"rain curse" [120] and marking the height of the rainy season, may
be intentional, just as it may not be accidental that Gilgamesh's
rejection of Ishtar is recounted in the sixth tablet, corresponding to
the sixth month, [121] which marks the end of the summer season. The
two tales may have formed part of a cycle of myths, distributed
among the months of the year. The Gilgamesh Epic, however, does
not form such a cycle. Both myths have been artificially attached
to the adventures of the hero. For the deluge story we now have the
definite proof for its independent existence, through Dr. Poebel's
publication of a Sumerian text which embodies the tale, [122] and
without any reference to Gilgamesh. Similarly, Scheil and Hilprecht
have published fragments of deluge stories written in Akkadian and
likewise 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 has
the power of restoring old age to youth. Utnapishtim, the survivor of
the deluge, is moved through pity for Gilgamesh, worn out by his long
wanderings. At the request of his wife, Utnapishtim decides to tell
Gilgamesh of this plant, and he succeeds in finding it. He plucks it
and 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 along
and snatches the plant from him, and he is forced to return to Erech
with 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 Gilgamesh
Epic is of a purely didactic character, bearing evidence of having
been added as a further illustration of the current belief that there
is no escape from the nether world to which all must go after life has
come to an end. Proper burial and suitable care of the dead represent
all that can be done in order to secure a fairly comfortable rest for
those who have passed out of this world. Enkidu is once more introduced
into this episode. His shade is invoked by Gilgamesh and rises up out
of 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 historical
Gilgamesh has clearly no connection with the figure introduced into
this twelfth tablet. Indeed, as already suggested, the Gilgamesh Epic
must have ended with the return to Erech, as related at the close of
the eleventh tablet. The twelfth tablet was added by some school-men of
Babylonia (or perhaps of Assyria), purely for the purpose of conveying
a summary of the teachings in regard to the fate of the dead. Whether
these six episodes covering the sixth to the twelfth tablets, (1) the
nature myth, (2) the killing of the divine bull, (3) the punishment
of Gilgamesh and the death of Enkidu, (4) Gilgamesh's wanderings,
(5) the Deluge, (6) the search for immortality, were all included
at the time that the old Babylonian version was compiled cannot, of
course, be determined until we have that version in a more complete
form. Since the two tablets thus far recovered show that as early as
2000 B.C. the Enkidu tale had already been amalgamated with the current
stories about Gilgamesh, and the endeavor made to transfer the traits
of the former to the latter, it is eminently likely that the story of
Ishtar's unhappy love adventure with Gilgamesh was included, as well
as Gilgamesh's punishment and the death of Enkidu. With the evidence
furnished by Meissner's fragment of a version of the old Babylonian
revision and by our two tablets, of the early disposition to make
popular tales the medium of illustrating current beliefs and the
teachings of the temple schools, it may furthermore be concluded that
the death of Enkidu and the punishment of Gilgamesh were utilized for
didactic purposes in the old Babylonian version. On the other hand,
the proof for the existence of the deluge story in the Hammurabi
period and some centuries later, _independent_ of any connection
with the Gilgamesh Epic, raises the question whether in the old
Babylonian version, of which our two tablets form a part, the deluge
tale was already woven into the pattern of the Epic. At all events,
till proof to the contrary is forthcoming, we may assume that the
twelfth tablet of the Assyrian version, though also reverting to a
Babylonian original, dates as the _latest_ addition to the Epic from
a period subsequent to 2000 B.C.; and that the same is probably the
case with the eleventh tablet.
IX.
To sum up, there are four main currents that flow together in the
Gilgamesh Epic even in its old Babylonian form: (1) the adventures of
a mighty warrior Enkidu, resting perhaps on a faint tradition of the
conquest of Amurru by the hero; (2) the more definite recollection
of the exploits of a foreign invader of Babylonia by the name of
Gilgamesh, whose home appears likewise to have been in the West; [124]
(3) nature myths and didactic tales transferred to Enkidu and Gilgamesh
as popular figures; and (4) the process of weaving the traditions,
exploits, myths and didactic tales together, in the course of which
process Gilgamesh becomes the main hero, and Enkidu his companion.
Furthermore, our investigation has shown that to Enkidu belongs the
episode with the woman, used to illustrate the evolution of primitive
man to the ways and conditions of civilized life, the conquest of
Huwawa in the land of Amurru, the killing of lions and also of the
bull, while Gilgamesh is the hero who conquers Erech. Identified with
the sun-god, the nature myth of the union of the sun with the earth and
the subsequent separation of the two is also transferred to him. The
wanderings of the hero, smitten with disease, are a continuation of
the nature myth, symbolizing the waning vigor of the sun with the
approach of the wintry season.
The details of the process which led to making Gilgamesh the favorite
figure, to whom the traits and exploits of Enkidu and of the sun-god
are transferred, escape us, but of the fact that Enkidu is the _older_
figure, of whom certain adventures were set forth in a tale that
once had an independent existence, there can now be little doubt in
the face of the evidence furnished by the two tablets of the old
Babylonian version; just as the study of these tablets shows that
in the combination of the tales of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, the former
is the prototype of which Gilgamesh is the copy. If the two are
regarded as brothers, as born in the same place, even resembling one
another 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 to
relieve Erech of its tyrannical ruler is also shown by the fact that
Gilgamesh remains in control of Erech. It is to Erech that he returns
when he fails of his purpose to learn the secret of escape from old
age and death. Erech is, therefore, not relieved of the presence of
the ruthless ruler through Enkidu. The "Man of Anu" formed by Aruru
as a deliverer is confused in the course of the growth of the Epic
with Enkidu, the offspring of Ninib, and in this way we obtain the
strange contradiction of Enkidu and Gilgamesh appearing first as bitter
rivals and then as close and inseparable friends. It is of the nature
of Epic compositions everywhere to eliminate unnecessary figures by
concentrating on one favorite the traits belonging to another or to
several others.
The close association of Enkidu and Gilgamesh which becomes one of
the striking features in the combination of the tales of these two
heroes naturally recalls the "Heavenly Twins" _motif_, which has been
so fully and so suggestively treated by Professor J. Rendell Harris
in his _Cult of the Heavenly Twins_, (London, 1906). Professor Harris
has conclusively shown how widespread the tendency is to associate
two divine or semi-divine beings in myths and legends as inseparable
companions [125] or twins, like Castor and Pollux, Romulus and Remus,
[126] the Acvins in the Rig-Veda, [127] Cain and Abel, Jacob and
Esau in the Old Testament, the Kabiri of the Phoenicians, [128]
Herakles and Iphikles in Greek mythology, Ambrica and Fidelio in
Teutonic mythology, Patollo and Potrimpo in old Prussian mythology,
Cautes and Cautopates in Mithraism, Jesus and Thomas (according to
the Syriac Acts of Thomas), and the various illustrations of "Dioscuri
in Christian Legends," set forth by Dr. Harris in his work under this
title, which carries the _motif_ far down into the period of legends
about Christian Saints who appear in pairs, including the reference
to 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-Gilgamesh
may represent a Babylonian counterpart to the "Heavenly Twins." In
the Indo-Iranian, Greek and Roman mythology, the twins almost
invariably act together. In unison they proceed on expeditions to
punish enemies. [129]
But after all, the parallels are of too general a character to be of
much moment; and moreover the parallels stop short at the critical
point, 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. Even
the trait which is frequent in the earliest forms of the "Heavenly
Twins," according to which one is immortal and the other is mortal,
though applying in a measure to Enkidu who is killed by Ishtar, while
Gilgamesh the offspring of a divine pair is only smitten with disease,
is too unsubstantial to warrant more than a general comparison between
the Enkidu-Gilgamesh pair and the various forms of the "twin" _motif_
found throughout the ancient world. For all that, the point is of some
interest that in the Gilgamesh Epic we should encounter two figures who
are portrayed as possessing the same traits and accomplishing feats in
common, which suggest a partial parallel to the various forms in which
the twin-_motif_ appears in the mythologies, folk-lore and legends
of many nations; and it may be that in some of these instances the
duplication is due, as in the case of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, to an
actual transfer of the traits of one figure to another who usurped
his place.
X.
In concluding this study of the two recently discovered tablets of
the old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic which has brought us
several steps further in the interpretation and in our understanding
of the method of composition of the most notable literary production
of 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 names
of the chief figures appear in the old Babylonian version, dGish as
against dGish-gì(n)-mash, dEn-ki-du as against dEn-ki-dú, Hu-wa-wa
as against Hu(m)-ba-ba. Erech appears as _Uruk ribîtim_, "Erech of
the Plazas," as against _Uruk supûri_, "walled Erech" (or "Erech
within the walls"), in the Assyrian version. [130] These variations
point to an _independent_ recension for the Assyrian revision; and
this conclusion is confirmed by a comparison of parallel passages in
our two tablets with the Assyrian version, for such parallels rarely
extend to verbal agreements in details, and, moreover, show that the
Assyrian version has been elaborated.
Beginning with the Pennsylvania tablet, column I is covered in the
Assyrian version by tablet I, 5, 25, to 6, 33, though, as pointed out
above, in the Assyrian version we have the anticipation of the dreams
of Gilgamesh and their interpretation through their recital to Enkidu
by his female companion, whereas in the old Babylonian version we
have the dreams _directly_ given in a conversation between Gilgamesh
and his mother. In the anticipation, there would naturally be some
omissions. So lines 4-5 and 12-13 of the Pennsylvania tablet do not
appear 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."