Lines 38-40, completing the column, may be supplied from the a.s.syrian version I, 6, 30-32, in conjunction with lines 33-34 of our text. The beginning of line 32 in Jensen's version is therefore to be filled out _[ta-ra-am-su 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 of the a.s.syrian 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-sa.

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

Lines 46-47 form a parallel to I, 4, 21, of the a.s.syrian version. The form _samkatu_, "courtesan," is constant in the old Babylonian version (ll. 135 and 172), as against _samhatu_ in the a.s.syrian 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 the a.s.sumption that the Enkidu story has been combined with a tale of the evolution of primitive man to civilized life, it is reasonable to suggest that in the original Enkidu story the female companion was called _samkatu_, "courtesan," whereas in the tale of the primitive man, which was transferred to Enkidu, the a.s.sociate was _harimtu_, a "woman," just as in the Genesis tale, the companion of Adam is simply called _ishsha_, "woman." Note that in the a.s.syrian 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 a.s.syrian version I, 4, 33-38, with slight variations which have been discussed above, p. 58, and from which we may conclude that the a.s.syrian version represents an independent redaction. Since in our tablet we have presumably the repet.i.tion of what may have been in part at least set forth in the first tablet of the old Babylonian version, we must not press the parallelism with the first tablet of the a.s.syrian version too far; but it is noticeable nevertheless (1) that our tablet contains lines 57-58 which are not represented in the a.s.syrian version, and (2) that the second speech of the "woman" beginning, line 62, with _al-ka_, "come" (just as the first speech, line 54), is likewise not found in the first tablet of the a.s.syrian version; which on the other hand contains a line (39) not in the Babylonian version, besides the 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 also not found in the second tablet of the old Babylonian version.

Line 63. For _magr_, "accursed," see the frequent use in Astrological texts (Jastrow, _Religion Babyloniens und a.s.syriens_ II, page 450, note 2). Langdon, by his strange error in separating _ma-a-ag-ri-im_ into two words _ma-a-ak_ and _ri-i-im_, with a still stranger rendering: "unto the place yonder of the shepherds!!", naturally misses the point of this important speech.

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

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

Line 72. The restoration "like a G.o.d" is favored by line 51, where Enkidu is likened to a G.o.d, and is further confirmed by l. 190.

Line 73. _gupru_ is identical with _gu-up-ri_ (Thompson, _Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers_, etc., 223 rev. 2 and 223a rev. 8), and must be correlated to _giparu_ (Muss-Arnolt, _a.s.syrian Dictionary_, p. 229a), "planted field," "meadow," and the like. Thompson's translation "men" (as though a synonym of _gabru_) is to be corrected accordingly.

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

Line 75. _ri-ia-u_, which Langdon renders "shepherd," is the equivalent of the Arabic _ri'y_ and Hebrew RE`IY "pasturage,"

"fodder." We have usually the feminine form _ri-i-tu_ (Muss-Arnolt, _a.s.syrian Dictionary_, p. 990b). The break at the end of the second column is not serious. Evidently Enkidu, still accustomed to live like an animal, is first led to the sheepfolds, and this suggests a repet.i.tion of the description of his former life. Of the four or five lines missing, we may conjecturally restore four, on the basis of the a.s.syrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2-5, or I, 2, 39-41. This would then join on well to the beginning of column 3.

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

Line 93. _zi-ma-at_ (for _simat_) _ba-la-ti-im_ is not "conformity of life" as Langdon renders, but that which "belongs to life" like _si-mat pag-ri-sa_, "belonging to her body," in the a.s.syrian 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 fate of the land" rests upon an erroneous reading (see the corrections, Appendix I), which is the more inexcusable because in line 97 the same ideogram, Kas = _sikaru_, "wine," occurs, and is correctly rendered by him. _Simti mati_ is not the "fate of the land," but the "fixed custom of the land."

Line 98. _as-sa-mi-im_ (plural of _a.s.samu_), which Langdon takes as an 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, _me a-sa-am-mi-e su-puk_, "pour out goblets of water." Line 18 of the pa.s.sage shoves that _asammu_ is a Sumerian loan word.

Line 99. _it-tap-sar_, I, 2, from _pasaru_, "loosen." In combination with _kabtatum_ (from _kabitatum_, yielding two forms: _kabtatum_, by elision of _i_, and _kabittu_, by elision of _a_), "liver," _pasaru_ 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 the standing phrase in penitential prayers: "May thy liver be appeased, thy heart be quieted."

Line 102. The restoration [luSu]-I = _gallabu_ "barber" (Delitzsch, _Sumer. Glossar_, p. 267) was suggested to me by Dr. H. F. Lutz. The ideographic writing "raising the hand" is interesting as recalling the gesture 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," and has 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 specifically hair of the head and face, see Holma, _Namen der Korperteile_, page 3. The same sign Suhur or Suh (Brunnow No. 8615), with Lal, i.e., "hanging hair," designates the "beard" (_ziknu_, cf. Brunnow, No. 8620, and Holma, l. c., p. 36), and it is interesting to note that we have _suhuru_ (introduced as a loan-word) for the barbershop, according to II R, 21, 27c (= _CT_ XII, 41).

e suhur(ra) (i.e., house of the hair) = _su-hu-ru_.

In view of all this, we may regard as a.s.sured Holma's conjecture to read _su-[hur-ma-su]_ in the list 93074 obv. (_MVAG_ 1904, p. 203; and Holma, _Beitrage z. a.s.syr. Lexikon_, p. 36), as the Akkadian equivalent to Suhur-Mas-Ha and the name of a fish, so called because it appeared to have a double "beard" (cf. Holma, _Namen der Korperteile_). One is tempted, furthermore, to see in the difficult word SKYRH (Isaiah 7, 20) a loan-word from our _suhuru_, and to take the words 'ETHORO'S VESA`AR HORAGELAYIM "the head and hair of the feet" (euphemistic for the hair around the privates), as an explanatory gloss to the rare word Skyrh for "hair" of the body in general--just as in the pa.s.sage in 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 would represent a series of explanatory glosses: (a) "Beyond the river"

(i.e., a.s.syria), a gloss to YEGALAH (b) "with the king of a.s.syria,"

a gloss to BETA`AR "with a razor;" and (c) "the hair of the head and hair of the feet," a gloss to HSKYRH. For "hair of the feet" we have an interesting equivalent in Babylonian _su-hur_ (and _su-hu-ur_) _sepi_ (_CT_ XII, 41, 23-24 c-d). Cf. also Boissier, _Doc.u.ments a.s.syriens relatifs aux Presages_, p. 258, 4-5. The Babylonian phrase is like the Hebrew one to be interpreted as a euphemism for the hair around the male or female organ. To be sure, the change from H to K in HSKYRH const.i.tutes an objection, but not a serious one in the case of a loan-word, which would aim to give the _p.r.o.nunciation_ of the original word, rather than the correct etymological equivalent. The writing with aspirated K fulfills this condition. (Cf. _samkatum_ and _samhatum_, above p. 73). The pa.s.sage in Isaiah being a reference to a.s.syria, the prophet might be tempted to use a foreign word to make his point more emphatic. To take HSKYRH as "hired," as has. .h.i.therto been done, and to translate "with a hired razor," is not only to suppose a very wooden metaphor, but is grammatically difficult, since HSKYRH would be a feminine adjective attached to a masculine substantive.

Coming back to our pa.s.sage in the Pennsylvania tablet, it is to be noted that Enkidu is described as covered "all over his body with hair"

(a.s.syrian version, Tablet I, 2, 36) like an animal. To convert him into 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 Langdon has it. The verb _u-gi-ir-ri_ is from _garu_, "to attack." Langdon by separating _u_ from _gi-ir-ri_ gets a totally wrong and indeed absurd meaning. See the corrections in the Appendix. He takes the sign _u_ for the copula (!!) which of course is impossible.

Line 110. Read _us-sa-ak-pu_, III, 1, of _sakapu_, which is frequently used for "lying down" and is in fact a synonym of _salalu_. See Muss-Arnolt, _a.s.syrian Dictionary_, page 758a. The original has very clearly Sib (= _re'u_, "shepherd") with the plural sign. The "shepherds of the night," who could now rest since Enkidu had killed the lions, are of course the shepherds who were accustomed to watch the flocks during the night.

Line 111. _ut-tap-pi-is_ is II, 2, _napasu_, "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 cylinders depicting Enkidu killing lions and other animals the hero is armed with a dagger, this is presumably the weapon _sibbaru_.

Line 113. Langdon's translation is again out of the question and purely 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'alu_, "lie down"--a synonym, therefore, to _sakapu_ in line 110. The shepherds can sleep quietly after Enkidu has become the "guardian" of the flocks. In the a.s.syrian version (tablet II, 3a, 4) Enkidu is called a _na-kid_, "shepherd," and in the preceding line we likewise have luNa-Kid with the plural sign, i.e., "shepherds." This would point to _nakidu_ being a Sumerian loan-word, unless it is _vice versa_, a word that has gone over into the Sumerian from Akkadian. Is perhaps the fragment in question (K 8574) in the a.s.syrian version (Haupt's ed. No. 25) the _parallel_ to our pa.s.sage? If in line 4 of this fragment we could read _su_ for _sa_, i.e., _na-kid-su-nu_, "their shepherd, we would have a parallel to line 114 of the Pennsylvania tablet, with _na-kid_ as a synonym to _ma.s.saru_, "protector." The preceding line would then be 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) and would correspond to line 113 of the Pennsylvania tablet. Inasmuch as the writing on the tiny fragment is very much blurred, it is quite possible that in line 2 we must read _sib-ba-ri_ (instead of _bar-ba-ri_), which would furnish a parallel to line 111 of the Pennsylvania tablet. The difference between Bar and Sib is slight, and the one sign might easily be mistaken for the other in the case of close writing. The continuation of line 2 of the fragment would then correspond to line 112 of the Pennsylvania tablet, while line 1 of the fragment might be completed _[re-e]-u-ti(?) sa [mu-si-a-tim]_, though this is by no means certain.

The break at the close of column 3 (about 5 lines) and the top of column 4 (about 8 lines) is a most serious interruption in the narrative, and makes it difficult to pick up the thread where the tablet again becomes readable. We cannot be certain whether the "strong man, the unique hero" who addresses some one (lines 115-117) is Enkidu or Gish or some other personage, but presumably Gish is meant. In the a.s.syrian version, Tablet I, 3, 2 and 29, we find Gilgamesh described as the "unique hero" and in l. 234 of the Pennsylvania tablet Gish is called "unique," while again, in the a.s.syrian version, Tablet I, 2, 15 and 26, he is designated as _gasru_ as in our text. a.s.suming this, whom does he address? Perhaps the shepherds? In either case he receives an answer that rejoices him. If the fragment of the a.s.syrian version (K 8574) above discussed is the equivalent to the close of column 3 of the Pennsylvania tablet, we may go one step further, and with some measure of a.s.surance a.s.sume that Gish is told of Enkidu's exploits and that the latter is approaching Erech. This pleases Gish, but Enkidu when he sees Gish(?) is stirred to anger and wants to annihilate him. At this point, the "man" (who is probably Gish, though the possibility of a third personage must be admitted) intervenes and in a long speech sets forth the destiny and higher aims of mankind. The contrast between Enkidu and Gish (or the third party) is that between the primitive savage and the civilized being. The contrast is put in the form of an opposition between the two. The primitive man is the stronger and wishes to destroy the one whom he regards as a natural foe and rival. On the other hand, the one who stands on a higher plane wants to lift his fellow up. The whole of column 4, therefore, forms part of the lesson attached to the story of Enkidu, who, identified with man in a primitive stage, is made the medium of ill.u.s.trating how the higher plane is reached through the guiding 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," as Langdon (who entirely misses the point of the whole pa.s.sage) renders, but on the contrary, "lure him on," "entrap him," and the like. The verb occurs also in the Yale tablet, ll. 183 and 186.

Line 137. Langdon's note to _lu-us-su_ had better be pa.s.sed over in silence. The form is II. 1, from _es_, "destroy."

Line 139. Since the man whom the woman calls approaches Enkidu, the subject 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 purely fanciful. _E-di-il_ cannot, of course, be a "phonetic variant"

of _edir_; and certainly the line does not describe the state of mind of the woman. Lines 140-141 are to be taken as an expression of amazement at Enkidu's appearance. The first word appears to be an imperative in the sense of "Be off," "Away," from _dalu_, "move, roam." The second word _e-es_, "why," occurs with the same verb _dalu_ in the Meissner fragment: _e-es ta-da-al_ (column 3, 1), "why dost thou roam about?" The verb at the end of the line may perhaps be completed to _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_. _Tahil_ would be the second person present of _hilu_. Cf. _i-hi-il_, frequently in 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 of what Langdon proposes, which gives no sense whatever. _Manahtu_ in the sense of the "toil" and "activity of life" (like `OMOL throughout the Book of Ecclesiastes) occurs in the introductory lines to the a.s.syrian 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 Langdon supposes, for the text in that case, e.g., line 49, would have said _pi-sa_ ("her mouth") not _pi-su_ ("his mouth"). The long speech, detailing the function and destiny of civilized man, is placed in the mouth of the man who meets Enkidu.

In the Introduction it has been pointed out that lines 149 and 151 of the speech appear to be due to later modifications of the speech designed to connect the episode with Gish. a.s.suming this to be the case, the speech sets forth the following five distinct aims of human 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 all time 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 _biti sa e-mu-ti_, just as _kab-lu-us Ti-a-ma-ti_ (a.s.syrian Creation Myth, IV, 65) stands for _kablu sa Tiamti_. Cf. _bit e-mu-ti_ (a.s.syrian version, IV, 2, 46 and 48). The end of the line is lost beyond recovery, but the general sense is clear.