Line 146. _tu-a-ar_ is a possible reading. It may be the construct of _tu-a-ru_, of frequent occurrence in legal texts and having some such meaning as "right," "claim" or "prerogative." See the pa.s.sages given by Muss-Arnolt, _a.s.syrian Dictionary_, p. 1139b.

Line 148. The reading _uk-la-at_, "food," and then in the wider sense "food supply," "provisions," is quite certain. The fourth sign looks 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, as giving the advice to gather resources. It fits in with the Babylonian outlook on life to regard work and wealth as the fruits of work and as a proper purpose in life.

Line 150 (repeated lines 152-153) is a puzzling line. To render _piti pk epsi_ (or _episi_), as Langdon proposes, "open, addressing thy speech," is philologically and in every other respect inadmissible. The word _pu-uk_ (which Langdon takes for "thy mouth"!!) can, of course, be nothing but the construct form of _pukku_, which occurs in the a.s.syrian version in the sense of "net" (_pu-uk-ku_ I, 2, 9 and 21, and also in the colophon to the eleventh tablet furnishing the beginning of the twelfth tablet (Haupt's edition No. 56), as well as in column 2, 29, and column 3, 6, of this twelfth tablet). In the two last named pa.s.sages _pukku_ is a synonym of _mek_, which from the general meaning of "enclosure" comes to be a euphemistic expression for the female organ. So, for example, in the a.s.syrian Creation Myth, Tablet IV, 66 (synonym of _kablu_, "waist," etc.). See Holma, _Namen der Korperteile_, page 158. Our word _pukku_ must be taken in this same sense as a designation of the female organ--perhaps more specifically the "hymen" as the "net," though the womb in general might also be designated as a "net" or "enclosure." _Kak-(si)_ is no doubt to be read _epsi_, as Langdon correctly saw; or perhaps better, _episi_. An expression like _ip-si-su lul-la-a_ (a.s.syrian version, I, 4, 13; also line 19, _i-pu-us-su-ma lul-la-a_), with the explanation _sipir zinnisti_, "the work of woman" (i.e., after the fashion of woman), shows that _epesu_ is used in connection with the s.e.xual act. The phrase _piti pk episi a-na ha-a-a-ri_, literally "open the net, perform the act for marriage," therefore designates the fulfillment of the marriage act, and the line is intended to point to marriage with the accompanying s.e.xual intercourse as one of the duties of man. While the general meaning is thus clear, the introduction of Gish is puzzling, except on the supposition that lines 149 and 151 represent later additions to connect the speech, detailing the advance to civilized life, with the hero. See above, p. 45 _seq._

Line 154. _a.s.sat simatim_ is the "legitimate wife," and the line inculcates monogamy as against promiscuous s.e.xual intercourse. We know that monogamy was the rule in Babylonia, though a man could in addition to the wife recognized as the legalized spouse take a concubine, or his wife could give her husband a slave as a concubine. Even in that case, according to the Hammurabi Code, ----145-146, the wife retained her status. The Code throughout a.s.sumes that a man has only _one_ wife--the _a.s.sat simatim_ of our text. The phrase "so" (or "that") before "as afterwards" is to be taken as an idiomatic expression--"so it was and so it should be for all times"--somewhat like the phrase _mahriam u arkiam_, "for all times," in legal doc.u.ments (_CT_ VIII, 38c, 22-23). For the use of _mk_ see Behrens, _a.s.syrisch-Babylonische Briefe_, p. 3.

Line 158. _i-na bi-ti-ik a-bu-un-na-ti-su_. Another puzzling line, for which Langdon proposes "in the work of his presence," which is as obscure as the original. In a note he says that _apunnati_ means "nostrils," which is certainly wrong. There has been considerable discussion about this term (see Holma, _Namen der Korperteile_, pages 150 and 157), the meaning of which has been advanced by Christian's discussion in _OLZ_ 1914, p. 397. From this it appears that it must designate a part of the body which could acquire a wider significance so as to be used as a synonym for "totality," since it appears 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 that it may be the "navel," which could well acquire a wider significance for the body in general; but we may go a step further and specify the "umbilical cord" (tentatively suggested also by Christian) as the primary meaning, then the "navel," and from this the "body" in general. The structure of the umbilical cord as a series of strands would account for designating it by a plural form _abunnati_, as also for the fact that one could speak of a right and left side of the _appunnati_. 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 the former, while for the latter Li Dur was employed, though the reading in Akkadian in both cases was the same. The expression "with (or at) the cutting of his umbilical cord" would mean, therefore, "from his birth"--since the cutting of the cord which united the child with the mother marks the beginning of the separate life. Lines 158-159, therefore, in concluding the address to Enkidu, emphasize in a picturesque way that what has been set forth is man's fate for which he has been destined from birth. [See now Albright's remarks on _abunnatu_ in the Revue d'a.s.syriologie 16, pp. 173-175, with whose conclusion, 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, and of about six at the beginning of column 5, there must have been set forth the effect of the address on Enkidu and the indication of his readiness to accept the advice; as in a former pa.s.sage (line 64), Enkidu showed himself willing to follow the woman. At all events the two now proceed to the heart of the city. Enkidu is in front and the woman behind him. The scene up to this point must have taken place 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 a.s.syrian version, Tablet IV, 1, 40, where the word occurs in connection with _i-dip-pi-ir_, which is perhaps to be taken as a synonym of _paharu_, "gather;"

so also _i-dip-pir_ (Tablet I, 2, 40) "gathers with the flock."

Lines 180-182 must have contained the description of Enkidu's resemblance to Gish, but the lines are too mutilated to permit of any certain restoration. See the corrections (Appendix) for a suggested reading for the end of line 181.

Line 183 can be restored with considerable probability on the basis of the a.s.syrian version, Tablet I, 3, 3 and 30, where Enkidu is described as 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 we should expect _kakke_; and, moreover, to so render gives no sense, especially since the verb _u-te-el-li-lu_ is without much question to be rendered "rejoiced," and not "purified." _Kakkiatum_--if this be the correct reading--may be a designation of Erech like _ribitim_.

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

Line 190. _i-li-im_ in this line is used like Hebrew Elohim, "G.o.d."

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

Line 192. With this line a new episode begins which, owing to the gap at the beginning of column 6, is somewhat obscure. The episode leads to the hostile encounter between Gish and Enkidu. It is referred to in column 2 of the fourth tablet of the a.s.syrian version. Lines 35-50--all that is preserved of this column--form in part a parallel to columns 5-6 of the Pennsylvania tablet, but in much briefer form, since what on the Pennsylvania tablet is the incident itself is on the fourth tablet of the a.s.syrian version merely a repeated summary of the relationship between the two heroes, leading up to the expedition against Hu(m)baba. Lines 38-40 of column 2 of the a.s.syrian version correspond to lines 174-177 of the Pennsylvania tablet, and lines 44-50 to lines 192-221. It would seem that Gish proceeds stealthily at night to go to the G.o.ddess Ishhara, who lies on a couch in the _bit emuti_ , the "family house" a.s.syrian version, Tablet IV, 2. 46-48). He encounters Enkidu in the street, and the latter blocks Gish's path, puts his foot in the gate leading to the house where the G.o.ddess is, and thus prevents Gish from entering. Thereupon the two have a fierce encounter in which Gish is worsted. The meaning of the episode itself is not clear. Does Enkidu propose to deprive Gish, here viewed as a G.o.d (cf. line 190 of the Pennsylvania tablet = a.s.syrian version, Tablet I, 4, 45, "like a G.o.d"), of his spouse, the G.o.ddess Ishhara--another form of Ishtar? Or are the two heroes, the one a counterpart of the other, contesting for the possession of a G.o.ddess? Is it in this scene that Enkidu becomes the "rival" (_me-ih-ru_, line 191 of the Pennsylvania tablet) of the divine Gish? We must content ourself with having obtained through the Pennsylvania tablet a clearer indication of the occasion of the fight between the two heroes, and leave the further explanation of the episode till a fortunate chance may throw additional light upon it. There is perhaps a reference to the episode in the a.s.syrian version, Tablet II, 3b, 35-36.

Line 196. For _i-na-ag-sa-am_ (from _nagasu_), Langdon proposes the purely fanciful "embracing her in sleep," whereas it clearly means "he approaches." Cf. Muss-Arnolt, _a.s.syrian Dictionary_, page 645a.

Lines 197-200 appear to correspond to Tablet IV, 2, 35-37, of the a.s.syrian version, though not forming a complete parallel. We may therefore supply at the beginning of line 35 of the a.s.syrian version _[ittaziz] Enkidu_, corresponding to line 197 of the Pennsylvania tablet. Line 36 of IV, 2, certainly appears to correspond to line 200 (_dan-nu-ti_ = _da-na-ni-is-su_).

Line 208. The first sign looks more like _sar_, though _ur_ is possible.

Line 211 is clearly a description of Enkidu, as is shown by a comparison with the a.s.syrian version I, 2, 37: _[pi]-ti-ik pi-ir-ti-su uh-tan-na-ba kima d_Nidaba, "The form of his hair sprouted like wheat." We must therefore supply Enkidu in the preceding line. Tablet IV, 4, 6, of the a.s.syrian version also contains a reference to the flowing hair of Enkidu.

Line 212. For the completion of the line cf. Harper, _a.s.syrian and Babylonian Letters_, No. 214.

Line 214. For _ribitu mati_ see the note above to line 28 of column 1.

Lines 215-217 correspond almost entirely to the a.s.syrian version IV, 2, 46-48. The variations _ki-ib-su_ in place of _sepu_, and _kima lim_, "like oxen," instead of _ina bab emuti_ (repeated from line 46), _ana surbi_ for _eribam_, are slight though interesting. The a.s.syrian version shows that the "gate" in line 215 is "the gate of the family house" in which the G.o.ddess Ishhara lies.

Lines 218-228. The detailed description of the fight between the two heroes is only partially preserved in the a.s.syrian version.

Line 218. _li-i-im_ is evidently to be taken as plural here as in line 224, just as _su-ki-im_ (lines 27 and 175), _ri-bi-tim_ (lines 4, 28, etc.), _tarbasim_ (line 74), _a.s.samim_ (line 98) are plural forms. Our text furnishes, as does also the Yale tablet, an interesting ill.u.s.tration of the vacillation in the Hammurabi period in the twofold use of _im_: (a) as an indication of the plural (as in Hebrew), 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 a.s.syrian version V, 3, 6, where Gilgamesh is described as kneeling, though here in prayer. See further the commentary to the Yale tablet, line 215.

Line 229. We must of course read _uz-za-su_, "his anger," and not _us-sa-su_, "his javelin," as Langdon does, which gives no sense.

Line 231. Langdon's note is erroneous. He again misses the point. The stem of the verb here as in line 230 (_i-ni-ih_) is the common _nahu_, used so constantly in connection with _pasahu_, to designate the cessation of anger.

Line 234. _isten_ applied to Gish designates him of course as "unique,"

not as "an ordinary man," as Langdon supposes.

Line 236. On this t.i.tle "wild cow of the stall" for Ninsun, see Poebel in _OLZ_ 1914, page 6, to whom we owe the correct view regarding the name of Gilgamesh's mother.

Line 238. _mu-ti_ here cannot mean "husband," but "man" in general. See above note to line 107. Langdon's strange misreading _ri-es-su_ for _ri-es-ka_ ("thy head") leads him again to miss the point, namely that Enkidu comforts his rival by telling him that he is destined for a career above that of the ordinary man. He is to be more than a mere prize 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 statement that the kingship is decreed for him by Enlil. Similarly, Hu(m)baba or Huwawa is designated by Enlil to inspire terror among men (a.s.syrian version, Tablet IV, 5, 2 and 5), _i-sim-su d_Enlil = Yale tablet, l. 137, where this is to be supplied. This position accorded to Enlil is an important index for the origin of the Epic, which is thus shown to date from a period when the patron deity of Nippur was acknowledged as the general head of the pantheon. This justifies us in going back several centuries at least before Hammurabi for the beginning of the 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), _su-tu-ur_ can only be III, 1, from _ataru_, "to be in excess 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 the term in question. In some way _sutr_ must indicate that the copy of the text has been "enlarged." It is tempting to fill out the line _su-tu-ur e-li [duppi labiri]_, and to render "enlarged from an original," as an indication of an independent recension of the Epic in the Hammurabi period. All this, however, is purely conjectural, and we must patiently hope for more tablets of the Old Babylonian version to turn up. The chances are that some portions of the same edition as the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets are in the hands of dealers at present or have been sold to European museums. The war has seriously interfered with the possibility of tracing the whereabouts of groups of tablets that ought never to have been separated.

YALE TABLET.

TRANSLITERATION.

(About ten lines missing.)

Col. I.

.................. [ib]-ri(?) [mi-im-ma(?) sa(?)]-ku-tu wa(?)-ak-rum [am-mi-nim] ta-ah-si-ih [an-ni]-a-am [e-pi]-sa-am ...... mi-im[-ma sa-ku-tu(?)]ma- di-is [am-mi]-nim [tah]-si-ih [ur(?)]-ta-du-u [a-na ki-i]s-tim si-ip-ra-am it-[ta-su]-u i-na [nise]

it-ta-as-su-u-ma i-pu-su ru-hu-tam .................. us-ta-di-nu ............................. bu ...............................

(About 17 lines missing.)

.............. nam-........

.................... u ib-[ri] .....

.............. u-na-i-du ......

[zi-ik]-ra-am u-[ti-ir]-ru [a-na] ha-ri-[im]-tim [i]-pu(?)-su a-na sa-[ka]-pu-ti

Col. II.

(About eleven lines missing.)