The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 50

[823] _Ib._ p. 27.

[824] See especially Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pp. 46-57 and 144-160.

[825] Jensen, _ib._ pp. 108, 109.

[826] The constant order is moon, sun, Marduk, Ishtar, Ninib, Nergal, Nabu. _E.g._, IIR. 48, 48-34a-b.

[827] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 151 _seq._

[828] On the older and later names of the Babylonians, see Meissner, _Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, v. 180, 181, and on the general subject of the Babylonian months, Muss-Arnolt's valuable articles in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, xi. 72-94 and 160-176.

[829] IVR. pl. 33.

[830] En-lil.

[831] See above, p. 99.

[832] Lit., 'Arakh-shamnu,' _i.e._, month eight.

[833] Ra.s.sam, Cylinder, col. lii. l. 32.

[834] Cylinder, Inscription l. 61.

[835] _Ib._ l. 58,--a rather curious t.i.tle of Sin.

[836] The Talmud preserves the tradition of the Babylonian origin of the Hebrew calendar (_Ierusalem Talmud Rosh-Hashshana_, l. 1).

[837] For the irrigation of the fields.

[838] In some way indicative of its sacred character. It is to be noted that this month--Tishri--is the festival month among the Hebrews and originally also among the Arabs. The 'mound' is a reference to the temples which were erected on natural or artificial eminences.

[839] The latter is described by a series of ideographs, "herd" and "to prosper." Is there perhaps a reference to cows giving birth to calves in this month, the early spring? For another, but improbable, explanation, see _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, iv. 37.

[840] Lehmann (_Actes du 8^eme Congres Internationel des Orientalists_, Leiden, 1891, i. 169, note) admits the probability of an earlier and more natural system.

[841] Lotz, _Quaestiones de Historia Sabbati_, pp. 27-29.

[842] Sin, Shamash, and Ramman. See pp. 108, 163.

[843] See for other combinations Lotz _ib._, and compare, _e.g._, VR.

36, where the number ten is a.s.sociated with a large number of G.o.ds,--Anu, Anatum, Bel, Ishtar, etc.

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE GILGAMESH EPIC.

We have seen[844] that the religion of Babylonia permeates all branches of literature, so that it is not always possible to draw a sharp dividing line between sacred and secular productions.

To account for this, it is but necessary to bear in mind what the previous chapters have aimed to make clear, that religion furnished the stimulus for the unfolding of intellectual life, and that the literary and scientific productions represent the work of men primarily interested in religion. The significance attached as omens to heavenly phenomena led by degrees to the elaborate astronomical system outlined in the previous chapter. But the astronomers of Babylonia were priests, and indeed the same priests who compiled the hymns and incantations.

What is true of astronomy applies to medicine, so far as medicine had an existence independent of incantations, and also to law. The physician was a priest, as was the judge and likewise the scribe.

It is natural, therefore, to find that what may be called the great national epic of the Babylonians was of a religious character. The interpretation given to the traditions of the past was religious. The distant past blended with the phenomena of nature in such a way as to form a strange combination of poetry and realism. But thanks to this combination, which is essentially a process of the popular mind, the production that we are about to consider brings us much closer to the popular phases of the Babylonian religion than does the cosmology or the zodiacal system.

After all, a nation is much more interested in its heroes and in its own beginnings, than in the beginnings of things in general. Some speculation regarding the origin of the universe is perhaps inevitable the moment that the spirit of inquiry arises, but these speculations are soon entrusted into the hands of a minority,--the thinkers, the priests, the astronomers,--who elaborate a system that gradually separates itself from popular thought and exercises little influence upon the development of religious ideas among the ma.s.ses.

The Book of Genesis pa.s.ses rapidly over the creation of stars, plants, and animals, as though anxious to reach the history of man, and when it comes to the traditions regarding the ancestors of the Hebrews, the details are dwelt upon at length and pictured with a loving hand.

Similarly among the Babylonians, there is a freshness about the story of the adventures of a great hero of the past that presents a contrast to the rather abstruse speculations embodied in the creation epic. In this story, in which a variety of ancient traditions have been combined, there is comparatively little trace of the scholastic spirit, and although, as we shall see, the story has been given its final shape under the same influences that determined the other branches of religious literature, the form has not obscured the popular character of the material out of which the story has been constructed.

The name of the hero of the story was for a long time a puzzle to scholars. Written invariably in ideographic fas.h.i.+on, the provisional reading Izdubar[845] was the only safe recourse until a few years ago, when Pinches discovered in a lexicographical tablet the equation

Izdubar = Gilgamesh.[846]

The equation proved that the Babylonians and a.s.syrians identified the hero with a legendary king, Gilgamos, who is mentioned by Aelian.[847]

To be sure, what Aelian tells of this hero is not found in the Izdubar epic, and appears to have originally been recounted of another legendary personage, Etana.[848] There is therefore a reasonable doubt whether the identification made by Babylonian scholars represents an old tradition or is merely a late conjecture arising at a time when the traditions of Izdubar were confused with those of Etana. Still, since Etana appears to be a phonetic reading and can be explained etymologically in a satisfactory manner, the presumption is in favor of connecting Gilgamesh with the hero of the great epic. For the present, therefore, we may accept the identification and a.s.sume that in Aelian, as well as in the sources whence he drew his information, Izdubar-Gilgamesh has been confused with Etana.[849]

The ideographic form of the name is preceded invariably by the determinative for deity, but the three elements composing the name, _iz_, _du_, and _bar_, are exceedingly obscure. The first element is a very common determinative, preceding objects made of wood or any hard substance. The word for weapon is always written with this determinative; and since Izdubar is essentially a warrior, one should expect _dubar_ to represent some kind of a weapon that he carries. On seal cylinders Gilgamesh appears armed with a large lance.[850] However this may be, Jeremias' proposition to render the name as "divine judge of earthly affairs"[851] is untenable, and the same may be said of other conjectures.

The fact that the name is written with the determinative for deity must not lead us to a purely mythical interpretation of the epic. There was a strong tendency in Babylonia to regard the early kings as G.o.ds. Dungi and Gudea, who are far from being the earliest rulers in the Euphrates Valley, appear in tablets with the determinative for deity attached to their names,[852] and it would be natural, therefore, that a hero belonging to a remote period should likewise be deified. There can be no doubt that there is a historical background to the Gilgamesh epic, and there is equally no reason to question the existence of an ancient king or hero who bore the name Gilgamesh. The deification of the hero superinduced the introduction of mythical elements. It was an easy process also, that led to tales which arose as popular symbols of occurrences in nature, being likewise brought into connection with a hero, who was at the same time a G.o.d.

The Gilgamesh epic thus takes shape as a compound of faint historical tradition and of nature myths. The deified hero becomes more particularly a solar deity. The popularity of the hero-G.o.d is attested by the introduction of his name in incantations,[853] and by special hymns being composed in his honor. One of these hymns,[854] of a penitential character, is interesting as ill.u.s.trating the survival of the recollection of his human origin. Gilgamesh is addressed by a penitent, who seeks healing from disease:

O Gilgamesh, great king, judge of the Anunnaki, Prince, great oracle[855] of mankind, Overseer of all regions, ruler of the world, lord of what is on earth, Thou dost judge and, like a G.o.d, thou givest decisions,[856]

Thou art established on the earth, thou fulfillest judgment, Thy judgment is unchangeable, thy [command is not revoked], Thou dost inquire, thou commandest, thou judgest, thou seest, and thou directest.

Shamash has entrusted into thy hand sceptre and decision.

It will be observed that Gilgamesh is appealed to as a 'king' and 'prince.' His dominion is the earth, and the emphasis placed upon this circ.u.mstance is significant. In accord with this peculiar province of the G.o.d, the hymn continues:

Kings, chiefs, and princes bow before thee, Thou seest their laws, thou presidest over their decisions.

At the same time, his dependence upon Shamash is emphasized. As a minor solar deity, he receives his powers from the great judge Shamash. This double character of Gilgamesh furnishes the key to the interpretation of the epic in which he is the central figure.

The poem in its final shape comprised twelve tablets of about three thousand lines. Unfortunately only about half of the epic has been found up to the present time. The numerous fragments represent at least four distinct copies, all belonging to the library of Ashurbanabal. To Professor Paul Haupt we are indebted for a practically complete publication of the fragments of the epic;[857] and it is likewise owing, chiefly, to Professor Haupt that the sequence in the incidents of the epic as well as the general interpretation of the composition has been established.[858]

The center of action in the first tablets of the series and in the oldest portions of the epic is the ancient city Uruk, or Erech, in southern Babylonia, invariably spoken of as _Uruk supuri_, that is, the 'walled' or fortified Uruk. A special significance attaches to this epithet. It was the characteristic of every ancient town, for reasons which Ihering has brilliantly set forth,[859] to be walled.[860] The designation of Uruk as 'walled,' therefore, stamps it as a city, but that the term was added, also points to the great antiquity of the place,--to a period when towns as distinguished from mere agricultural villages were sufficiently rare to warrant some special nomenclature.

From other sources the great age of Uruk is confirmed, and Hilprecht[861] is of the opinion that it was the capitol of a kingdom contemporaneous with the earliest period of Babylonian history. A lexicographical tablet[862] informs us that Uruk was specially well fortified. It was known as the place of seven walls and, in view of the cosmic significance of the number seven among the Babylonians, Jensen supposes[863] that the city's walls are an imitation of the seven concentric zones into which the world was divided. However this may be, a city so ancient and so well fortified must have played a most important part in old Babylonian history, second only in importance, if not equal, to Nippur. The continued influence of the Ishtar or Nana cult of Erech also ill.u.s.trates the significance of the place. It is natural, therefore, to find traditions surviving of the history of the place.

The first tablet of the Gilgamesh epic contains such a reminiscence. The city is hard pressed by an enemy. The misfortune appears to be sent as a punishment for some offence.[864] Everything is in a state of confusion.

a.s.ses and cows destroy their young. Men weep and women sigh. The G.o.ds and spirits of "walled Uruk" have become hostile forces. For three years the enemy lays siege to the place. The gates of the city remain closed.

Who the enemy is we are not told, and such is the fragmentary condition of the tablet that we are left to conjecture the outcome of the city's distress.

In the second tablet, Gilgamesh is introduced as a hero of superior strength and in control of Uruk. Is he the savior of the city or its conqueror? One is inclined to a.s.sume the latter, for the inhabitants of Uruk are represented as complaining that Gilgamesh has taken away the sons and daughters of the place. From a pa.s.sage in a subsequent tablet it appears that Uruk is not the native place of the hero, but Marada.[865] Moreover, the name Gilgamesh is not Babylonian, so that the present evidence speaks in favor of regarding the first episode in the epic as a reminiscence of the extension of Gilgamesh's dominion by the conquest of Uruk. When this event took place we have no means of determining with even a remote degree of probability. The representation of Gilgamesh on very ancient seal cylinders[866] warrants us in pa.s.sing beyond the third millennium, but more than this can hardly be said.

Gilgamesh is a hero of irresistible power. The inhabitants of Uruk appeal for help to Aruru, who has created Gilgamesh:

He has no rival....