بحث:گیلگمش

message: به نظر مي‌رسد با توجه به اين‌كه در بهترين و معتبرترين ترجمه‌ي حماسه‌ي گيل‌گمش به فارسي (ترجمه‌ي احمد شاملو) اين واژه به همين شكل (گيل‌گمش) و نه «گيلگامش» ضبط شده است، بهتر باشد كه همان گيل‌گمش بنويسيم.
در ضمن نفهميدم چه دليلي داشت كه متن من برداشته شود و اين نوشته جايگزينش شود؟
Mahdimousavi ۲۱:۵۹, ۱۵ دسامبر ۲۰۰۶ (UTC)
thread_title:  نوشتار عنوان 

message: سلام همکاران ویرایشگر.
من به‌تازگی ۱ پیوند خارجی موجود در گیلگمش را اصلاح کردم. لطفاً ویرایشم را بازبینی کنید. اگر پرسشی دارید یا می‌خواهید ربات پیوندها یا چند صفحه را نادیده بگیرد، لطفاً این راهنمای ساده را برای دریافت اطلاعات بیشتر ببینید. من تغییرات زیر را انجام دادم:
*بایگانی https://web.archive.org/web/20181201110318/http://www.gilgameshmag.com/fa/articles/history/4144/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%87-%C2%AB%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%84%DA%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%C2%BB-%D9%86%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1%20-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C به http://gilgameshmag.com/fa/articles/history/4144/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%87-%C2%AB%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%84%DA%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%C2%BB-%D9%86%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1%20-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C افزوده شد.
لطفاً برای اصلاح خطاهای ربات به راهنما مراجعه کنید.
با احترام.—InternetArchiveBot (گزارش اشکال) ‏۴ نوامبر ۲۰۱۹، ساعت ۰۲:۴۹ (UTC)
thread_title:  پیوندهای خارجی اصلاح شدند (نوامبر ۲۰۱۹) 

message: در کتاب :en:Andrew R. George، چه در مقدمه و چه در فهرست نام‌‌های پنج شعر سومری، Bilgames نوشته شده است. RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۳ اکتبر ۲۰۲۱، ساعت ۱۴:۴۰ (UTC)
پی‌نوشت: و بارها در این کتاب به همین صورت تکرار شده است. RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۳ اکتبر ۲۰۲۱، ساعت ۱۵:۵۸ (UTC)
صفحه‌های ۷۱-۹۰ کتاب منتشر شده آکسفورد RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۳ اکتبر ۲۰۲۱، ساعت ۱۹:۲۸ (UTC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
سلام، امیدوارم خوب باشید. سپاس از اصلاح دیوری شما.
به این مطلب نگاهی دوباره کردم. دسترسی به کتابی که گفتید ندارم، ولی در کتاب دیگرش Bilgames به تکرار آمده. منبعی در وب هست که بتوانم در آن صفحه هفت را ببینم (و یا بهترش کل کتاب را)؟
پی‌نوشت: قضیه چگونه خوانده شدن واژه‌نگاشت گویا ادامه دارد. اول که خواندند Izdubar، اخیرا دیدم به :en:Gilgamesh (به نقل از کتابی که ارجاع داده‌اید) Pabilga-mes را اضافه کرده‌اند. با سپاس RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۳ اکتبر ۲۰۲۱، ساعت ۱۶:۲۸ (UTC)
thread_title:  نام سومری 

message: سلام محک گرامی. شادباش نگفتنم را برای کارهایتان (بیش باد)، به حساب عدم پیگیری کارهای باارزش و دوست‌داشتنی‌تان نگذارید.
سوالی دارم: آیا برای انتقال تدریجی یادداشت‌های گردآوری شده (که بیشتر خواهند شد در آینده) به خود متن (همان کاری که در نرگاو آسمان هم کردم)، برای منبع انگلیسی غیرآزادی مثل کتاب‌های اندرو جرج باید نکات بیشتری از نرگاو را رعایت کنم؟ سپاس RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۶ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۸:۰۳ (UTC)
پی‌نوشت: توضیح بیشتر را در اینجا داده‌ام. RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۶ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۸:۱۴ (UTC)
replies: text: سلام. ببخشید اگر جدیداً خیلی دیر به دیر پاسخ می‌دهم./ اصلاً نیازی نیست که به متن ویکی‌پدیای انگلیسی وفادار باشید. آن مقاله را هم کسی مثل من و شما نوشته و شاید کارش هزار نقص و کمبود داشته باشد. شما می‌توانید با دانش و صلاحدید خود، بهترش را بنویسید. خودتان را محدود به یک «مترجم» نکنید. اصلاً لذتش به همین است که وقتی با خواندن یک متن کنجکاویتان تحریک شد، بروید و تهش را درآرید و بعد برای دیگران تعریف کنید :) ناگفته نماند که این روش بعضی وقت‌ها بیشتر از افیون اعتیادآورست...  مورد داشتم، در یک مقاله ترجمه‌ای آنقدر تحقیقم را ادامه دادم که در گمب‌اش تز می‌دادم  --محک  📞  ‏۱۷ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۷:۳۹ (UTC)
replies: text: : می‌خواستم فردا با دقت جواب دهم، ولی همین الان بگم: فکر می‌کنم دقیقا چیزی (گمب) را فرستادید که می‌خواهم. در بررسی مقاله‌ها دیده بودم که به شیوه به کار بردن کتاب انگلیسی غیرآزادی ایراد وارد کرده بودند ولی نتونستم ببینم به چه شیوه‌ای از به کارگیری (جزئیات)، آن ایراد را وارد کرده بودند. تزتان را با دقت می‌خوانم. RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۷ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۸:۰۵ (UTC)
replies: text: ::به کار بردن منابع انگلیسی غیرآزاد تنها اگر ترجمه‌ای خط به خط و کلمه به کلمه باشد، اشکال دارد. طبق ویکی‌پدیا:راهنمای_حق_تکثیر#ترجمه_از_منابع_دارای_حق_تکثیر، «هرگونه ترجمهٔ خط‌به‌خط از تمام یا بخشی از مقاله‌های به زبان‌های خارجی که دارای حق تکثیرند اشکال دارد!» لذا اگر مطالب آن کتاب انگلیسی را بخوانید و بعد هرچه دستگیرتان شد را به زبان و انشای خودتان بنویسید، هیچ مشکلی نخواهد داشت.

text: ::ثانیاً، خیلی نگران این مسئله غیرآزاد بودن متن انگلیسی نباشید؛ وقتی ترجمه می‌شود، خود به خود انقدری تفاوت در جمله‌بندی‌ها حاصل می‌شود که از حد نصاب کپی‌رایت بودن به در آید و اگر هم مشکل‌دار شد، در نهایت یک کاربر متن را بازنویسی می‌کند. --محک  📞  ‏۱۷ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۸:۱۹ (UTC)
replies: text: ::: ممنونم برای توضیح با جزئیات. ذهنیتم همین بود و بر این اساس تا اینجا کار کرده بودم. بازم ممنون. RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۷ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۸:۳۴ (UTC)

text: ::: مثلا در همین گیلگمش سعی کردم لحن را راحتتر بگیرم، جمله‌ها تا جای ممکن با فاصله انتخاب شوند و طولانی هم نشود. RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۷ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۸:۴۱ (UTC)
thread_title:  برای گسترش فراتر از مقاله انگلیسی 

message: سلام، امیدوارم خوب باشید. ممنون میشم هشت موردی را که در گمخ ذکر کردید، فهرست کنید. RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۶ آوریل ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۰:۲۱ (UTC)
replies: text: سلام. ممنونم. امیدوارم شما هم برقرار باشید. مشخصا یادکردهای ۱ تا ۷ و ۱۲ منظورم بود. ضمنا، واقعا برای سال‌های سلطنت ۵ منبع نیاز است؟ به نظرم هم‌پوشانی دارند و معتبرترین‌شان کافی است. کادامو (بحث) ‏۲۷ آوریل ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۰۸:۰۶ (UTC)
replies: text: :  ممنون. تاریخ پادشاهی که از موارد مورد مناقشه است (در میان معتبرها). / خواستم سر فرصت حرفم را بزنم، نشد ولی. فعلا: با توجه به گوناگونی نسخه‌ها و روایت‌ها و تکرار همین گوناگونی، هم در تفسیرهای قرن گذشته و هم گزارش‌های قرن جدید، مشخص کردن اینکه هر بخش در کدام منابع (که همگی‌شان معتبرند) آمده، این فرصت (و اجازه) را به هر خواننده می‌دهد که با توجه به نیازهای خود، در مورد اینکه کدامشان برایش  معتبر است، تصمیم بگیرد. RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۹ آوریل ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۸:۲۹ (UTC)
thread_title:  گمخ 

message: از بحث:حماسه گیلگمش#روایت‌ها و بررسی‌های تطبیقی منتقل می‌شود. RousouR (بحث) ‏۴ مه ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۴:۵۱ (UTC)
=== روایت اندرو جرج (حماسه گیلگمش) ===
==== بررسی تطبیقی شعرهای سومری و لوح‌های حماسه ====
===== مرگ بیلگمس (نرگاو وحشیِ بزرگ آرمیده است) - لوح VIII و XI =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، ص ۱۹۵ تا ۲۰۸:
* همان مشکلات نرگاو آسمان را در ترجمه دارد.
* آغاز با بیلگمش خشک‌شده؛ انکی (در قالب نودیمود) به او نشان می‌دهد که جمع خدایان درباره سرنوشت او گفتگو می‌کنند.
** نرگاو وحشیِ بزرگ آرمیده است، هرگز برنخواهد خاست،
** فرمانروا بیلگمس آرمیده است، هرگز برنخواهد خاست ...
* خدایان کارهای او را برمی‌شمارند از جمله رفتنش به پایان جهان و دیدارش با زیوسودرا (فراگیری دانش باستانی)
** نام زیوسودرا ابتدا در انتهای ص ۱۹۸ می‌آید (بیلگمس رسوم سومر را که فراموش شده بازمی‌گرداند از جمله شستن دست و شستن دهان) و سپس در ص ۱۹۹ درباره طوفان صحبت می‌شود و باز نام زیوسودرا تکرار می‌شود و بیان می‌شود که پس از طوفان سوگند خوردند انسان زندگی جاودان نداشته باشد.  
* حکم نهایی را انکی می‌دهد (و انلیل جمع‌بندی می‌کند): 
** با وجود خدایی بودن باید به جهان زیرین رود ولی جایگاه خاصی چون دموزی می‌یابد و روی زمین نیز جشنواره در بزرگداشتش به پا می‌شود.
* بیلگمس بیدار می‌شود و شگفت‌زده است (افتادگی).
* بیلگمس به دنبال تدبیر (بخش پرتکرار - لحن از سوم شخص به اول شخص تبدیل نمی‌شود ولی مشخص است که بیلگمس رویا را برای افراد مختلف بیان می‌کند).
* پاسخ‌ها (و به دنبالش افتادگی)
* انکی، و آغاز بیلگمس به ساختن گور برای خود (ارتباط از طریق سگ و نه انسان).
* تغییر مسیر فرات برای ساختن گور بیلگمس در بستر آن.
* آمادگی حرم و همراهان برای رفتن به گور بیلگمس برای همراهی او در جهان پس از مرگ (پاراگراف طولانی مشهوری که یادآور کشفیات باستان‌شناسی لئونارد وولی در اور است).
* اهدا هدیه به ارشکیگال (مانند لوح VIII)
* بستن ورودی گور و برگرداندن رود به مسیر تا گور پیدا نگردد.
* دو پایان متفاوت:
** تحسین بیلگمس (کمتر سالم مانده)
** انسان‌ها در یاد زندگان باقی خواهند ماند.
===== بیلگمس و جهان زیرین (در آن روزها، در آن روزهای بسیار دور) - لوح XII =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، صفحه ۱۷۵  تا ۱۹۵:
* رایج در مدرسه‌های نیپور و اور 
* برخلاف سایر شعرهای سومری مقدمه‌ای اسطوره‌ای دارد:
** در زمان‌های دور پس از آن‌که خدایان هستی را در بین خود تقسیم کردند، طوفانی بزرگ برپاشد. انکی به جهان زیرین می‌رفت (آبزو) درختی بر کناره فرات پدیدار شد. اینانا درخت را می‌بیند، به برادرش اوتو می‌گوید، بی‌اعتنا، به بیلگمس می‌گوید و او کار لازم را انجام  می‌دهد و با باقی‌مانده برای خود توپ و چوگان می‌سازد و آنقدر با جوانان شهر بازی می‌کند که زنان آنها به خدایان شکایت می‌کنند (مانند لوح I حماسه). اسباب‌بازی‌ها به جهان زیرین می‌افتند و بیلگمس که دستش به آنها نمی‌رسد به گریه می‌افتد. خادم او، انکیدو، داوطلب می‌شود که برای بازیافتن آنها به جهان زیرین رود. بیلگمس راهنمایی لازم را به انکیدو می‌کند (احترام لازم و عدم جلب توجه همچون مراسم سوگواری) ولی انکیدو آنها را رعایت نمی‌کند و در مخمصه می‌افتد. انلیل کمکی به بیلگمس نمی‌کند، انکی (با کمک اوتو) امکان دیدار بیلگمس و انکیدو را در سپیده‌دم فراهم می‌کند. یکدیگر را در آغوش می‌گیرند. پرسش و پاسخ طولانی آن دو درباره جهان زیرین نقطه اوج داستان است:
*** این بخش بی‌رحمانه بدبینانه است که گاهی طنز آن را کاهش می‌دهد
**** بدترین مرگ: مردن در حالی که بدن متلاشی شده (کامل نیست به هر علتی)
**** بدترین مرگ: آنان که در آتش سوزانده شده‌اند در دود محو خواهند شد و نمی‌توانند حتی به جهان زیرین روند (در اسلام).
* در یکی از سنت‌های کتابت متن در اینجا پایان می‌یابد ولی لوح‌های نیپور ادامه می‌یابند (چگونگی مراقبت از مردگان).
* ارتباطی تاریخی (اواخر هزاره سوم پیشا دوران مشترک، سقوط سلسله سوم اور)(عیلامی‌ها)(ص ۱۷۷)
* نسخه‌ای از نیمه دوم متن به اکدی لوح XII حماسه را تشکیل می‌دهد.
* در آن روزها، در آن روزهای بسیار دور،
* در آن شب‌ها، در آن شب‌های دور
* در آن سال‌ها، در آن سال‌های بسیار دور
==== روایت لوح‌های حماسه ====
===== لوح XI =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، ص ۸۸ تا ۱۰۰:
* عصاره:
** گیلگمش از اوتا-ناپیشتی می‌پرسد چگونه به زندگی جاودانه دست یافته، در پاسخ داستان طوفان را می‌‌شنود و اینکه خدایان به او پس از نجات از طوفان زندگی جاوردان دادند. اوتا-ناپیشتی به گیلگمش می‌‌گوید یک هفته نخوابد. گیلگمش نمی‌تواند و درمی‌یابد او که ناتوان از نخوابیدن است، بیهوده به دنبال غلبه بر مرگ است. اوتا-ناپیشتی به قایقرانش دستور می‌دهد پوشاک در خور در اختیار گیلگمش گذارد و او را به اوروک برگرداند. زن اوتا-ناپیشتی از او می‌خواهد رسم هدیه دادن به مهمان را به جا آورد. اوتا-ناپیشتی به گیلگمش نشان گیاهی را در اعماق دریا می‌دهد که او را جوان خواهد کرد. گیلگمش به اعماق می‌رود و گیاه را به دست می‌آورد. او و اور-شانابی به قصد اوروک به راه می‌افتند. برای شستشو در جایی توقف می‌کنند، ماری گیاه را می‌رباید و گیلگمش درمی‌یابد که تمامی تلاش‌هایش بیهوده بوده است. امیدهایش ناامید شده‌اند (نابود شده‌اند)، بهتر بود که اصلا اوتا-ناپیشتی را ندیده بود. او و اور-شانابی به اوروک می‌رسند و گیلگمش با همان واژه‌های مقدمه دیوارها را به عنوان دستاوردش به قایقران نشان می‌دهد.
*** داستان طوفان: 
**** در ص ۹۰ نام آترا-هاسیس به میان می‌آید: به عنوان نام دروازه‌ای که نجار و ... گرد می‌آیند.
**** ساختن کشتی با جزئیات بیان می‌شود.
**** اوتا-ناپیشتی گویی که فردایی نیست از آنها پذیرایی می‌کند (جشنی چون روزهای سال نو)
**** برخلاف توصیه اِآ، اوتا-ناپیشتی طلا و نقره‌اش هم را به کشتی می‌برد.
**** نعمت آسمانی! (نان کیکی و گندم) 
**** ص ۹۱: همگی خدایان (اَدَد، آنوناکی ...) بخشی از کار را انجام می‌دهند و نقشی به عهده می‌گیرند، همه به جز اِآ.
**** خدایان را وحشت فرامی‌گیرد، به بهشت آنو می‌روند، همچون سگ دراز می‌کشند. اینانا (در اینجا: بِلِت-ایلی)همچون زنی در حال زایمان قریاد می‌کشد: ... چرا مردمانم را کشتم ... من به دنیا آوردمشان، مردمان منند... اکنون اقیانوس را چون ماهی پرکرده‌اند.
**** طوفان شش روز و هفت شب طول می‌کشد.
**** روز هفتم طوفان پایان می‌یابد.
**** اوتا-ناپیشتی دریچه را باز می‌کند، نور خورشید بر صورتش می‌افتد. به زانو می‌افتد و می‌گرید. 
**** بر کوه نیموش (هفت روز)؛ سه پرنده (کبوتر، پرستو و در آخر غُراب که برنمی‌گردد)
**** قربانی می‌کند و خدایان چون مگس جمع می‌شوند.
**** بِلِت-ایلی از راه می‌رسد و انلیل را ایجادکننده طوفان می‌داند.
**** انلیل خشمگین که چرا بشری زنده باقی مانده، پاسخ نینورتا، سخنان اِآ (ص ۹۵)
**** در نیمه این سخنان بار دیگر نام آتراهاسیس به میان می‌آید (اینبار برای اوتا-ناپیشتی و زمانی که اِآ می‌گوید چیزی را فاش نکرده، بلکه آتراهاسیس آن را دریافته)
***** با این حال در پاراگراف بعدی، دوباره از خود واژه اوتا-ناپیشتی استفاده می‌شود (از زبان انلیل)
**** مردی میرا جاودان می‌شود ولی دورافتاده
==== مقدمه کتاب (xiii-lii) ====
* xiii
** یکی از شاهکارهای بزرگ ادبیات جهان / حماسه‌ای درباره ترس از مرگ / و درباره بسیاری دیگر: ... سرشت و پروردن، ... / داستان طوفان با هنرمندی / قهرمان فرهنگ: با دانشی که در انتهای جهان از بازمانده طوفان فراگرفته، معابد سرزمین و آیین‌ها را به کمالِ پیش از طوفان می‌رساند. / و بسیاری از اولین‌ها ... / و بسیاری جزئیات (چرا در تقویم بابلی دو روز نو وجود دارد و ...) / اقتباس‌ها (به زبان‌های مختلف) ... / نسخه‌های مختلف خط میخی / خط برای انجام کارهای اداری پیچیده به‌وجود آمد (نه برای داستان نوشتن و ...) / حماسه گیلگمش به چندین زبان و از چندین عصر به امروز رسیده ... تقسیم‌بندی بر اساس زمان، مکان و زبان ... پنج فصل -  فصل I: اکدی (او که ژرفا را دید) فصل 2 تا 4: اکدی (قدیمی‌تر)(برتر از همه شاهان) + لوح‌های مشق فصل 2: متن‌های نیمه اول هزاره دوم پیشا دوران مشترک (دوره بالی باستان) فصل 3: نیمه دوم هزاره دوم (دوره بابلی میانه) و فصل 4: متن‌های همان دوره از «غرب»ِ باستان (لوانت و آناتولیا)(شام و آناتولی)/ فصل 5: پنج شعر سومری (نسخه کاتبان بابلی ولی از زمان‌های دور)
* گیلگمش و ادبیات بین‌النهرین باستان xvi
** ۲۶۰۰ پیشا دوران مشترک: استفاده از خط برای ادبیات / بسیار سخت برای خواندن (بازتاب همه زبان نیست هنوز(الفبا)) / بین‌النهرین سفلی: مردمانی با دو زبان بسیار متفاوت / سومری (بدون ارتباط با سایر زبان‌ها)(زبانی که به نظر می‌رسد اولین بار به خط در آمده است) - اکدی (متعلق به گروه زبان‌های سامی (مانند عبری و عربی)) این دو زبان سالیان دراز توسط هر دو گروهی که در بین‌النهرین سفلی ساکن بودن استفاده می‌شده است (نزدیکی فرهنگی (واژه آلمانی)). سومری‌های بیشتر در جنوبِ شهری ساکن بودند و اکدی‌ها در شمالِ بیشتر ایالتی. / «سیاه‌سران» / دو زبانی بین‌النهرین باستان شاید همچون فرانسوی و فلامان در بلژیک /   از ۲۳۰۰ متون اکدی بسیار پیدا می‌شوند (زبانِ در خدمت اولین امپراتوری بین‌النهرین / سارگن / از خلیج تا شام). داستان تولد سارگن و موسی (در مقاله گیلگمش هست) / ایشتار / صد سال / متون ادبی خیلی کم / سنت شفاهی / کمرنگ شدن سومری (به عنوان زبان رایج) ولی زبانِ کتابت در رنسانس سومری (آخرین قرن هزاره سوم - سلسله سوم اور - شولگی) .../
*** ظهور بابل: قرن هجدهم / حموراپی (پ) / سومری دیگر زبان گفتار نبود (زبان نوشتار) گویش بابلیِ زبان اکدی / «کاتبی که سومری نداند، چگونه کاتبی است؟» / «مبصر در گفت: چرا بی‌اجازه‌ام رفتی؟ و مرا زد مبصر آب گفت: «چرا بی‌اجازه‌ام خوردی؟ و مرا زد» مبصر سومری گفت «اکدی گفتی» و مرا زد معلم گفت «خط تو بد است» و مرا زد.» 
**** کاتب در آینده برای اثبات اینکه بلد است بنویسد باید به سومری می‌نوشت. بهترین متون سومری که باید یاد می‌گرفت پیکره‌ای تجویز شده از متون ادبی سنتی سومری. / تقریبا هر متن ادبی سومری که داریم، همین‌هاست که کاتبان جوان بابلی نوشته‌اند (در خرابه خانه معلمشان) (نیپور و اور). / تازگی در ایسن متون سومری (از همان زمان)(تل حداد-مه توران) / کریمر / خود شولگی نیز انتظار نداشت شاید. / در بینشان پنج شعر سومری (بیلگمس - فصل پنج) 
** این پنج شعر مشهورترند / حماسه بابلی گیلگمش (اکدی) - داستان‌های مجزا و مفرد بدون تم مشترک / مکتوب شدن: احتمالا در زمان سلسله سوم اور (علاقه خاص به بیلگمس)(گوسان) / سرگرمی / گرچه قرن هجدهم ولی به نه فقط شولگی که به سنت شفاهی /
*** همراهشان کمی ادبیات اکدی («ادبیات بابلی باستان») / چند تا درباره گیلگمش (فصل دو) (بسیار نادر-برنامه درسی نبودند و خود کاتبان برای دلشان نوشته‌اند) 
**** سایر ادبیات اکدی: در میانشان سه لوح بابلی باستان گیلگمش (پنسیلوانیا، ییل و سیپار (فصل دو))
**** شاهکار دیگری در ادبیات بابلی (دوره بابلی باستان): آترام-هاسیس (وقتی که خدایان انسان بودند)   
** آترام-هاسیس: تاریخ بشر از خلقت تا طوفان / استفاده شاعر گیلگمش از همین داستان و داستان طوفان در سفر پیدایش 
*** علم بابلی: طرد شیطان با جادو
** ادبیات در دوره بابل باستان خلاقانه بود ولی برنامه درسی حداقل در مدارسی که می‌شناسیم آنقدر واپس‌گرا که بازتاب این گستره نبود.
** لوح‌های بابلی باستان گیلگمش آشکار می‌کند در این زمان حماسه بکپارچه‌ای شکل گرفته است. / عنوان نسخه پنسیلوانیا: Shūtur eli sharrī برتر از همه شاهان دیگر / سنت شفاهی / پادشاهی، شهرت و ترس از مرگ / یک شاعرِ بی‌نام /  بخشی از نسخه پنسیلوانیا و سیپار فراموش‌نشدنی است.
** تا برای اینکه روشن شود نسخه معیار چیست باید داستان ادبیات بین‌النهرینی ادامه یابد. (ص xxi)
*** قرن هجدهم پیشا دوران مشترک / برنامه درسی مدارس کتابت به کل تغییر کرد (دوران تاریک؟) / مرحله بعد، قرن ششم ولی کتابخانه‌های هزاره اول در تمدن بابل (بابل، اوروک، سیپار و آشور) - نینوا (آشوربانیپال) - مانند شولگی - نابو: خدای کاتبان ... / جزئیات کتابخانه ... لوح‌هایی که چهارصد سال قبل مکتوب شده‌اند / جزئیات مهم / حماسه گیلگمش در حداقل چهار نسخه / پس از مادها و بابلیان ۶۱۲ پیشا دوران مشترک تکه‌ها ماند تا ۲٬۵۰۰ سال بعد (۱۸۵۰ و ۱۸۵۳) - آشورشناسی (هنوز مهمترین منبع) / جزئیات مهم تاریخی - رسام: قهرمانی در آشورشناسی که برایش نسروده‌اند / جرج اسمیت وارد می‌شود 
**** اولین انسانی که پس از ۲٬۰۰۰ سال آنها را خواند «لوح‌ها را روی میز گذاشت، به هوا پرید، از این سو به آن سوی اتاق دوید و لباس‌هایش را درآورد» / با جزئیات مهمِ قبل و بعدش ... آشورشناسی از راه رسید و نیز گیلگمش.
*** سنت کتابت این دوره متون بسیا متفاوتی از سنت دوره بابلی باستان دارد. متون سومری اکثرا باقی نمانده بودند. هر چه مانده بود همراه بود با ترجمه خط به خط اکدی... (جزئیات مهم) قرن‌های آخر هزاره دوم - استانداردسازی متون
**** سین-لیق-اونینی (ای خدای ماه، دعایم را بپذیر (مرا بیامزر)) - جن‌گیر (شغلی مهم) ... چیز دیگری نمی‌دانیم -قرن سیزده تا دوازده (او نمی‌تواند مصنف اصلی حماسه باشد ولی شکل نهایی را شاید داده باشد: نسخه معیار) ... در قدیم: Sha naqba īmuru (او که ژرفا را دید) - مقایسه دو نسخه معیار و بابلی قدیم با هم / 
***** متون درون تمدن بابل: دو تا (نیپور و اور)(فصل سه) (شبیه به نسخه معیار با تفاوتهایی)
***** متون خارج از تمدن بابل: توضیح لازم دارد: قرن چهاردهم، در اوجِ اواخر عصر برنز (پادشاهی جدید مصر و هیتی‌ها در شرق مدیترانه) lingua franca در خاور نزدیک، اکدی بود. پادشاهان آشور و بابل طبیعتا به اکدی برای فرعون می‌نوشتند ولی فرعون نیز به اکدی پاسخ می‌داد. پادشاه هیتی‌ها و فرعون نیز به اکدی مکاتبه داشتند. حاکمان شام نیز زمانی که با اربابانشان مکاتبه می‌کردند، با همین زبان بود (گرچه وسطش اصطلاحات کنعانی و هوریانی بود). این اکدی به روش سنتی و بر روی لوح و به میخی نوشته میشد. کاتبان محلی برای نوشتن نامه‌ها و قرارداها: تکرار .... (ادامه با جزئیات مهم (دو پاراگراف ص xxvi)) این متون در فصل چهار ترجمه شده‌اند.  / سایر نسخه‌های گیلگمش در غربِ باستان: هیتی (خوانا)، هوریان (ناخوانا)، نسخه عیلامی گیلگمش؟ (ص xxvii) (نامه‌ای خصوصی بود و بی‌ربط به گیلگمش)  - نشانی از «عیلامی شناخته‌نشده‌ترین زبان خاور نزدیک باستان است.» 
**** نسخه معیار حماسه بابلی / ۷۳ متن بازمانده: ۳۵ (کتابخانه آشوربانیپال) + ۸ (از سه شهر دیگر آشور) + ۳۰ از سرزمین بابل (بابل و اوروک) / قدیمی‌ترین در کتابخانه آشوربانیپال / جدیدترین ۱۳۰ پیشا دوران مشترک، بل-آهه-اوسور (خدایا، برادران را نگاهبان باش) (آرامی و یونانی) / از این ۷۳ میشود نسخه اونینی را بازساخت ولی خیلی جاهایش خالی میماند که میتوان با نسخه‌های قدیمی‌تر اکدی پر کردشان و حتی در یکجا باید به سراغ نسخه هیتی رفت. نتیجه این کار می‌شود: فصل یک که با یادداشت مشخص شده‌اند.
***** نسخه معیار بر اساس سنت بابلی به بخش‌هایی تقسیم می‌شود. - جزئیات مهم (ص xxviii) / سری گیلگمش در واقع دوازده لوح است. لوح I تا XI (شامل حماسه) + لوح XII (آخرین در سری): ترجمه سطر به سطر نیمه آخر یکی شعرهای سومری (این ترجمه به هزاره اول رسید برخلاف خود شعرها که نرسیدند). گرچه برخی تلاش کرده‌اند نشان دهند لوح XII جایگاهی واقعی در حماسه دارد اکثر محققان بر این باورند که اینگونه نیست و صرفا به آن افزوده شده چون مربوط بوده است (اصل آوردن متون مربوط با هم در تحقیقات بابلی). / تفاوت یازده لوح در تعداد سطرها ۱۸۳ تا ۳۲۶ (در حدود ۳٬۰۰۰ سطر) / در وضعیت فعلی تنها لوح‌های I و VI و X و XI تقریبا کامل هستند. در حدود ۵۷۵ سطر از بین رفته‌اند. / چهار پنجم متن بازمانده قابل خواندن است. در ترجمه این کتاب این وضع روشن است... هر چه درباره حماسه بگوییم موقتی است ... پایانی دلنشین (اشاره به پیدا شدن لوح طوفان در همان سفر اول اسمیت - اشاره به اینکه آن بخش در واقع جز حماسه نبود و بخشی از آترام-هاسیس بود (راهی برای فهمیدن در آن زمان وجود نداشت))
* زمان و مکان حماسه xxxi (مهم)
** اوروک در سومر (بزرگترین شهر)، گیلگمش ستمگر (شبه‌خدایی به واسطه مادر ولی میرا)، بازسازی دیوار اوروک بر بنیاد پیش از طوفان (پایان دادن به برتری شهر کیش)، به عنوان خدا در فهرست آغازین خدایان و در اواخر هزاره سوم خودش دارای آیین: (در یکی از شعرهای سومری) فرمانروایی روح مردگان در جهان زیرین، همانگونه که به احتمال زیاد شاه آرتوری واقعیت تاریخی داشته، شاه گیلگمشی نیز وجود داشته است، فهرست پادشاهان سومری (پنجمین حاکم سلسله اول اوروک (پس ح. ۲۷۵۰ پیشا دوران مشترک)، حکومت ۱۲۶ ساله)، دوره‌ای که مثل حماسه هومر خدایان نفع شخصی در زندگی انسان داشتند و مستقیم با او گفتگو می‌کردند. 
** سه‌گانه (آنو: خدای آسمان / انلیل (مهمتر بود): مدیر امور خدایان و انسان / اآ: باهوش، در آبهای تازه زیرین که «هفت فرزانه» برای متمدن کردن انسان فرستاد)
** بانوی خدایان: ایزدبانوی مادر مهربان، آفرینش انسان به کمک اآ / ادد خشن، خدای طوفان / سین: خدای ماه (پسر انلیل) / فرزندان ماه: شمش (خدای خورشید)(نگاهبان ویژه گیلگمش) و ایشتار: ونوس بابلی، با اشتهایی زیاد برای عشق جنسی و جنگ / ارشکیگال: (پایین قلمرو اآ) ملکه تلخ دنیای زیرین (دستیارش  نامتار)
** انسان در شهرها زندگی می‌کند و زمین را می‌شکافد. جایی را که نمی‌توان آبیاری کرد شبانان با گله‌هایشان پر می‌کنند (نگران از گرگ و شیر). دورتر، دنیای وحشی که شکارچیان و قانون‌گریزان هستند؛ در آنجا مردی که غزال‌ها بزرگ کردند با نام انکیدو. در مسافت چندین ماهه از دنیای وحشی، در فرای چندین رشته کوه، جنگل سدرِ مقدس بود که می‌گفتند خدایان در آنند. غولی مهیب با نام هومبابا (در هفت حفاظ) از آن نگاهبانی می‌کرد. جایی در کناره جهان که عقرب‌مردان بودند، دو کوه ماشو بود که خورشید در آن طلوع و غروب می‌‌کرد. باز هم دورتر، در پایان دیگرِ «راه خورشید»، «باغ گوهران» بود و در میخانه‌ای بر کناره اقیانوسی گذرناپذیر (که زمین را احاطه کرده بود)، ایزدبانوی اسرارآمیز، سیدوری، بود که در پرده خردمندی می‌بخشید. در آنسوی اقیانوس، «آب‌های مرگ» بود و در فرای آنها در جزیره‌ای دورافتاده (که در آن دوباره دجله و فرات از اعماق سربرمی‌آوردند)، دور از همه انسان‌‌ها، در جایی که فقط قایقرانی با نام اور-شانابی راه داشت، پادشاه پیش از طوفانی با نام اوتا-ناپیشتیِ دورافتاده زندگی می‌کرد؛ بازمانده از طوفانی که انلیل در سپیده تاریخ به پا کرد و میرایی شوم را به جان بشر انداخت.     
* حماسه در متن: اسطوره، دین و خرد xxxii (مهم) 
** حماسه گیلگمش یکی از نادر آثار ادبی بابلی است که بدون نیاز به داشتن اطلاعاتی درباره تمدنی که از آن برخاسته، می‌توان آن را خواند. نام شخصیت‌ها ممکن است ناآشنا باشند یا جاهایِ غریبی در آن باشد ولی برخی از تم‌های شاعر آن‌چنان در تجربه بشری جهانی است که خواننده مشکلی در درک نیروی پیشبرنده قهرمان نخواهد داشت و می‌تواند به راحتی با اندوه و ناامیدی او احساس همدلی کند. ویلیام موران اخیرا داستان گیلگمش را قصه جهان بشری دانسته که بر «ارزش‌های انسانی» و «پذیرفتن محدودیت‌‌های انسانی» پافشاری می‌کند. این دیدگاه به آن منجر شده است که وی حماسه را «سند انسان‌گرایی باستانی» بداند؛ حقیقتا داستان گیلگمش حتی برای مردم باستان بیشتر درباره این بود که انسان بودن چیست تا درباره اینکه خدمت به خدایان چیست. همانگونه که در ابتدا و پایان حماسه روشن است، گیلگمش بیشتر به خاطر دستاوردهای انسانی خود تحسین می‌شود و نه ارتباطش با خدایان.
** گرچه حماسه بی‌شک ادبیات داستانی است، تشخیص موران هشداری است که حماسه را اسطوره نخوانیم. اجماع بسیار کمی بر این وجود دارد که اسطوره چه هست و چه نیست و اسطوره‌های بین‌النهرین باستان گونه‌های مختلفی دارند. برخی، به خصوص قدیمی‌ترها، تنها دربرگیرنده یک اسطوره‌اند. بقیه دو اسطوره یا اسطوره‌های بیشتری را دربرمی‌گیرند. این دسته دو ویژگی دارند: از یک طرف، داستان بر محور کردار یک خدا یا بیشتر است و از طرف دیگر قصد آن دارد که پدیده‌ای طبیعی  یا اجتماعی را توضیح دهد. اکثر شخصیت‌های حماسه گیلگمش، بیشتر خدایی هستند ولی در کنار قهرمان بی‌اهمیت می‌شوند. خدایان حتی تشبیه‌های نامناسب می‌شوند: در لوح XI شاعر آنها را با سگ و مگس مقایسه می‌کند، گویی حاکمان کهکشان مردارخوارانی انگل‌صفت هستند. در کل، کارکرد شعر توضیح اصل‌ها نیست. بیشتر به دنبال بررسی شرایط بشری به همان شکلی که هست، است. 
===== گزیده =====
* page xv: To summarize, Chapter 1 presents the version of the epic in the Akkadian language that was standard in the first-millennium Babylonia and Assyria, with some of its gaps filled with older material. This, if you like, is the classical Epic of Gilgamesh. It was known to the Babylonians and Assyrians as ‘He who saw the Deep’. In this book it is referred to as the standard version. Chapters 2—4 give the full text of older material in Akkadian, including earlier, more fragmentary versions of the epic, such as that known in antiquity as ‘Surpassing all other kings’, and isolated extracts of text on school practice tablets. Chapter 2 presents texts from the first half of the second millennium (the Old Babylonian period), Chapter 3 material from Babylonia of the second half of the second millennium (the Middle Babylonian period) and Chapter 4 texts of the same period from the ancient West — the Levant and Anatolia. Chapter 5 contains the five narrative poems in the Sumerian language, best known from copies made ‘by Babylonian apprentice scribes in the eighteenth century BC, but certainly older. In order to understand how the different texts and fragments of Gilgamesh relate to each other it may help to place them in the context of the long history of ancient Mesopotamian literature.
* p. xvi: Literature was already being written down in Mesopotamia by 2600 BC, though because the script did not yet express language fully, these early tablets remain extremely difficult to read. From at least this time, and probably much earlier, lower Mesopotamia was inhabited by people who spoke two very different languages. One was Sumerian, a language without affinities with any known tongue, and this appears to be the medium of the earliest writing. The other was Akkadian, which is a member of the Semitic family of languages and thus related to Hebrew and Arabic. The two languages, Sumerian and Akkadian, had long been used side by side by the people of lower Mesopotamia, though Sumerian predominated in the urban south and Akkadian in the more provincial north. This geographical division was enshrined in the terminology of later tradition, according to which the homeland of ‘the black-headed ones’, as these people called themselves, com- prised two regions, Sumer, the southern part of lower Mesopotamia, and Akkad, the northern part. The bilingualism of the urban civiliz- ation of lower Mesopotamia in the third millennium Bc perhaps resembled the division between French and Flemish in modern-day Belgium.
** Texts in Akkadian appear in quantity from about 2300 Bc, when the language became an administrative tool in the service of the first great Mesopotamian empire. This empire stretched at its height from the Gulf to Levantine Syria. It was built by Sargon and his successors, the kings of Akkade, a northern city which soon lent its name to the region round about and to the language spoken at the court of its kings. A legend describes how Sargon was a foundling like the infant Moses:
* p. xvii: My mother, a priestess, conceived me and bore me in secret, she put me in a basket of reeds, sealed its lid with pitch; ... the river bore me up and brought me to Aqqi, a drawer of water.’ According to tradition, Sargon rose to power by winning the favour of the goddess Ishtar. For nearly a hundred years his dynasty exercised dominion over the city-states of lower Mesopotamia and much of northern Mesopotamia too. The early texts in Akkadian dating from this period include a very small body of literature. Much more, no doubt, was passed down in an oral tradition and was never written down, or only much later. Sumerian seems to have been losing ground to Akkadian as a spoken language from at least this time, but its function as the primary language of writing was bolstered by a Sumer- ian renaissance in the last century of the third millennium. For a short period much of Mesopotamia was again united, this time under the kings of the celebrated Third Dynasty of the southern city of Ur, most famously Shulgi (2094-2047 BC in the conventional chronology). The perfect prince was an intellectual as well as a warrior and an athlete, and among his many achievements King Shulgi was particularly proud of his literacy and cultural accomplishments. He had rosy memories of his days at the scribal school, where he boasted that he was the most skilled student in his class. In later life he was an enthusiastic patron of the arts and claims to have founded special libraries at Ur and at Nippur, further north in central Babylonia, in which scribes and minstrels could consult master copies of, as it were, the Sumerian songbook. Thus he envisaged that hymns to his glory and other literature of his day would be preserved for posterity:
* p. xviii: In this enlightened atmosphere the courts of the kings of Ur and the succeeding dynasty of Isin were witness to the composition of much literature in Sumerian. This literature we know best not from tablets written at the time, though some survive (including a fragment of a Gilgamesh poem), but from the scribal curriculum of the Babylonians. After the rise to power of the city of Babylon in the eighteenth century, under its most famous ruler, King Hammurapi (1792- 1750 BC), the land of Sumer and Akkad was ruled by Babylon. Though the people of Sumer and Akkad did not themselves refer to their homeland as Babylonia, which is a Greek term, it is customary to call them Babylonians from this time onwards. Sumerian had by then died out among the people as a spoken language, but it was still much in use as a written language. 
* p. xviii: Mesopotamian culture was nothing if not conservative and since Sumerian had been the language of the first writing, more than a thousand years before, it remained the principal language of writing in the early second millennium, Much more was written in the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, but Sumerian retained a particular prestige. Its primacy as the language of learning was enshrined in the curriculum that had to be mastered by the student scribe. In order to learn how to use the cuneiform script, even to write Akkadian, the student had to learn Sumerian, for, as the proverb said, ‘A scribe who knows no Sumerian, what sort of scribe is he??? None at all, for in this period the language of tuition was, at least in part, Sumerian. Falling foul of every regulation, one young student lamented, ... To prove he could write, the would-be scribe copied out, on dictation and from memory, texts in Sumerian. The most advanced Sumerian texts that he had to master were a prescribed corpus of traditional Sumerian literary compositions. ... Nearly all the literature that we have in Sumerian derives from the tablets written by these young Babylonian scribal apprentices, many  of which were found in the remains of the houses of their teachers. The two largest such discoveries were made at Nippur, where the scribal quarter was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, and at Ur, where the houses in question are slightly older. More recently significant bodies of Sumerian literature from the same era have been discovered at Isin, a city just south of Nippur, and at Tell Haddad (ancient Mé-Turan) by the river Diyala on the periphery of north-east Babylonia, but most of these tablets remain unpublished. The private dwelling-houses of Nippur and Ur were not the royal Tablet Houses inaugurated by King Shulgi but they amply fulfilled the purpose he envisaged, the preservation of Sumerian literature for future generations. That now we are reading the songs of Shulgi again, four thousand years later, would probably have exceeded even his expectations, and it would have surprised him too that his libraries of Sumerian lived anew, as it were, in the tablet collections of Philadel- phia, London, and other strange and far-away places.
* p. xix:  The two largest such discoveries were made at Nippur, where the scribal quarter was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, and at Ur, where the houses in question are slightly older. More recently significant bodies of Sumerian literature from the same era have been discovered at Isin, a city just south of Nippur, and at Tell Haddad (ancient Mé-Turan) by the river Diyala on the periphery of north-east Babylonia, but most of these tablets remain unpublished. The private dwelling-houses of Nippur and Ur were not the royal Tablet Houses inaugurated by King Shulgi but they amply fulfilled the purpose he envisaged, the preservation of Sumerian literature for future generations. That now we are reading the songs of Shulgi again, four thousand years later, would probably have exceeded even his expectations, and it would have surprised him too that his libraries of Sumerian lived anew, as it were, in the tablet collections of Philadel- phia, London, and other strange and far-away places.
* p. xix:-xx: Among those Sumerian literary texts which have achieved some degree of publicity are the five poems of Gilgamesh (or Bilgames as he is known in older texts), translated in Chapter 5. These are not the same as the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, which was written in Akkadian, but separate and individual tales without common themes. They were probably first committed to writing under the Third Dyn- asty of Ur, whose kings felt a special bond with Bilgames as a legendary hero whom they considered their predecessor and ancestor. It seems likely that much of the traditional Sumerian literary corpus goes back to lays sung by minstrels for the entertainment of the royal court of the Third Dynasty. The Sumerian poems of Bilgames are well suited for such amusement. The texts that we have, although known almost entirely from eighteenth-century copies, are very probably directly descended from master copies placed by King Shulgi in his Tablet Houses. Even so, it is entirely possible that the poems stem ultimately from an older, oral tradition. To some extent these Sumerian poems were source material for the Babylonian epic, but they can be enjoyed for their own sake too. Reading them takes us back four millennia to the courtly life of the Sumerian ‘renaissance’. Alongside the great mass of Sumerian literary tablets from the schools of eighteenth-century Babylonia, we have also recovered a little contemporaneous literature in Akkadian. This we call Old Baby- lonian literature. A few Old Babylonian literary tablets derive from the same schools as the literary tablets in Sumerian and also appear to be the work of apprentice scribes. These include a few scraps of Akkadian Gilgamesh, which are among the texts translated in Chap- ter 2. But though it seems that some literature in Akkadian was studied in the schools of this period, literary tablets in this language are so rare among the huge quantities of Sumerian tablets that it is clear they were not part of the prescribed curriculum. What narrative poems in Akkadian that we do have from the schools may instead have been copied down by students for fun, or even composed by them ad lib.
* p. xx: Other tablets of Akkadian literary works have been recovered from this period which are of less certain provenance than the school tablets. Some of them are finely written and were evidently kept, perhaps by individual scholars, as permanent library-copies. Among these are three Old Babylonian tablets of Gilgamesh which contribute signific- antly to our knowledge of the story: the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets and the fragment reportedly from Sippar. These are also translated in Chapter 2. Another masterpiece of Babylonian literature known from late in the Old Babylonian period is the great poem of Atram- hasis, ‘When the gods were man’, which recounts the history of mankind from the Creation to the Flood.° It was this text’s account of the Flood that the poet of Gilgamesh used as a source for his own version of the Deluge myth. It also provided a striking model for the story of Noah’s Flood in the Bible. Other Akkadian literature begins to appear at this time, such as texts expounding the Babylonian sciences, divination by extispicy, astrology and mathematics, and incantations in both Sumerian and Akkadian whose purpose was to ward off evil by magic means. So the Old Babylonian period was an era of great literary creativity in Akkadian, but the school curriculum, at least in the centres we know best, was evidently too hidebound to reflect this development.
* p. xx: The Old Babylonian Gilgamesh tablets reveal that there was already, at this time, an integrated Gilgamesh epic, which, as the Pennsylvania tablet reports, bore the title Shatur eli sharri, ‘Surpassing all other kings’. Works of ancient Mesopotamian literature were rarely created out of nothing and the origins of this epic probably also go back to an oral tradition. Certainly the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh tablets are far from being translations of the individual Sumerian poems of the scribal curriculum, though the two traditions hold in common several episodes and themes. The Old Babylonian texts bear witness to a wholesale revision of Gilgamesh material to form a connected story composed around the principal themes of kingship, fame and the fear of death. For this reason one suspects that the Old Babylonian epic was essentially the masterpiece of a single, anonymous poet. This epic, ‘Surpassing all other kings’, is only a fragment as it is now preserved, but many find the simple poetry and spare narrative of this poem and of the other Old Babylonian material more attractive than the more wordy standard version. Some stanzas of the Pennsylvania and Sippar tablets, especially, are unforgettable. To explain what is meant by the standard version of the Gilgamesh epic it is necessary to continue the story of Mesopotamian literature.
* Some time after the eighteenth century Bc the contents of scribal curriculum changed radically. We next have large numbers of school tablets at our disposal from the sixth century on, but the best witnesses to the nature and contents of the late scribal tradition are the several first-millennium libraries that have been excavated in Babylonia, especially at Babylon, Uruk and Sippar, and in Assyria. Assyria is the Greek name for the Land of Ashur, a small country to the north of Babylonia on the middle reaches of the river Tigris that was home in the early first millennium Bc to the greatest empire the Near East had yet seen. Foremost among these late libraries is the collection of clay tablets amassed at Nineveh by the last great king of Assyria, Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC). Like Shulgi before him, King Ashurbanipal claimed to have been... . The scriptorium of Nineveh was also engaged on the task of copying out texts. Some of the copyists were prisoners-of-war or political hostages and worked in chains. 
* p: xxii: Among the texts that were copied out by Ashurbanipal’s scribes was the Gilgamesh epic, of which the library may have possessed as many as four complete copies on clay tablets. Whatever was inscribed on wax has perished, of course. After the sack of Nineveh by the Median and Babylonian alliance in 612 Bc, Ashurbanipal’s copies of the epic, like his other tablets, lay in pieces on the floors of the royal palaces, not to be disturbed for nearly 2,500 years. The royal libraries of Nineveh were the first great find of cuneiform tablets to be dis-covered, in 1850 and 1853, and are the nucleus of the collection of clay tablets amassed in the British Museum. They are also the founda- tion stone upon which the discipline of Assyriology was built and for much research they remain the most important source of primary material. The first to find these tablets were the young Austen Henry Layard and his assistant, an Assyrian Christian called Hormuzd Ras- sam, as they tunnelled in search of Assyrian sculpture through the remains of the ‘Palace without Rival’, a royal residence built by Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal’s grandfather. Three years later Rassam returned on behalf of the British Museum and uncovered a second trove in Ashurbanipal’s own North Palace. Rassam is something of an unsung hero in Assyriology. Much later, in 1879-82, his efforts provided the British Museum with tens of thousands of Babylonian tablets from such southern sites as Babylon and Sippar. Neither Layard nor Rassam was able to read the tablets they sent back from Assyria, but of the find he made in what he called the Chamber of Records Layard wrote, ‘We cannot overrate their value.’ His words remain true to this day, not least for the Gilgamesh epic.
* The huge importance of the royal libraries found at Nineveh by Layard and Rassam first became widely known in 1872 when, sorting through the Assyrian tablets in the British Museum, the brilliant George Smith came across what remains the most famous of Gilgamesh tablets, the best-preserved manuscript of the story of the Deluge. His reaction is described by E. A. Wallis Budge in his history of cuneiform studies, The Rise and Progress of Assyriology: ‘Smith took the tablet and began to read over the lines which Ready [the conservator who had cleaned the tablet] had brought to light; and when he saw that they contained the portion of the legend he had hoped to find there, he said, “I am the first man to read that after two thousand years of oblivion.” Setting the tablet on the table, he jumped up and rushed about the room in a great state of excitement, and, to the astonishment of those present, began to undress himself!’ One hopes the George Smith who made his discovery public was a figure more composed and fully clad, since the occasion was a formal paper delivered to the Society of Biblical Archaeology in the presence of Mr Gladstone and other notables. This must be the only occasion on which a British Prime Minister in office has attended a lecture on Babylonian literature. Assyriology had arrived, and so had Gilgamesh.
* p. xxiv: The purpose of this labour was to provide Ashurbanipal with the best possible expertise to govern in the manner that would please the gods. ‘Send me,’ he commanded, ‘tablets that are beneficial for my royal administration!”* With its advice for proper government the Gilgamesh epic certainly came into this category, but it is clear from the contents of the libraries of Nineveh that the phrase summed up the entire scribal tradition current at the time.
* The scribal tradition then current comprised a very different body of texts from that copied by the apprentices of the Old Babylonian period. Much of the Sumerian corpus was no longer extant. Almost without exception, those few texts that survived from it had been supplied with line-by-line Akkadian translations. The Akkadian liter- ary texts known from Old Babylonian copies had been considerably reworked and many new texts in Akkadian had been added. The written traditions of the great professions had been incorporated. Many of the treatises on divination had been enormously expanded and the incantations of the exorcists had been organized and placed in series. This work of revision, organization and expansion is known to have taken place at the hands of many different scholars between seven and four hundred years earlier, in the last centuries of the second millennium. The labour of these individual Middle Babylonian scholars resulted in the creation of standard editions of most texts, editions which remained essentially unaltered until the death of cunei- form writing a thousand years later.
* The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic did not escape the attentions of a redactor. This by tradition was a learned scholar by the name of Sin-lige-unninni, which means ‘O Moon God, Accept my Prayer!...
* p. xxv: Something of the intermediate stages in this development from ‘Surpassing all other kings’ to ‘He who saw the Deep’ can be learnt from the scraps of Babylonian Gilgamesh that survive from the era in which Sin-lige-unninni lived. This material falls into two groups: texts that come from within Babylonia and texts that come from outside it. The first group comprises only two tablets, from Nippur and Ur, translated in Chapter 3. They closely resemble the standard version of the epic attributed to Sin-liqe-unninni, but there are differ- ences. On grounds of content and style it is hard to say whether these tablets are witness to the text as it was immediately before Sin-liqe-unninni’s editorship, or immediately after it.
* The existence of the second group of tablets, from outside Baby- lonia, needs some explanation. In the fourteenth century, at the height of the Late Bronze Age when the eastern Mediterranean was dominated by the great powers of the Egyptian New Kingdom and the Hittite Empire, the lingua franca of international communications in the Near East was the Akkadian language. Kings of Assyria and Babylonia naturally wrote to Pharaoh in Akkadian, but Pharaoh replied in Akkadian too. The Hittite king and Pharaoh likewise corresponded in Akkadian, and, when writing to their overlords, the minor rulers of the Levantine coast and Syria used the same language, though often shot through with local Canaanite and Hurrian idioms. This Akkadian was written in the traditional manner, in cuneiform script on clay tablets. In order to learn to compose their lords’ letters, treaties and other documents in Akkadian, local scribes were trained in cuneiform writing, and they were trained in the time-honoured way, by rote- learning of the lists, vocabularies and literature of the Babylonian scribal tradition. This was not the first time that the cuneiform script had made the journey to the West. The first known occasion was in the mid-third millennium, when cuneiform was exported to Ebla and elsewhere in Syria and texts in both Sumerian and Akkadian went with it as part of the skills that trainee scribes had to master in order to acquire the new technology. In the nineteenth century Akkadian had been written at Kanesh and other Assyrian trading posts in Cappadocia. In the eighteenth century it was widely used in Syria, not only in Mesopotam- ian Syria but also close by the Mediterranean Sea, and it even appears at Hazor in Palestine. But in the later second millennium the spread of cuneiform schooling and scholarship was wider still. The result was that tablets inscribed with Akkadian scholarly and literary texts were copied out at Hattusa (modern Bogazkéy), the Hittite capital in Anatolia, at Akhetaten (el-Amarna), the royal city of Pharaoh Akhenaten in Upper Egypt, at Ugarit (Ras Shamra), a principality on the Syrian coast, and at Emar (Tell Meskene), a provincial town on the great bend of the Euphrates — just to list the principal sites. Except for Amarna, all these sites have produced tablets of Gilgamesh, as too has Megiddo in Palestine. These texts are translated in Chapter 4. Some of the material from Hattusa, which is the oldest in this group, is very similar to the Old Babylonian epic that we know from the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets and clearly predates Sin-lige-unninni. The texts from Emar, which are several centuries younger, are much more like his text, though again, it is impossible at present to determine whether they precede his work or not. Other Gilgamesh texts from the West are abridgements of the Babylonian epic, or reworkings of it, and are probably local develop- ments. Indeed, the epic fired the imagination then as it does now and adaptations of it were composed in local languages. So far a Hittite version and a Hurtian version have come to light, both found in the archives of the Hittite capital. Though Hittite is pretty well understood, Hurrian is still barely comprehensible and our under- standing of both versions of the Gilgamesh story is badly hampered by their fragmentary state of preservation. Therefore no rendering of them is given here. Not so long ago it seemed that a Gilgamesh text had also been composed in Elamite, the language of a people who occupied what became Susiana and is now Khuzistan. The tablet, discovered in Armenia, far from Elam, was published promptly and in due course translations followed. However, further study revealed that the text was, in fact, a private letter with no connection to Gilgamesh at all. This development elicited from one scholar the wry comment that the document was ‘a good illustration of the fact that Elamite remains the worst-known language of the ancient Near East’. With the Akkadian language we are fortunately on much firmer ground.
* p. xxvii: The standard version of the Babylonian epic is known from a total of 73 manuscripts extant: the 35 that have survived from the libraries of King Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, 8 more tablets and fragments from three other Assyrian cities (Ashur, Kalah and Huzirina), and 30 from Babylonia, especially the cities of Babylon and Uruk. Ashurbanipal’s tablets are the oldest. The latest manuscript discovered so far was written in about 130 BC by one Bel-ahhe-usur (‘O Lord, Protect the Brothers!’), a trainee temple-astrologer of Babylon. By that time this once mighty city was much diminished in power and population but, in a country whose inhabitants had long spoken not Akkadian but Aramaic and Greek, its ancient temple was the last surviving bastion of cuneiform scholarship. From the 73 surviving manuscripts it is possible to reconstruct much of Sin-lige-unninni’s epic but there are still considerable gaps. To fill these lacunae it is sometimes possible to fall back on the older material in Akkadian and for one episode it is even necessary to utilize the Hittite version. The result of this reconstruction is the text given in Chapter 1. There, in order clearly to distinguish between text of different periods, old material used to bridge lacunae in the standard version is explicitly identified in editorial notes.
* The standard version of the epic is divided by Babylonian tradition into sections. The definition of a section is that it is the text customarily contained on an individual clay tablet, and so the sections are called, in accordance with Babylonian custom, ‘tablets’. The epic is told over eleven such sections, Tablets I-XI. The organizing of Babylonian literature in the latter part of the second millennium resulted in much of it being arranged in standard sequences of tablets, sequences that were known as ‘series’. The ‘series of Gilgamesh’, in fact, comprises twelve tablets, not just the eleven of the epic. Tablet XII, the last, is a line-by-line translation of the latter half of one of the Sumerian Gilgamesh poems. Somehow this partial translation survived into the first millennium while the original Sumerian text, like the other Sumerian poems of Gilgamesh, did not. Though some have tried to show that Tablet XII had a real place in the epic, most scholars would agree that it does not belong to that text but was attached to it because it was plainly related material. The principle of bringing together related material was one of the criteria by which the scholars of Babylonia organized different texts into the same series.
* p. xxviii: The eleven tablets of the epic vary in length from 183 to 326 lines of poetry, so that the whole composition would originally have been about 3,000 lines long. As the text now stands, only Tablets I, VI, X and XI are more or less complete. Leaving aside lines that are lost but can be restored from parallel passages, overall about 575 lines are still completely missing, that is, they are not represented by so much as a single word. Many more are too badly damaged to be useful, so that considerably less than the four-fifths of the epic that is extant yields a consecutive text. In the translation offered here the damaged state of the text is all too evident, pock-marked as it is by the clutter of brackets and ellipses.
* While there is a temptation for a modern editor to ignore the gaps, to gloss them over or to join up disconnected fragments of text, I believe that no adult reader is well served by such a procedure. The gaps are themselves important in number and size, for they remind us how much is still to be learned of the text. They prevent us from assuming that we have Gilgamesh entire. Whatever we say about the epic is provisional, for new discoveries of text may change our interpretation of whole passages. Nevertheless, the epic we have now is considerably fuller than that which fired the imagination of Rilke. Approach what lies ahead not as you might the poems of Homer but as a book part-eaten by termites or a scroll half-consumed by fire. Accept it for what it is, a damaged masterpiece.
* In time, the holes that pepper the standard version of the epic will undoubtedly be filled by further discoveries of tablets in the ruin-mounds of Mesopotamia and in the museums of the world — for such is the lack of professional Assyriologists everywhere that we have yet to study properly many thousands of tablets that have long been in museum collections. The correct identification and accurate placement of what are often only small fragments make for difficult and painstaking work. Not even a genius like George Smith always came up with the right identification. The Daily Telegraph was so impressed with his famous lecture on the Deluge story from the Gilgamesh epic that in 1873, in the hope of recovering the missing portions of text, they provided the splendid sum of one thousand guineas (£1,050) to enable him to reopen for the British Museum the old excavations at Nineveh. In comparison with those who had dug there before him, Smith brought home only a very small number of tablets — the ‘DT’ collection — from this, his first expedition, but there among them was indeed a fragment of the Flood, one that even filled an important gap in the narrative. This was a most impressive fulfilment of the Daily Telegraph’s expectations, but the expedition was a victim of its own success. The desired fragment so exactly met the newspaper’s requirements that the news of its discovery led to the expedition’s early recall.
* p. xxx: In fact, we now know that this particular fragment of the Deluge story is part of a late version of the poem of Atram-hasis and not a piece of Gilgamesh at all. Smith had no way of knowing that at the time. His identification was the best that could then be expected, and went unchallenged for many years. Employed by the British Museum in 1867 to assist Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, one of the grand pioneers of cuneiform decipherment, George Smith was more than the discoverer of Gilgamesh and the epic’s first translator. He was among the first in a long line of scholars who have sifted through the libraries of Ashurbanipal and, by sorting, joining and identifying thousands of pieces of Assyrian clay tablets, have over a period of 130 years steadily increased our knowledge of the literature of the Babylonians. It is in this continuing work of discovery and identifica- tion of manuscripts, from Nineveh and elsewhere, in the field as well as in museums, that the Gilgamesh epic (along with most other literary texts written in cuneiform on clay tablets) differs from fragmentary texts in Greek and Latin. The eventual recovery of this literature is assured by the durability of the writing medium. It is only a matter of time — providing, of course, that the society in which we live continues to place value on such things and to support the scholars who study them.
* p. xxxii: The Gilgamesh epic is one of the very few works of Babylonian literature which can be read and enjoyed without special knowledge of the civilization from which it sprang. The names of the characters may be unfamiliar and the places strange, but some of the poet’s themes are so universal in human experience that the reader has no difficulty in understanding what drives the epic’s hero and can easily identify with his aspirations, his grief and his despair. The Assyriologist William L. Moran has recently expounded Gilgamesh’s story as a tale of the human world, characterized by an ‘insistence on human values’ and an ‘acceptance of human limitations’. This observation led him to describe the epic as ‘a document of ancient humanism’,’ and indeed, even for the ancients, the story of Gilgamesh was more about what it is to be a man than what it is to serve the gods. As the beginning and end of the epic make clear, Gilgamesh is celebrated more for his human achievement than for his relationship with the divine. Though the story of Gilgamesh is certainly fiction, Moran’s diag- nosis is also a warning not to read the epic as myth. There is little consensus as to what myth is and what it is not, and ancient Meso- potamian mythological texts show considerable variety. Some of them, particularly the older ones, contain just one myth. Others put together two or more myths. Two features are particularly characteristic of these mythological compositions: on the one hand, the story centres on the deeds of a god or gods, and, on the other, its purpose is to explain the origin of some feature of the natural or social world. More of the characters of the Epic of Gilgamesh are divine than not, but set beside the protagonist they are insignificant. The gods even attract unfavourable similes: in Tablet XI the poet compares them to dogs and flies, as if the rulers of the universe were parasitical scavengers. In the main the function of the poem is not to explain origins. It is more interested in examining the human condition as it is. On these grounds the epic is not myth. It certainly contains myths — the myth of the snake which shed its skin in Tablet XI being the purest example, the Flood story the most famous — and it makes many allusions to the mythology of the day, particularly in the episode of Gilgamesh’s repudiation of the goddess Ishtar in Tablet VI. But most such myths are incidental to the story and the epic is certainly much more than the sum of its mythological parts — unlike, for example, Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Nevertheless, the text of Gilgamesh is often studied alongside compositions which are truly mythological. Indeed, no book on the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia can resist it. The reason for this can best be explained by quoting the words of G. S. Kirk, who dealt at length with Gilgamesh in his important study of myth: ‘Above all [the epic] retains, in spite of its long and literate history, an unmistakable aura of the mythical — of that kind of emotional exploration of the permanent meaning of life, by the release of fantasy about the distant past, that Greek myths, at least as we experience them, so often fail to exemplify in their own right.” If not truly mythological, in the sense defined above, what is this poem? Moran’s phrase, ‘a document of ancient humanism’, is again a useful one, for it highlights the fact that the epic is not a religious poem either, at least not in the same way as, for example, John Henry Newman’s ‘Dream of Gerontius’..... There is plenty of Babylonian poetry in which a sufferer, often sick and feeling himself near to death, throws himself on the mercy of one or other of the inscrutable gods and asks for forgiveness and reconciliation. Gilgamesh, however, in his terror and misery spurns the help of his gods — specifically rejecting the good advice of Shamash, the god who protects him — and, even at the last, turns for solace to his own achievements rather than to his creator. The poem concludes with Gilgamesh proudly showing his companion the monument for which he became famous:«O Ur-shanabi, climb Uruk’s wall and walk back and forth! Survey its foundations, examine the brickwork!...» The late Thorkild Jacobsen, a renowned Sumerologist who wrote on ancient Mesopotamian religion with considerable vision, once described the epic as a ‘story of learning to face reality, a story of “growing up”’. Gilgamesh begins as an immature youth, capable of anything and accepting no check; eventually he comes to accept the power and reality of Death, and thus he reaches reflective maturity. But there is more to the epic than that. In charting the hero’s progress, the poet reflects profoundly on youth and age, on triumph and despair, on men and gods, on life and death. It is significant that his concern is not just Gilgamesh’s glorious deeds but also the suffering and misery that beset his hero as he pursues his hopeless quest.‘Read out’, the poet enjoins us in the prologue, ‘the travails of Gilgamesh, all that he went through!’ As a poem which explores the truth of the human condition the epic bears a message for future generations, then as now. Maturity is gained as much through failure as success. Life, of necessity, is hard, but one is the wiser for it. (GO TO Gilgamesh flood myth)  ..... In the ancient world religion permeated intellectual activity in a way that it does not now. Read as ‘wisdom’, ultimately the epic bears a message of serious religious content. Its views on the proper duties of men and kings are strictly in line with the gods’ requirements and conform to the religious ideology of ancient Mesopotamia: do the will of the gods, fulfil your function as they intended. So while the epic can be enjoyed for its own sake without further inquiry, some knowledge of the mythology which expressed the relationship between gods, kings and men, of how the Babylonians understood their uni- verse, and of their religion and how their beliefs conditioned the Babylonians’ approach to the divine, will give us greater insight into this masterpiece.
* We know from many ancient Mesopotamian sources, in Sumerian and in Akkadian, that the Babylonians believed the purpose of the human race to be the service of the gods. Before mankind’s creation, the myth tells us, the cities of lower Mesopotamia were inhabited by the gods alone and they had to feed and clothe themselves by their own efforts. Under the supervision of Enlil, the lord of the earth, the lesser deities grew and harvested the gods’ food, tilled the soil and, most exhaustingly, dug the rivers and waterways that irrigated the fields. Even the rivers Tigris and Euphrates were their work. Eventu- ally the labour became too much for them and they mutinied. The resourceful god Ea (called Enki in the poem of Atram-hasis) devised first the technology to produce a substitute worker from raw clay and then the means by which this new being could reproduce itself. The first humans were duly born from the womb of the Mother Goddess and allotted their destiny, ‘to carry the yoke, the task imposed by Enlil, to bear the soil-basket of the gods’. This act of creation could be repeated as necessary. So when, as related in Tablet I of the Gilgamesh epic, the need arises to make a match for Gilgamesh, which plainly could not be done by human reproduction, The goddess Aruru, she washed her hands, took a pinch of clay, threw it down in the wild. In the wild she created Enkidu, the hero, offspring of silence, knit strong by Ninurta. Enkidu is thus a replica of the first man, born without a mother’s cries of pain. In the poem of Atram-hasis the yoke and soil-basket, the means of carrying earth from the diggings, symbolize the burden imposed on mankind by the god Enlil. This burden was much more than earth- moving, however; it was all the work that went into looking after the gods in their temples on earth, from irrigating their fields, raising their crops and pasturing their livestock to baking their bread, butchering their meat and clothing their statues. And so it was in reality. The principal deities of the Babylonian pantheon lived, embodied in anthro- pomorphic statues, in palatial houses, surrounded by their divine families, courtiers and servants. The ideology was that soon after the sundering of heaven from earth the rulers of gods had divided up the land between the major deities of the pantheon, allocating to each a city and its surrounding territory. Though many cities possessed more than one temple — Babylon traditionally had forty-three — the notion remained that the city and its hinterland belonged in principle to its patron deity, the god to whom they had been given in the original partition of the land, and that they were his to exploit.
** Introduction, p. xlv: In fact, the context of this momentous change in man’s destiny is now confirmed by the newly available text of the Death of Bilgames, in the words of the god Enki to his partners, An and Enlil: After the assembly had made the Deluge sweep over... Ziusudra, one of mankind, still lived! .. . From that time we swore that mankind should not have life eternal.
** The sole exception to the new doom of mankind is the survivor of the Flood, who is made immortal. And how this came about, the story of the Deluge, is the subject of the continuation of Uta-napishti’s teach- ing to Gilgamesh. But, as he himself explains, Uta-napishti’s elevation to immortal status was an isolated event born of a particular set of circumstances never to be repeated. Gilgamesh may acquire the ‘secret of the gods’, the knowledge of how Uta-napishti ‘found life’ in the company of the gods, but he cannot follow in his footsteps. To underline his message of the futility of Gilgamesh’s quest Uta-napishti challenges his visitor to defeat Sleep, the younger brother of Death, knowing that he will fail. Then he arranges that Gilgamesh should find the ‘plant of
** Introduction, p. xlvi: rejuvenation’, knowing that he will lose it by his own hand. Only the snake is destined to benefit from it. ‘Had I only turned back, and left the boat by the shore!’ With these words Gilgamesh laments that he would have been better off had he not made the journey to Uta-napishti at all, when all it has brought him is the cruel realization of his own mortal inadequacy. And aware at last of his own capabilities he becomes reconciled to his lot, and wise. In the words of the prologue, to which we return: ‘He came a far road, was weary, found peace.’ The story of Gilgamesh’s ‘growing up’ is, in fact, the story of a hero who grows wise, wise in the sense of learning his place in the divinely ordained scheme of things. In fact, it is the tale of one whose extraordinary experiences make him extraordinarily wise. The poet makes it clear right at the beginning that we should expect this: He who saw the Deep, the country’s foundation, [who] knew ... , was wise in all matters... and [learnt] of everything the sum of wisdom.
**** Introduction, p. xlviii: In the epic the explicit wisdom that Gilgamesh gained at the end of the world is knowledge of himself and the story of the Deluge. In Babylonian tradition he also gained another kind of wisdom. The prologue of the epic fétes the hero as one who reached through sheer force Uta-napishti the Distant; who restored the cult-centres destroyed by the Deluge, and set in place for the people the rites of the cosmos.
**** There is mythology to be explained here too, relating to the post- diluvian history of mankind. The ancient historical tradition, as reported in the king lists, is that after the Deluge human kingship had to be re-established by the gods: ‘after the Flood had swept over, then, kingship being sent down from heaven, kingship was in the city of Kish’. The dynasty of Kish was followed by that of Uruk, of which Gilgamesh (or Bilgames) was the fifth king. The implication is that, when kings began to reign again, the antediluvian civilization was restored, that is, the order ordained by the gods came back into operation. This was important, for the traditional belief was that the gods had supplied all that was needed for human beings to flourish — cities, agriculture, the arts of civilization — at the outset of human history, in the antediluvian age. Nothing more was to be discovered; the antediluvian model was how human society should be run.
**** According to one ancient view, most fully reported by Berossus in his Babyloniaca, civilization was restored by those who had accompanied Ziusudra (the Sumerian name of Uta-napishti) on board the ark and thus survived the Deluge. This tradition is implicit in the Flood story preserved in Tablet XI of Gilgamesh and in the poem of Atram-hasis, where the mention of the craftsmen and animals taken aboard the ark explains how it was that the skills of artisans and herdsmen (and the animal kingdom in general) survived the catastrophe. But there was also a tradition, local to the town of Lagash in the early second millennium, that the gods withheld kingship for a time. During this time they did not require mankind to look after their needs by irrigating and tilling the land, and no agriculture took place:After the Flood had swept over . . .had not sent down from heaven (once more) ...and for all the overthrown people had not established (once more) mattock, spade, earth-basket and plough, ...
**** p. l: In this feckless, idle state the human race went hungry and failed to flourish. The tablet is broken at this point but there must have followed a description of the re-establishment of kingship and ordered life, for when the text is again legible the gods are re-introducing the people to the arts of agriculture. The implication of the prologue of the epic is that Gilgamesh played a key role in restoring the antediluvian order after the Flood, particularly in restoring the cults of the gods to their proper glory. The new discovery of text of the Sumerian poem we know as the Death of Bilgames confirms this inference. On his deathbed Bilgames has a dream, in which the gods relate to him his heroic achievements: You reached Ziusudra in his abode! The rites of Sumer, forgotten there since distant days of old... [after the] Deluge it was you made known all the tasks of the land.
**** Here also is a connection between Gilgamesh’s journey to the survivor of the Flood and the restoration of cultic life. So the wisdom he brought back from his journey was more than personal knowledge. It did not suit the poet’s needs to include more than allusions to it, but evidently Gilgamesh was responsible for re-civilizing his country. In this he was the tool of the god Ea, like the Seven Sages, for as Ninsun predicted in Tablet III, Gilgamesh grew ‘wise with Ea of the Ocean Below’. The epic’s opening words make the same connection: he ‘saw the Deep, the country’s foundation’. The Deep signifies Ea’s cosmic domain, especially as the fount of wisdom. From this source Gilgamesh learnt the profound truths that underpinned human society and government. In a poem whose hero becomes obsessed with the avoidance of death, it is to be expected that the poet will be much interested in the Netherworld. Conditions there are the subject of a large section of Tablet VII, in which Enkidu on his deathbed dreams of being dragged down to the Netherworld by the Angel of Death. The funeral and wake of Enkidu, described in the latter part of Tablet VIII, can be understood as the ideal model for the mortuary rites that preceded the burial of a Babylonian noble. The appended Tablet XII tells more of the fate of the shades. The relevance of this is more than a question of theme, however. The ultimate destiny of Gilgamesh would be known to every Babylonian: after death he became the deified ruler
**** p. li: and judge of the shades of the dead. In the Sumerian poem of the Death of Bilgames this position is given to him by the gods on account of his mother’s divinity: Bilgames, in the form of his ghost, dead in the underworld, shall be [the governor of the Netherworld,] chief of the shades! [He will pass judgement,] he will render verdicts,  [what he says will be as weighty as the word of ] Ningishzida and Dumuzi.
**** Gilgamesh’s fate as one of the gods of the Netherworld is a matter which is understood in the epic. His posthumous place in the pantheon is not revealed to him, but his mother has foreknowledge of it, as she reminds Shamash in Tablet III: Will he not rule with Irnina the black-headed people? Will he not dwell with Ningishzida in the Land-of-No-Return?
**** It is a neat irony, surely appreciated by every educated Babylonian, that the hero who failed to become a god in life became one in death.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲ نوامبر ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۲۱:۰۰ (UTC)
=== روایت اندرو جرج (حماسه بابلی گیلگمش) ===
thread_title:  روایت‌ها و بررسی‌های تطبیقی 

message: ==== بررسی تطبیقی شعرهای سومری و لوح‌های حماسه ====
===== مرگ بیلگمس (نرگاو وحشیِ بزرگ آرمیده است) - لوح VIII و XI =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، ص ۱۹۵ تا ۲۰۸:
* همان مشکلات نرگاو آسمان را در ترجمه دارد.
* آغاز با بیلگمش خشک‌شده؛ انکی (در قالب نودیمود) به او نشان می‌دهد که جمع خدایان درباره سرنوشت او گفتگو می‌کنند.
** نرگاو وحشیِ بزرگ آرمیده است، هرگز برنخواهد خاست،
** فرمانروا بیلگمس آرمیده است، هرگز برنخواهد خاست ...
* خدایان کارهای او را برمی‌شمارند از جمله رفتنش به پایان جهان و دیدارش با زیوسودرا (فراگیری دانش باستانی)
** نام زیوسودرا ابتدا در انتهای ص ۱۹۸ می‌آید (بیلگمس رسوم سومر را که فراموش شده بازمی‌گرداند از جمله شستن دست و شستن دهان) و سپس در ص ۱۹۹ درباره طوفان صحبت می‌شود و باز نام زیوسودرا تکرار می‌شود و بیان می‌شود که پس از طوفان سوگند خوردند انسان زندگی جاودان نداشته باشد.  
* حکم نهایی را انکی می‌دهد (و انلیل جمع‌بندی می‌کند): 
** با وجود خدایی بودن باید به جهان زیرین رود ولی جایگاه خاصی چون دموزی می‌یابد و روی زمین نیز جشنواره در بزرگداشتش به پا می‌شود.
* بیلگمس بیدار می‌شود و شگفت‌زده است (افتادگی).
* بیلگمس به دنبال تدبیر (بخش پرتکرار - لحن از سوم شخص به اول شخص تبدیل نمی‌شود ولی مشخص است که بیلگمس رویا را برای افراد مختلف بیان می‌کند).
* پاسخ‌ها (و به دنبالش افتادگی)
* انکی، و آغاز بیلگمس به ساختن گور برای خود (ارتباط از طریق سگ و نه انسان).
* تغییر مسیر فرات برای ساختن گور بیلگمس در بستر آن.
* آمادگی حرم و همراهان برای رفتن به گور بیلگمس برای همراهی او در جهان پس از مرگ (پاراگراف طولانی مشهوری که یادآور کشفیات باستان‌شناسی لئونارد وولی در اور است).
* اهدا هدیه به ارشکیگال (مانند لوح VIII)
* بستن ورودی گور و برگرداندن رود به مسیر تا گور پیدا نگردد.
* دو پایان متفاوت:
** تحسین بیلگمس (کمتر سالم مانده)
** انسان‌ها در یاد زندگان باقی خواهند ماند.
===== بیلگمس و جهان زیرین (در آن روزها، در آن روزهای بسیار دور) - لوح XII =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، صفحه ۱۷۵  تا ۱۹۵:
* رایج در مدرسه‌های نیپور و اور 
* برخلاف سایر شعرهای سومری مقدمه‌ای اسطوره‌ای دارد:
** در زمان‌های دور پس از آن‌که خدایان هستی را در بین خود تقسیم کردند، طوفانی بزرگ برپاشد. انکی به جهان زیرین می‌رفت (آبزو) درختی بر کناره فرات پدیدار شد. اینانا درخت را می‌بیند، به برادرش اوتو می‌گوید، بی‌اعتنا، به بیلگمس می‌گوید و او کار لازم را انجام  می‌دهد و با باقی‌مانده برای خود توپ و چوگان می‌سازد و آنقدر با جوانان شهر بازی می‌کند که زنان آنها به خدایان شکایت می‌کنند (مانند لوح I حماسه). اسباب‌بازی‌ها به جهان زیرین می‌افتند و بیلگمس که دستش به آنها نمی‌رسد به گریه می‌افتد. خادم او، انکیدو، داوطلب می‌شود که برای بازیافتن آنها به جهان زیرین رود. بیلگمس راهنمایی لازم را به انکیدو می‌کند (احترام لازم و عدم جلب توجه همچون مراسم سوگواری) ولی انکیدو آنها را رعایت نمی‌کند و در مخمصه می‌افتد. انلیل کمکی به بیلگمس نمی‌کند، انکی (با کمک اوتو) امکان دیدار بیلگمس و انکیدو را در سپیده‌دم فراهم می‌کند. یکدیگر را در آغوش می‌گیرند. پرسش و پاسخ طولانی آن دو درباره جهان زیرین نقطه اوج داستان است:
*** این بخش بی‌رحمانه بدبینانه است که گاهی طنز آن را کاهش می‌دهد
**** بدترین مرگ: مردن در حالی که بدن متلاشی شده (کامل نیست به هر علتی)
**** بدترین مرگ: آنان که در آتش سوزانده شده‌اند در دود محو خواهند شد و نمی‌توانند حتی به جهان زیرین روند (در اسلام).
* در یکی از سنت‌های کتابت متن در اینجا پایان می‌یابد ولی لوح‌های نیپور ادامه می‌یابند (چگونگی مراقبت از مردگان).
* ارتباطی تاریخی (اواخر هزاره سوم پیشا دوران مشترک، سقوط سلسله سوم اور)(عیلامی‌ها)(ص ۱۷۷)
* نسخه‌ای از نیمه دوم متن به اکدی لوح XII حماسه را تشکیل می‌دهد.
* در آن روزها، در آن روزهای بسیار دور،
* در آن شب‌ها، در آن شب‌های دور
* در آن سال‌ها، در آن سال‌های بسیار دور
==== روایت لوح‌های حماسه ====
===== لوح XI =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، ص ۸۸ تا ۱۰۰:
* عصاره:
** گیلگمش از اوتا-ناپیشتی می‌پرسد چگونه به زندگی جاودانه دست یافته، در پاسخ داستان طوفان را می‌‌شنود و اینکه خدایان به او پس از نجات از طوفان زندگی جاوردان دادند. اوتا-ناپیشتی به گیلگمش می‌‌گوید یک هفته نخوابد. گیلگمش نمی‌تواند و درمی‌یابد او که ناتوان از نخوابیدن است، بیهوده به دنبال غلبه بر مرگ است. اوتا-ناپیشتی به قایقرانش دستور می‌دهد پوشاک در خور در اختیار گیلگمش گذارد و او را به اوروک برگرداند. زن اوتا-ناپیشتی از او می‌خواهد رسم هدیه دادن به مهمان را به جا آورد. اوتا-ناپیشتی به گیلگمش نشان گیاهی را در اعماق دریا می‌دهد که او را جوان خواهد کرد. گیلگمش به اعماق می‌رود و گیاه را به دست می‌آورد. او و اور-شانابی به قصد اوروک به راه می‌افتند. برای شستشو در جایی توقف می‌کنند، ماری گیاه را می‌رباید و گیلگمش درمی‌یابد که تمامی تلاش‌هایش بیهوده بوده است. امیدهایش ناامید شده‌اند (نابود شده‌اند)، بهتر بود که اصلا اوتا-ناپیشتی را ندیده بود. او و اور-شانابی به اوروک می‌رسند و گیلگمش با همان واژه‌های مقدمه دیوارها را به عنوان دستاوردش به قایقران نشان می‌دهد.
*** داستان طوفان: 
**** در ص ۹۰ نام آترا-هاسیس به میان می‌آید: به عنوان نام دروازه‌ای که نجار و ... گرد می‌آیند.
**** ساختن کشتی با جزئیات بیان می‌شود.
**** اوتا-ناپیشتی گویی که فردایی نیست از آنها پذیرایی می‌کند (جشنی چون روزهای سال نو)
**** برخلاف توصیه اِآ، اوتا-ناپیشتی طلا و نقره‌اش هم را به کشتی می‌برد.
**** نعمت آسمانی! (نان کیکی و گندم) 
**** ص ۹۱: همگی خدایان (اَدَد، آنوناکی ...) بخشی از کار را انجام می‌دهند و نقشی به عهده می‌گیرند، همه به جز اِآ.
**** خدایان را وحشت فرامی‌گیرد، به بهشت آنو می‌روند، همچون سگ دراز می‌کشند. اینانا (در اینجا: بِلِت-ایلی)همچون زنی در حال زایمان قریاد می‌کشد: ... چرا مردمانم را کشتم ... من به دنیا آوردمشان، مردمان منند... اکنون اقیانوس را چون ماهی پرکرده‌اند.
**** طوفان شش روز و هفت شب طول می‌کشد.
**** روز هفتم طوفان پایان می‌یابد.
**** اوتا-ناپیشتی دریچه را باز می‌کند، نور خورشید بر صورتش می‌افتد. به زانو می‌افتد و می‌گرید. 
**** بر کوه نیموش (هفت روز)؛ سه پرنده (کبوتر، پرستو و در آخر غُراب که برنمی‌گردد)
**** قربانی می‌کند و خدایان چون مگس جمع می‌شوند.
**** بِلِت-ایلی از راه می‌رسد و انلیل را ایجادکننده طوفان می‌داند.
**** انلیل خشمگین که چرا بشری زنده باقی مانده، پاسخ نینورتا، سخنان اِآ (ص ۹۵)
**** در نیمه این سخنان بار دیگر نام آتراهاسیس به میان می‌آید (اینبار برای اوتا-ناپیشتی و زمانی که اِآ می‌گوید چیزی را فاش نکرده، بلکه آتراهاسیس آن را دریافته)
***** با این حال در پاراگراف بعدی، دوباره از خود واژه اوتا-ناپیشتی استفاده می‌شود (از زبان انلیل)
**** مردی میرا جاودان می‌شود ولی دورافتاده
==== مقدمه کتاب (xiii-lii) ====
* xiii
** یکی از شاهکارهای بزرگ ادبیات جهان / حماسه‌ای درباره ترس از مرگ / و درباره بسیاری دیگر: ... سرشت و پروردن، ... / داستان طوفان با هنرمندی / قهرمان فرهنگ: با دانشی که در انتهای جهان از بازمانده طوفان فراگرفته، معابد سرزمین و آیین‌ها را به کمالِ پیش از طوفان می‌رساند. / و بسیاری از اولین‌ها ... / و بسیاری جزئیات (چرا در تقویم بابلی دو روز نو وجود دارد و ...) / اقتباس‌ها (به زبان‌های مختلف) ... / نسخه‌های مختلف خط میخی / خط برای انجام کارهای اداری پیچیده به‌وجود آمد (نه برای داستان نوشتن و ...) / حماسه گیلگمش به چندین زبان و از چندین عصر به امروز رسیده ... تقسیم‌بندی بر اساس زمان، مکان و زبان ... پنج فصل -  فصل I: اکدی (او که ژرفا را دید) فصل 2 تا 4: اکدی (قدیمی‌تر)(برتر از همه شاهان) + لوح‌های مشق فصل 2: متن‌های نیمه اول هزاره دوم پیشا دوران مشترک (دوره بالی باستان) فصل 3: نیمه دوم هزاره دوم (دوره بابلی میانه) و فصل 4: متن‌های همان دوره از «غرب»ِ باستان (لوانت و آناتولیا)(شام و آناتولی)/ فصل 5: پنج شعر سومری (نسخه کاتبان بابلی ولی از زمان‌های دور)
* گیلگمش و ادبیات بین‌النهرین باستان xvi
** ۲۶۰۰ پیشا دوران مشترک: استفاده از خط برای ادبیات / بسیار سخت برای خواندن (بازتاب همه زبان نیست هنوز(الفبا)) / بین‌النهرین سفلی: مردمانی با دو زبان بسیار متفاوت / سومری (بدون ارتباط با سایر زبان‌ها)(زبانی که به نظر می‌رسد اولین بار به خط در آمده است) - اکدی (متعلق به گروه زبان‌های سامی (مانند عبری و عربی)) این دو زبان سالیان دراز توسط هر دو گروهی که در بین‌النهرین سفلی ساکن بودن استفاده می‌شده است (نزدیکی فرهنگی (واژه آلمانی)). سومری‌های بیشتر در جنوبِ شهری ساکن بودند و اکدی‌ها در شمالِ بیشتر ایالتی. / «سیاه‌سران» / دو زبانی بین‌النهرین باستان شاید همچون فرانسوی و فلامان در بلژیک /   از ۲۳۰۰ متون اکدی بسیار پیدا می‌شوند (زبانِ در خدمت اولین امپراتوری بین‌النهرین / سارگن / از خلیج تا شام). داستان تولد سارگن و موسی (در مقاله گیلگمش هست) / ایشتار / صد سال / متون ادبی خیلی کم / سنت شفاهی / کمرنگ شدن سومری (به عنوان زبان رایج) ولی زبانِ کتابت در رنسانس سومری (آخرین قرن هزاره سوم - سلسله سوم اور - شولگی) .../
*** ظهور بابل: قرن هجدهم / حموراپی (پ) / سومری دیگر زبان گفتار نبود (زبان نوشتار) گویش بابلیِ زبان اکدی / «کاتبی که سومری نداند، چگونه کاتبی است؟» / «مبصر در گفت: چرا بی‌اجازه‌ام رفتی؟ و مرا زد مبصر آب گفت: «چرا بی‌اجازه‌ام خوردی؟ و مرا زد» مبصر سومری گفت «اکدی گفتی» و مرا زد معلم گفت «خط تو بد است» و مرا زد.» 
**** کاتب در آینده برای اثبات اینکه بلد است بنویسد باید به سومری می‌نوشت. بهترین متون سومری که باید یاد می‌گرفت پیکره‌ای تجویز شده از متون ادبی سنتی سومری. / تقریبا هر متن ادبی سومری که داریم، همین‌هاست که کاتبان جوان بابلی نوشته‌اند (در خرابه خانه معلمشان) (نیپور و اور). / تازگی در ایسن متون سومری (از همان زمان)(تل حداد-مه توران) / کریمر / خود شولگی نیز انتظار نداشت شاید. / در بینشان پنج شعر سومری (بیلگمس - فصل پنج) 
** این پنج شعر مشهورترند / حماسه بابلی گیلگمش (اکدی) - داستان‌های مجزا و مفرد بدون تم مشترک / مکتوب شدن: احتمالا در زمان سلسله سوم اور (علاقه خاص به بیلگمس)(گوسان) / سرگرمی / گرچه قرن هجدهم ولی به نه فقط شولگی که به سنت شفاهی /
*** همراهشان کمی ادبیات اکدی («ادبیات بابلی باستان») / چند تا درباره گیلگمش (فصل دو) (بسیار نادر-برنامه درسی نبودند و خود کاتبان برای دلشان نوشته‌اند) 
**** سایر ادبیات اکدی: در میانشان سه لوح بابلی باستان گیلگمش (پنسیلوانیا، ییل و سیپار (فصل دو))
**** شاهکار دیگری در ادبیات بابلی (دوره بابلی باستان): آترام-هاسیس (وقتی که خدایان انسان بودند)   
** آترام-هاسیس: تاریخ بشر از خلقت تا طوفان / استفاده شاعر گیلگمش از همین داستان و داستان طوفان در سفر پیدایش 
*** علم بابلی: طرد شیطان با جادو
** ادبیات در دوره بابل باستان خلاقانه بود ولی برنامه درسی حداقل در مدارسی که می‌شناسیم آنقدر واپس‌گرا که بازتاب این گستره نبود.
** لوح‌های بابلی باستان گیلگمش آشکار می‌کند در این زمان حماسه بکپارچه‌ای شکل گرفته است. / عنوان نسخه پنسیلوانیا: Shūtur eli sharrī برتر از همه شاهان دیگر / سنت شفاهی / پادشاهی، شهرت و ترس از مرگ / یک شاعرِ بی‌نام /  بخشی از نسخه پنسیلوانیا و سیپار فراموش‌نشدنی است.
** تا برای اینکه روشن شود نسخه معیار چیست باید داستان ادبیات بین‌النهرینی ادامه یابد. (ص xxi)
*** قرن هجدهم پیشا دوران مشترک / برنامه درسی مدارس کتابت به کل تغییر کرد (دوران تاریک؟) / مرحله بعد، قرن ششم ولی کتابخانه‌های هزاره اول در تمدن بابل (بابل، اوروک، سیپار و آشور) - نینوا (آشوربانیپال) - مانند شولگی - نابو: خدای کاتبان ... / جزئیات کتابخانه ... لوح‌هایی که چهارصد سال قبل مکتوب شده‌اند / جزئیات مهم / حماسه گیلگمش در حداقل چهار نسخه / پس از مادها و بابلیان ۶۱۲ پیشا دوران مشترک تکه‌ها ماند تا ۲٬۵۰۰ سال بعد (۱۸۵۰ و ۱۸۵۳) - آشورشناسی (هنوز مهمترین منبع) / جزئیات مهم تاریخی - رسام: قهرمانی در آشورشناسی که برایش نسروده‌اند / جرج اسمیت وارد می‌شود 
**** اولین انسانی که پس از ۲٬۰۰۰ سال آنها را خواند «لوح‌ها را روی میز گذاشت، به هوا پرید، از این سو به آن سوی اتاق دوید و لباس‌هایش را درآورد» / با جزئیات مهمِ قبل و بعدش ... آشورشناسی از راه رسید و نیز گیلگمش.
*** سنت کتابت این دوره متون بسیا متفاوتی از سنت دوره بابلی باستان دارد. متون سومری اکثرا باقی نمانده بودند. هر چه مانده بود همراه بود با ترجمه خط به خط اکدی... (جزئیات مهم) قرن‌های آخر هزاره دوم - استانداردسازی متون
**** سین-لیق-اونینی (ای خدای ماه، دعایم را بپذیر (مرا بیامزر)) - جن‌گیر (شغلی مهم) ... چیز دیگری نمی‌دانیم -قرن سیزده تا دوازده (او نمی‌تواند مصنف اصلی حماسه باشد ولی شکل نهایی را شاید داده باشد: نسخه معیار) ... در قدیم: Sha naqba īmuru (او که ژرفا را دید) - مقایسه دو نسخه معیار و بابلی قدیم با هم / 
***** متون درون تمدن بابل: دو تا (نیپور و اور)(فصل سه) (شبیه به نسخه معیار با تفاوتهایی)
***** متون خارج از تمدن بابل: توضیح لازم دارد: قرن چهاردهم، در اوجِ اواخر عصر برنز (پادشاهی جدید مصر و هیتی‌ها در شرق مدیترانه) lingua franca در خاور نزدیک، اکدی بود. پادشاهان آشور و بابل طبیعتا به اکدی برای فرعون می‌نوشتند ولی فرعون نیز به اکدی پاسخ می‌داد. پادشاه هیتی‌ها و فرعون نیز به اکدی مکاتبه داشتند. حاکمان شام نیز زمانی که با اربابانشان مکاتبه می‌کردند، با همین زبان بود (گرچه وسطش اصطلاحات کنعانی و هوریانی بود). این اکدی به روش سنتی و بر روی لوح و به میخی نوشته میشد. کاتبان محلی برای نوشتن نامه‌ها و قرارداها: تکرار .... (ادامه با جزئیات مهم (دو پاراگراف ص xxvi)) این متون در فصل چهار ترجمه شده‌اند.  / سایر نسخه‌های گیلگمش در غربِ باستان: هیتی (خوانا)، هوریان (ناخوانا)، نسخه عیلامی گیلگمش؟ (ص xxvii) (نامه‌ای خصوصی بود و بی‌ربط به گیلگمش)  - نشانی از «عیلامی شناخته‌نشده‌ترین زبان خاور نزدیک باستان است.» 
**** نسخه معیار حماسه بابلی / ۷۳ متن بازمانده: ۳۵ (کتابخانه آشوربانیپال) + ۸ (از سه شهر دیگر آشور) + ۳۰ از سرزمین بابل (بابل و اوروک) / قدیمی‌ترین در کتابخانه آشوربانیپال / جدیدترین ۱۳۰ پیشا دوران مشترک، بل-آهه-اوسور (خدایا، برادران را نگاهبان باش) (آرامی و یونانی) / از این ۷۳ میشود نسخه اونینی را بازساخت ولی خیلی جاهایش خالی میماند که میتوان با نسخه‌های قدیمی‌تر اکدی پر کردشان و حتی در یکجا باید به سراغ نسخه هیتی رفت. نتیجه این کار می‌شود: فصل یک که با یادداشت مشخص شده‌اند.
***** نسخه معیار بر اساس سنت بابلی به بخش‌هایی تقسیم می‌شود. - جزئیات مهم (ص xxviii) / سری گیلگمش در واقع دوازده لوح است. لوح I تا XI (شامل حماسه) + لوح XII (آخرین در سری): ترجمه سطر به سطر نیمه آخر یکی شعرهای سومری (این ترجمه به هزاره اول رسید برخلاف خود شعرها که نرسیدند). گرچه برخی تلاش کرده‌اند نشان دهند لوح XII جایگاهی واقعی در حماسه دارد اکثر محققان بر این باورند که اینگونه نیست و صرفا به آن افزوده شده چون مربوط بوده است (اصل آوردن متون مربوط با هم در تحقیقات بابلی). / تفاوت یازده لوح در تعداد سطرها ۱۸۳ تا ۳۲۶ (در حدود ۳٬۰۰۰ سطر) / در وضعیت فعلی تنها لوح‌های I و VI و X و XI تقریبا کامل هستند. در حدود ۵۷۵ سطر از بین رفته‌اند. / چهار پنجم متن بازمانده قابل خواندن است. در ترجمه این کتاب این وضع روشن است... هر چه درباره حماسه بگوییم موقتی است ... پایانی دلنشین (اشاره به پیدا شدن لوح طوفان در همان سفر اول اسمیت - اشاره به اینکه آن بخش در واقع جز حماسه نبود و بخشی از آترام-هاسیس بود (راهی برای فهمیدن در آن زمان وجود نداشت))
* زمان و مکان حماسه xxxi (مهم)
** اوروک در سومر (بزرگترین شهر)، گیلگمش ستمگر (شبه‌خدایی به واسطه مادر ولی میرا)، بازسازی دیوار اوروک بر بنیاد پیش از طوفان (پایان دادن به برتری شهر کیش)، به عنوان خدا در فهرست آغازین خدایان و در اواخر هزاره سوم خودش دارای آیین: (در یکی از شعرهای سومری) فرمانروایی روح مردگان در جهان زیرین، همانگونه که به احتمال زیاد شاه آرتوری واقعیت تاریخی داشته، شاه گیلگمشی نیز وجود داشته است، فهرست پادشاهان سومری (پنجمین حاکم سلسله اول اوروک (پس ح. ۲۷۵۰ پیشا دوران مشترک)، حکومت ۱۲۶ ساله)، دوره‌ای که مثل حماسه هومر خدایان نفع شخصی در زندگی انسان داشتند و مستقیم با او گفتگو می‌کردند. 
** سه‌گانه (آنو: خدای آسمان / انلیل (مهمتر بود): مدیر امور خدایان و انسان / اآ: باهوش، در آبهای تازه زیرین که «هفت فرزانه» برای متمدن کردن انسان فرستاد)
** بانوی خدایان: ایزدبانوی مادر مهربان، آفرینش انسان به کمک اآ / ادد خشن، خدای طوفان / سین: خدای ماه (پسر انلیل) / فرزندان ماه: شمش (خدای خورشید)(نگاهبان ویژه گیلگمش) و ایشتار: ونوس بابلی، با اشتهایی زیاد برای عشق جنسی و جنگ / ارشکیگال: (پایین قلمرو اآ) ملکه تلخ دنیای زیرین (دستیارش  نامتار)
** انسان در شهرها زندگی می‌کند و زمین را می‌شکافد. جایی را که نمی‌توان آبیاری کرد شبانان با گله‌هایشان پر می‌کنند (نگران از گرگ و شیر). دورتر، دنیای وحشی که شکارچیان و قانون‌گریزان هستند؛ در آنجا مردی که غزال‌ها بزرگ کردند با نام انکیدو. در مسافت چندین ماهه از دنیای وحشی، در فرای چندین رشته کوه، جنگل سدرِ مقدس بود که می‌گفتند خدایان در آنند. غولی مهیب با نام هومبابا (در هفت حفاظ) از آن نگاهبانی می‌کرد. جایی در کناره جهان که عقرب‌مردان بودند، دو کوه ماشو بود که خورشید در آن طلوع و غروب می‌‌کرد. باز هم دورتر، در پایان دیگرِ «راه خورشید»، «باغ گوهران» بود و در میخانه‌ای بر کناره اقیانوسی گذرناپذیر (که زمین را احاطه کرده بود)، ایزدبانوی اسرارآمیز، سیدوری، بود که در پرده خردمندی می‌بخشید. در آنسوی اقیانوس، «آب‌های مرگ» بود و در فرای آنها در جزیره‌ای دورافتاده (که در آن دوباره دجله و فرات از اعماق سربرمی‌آوردند)، دور از همه انسان‌‌ها، در جایی که فقط قایقرانی با نام اور-شانابی راه داشت، پادشاه پیش از طوفانی با نام اوتا-ناپیشتیِ دورافتاده زندگی می‌کرد؛ بازمانده از طوفانی که انلیل در سپیده تاریخ به پا کرد و میرایی شوم را به جان بشر انداخت.     
* حماسه در متن: اسطوره، دین و خرد xxxii (مهم) 
** حماسه گیلگمش یکی از نادر آثار ادبی بابلی است که بدون نیاز به داشتن اطلاعاتی درباره تمدنی که از آن برخاسته، می‌توان آن را خواند. نام شخصیت‌ها ممکن است ناآشنا باشند یا جاهایِ غریبی در آن باشد ولی برخی از تم‌های شاعر آن‌چنان در تجربه بشری جهانی است که خواننده مشکلی در درک نیروی پیشبرنده قهرمان نخواهد داشت و می‌تواند به راحتی با اندوه و ناامیدی او احساس همدلی کند. ویلیام موران اخیرا داستان گیلگمش را قصه جهان بشری دانسته که بر «ارزش‌های انسانی» و «پذیرفتن محدودیت‌‌های انسانی» پافشاری می‌کند. این دیدگاه به آن منجر شده است که وی حماسه را «سند انسان‌گرایی باستانی» بداند؛ حقیقتا داستان گیلگمش حتی برای مردم باستان بیشتر درباره این بود که انسان بودن چیست تا درباره اینکه خدمت به خدایان چیست. همانگونه که در ابتدا و پایان حماسه روشن است، گیلگمش بیشتر به خاطر دستاوردهای انسانی خود تحسین می‌شود و نه ارتباطش با خدایان.
** گرچه حماسه بی‌شک ادبیات داستانی است، تشخیص موران هشداری است که حماسه را اسطوره نخوانیم. اجماع بسیار کمی بر این وجود دارد که اسطوره چه هست و چه نیست و اسطوره‌های بین‌النهرین باستان گونه‌های مختلفی دارند. برخی، به خصوص قدیمی‌ترها، تنها دربرگیرنده یک اسطوره‌اند. بقیه دو اسطوره یا اسطوره‌های بیشتری را دربرمی‌گیرند. این دسته دو ویژگی دارند: از یک طرف، داستان بر محور کردار یک خدا یا بیشتر است و از طرف دیگر قصد آن دارد که پدیده‌ای طبیعی  یا اجتماعی را توضیح دهد. اکثر شخصیت‌های حماسه گیلگمش، بیشتر خدایی هستند ولی در کنار قهرمان بی‌اهمیت می‌شوند. خدایان حتی تشبیه‌های نامناسب می‌شوند: در لوح XI شاعر آنها را با سگ و مگس مقایسه می‌کند، گویی حاکمان کهکشان مردارخوارانی انگل‌صفت هستند. در کل، کارکرد شعر توضیح اصل‌ها نیست. بیشتر به دنبال بررسی شرایط بشری به همان شکلی که هست، است. 
===== گزیده =====
* page xv: To summarize, Chapter 1 presents the version of the epic in the Akkadian language that was standard in the first-millennium Babylonia and Assyria, with some of its gaps filled with older material. This, if you like, is the classical Epic of Gilgamesh. It was known to the Babylonians and Assyrians as ‘He who saw the Deep’. In this book it is referred to as the standard version. Chapters 2—4 give the full text of older material in Akkadian, including earlier, more fragmentary versions of the epic, such as that known in antiquity as ‘Surpassing all other kings’, and isolated extracts of text on school practice tablets. Chapter 2 presents texts from the first half of the second millennium (the Old Babylonian period), Chapter 3 material from Babylonia of the second half of the second millennium (the Middle Babylonian period) and Chapter 4 texts of the same period from the ancient West — the Levant and Anatolia. Chapter 5 contains the five narrative poems in the Sumerian language, best known from copies made ‘by Babylonian apprentice scribes in the eighteenth century BC, but certainly older. In order to understand how the different texts and fragments of Gilgamesh relate to each other it may help to place them in the context of the long history of ancient Mesopotamian literature.
* p. xvi: Literature was already being written down in Mesopotamia by 2600 BC, though because the script did not yet express language fully, these early tablets remain extremely difficult to read. From at least this time, and probably much earlier, lower Mesopotamia was inhabited by people who spoke two very different languages. One was Sumerian, a language without affinities with any known tongue, and this appears to be the medium of the earliest writing. The other was Akkadian, which is a member of the Semitic family of languages and thus related to Hebrew and Arabic. The two languages, Sumerian and Akkadian, had long been used side by side by the people of lower Mesopotamia, though Sumerian predominated in the urban south and Akkadian in the more provincial north. This geographical division was enshrined in the terminology of later tradition, according to which the homeland of ‘the black-headed ones’, as these people called themselves, com- prised two regions, Sumer, the southern part of lower Mesopotamia, and Akkad, the northern part. The bilingualism of the urban civiliz- ation of lower Mesopotamia in the third millennium Bc perhaps resembled the division between French and Flemish in modern-day Belgium.
** Texts in Akkadian appear in quantity from about 2300 Bc, when the language became an administrative tool in the service of the first great Mesopotamian empire. This empire stretched at its height from the Gulf to Levantine Syria. It was built by Sargon and his successors, the kings of Akkade, a northern city which soon lent its name to the region round about and to the language spoken at the court of its kings. A legend describes how Sargon was a foundling like the infant Moses:
* p. xvii: My mother, a priestess, conceived me and bore me in secret, she put me in a basket of reeds, sealed its lid with pitch; ... the river bore me up and brought me to Aqqi, a drawer of water.’ According to tradition, Sargon rose to power by winning the favour of the goddess Ishtar. For nearly a hundred years his dynasty exercised dominion over the city-states of lower Mesopotamia and much of northern Mesopotamia too. The early texts in Akkadian dating from this period include a very small body of literature. Much more, no doubt, was passed down in an oral tradition and was never written down, or only much later. Sumerian seems to have been losing ground to Akkadian as a spoken language from at least this time, but its function as the primary language of writing was bolstered by a Sumer- ian renaissance in the last century of the third millennium. For a short period much of Mesopotamia was again united, this time under the kings of the celebrated Third Dynasty of the southern city of Ur, most famously Shulgi (2094-2047 BC in the conventional chronology). The perfect prince was an intellectual as well as a warrior and an athlete, and among his many achievements King Shulgi was particularly proud of his literacy and cultural accomplishments. He had rosy memories of his days at the scribal school, where he boasted that he was the most skilled student in his class. In later life he was an enthusiastic patron of the arts and claims to have founded special libraries at Ur and at Nippur, further north in central Babylonia, in which scribes and minstrels could consult master copies of, as it were, the Sumerian songbook. Thus he envisaged that hymns to his glory and other literature of his day would be preserved for posterity:
* p. xviii: In this enlightened atmosphere the courts of the kings of Ur and the succeeding dynasty of Isin were witness to the composition of much literature in Sumerian. This literature we know best not from tablets written at the time, though some survive (including a fragment of a Gilgamesh poem), but from the scribal curriculum of the Babylonians. After the rise to power of the city of Babylon in the eighteenth century, under its most famous ruler, King Hammurapi (1792- 1750 BC), the land of Sumer and Akkad was ruled by Babylon. Though the people of Sumer and Akkad did not themselves refer to their homeland as Babylonia, which is a Greek term, it is customary to call them Babylonians from this time onwards. Sumerian had by then died out among the people as a spoken language, but it was still much in use as a written language. 
* p. xviii: Mesopotamian culture was nothing if not conservative and since Sumerian had been the language of the first writing, more than a thousand years before, it remained the principal language of writing in the early second millennium, Much more was written in the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, but Sumerian retained a particular prestige. Its primacy as the language of learning was enshrined in the curriculum that had to be mastered by the student scribe. In order to learn how to use the cuneiform script, even to write Akkadian, the student had to learn Sumerian, for, as the proverb said, ‘A scribe who knows no Sumerian, what sort of scribe is he??? None at all, for in this period the language of tuition was, at least in part, Sumerian. Falling foul of every regulation, one young student lamented, ... To prove he could write, the would-be scribe copied out, on dictation and from memory, texts in Sumerian. The most advanced Sumerian texts that he had to master were a prescribed corpus of traditional Sumerian literary compositions. ... Nearly all the literature that we have in Sumerian derives from the tablets written by these young Babylonian scribal apprentices, many  of which were found in the remains of the houses of their teachers. The two largest such discoveries were made at Nippur, where the scribal quarter was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, and at Ur, where the houses in question are slightly older. More recently significant bodies of Sumerian literature from the same era have been discovered at Isin, a city just south of Nippur, and at Tell Haddad (ancient Mé-Turan) by the river Diyala on the periphery of north-east Babylonia, but most of these tablets remain unpublished. The private dwelling-houses of Nippur and Ur were not the royal Tablet Houses inaugurated by King Shulgi but they amply fulfilled the purpose he envisaged, the preservation of Sumerian literature for future generations. That now we are reading the songs of Shulgi again, four thousand years later, would probably have exceeded even his expectations, and it would have surprised him too that his libraries of Sumerian lived anew, as it were, in the tablet collections of Philadel- phia, London, and other strange and far-away places.
* p. xix:  The two largest such discoveries were made at Nippur, where the scribal quarter was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, and at Ur, where the houses in question are slightly older. More recently significant bodies of Sumerian literature from the same era have been discovered at Isin, a city just south of Nippur, and at Tell Haddad (ancient Mé-Turan) by the river Diyala on the periphery of north-east Babylonia, but most of these tablets remain unpublished. The private dwelling-houses of Nippur and Ur were not the royal Tablet Houses inaugurated by King Shulgi but they amply fulfilled the purpose he envisaged, the preservation of Sumerian literature for future generations. That now we are reading the songs of Shulgi again, four thousand years later, would probably have exceeded even his expectations, and it would have surprised him too that his libraries of Sumerian lived anew, as it were, in the tablet collections of Philadel- phia, London, and other strange and far-away places.
* p. xix:-xx: Among those Sumerian literary texts which have achieved some degree of publicity are the five poems of Gilgamesh (or Bilgames as he is known in older texts), translated in Chapter 5. These are not the same as the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, which was written in Akkadian, but separate and individual tales without common themes. They were probably first committed to writing under the Third Dyn- asty of Ur, whose kings felt a special bond with Bilgames as a legendary hero whom they considered their predecessor and ancestor. It seems likely that much of the traditional Sumerian literary corpus goes back to lays sung by minstrels for the entertainment of the royal court of the Third Dynasty. The Sumerian poems of Bilgames are well suited for such amusement. The texts that we have, although known almost entirely from eighteenth-century copies, are very probably directly descended from master copies placed by King Shulgi in his Tablet Houses. Even so, it is entirely possible that the poems stem ultimately from an older, oral tradition. To some extent these Sumerian poems were source material for the Babylonian epic, but they can be enjoyed for their own sake too. Reading them takes us back four millennia to the courtly life of the Sumerian ‘renaissance’. Alongside the great mass of Sumerian literary tablets from the schools of eighteenth-century Babylonia, we have also recovered a little contemporaneous literature in Akkadian. This we call Old Baby- lonian literature. A few Old Babylonian literary tablets derive from the same schools as the literary tablets in Sumerian and also appear to be the work of apprentice scribes. These include a few scraps of Akkadian Gilgamesh, which are among the texts translated in Chap- ter 2. But though it seems that some literature in Akkadian was studied in the schools of this period, literary tablets in this language are so rare among the huge quantities of Sumerian tablets that it is clear they were not part of the prescribed curriculum. What narrative poems in Akkadian that we do have from the schools may instead have been copied down by students for fun, or even composed by them ad lib.
* p. xx: Other tablets of Akkadian literary works have been recovered from this period which are of less certain provenance than the school tablets. Some of them are finely written and were evidently kept, perhaps by individual scholars, as permanent library-copies. Among these are three Old Babylonian tablets of Gilgamesh which contribute signific- antly to our knowledge of the story: the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets and the fragment reportedly from Sippar. These are also translated in Chapter 2. Another masterpiece of Babylonian literature known from late in the Old Babylonian period is the great poem of Atram- hasis, ‘When the gods were man’, which recounts the history of mankind from the Creation to the Flood.° It was this text’s account of the Flood that the poet of Gilgamesh used as a source for his own version of the Deluge myth. It also provided a striking model for the story of Noah’s Flood in the Bible. Other Akkadian literature begins to appear at this time, such as texts expounding the Babylonian sciences, divination by extispicy, astrology and mathematics, and incantations in both Sumerian and Akkadian whose purpose was to ward off evil by magic means. So the Old Babylonian period was an era of great literary creativity in Akkadian, but the school curriculum, at least in the centres we know best, was evidently too hidebound to reflect this development.
* p. xx: The Old Babylonian Gilgamesh tablets reveal that there was already, at this time, an integrated Gilgamesh epic, which, as the Pennsylvania tablet reports, bore the title Shatur eli sharri, ‘Surpassing all other kings’. Works of ancient Mesopotamian literature were rarely created out of nothing and the origins of this epic probably also go back to an oral tradition. Certainly the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh tablets are far from being translations of the individual Sumerian poems of the scribal curriculum, though the two traditions hold in common several episodes and themes. The Old Babylonian texts bear witness to a wholesale revision of Gilgamesh material to form a connected story composed around the principal themes of kingship, fame and the fear of death. For this reason one suspects that the Old Babylonian epic was essentially the masterpiece of a single, anonymous poet. This epic, ‘Surpassing all other kings’, is only a fragment as it is now preserved, but many find the simple poetry and spare narrative of this poem and of the other Old Babylonian material more attractive than the more wordy standard version. Some stanzas of the Pennsylvania and Sippar tablets, especially, are unforgettable. To explain what is meant by the standard version of the Gilgamesh epic it is necessary to continue the story of Mesopotamian literature.
* Some time after the eighteenth century Bc the contents of scribal curriculum changed radically. We next have large numbers of school tablets at our disposal from the sixth century on, but the best witnesses to the nature and contents of the late scribal tradition are the several first-millennium libraries that have been excavated in Babylonia, especially at Babylon, Uruk and Sippar, and in Assyria. Assyria is the Greek name for the Land of Ashur, a small country to the north of Babylonia on the middle reaches of the river Tigris that was home in the early first millennium Bc to the greatest empire the Near East had yet seen. Foremost among these late libraries is the collection of clay tablets amassed at Nineveh by the last great king of Assyria, Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC). Like Shulgi before him, King Ashurbanipal claimed to have been... . The scriptorium of Nineveh was also engaged on the task of copying out texts. Some of the copyists were prisoners-of-war or political hostages and worked in chains. 
* p: xxii: Among the texts that were copied out by Ashurbanipal’s scribes was the Gilgamesh epic, of which the library may have possessed as many as four complete copies on clay tablets. Whatever was inscribed on wax has perished, of course. After the sack of Nineveh by the Median and Babylonian alliance in 612 Bc, Ashurbanipal’s copies of the epic, like his other tablets, lay in pieces on the floors of the royal palaces, not to be disturbed for nearly 2,500 years. The royal libraries of Nineveh were the first great find of cuneiform tablets to be dis-covered, in 1850 and 1853, and are the nucleus of the collection of clay tablets amassed in the British Museum. They are also the founda- tion stone upon which the discipline of Assyriology was built and for much research they remain the most important source of primary material. The first to find these tablets were the young Austen Henry Layard and his assistant, an Assyrian Christian called Hormuzd Ras- sam, as they tunnelled in search of Assyrian sculpture through the remains of the ‘Palace without Rival’, a royal residence built by Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal’s grandfather. Three years later Rassam returned on behalf of the British Museum and uncovered a second trove in Ashurbanipal’s own North Palace. Rassam is something of an unsung hero in Assyriology. Much later, in 1879-82, his efforts provided the British Museum with tens of thousands of Babylonian tablets from such southern sites as Babylon and Sippar. Neither Layard nor Rassam was able to read the tablets they sent back from Assyria, but of the find he made in what he called the Chamber of Records Layard wrote, ‘We cannot overrate their value.’ His words remain true to this day, not least for the Gilgamesh epic.
* The huge importance of the royal libraries found at Nineveh by Layard and Rassam first became widely known in 1872 when, sorting through the Assyrian tablets in the British Museum, the brilliant George Smith came across what remains the most famous of Gilgamesh tablets, the best-preserved manuscript of the story of the Deluge. His reaction is described by E. A. Wallis Budge in his history of cuneiform studies, The Rise and Progress of Assyriology: ‘Smith took the tablet and began to read over the lines which Ready [the conservator who had cleaned the tablet] had brought to light; and when he saw that they contained the portion of the legend he had hoped to find there, he said, “I am the first man to read that after two thousand years of oblivion.” Setting the tablet on the table, he jumped up and rushed about the room in a great state of excitement, and, to the astonishment of those present, began to undress himself!’ One hopes the George Smith who made his discovery public was a figure more composed and fully clad, since the occasion was a formal paper delivered to the Society of Biblical Archaeology in the presence of Mr Gladstone and other notables. This must be the only occasion on which a British Prime Minister in office has attended a lecture on Babylonian literature. Assyriology had arrived, and so had Gilgamesh.
* p. xxiv: The purpose of this labour was to provide Ashurbanipal with the best possible expertise to govern in the manner that would please the gods. ‘Send me,’ he commanded, ‘tablets that are beneficial for my royal administration!”* With its advice for proper government the Gilgamesh epic certainly came into this category, but it is clear from the contents of the libraries of Nineveh that the phrase summed up the entire scribal tradition current at the time.
* The scribal tradition then current comprised a very different body of texts from that copied by the apprentices of the Old Babylonian period. Much of the Sumerian corpus was no longer extant. Almost without exception, those few texts that survived from it had been supplied with line-by-line Akkadian translations. The Akkadian liter- ary texts known from Old Babylonian copies had been considerably reworked and many new texts in Akkadian had been added. The written traditions of the great professions had been incorporated. Many of the treatises on divination had been enormously expanded and the incantations of the exorcists had been organized and placed in series. This work of revision, organization and expansion is known to have taken place at the hands of many different scholars between seven and four hundred years earlier, in the last centuries of the second millennium. The labour of these individual Middle Babylonian scholars resulted in the creation of standard editions of most texts, editions which remained essentially unaltered until the death of cunei- form writing a thousand years later.
* The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic did not escape the attentions of a redactor. This by tradition was a learned scholar by the name of Sin-lige-unninni, which means ‘O Moon God, Accept my Prayer!...
* p. xxv: Something of the intermediate stages in this development from ‘Surpassing all other kings’ to ‘He who saw the Deep’ can be learnt from the scraps of Babylonian Gilgamesh that survive from the era in which Sin-lige-unninni lived. This material falls into two groups: texts that come from within Babylonia and texts that come from outside it. The first group comprises only two tablets, from Nippur and Ur, translated in Chapter 3. They closely resemble the standard version of the epic attributed to Sin-liqe-unninni, but there are differ- ences. On grounds of content and style it is hard to say whether these tablets are witness to the text as it was immediately before Sin-liqe-unninni’s editorship, or immediately after it.
* The existence of the second group of tablets, from outside Baby- lonia, needs some explanation. In the fourteenth century, at the height of the Late Bronze Age when the eastern Mediterranean was dominated by the great powers of the Egyptian New Kingdom and the Hittite Empire, the lingua franca of international communications in the Near East was the Akkadian language. Kings of Assyria and Babylonia naturally wrote to Pharaoh in Akkadian, but Pharaoh replied in Akkadian too. The Hittite king and Pharaoh likewise corresponded in Akkadian, and, when writing to their overlords, the minor rulers of the Levantine coast and Syria used the same language, though often shot through with local Canaanite and Hurrian idioms. This Akkadian was written in the traditional manner, in cuneiform script on clay tablets. In order to learn to compose their lords’ letters, treaties and other documents in Akkadian, local scribes were trained in cuneiform writing, and they were trained in the time-honoured way, by rote- learning of the lists, vocabularies and literature of the Babylonian scribal tradition. This was not the first time that the cuneiform script had made the journey to the West. The first known occasion was in the mid-third millennium, when cuneiform was exported to Ebla and elsewhere in Syria and texts in both Sumerian and Akkadian went with it as part of the skills that trainee scribes had to master in order to acquire the new technology. In the nineteenth century Akkadian had been written at Kanesh and other Assyrian trading posts in Cappadocia. In the eighteenth century it was widely used in Syria, not only in Mesopotam- ian Syria but also close by the Mediterranean Sea, and it even appears at Hazor in Palestine. But in the later second millennium the spread of cuneiform schooling and scholarship was wider still. The result was that tablets inscribed with Akkadian scholarly and literary texts were copied out at Hattusa (modern Bogazkéy), the Hittite capital in Anatolia, at Akhetaten (el-Amarna), the royal city of Pharaoh Akhenaten in Upper Egypt, at Ugarit (Ras Shamra), a principality on the Syrian coast, and at Emar (Tell Meskene), a provincial town on the great bend of the Euphrates — just to list the principal sites. Except for Amarna, all these sites have produced tablets of Gilgamesh, as too has Megiddo in Palestine. These texts are translated in Chapter 4. Some of the material from Hattusa, which is the oldest in this group, is very similar to the Old Babylonian epic that we know from the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets and clearly predates Sin-lige-unninni. The texts from Emar, which are several centuries younger, are much more like his text, though again, it is impossible at present to determine whether they precede his work or not. Other Gilgamesh texts from the West are abridgements of the Babylonian epic, or reworkings of it, and are probably local develop- ments. Indeed, the epic fired the imagination then as it does now and adaptations of it were composed in local languages. So far a Hittite version and a Hurtian version have come to light, both found in the archives of the Hittite capital. Though Hittite is pretty well understood, Hurrian is still barely comprehensible and our under- standing of both versions of the Gilgamesh story is badly hampered by their fragmentary state of preservation. Therefore no rendering of them is given here. Not so long ago it seemed that a Gilgamesh text had also been composed in Elamite, the language of a people who occupied what became Susiana and is now Khuzistan. The tablet, discovered in Armenia, far from Elam, was published promptly and in due course translations followed. However, further study revealed that the text was, in fact, a private letter with no connection to Gilgamesh at all. This development elicited from one scholar the wry comment that the document was ‘a good illustration of the fact that Elamite remains the worst-known language of the ancient Near East’. With the Akkadian language we are fortunately on much firmer ground.
* p. xxvii: The standard version of the Babylonian epic is known from a total of 73 manuscripts extant: the 35 that have survived from the libraries of King Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, 8 more tablets and fragments from three other Assyrian cities (Ashur, Kalah and Huzirina), and 30 from Babylonia, especially the cities of Babylon and Uruk. Ashurbanipal’s tablets are the oldest. The latest manuscript discovered so far was written in about 130 BC by one Bel-ahhe-usur (‘O Lord, Protect the Brothers!’), a trainee temple-astrologer of Babylon. By that time this once mighty city was much diminished in power and population but, in a country whose inhabitants had long spoken not Akkadian but Aramaic and Greek, its ancient temple was the last surviving bastion of cuneiform scholarship. From the 73 surviving manuscripts it is possible to reconstruct much of Sin-lige-unninni’s epic but there are still considerable gaps. To fill these lacunae it is sometimes possible to fall back on the older material in Akkadian and for one episode it is even necessary to utilize the Hittite version. The result of this reconstruction is the text given in Chapter 1. There, in order clearly to distinguish between text of different periods, old material used to bridge lacunae in the standard version is explicitly identified in editorial notes.
* The standard version of the epic is divided by Babylonian tradition into sections. The definition of a section is that it is the text customarily contained on an individual clay tablet, and so the sections are called, in accordance with Babylonian custom, ‘tablets’. The epic is told over eleven such sections, Tablets I-XI. The organizing of Babylonian literature in the latter part of the second millennium resulted in much of it being arranged in standard sequences of tablets, sequences that were known as ‘series’. The ‘series of Gilgamesh’, in fact, comprises twelve tablets, not just the eleven of the epic. Tablet XII, the last, is a line-by-line translation of the latter half of one of the Sumerian Gilgamesh poems. Somehow this partial translation survived into the first millennium while the original Sumerian text, like the other Sumerian poems of Gilgamesh, did not. Though some have tried to show that Tablet XII had a real place in the epic, most scholars would agree that it does not belong to that text but was attached to it because it was plainly related material. The principle of bringing together related material was one of the criteria by which the scholars of Babylonia organized different texts into the same series.
* p. xxviii: The eleven tablets of the epic vary in length from 183 to 326 lines of poetry, so that the whole composition would originally have been about 3,000 lines long. As the text now stands, only Tablets I, VI, X and XI are more or less complete. Leaving aside lines that are lost but can be restored from parallel passages, overall about 575 lines are still completely missing, that is, they are not represented by so much as a single word. Many more are too badly damaged to be useful, so that considerably less than the four-fifths of the epic that is extant yields a consecutive text. In the translation offered here the damaged state of the text is all too evident, pock-marked as it is by the clutter of brackets and ellipses.
* While there is a temptation for a modern editor to ignore the gaps, to gloss them over or to join up disconnected fragments of text, I believe that no adult reader is well served by such a procedure. The gaps are themselves important in number and size, for they remind us how much is still to be learned of the text. They prevent us from assuming that we have Gilgamesh entire. Whatever we say about the epic is provisional, for new discoveries of text may change our interpretation of whole passages. Nevertheless, the epic we have now is considerably fuller than that which fired the imagination of Rilke. Approach what lies ahead not as you might the poems of Homer but as a book part-eaten by termites or a scroll half-consumed by fire. Accept it for what it is, a damaged masterpiece.
* In time, the holes that pepper the standard version of the epic will undoubtedly be filled by further discoveries of tablets in the ruin-mounds of Mesopotamia and in the museums of the world — for such is the lack of professional Assyriologists everywhere that we have yet to study properly many thousands of tablets that have long been in museum collections. The correct identification and accurate placement of what are often only small fragments make for difficult and painstaking work. Not even a genius like George Smith always came up with the right identification. The Daily Telegraph was so impressed with his famous lecture on the Deluge story from the Gilgamesh epic that in 1873, in the hope of recovering the missing portions of text, they provided the splendid sum of one thousand guineas (£1,050) to enable him to reopen for the British Museum the old excavations at Nineveh. In comparison with those who had dug there before him, Smith brought home only a very small number of tablets — the ‘DT’ collection — from this, his first expedition, but there among them was indeed a fragment of the Flood, one that even filled an important gap in the narrative. This was a most impressive fulfilment of the Daily Telegraph’s expectations, but the expedition was a victim of its own success. The desired fragment so exactly met the newspaper’s requirements that the news of its discovery led to the expedition’s early recall.
* p. xxx: In fact, we now know that this particular fragment of the Deluge story is part of a late version of the poem of Atram-hasis and not a piece of Gilgamesh at all. Smith had no way of knowing that at the time. His identification was the best that could then be expected, and went unchallenged for many years. Employed by the British Museum in 1867 to assist Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, one of the grand pioneers of cuneiform decipherment, George Smith was more than the discoverer of Gilgamesh and the epic’s first translator. He was among the first in a long line of scholars who have sifted through the libraries of Ashurbanipal and, by sorting, joining and identifying thousands of pieces of Assyrian clay tablets, have over a period of 130 years steadily increased our knowledge of the literature of the Babylonians. It is in this continuing work of discovery and identifica- tion of manuscripts, from Nineveh and elsewhere, in the field as well as in museums, that the Gilgamesh epic (along with most other literary texts written in cuneiform on clay tablets) differs from fragmentary texts in Greek and Latin. The eventual recovery of this literature is assured by the durability of the writing medium. It is only a matter of time — providing, of course, that the society in which we live continues to place value on such things and to support the scholars who study them.
* p. xxxii: The Gilgamesh epic is one of the very few works of Babylonian literature which can be read and enjoyed without special knowledge of the civilization from which it sprang. The names of the characters may be unfamiliar and the places strange, but some of the poet’s themes are so universal in human experience that the reader has no difficulty in understanding what drives the epic’s hero and can easily identify with his aspirations, his grief and his despair. The Assyriologist William L. Moran has recently expounded Gilgamesh’s story as a tale of the human world, characterized by an ‘insistence on human values’ and an ‘acceptance of human limitations’. This observation led him to describe the epic as ‘a document of ancient humanism’,’ and indeed, even for the ancients, the story of Gilgamesh was more about what it is to be a man than what it is to serve the gods. As the beginning and end of the epic make clear, Gilgamesh is celebrated more for his human achievement than for his relationship with the divine. Though the story of Gilgamesh is certainly fiction, Moran’s diag- nosis is also a warning not to read the epic as myth. There is little consensus as to what myth is and what it is not, and ancient Meso- potamian mythological texts show considerable variety. Some of them, particularly the older ones, contain just one myth. Others put together two or more myths. Two features are particularly characteristic of these mythological compositions: on the one hand, the story centres on the deeds of a god or gods, and, on the other, its purpose is to explain the origin of some feature of the natural or social world. More of the characters of the Epic of Gilgamesh are divine than not, but set beside the protagonist they are insignificant. The gods even attract unfavourable similes: in Tablet XI the poet compares them to dogs and flies, as if the rulers of the universe were parasitical scavengers. In the main the function of the poem is not to explain origins. It is more interested in examining the human condition as it is. On these grounds the epic is not myth. It certainly contains myths — the myth of the snake which shed its skin in Tablet XI being the purest example, the Flood story the most famous — and it makes many allusions to the mythology of the day, particularly in the episode of Gilgamesh’s repudiation of the goddess Ishtar in Tablet VI. But most such myths are incidental to the story and the epic is certainly much more than the sum of its mythological parts — unlike, for example, Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Nevertheless, the text of Gilgamesh is often studied alongside compositions which are truly mythological. Indeed, no book on the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia can resist it. The reason for this can best be explained by quoting the words of G. S. Kirk, who dealt at length with Gilgamesh in his important study of myth: ‘Above all [the epic] retains, in spite of its long and literate history, an unmistakable aura of the mythical — of that kind of emotional exploration of the permanent meaning of life, by the release of fantasy about the distant past, that Greek myths, at least as we experience them, so often fail to exemplify in their own right.” If not truly mythological, in the sense defined above, what is this poem? Moran’s phrase, ‘a document of ancient humanism’, is again a useful one, for it highlights the fact that the epic is not a religious poem either, at least not in the same way as, for example, John Henry Newman’s ‘Dream of Gerontius’..... There is plenty of Babylonian poetry in which a sufferer, often sick and feeling himself near to death, throws himself on the mercy of one or other of the inscrutable gods and asks for forgiveness and reconciliation. Gilgamesh, however, in his terror and misery spurns the help of his gods — specifically rejecting the good advice of Shamash, the god who protects him — and, even at the last, turns for solace to his own achievements rather than to his creator. The poem concludes with Gilgamesh proudly showing his companion the monument for which he became famous:«O Ur-shanabi, climb Uruk’s wall and walk back and forth! Survey its foundations, examine the brickwork!...» The late Thorkild Jacobsen, a renowned Sumerologist who wrote on ancient Mesopotamian religion with considerable vision, once described the epic as a ‘story of learning to face reality, a story of “growing up”’. Gilgamesh begins as an immature youth, capable of anything and accepting no check; eventually he comes to accept the power and reality of Death, and thus he reaches reflective maturity. But there is more to the epic than that. In charting the hero’s progress, the poet reflects profoundly on youth and age, on triumph and despair, on men and gods, on life and death. It is significant that his concern is not just Gilgamesh’s glorious deeds but also the suffering and misery that beset his hero as he pursues his hopeless quest.‘Read out’, the poet enjoins us in the prologue, ‘the travails of Gilgamesh, all that he went through!’ As a poem which explores the truth of the human condition the epic bears a message for future generations, then as now. Maturity is gained as much through failure as success. Life, of necessity, is hard, but one is the wiser for it. (GO TO Gilgamesh flood myth)  ..... In the ancient world religion permeated intellectual activity in a way that it does not now. Read as ‘wisdom’, ultimately the epic bears a message of serious religious content. Its views on the proper duties of men and kings are strictly in line with the gods’ requirements and conform to the religious ideology of ancient Mesopotamia: do the will of the gods, fulfil your function as they intended. So while the epic can be enjoyed for its own sake without further inquiry, some knowledge of the mythology which expressed the relationship between gods, kings and men, of how the Babylonians understood their uni- verse, and of their religion and how their beliefs conditioned the Babylonians’ approach to the divine, will give us greater insight into this masterpiece.
* We know from many ancient Mesopotamian sources, in Sumerian and in Akkadian, that the Babylonians believed the purpose of the human race to be the service of the gods. Before mankind’s creation, the myth tells us, the cities of lower Mesopotamia were inhabited by the gods alone and they had to feed and clothe themselves by their own efforts. Under the supervision of Enlil, the lord of the earth, the lesser deities grew and harvested the gods’ food, tilled the soil and, most exhaustingly, dug the rivers and waterways that irrigated the fields. Even the rivers Tigris and Euphrates were their work. Eventu- ally the labour became too much for them and they mutinied. The resourceful god Ea (called Enki in the poem of Atram-hasis) devised first the technology to produce a substitute worker from raw clay and then the means by which this new being could reproduce itself. The first humans were duly born from the womb of the Mother Goddess and allotted their destiny, ‘to carry the yoke, the task imposed by Enlil, to bear the soil-basket of the gods’. This act of creation could be repeated as necessary. So when, as related in Tablet I of the Gilgamesh epic, the need arises to make a match for Gilgamesh, which plainly could not be done by human reproduction, The goddess Aruru, she washed her hands, took a pinch of clay, threw it down in the wild. In the wild she created Enkidu, the hero, offspring of silence, knit strong by Ninurta. Enkidu is thus a replica of the first man, born without a mother’s cries of pain. In the poem of Atram-hasis the yoke and soil-basket, the means of carrying earth from the diggings, symbolize the burden imposed on mankind by the god Enlil. This burden was much more than earth- moving, however; it was all the work that went into looking after the gods in their temples on earth, from irrigating their fields, raising their crops and pasturing their livestock to baking their bread, butchering their meat and clothing their statues. And so it was in reality. The principal deities of the Babylonian pantheon lived, embodied in anthro- pomorphic statues, in palatial houses, surrounded by their divine families, courtiers and servants. The ideology was that soon after the sundering of heaven from earth the rulers of gods had divided up the land between the major deities of the pantheon, allocating to each a city and its surrounding territory. Though many cities possessed more than one temple — Babylon traditionally had forty-three — the notion remained that the city and its hinterland belonged in principle to its patron deity, the god to whom they had been given in the original partition of the land, and that they were his to exploit.
** Introduction, p. xlv: In fact, the context of this momentous change in man’s destiny is now confirmed by the newly available text of the Death of Bilgames, in the words of the god Enki to his partners, An and Enlil: After the assembly had made the Deluge sweep over... Ziusudra, one of mankind, still lived! .. . From that time we swore that mankind should not have life eternal.
** The sole exception to the new doom of mankind is the survivor of the Flood, who is made immortal. And how this came about, the story of the Deluge, is the subject of the continuation of Uta-napishti’s teach- ing to Gilgamesh. But, as he himself explains, Uta-napishti’s elevation to immortal status was an isolated event born of a particular set of circumstances never to be repeated. Gilgamesh may acquire the ‘secret of the gods’, the knowledge of how Uta-napishti ‘found life’ in the company of the gods, but he cannot follow in his footsteps. To underline his message of the futility of Gilgamesh’s quest Uta-napishti challenges his visitor to defeat Sleep, the younger brother of Death, knowing that he will fail. Then he arranges that Gilgamesh should find the ‘plant of
** Introduction, p. xlvi: rejuvenation’, knowing that he will lose it by his own hand. Only the snake is destined to benefit from it. ‘Had I only turned back, and left the boat by the shore!’ With these words Gilgamesh laments that he would have been better off had he not made the journey to Uta-napishti at all, when all it has brought him is the cruel realization of his own mortal inadequacy. And aware at last of his own capabilities he becomes reconciled to his lot, and wise. In the words of the prologue, to which we return: ‘He came a far road, was weary, found peace.’ The story of Gilgamesh’s ‘growing up’ is, in fact, the story of a hero who grows wise, wise in the sense of learning his place in the divinely ordained scheme of things. In fact, it is the tale of one whose extraordinary experiences make him extraordinarily wise. The poet makes it clear right at the beginning that we should expect this: He who saw the Deep, the country’s foundation, [who] knew ... , was wise in all matters... and [learnt] of everything the sum of wisdom.
**** Introduction, p. xlviii: In the epic the explicit wisdom that Gilgamesh gained at the end of the world is knowledge of himself and the story of the Deluge. In Babylonian tradition he also gained another kind of wisdom. The prologue of the epic fétes the hero as one who reached through sheer force Uta-napishti the Distant; who restored the cult-centres destroyed by the Deluge, and set in place for the people the rites of the cosmos.
**** There is mythology to be explained here too, relating to the post- diluvian history of mankind. The ancient historical tradition, as reported in the king lists, is that after the Deluge human kingship had to be re-established by the gods: ‘after the Flood had swept over, then, kingship being sent down from heaven, kingship was in the city of Kish’. The dynasty of Kish was followed by that of Uruk, of which Gilgamesh (or Bilgames) was the fifth king. The implication is that, when kings began to reign again, the antediluvian civilization was restored, that is, the order ordained by the gods came back into operation. This was important, for the traditional belief was that the gods had supplied all that was needed for human beings to flourish — cities, agriculture, the arts of civilization — at the outset of human history, in the antediluvian age. Nothing more was to be discovered; the antediluvian model was how human society should be run.
**** According to one ancient view, most fully reported by Berossus in his Babyloniaca, civilization was restored by those who had accompanied Ziusudra (the Sumerian name of Uta-napishti) on board the ark and thus survived the Deluge. This tradition is implicit in the Flood story preserved in Tablet XI of Gilgamesh and in the poem of Atram-hasis, where the mention of the craftsmen and animals taken aboard the ark explains how it was that the skills of artisans and herdsmen (and the animal kingdom in general) survived the catastrophe. But there was also a tradition, local to the town of Lagash in the early second millennium, that the gods withheld kingship for a time. During this time they did not require mankind to look after their needs by irrigating and tilling the land, and no agriculture took place:After the Flood had swept over . . .had not sent down from heaven (once more) ...and for all the overthrown people had not established (once more) mattock, spade, earth-basket and plough, ...
**** p. l: In this feckless, idle state the human race went hungry and failed to flourish. The tablet is broken at this point but there must have followed a description of the re-establishment of kingship and ordered life, for when the text is again legible the gods are re-introducing the people to the arts of agriculture. The implication of the prologue of the epic is that Gilgamesh played a key role in restoring the antediluvian order after the Flood, particularly in restoring the cults of the gods to their proper glory. The new discovery of text of the Sumerian poem we know as the Death of Bilgames confirms this inference. On his deathbed Bilgames has a dream, in which the gods relate to him his heroic achievements: You reached Ziusudra in his abode! The rites of Sumer, forgotten there since distant days of old... [after the] Deluge it was you made known all the tasks of the land.
**** Here also is a connection between Gilgamesh’s journey to the survivor of the Flood and the restoration of cultic life. So the wisdom he brought back from his journey was more than personal knowledge. It did not suit the poet’s needs to include more than allusions to it, but evidently Gilgamesh was responsible for re-civilizing his country. In this he was the tool of the god Ea, like the Seven Sages, for as Ninsun predicted in Tablet III, Gilgamesh grew ‘wise with Ea of the Ocean Below’. The epic’s opening words make the same connection: he ‘saw the Deep, the country’s foundation’. The Deep signifies Ea’s cosmic domain, especially as the fount of wisdom. From this source Gilgamesh learnt the profound truths that underpinned human society and government. In a poem whose hero becomes obsessed with the avoidance of death, it is to be expected that the poet will be much interested in the Netherworld. Conditions there are the subject of a large section of Tablet VII, in which Enkidu on his deathbed dreams of being dragged down to the Netherworld by the Angel of Death. The funeral and wake of Enkidu, described in the latter part of Tablet VIII, can be understood as the ideal model for the mortuary rites that preceded the burial of a Babylonian noble. The appended Tablet XII tells more of the fate of the shades. The relevance of this is more than a question of theme, however. The ultimate destiny of Gilgamesh would be known to every Babylonian: after death he became the deified ruler
**** p. li: and judge of the shades of the dead. In the Sumerian poem of the Death of Bilgames this position is given to him by the gods on account of his mother’s divinity: Bilgames, in the form of his ghost, dead in the underworld, shall be [the governor of the Netherworld,] chief of the shades! [He will pass judgement,] he will render verdicts,  [what he says will be as weighty as the word of ] Ningishzida and Dumuzi.
**** Gilgamesh’s fate as one of the gods of the Netherworld is a matter which is understood in the epic. His posthumous place in the pantheon is not revealed to him, but his mother has foreknowledge of it, as she reminds Shamash in Tablet III: Will he not rule with Irnina the black-headed people? Will he not dwell with Ningishzida in the Land-of-No-Return?
**** It is a neat irony, surely appreciated by every educated Babylonian, that the hero who failed to become a god in life became one in death.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲ نوامبر ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۲۱:۰۰ (UTC)
thread_title:  روایت اندرو جرج (حماسه گیلگمش) 

message: ===== مرگ بیلگمس (نرگاو وحشیِ بزرگ آرمیده است) - لوح VIII و XI =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، ص ۱۹۵ تا ۲۰۸:
* همان مشکلات نرگاو آسمان را در ترجمه دارد.
* آغاز با بیلگمش خشک‌شده؛ انکی (در قالب نودیمود) به او نشان می‌دهد که جمع خدایان درباره سرنوشت او گفتگو می‌کنند.
** نرگاو وحشیِ بزرگ آرمیده است، هرگز برنخواهد خاست،
** فرمانروا بیلگمس آرمیده است، هرگز برنخواهد خاست ...
* خدایان کارهای او را برمی‌شمارند از جمله رفتنش به پایان جهان و دیدارش با زیوسودرا (فراگیری دانش باستانی)
** نام زیوسودرا ابتدا در انتهای ص ۱۹۸ می‌آید (بیلگمس رسوم سومر را که فراموش شده بازمی‌گرداند از جمله شستن دست و شستن دهان) و سپس در ص ۱۹۹ درباره طوفان صحبت می‌شود و باز نام زیوسودرا تکرار می‌شود و بیان می‌شود که پس از طوفان سوگند خوردند انسان زندگی جاودان نداشته باشد.  
* حکم نهایی را انکی می‌دهد (و انلیل جمع‌بندی می‌کند): 
** با وجود خدایی بودن باید به جهان زیرین رود ولی جایگاه خاصی چون دموزی می‌یابد و روی زمین نیز جشنواره در بزرگداشتش به پا می‌شود.
* بیلگمس بیدار می‌شود و شگفت‌زده است (افتادگی).
* بیلگمس به دنبال تدبیر (بخش پرتکرار - لحن از سوم شخص به اول شخص تبدیل نمی‌شود ولی مشخص است که بیلگمس رویا را برای افراد مختلف بیان می‌کند).
* پاسخ‌ها (و به دنبالش افتادگی)
* انکی، و آغاز بیلگمس به ساختن گور برای خود (ارتباط از طریق سگ و نه انسان).
* تغییر مسیر فرات برای ساختن گور بیلگمس در بستر آن.
* آمادگی حرم و همراهان برای رفتن به گور بیلگمس برای همراهی او در جهان پس از مرگ (پاراگراف طولانی مشهوری که یادآور کشفیات باستان‌شناسی لئونارد وولی در اور است).
* اهدا هدیه به ارشکیگال (مانند لوح VIII)
* بستن ورودی گور و برگرداندن رود به مسیر تا گور پیدا نگردد.
* دو پایان متفاوت:
** تحسین بیلگمس (کمتر سالم مانده)
** انسان‌ها در یاد زندگان باقی خواهند ماند.
===== بیلگمس و جهان زیرین (در آن روزها، در آن روزهای بسیار دور) - لوح XII =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، صفحه ۱۷۵  تا ۱۹۵:
* رایج در مدرسه‌های نیپور و اور 
* برخلاف سایر شعرهای سومری مقدمه‌ای اسطوره‌ای دارد:
** در زمان‌های دور پس از آن‌که خدایان هستی را در بین خود تقسیم کردند، طوفانی بزرگ برپاشد. انکی به جهان زیرین می‌رفت (آبزو) درختی بر کناره فرات پدیدار شد. اینانا درخت را می‌بیند، به برادرش اوتو می‌گوید، بی‌اعتنا، به بیلگمس می‌گوید و او کار لازم را انجام  می‌دهد و با باقی‌مانده برای خود توپ و چوگان می‌سازد و آنقدر با جوانان شهر بازی می‌کند که زنان آنها به خدایان شکایت می‌کنند (مانند لوح I حماسه). اسباب‌بازی‌ها به جهان زیرین می‌افتند و بیلگمس که دستش به آنها نمی‌رسد به گریه می‌افتد. خادم او، انکیدو، داوطلب می‌شود که برای بازیافتن آنها به جهان زیرین رود. بیلگمس راهنمایی لازم را به انکیدو می‌کند (احترام لازم و عدم جلب توجه همچون مراسم سوگواری) ولی انکیدو آنها را رعایت نمی‌کند و در مخمصه می‌افتد. انلیل کمکی به بیلگمس نمی‌کند، انکی (با کمک اوتو) امکان دیدار بیلگمس و انکیدو را در سپیده‌دم فراهم می‌کند. یکدیگر را در آغوش می‌گیرند. پرسش و پاسخ طولانی آن دو درباره جهان زیرین نقطه اوج داستان است:
*** این بخش بی‌رحمانه بدبینانه است که گاهی طنز آن را کاهش می‌دهد
**** بدترین مرگ: مردن در حالی که بدن متلاشی شده (کامل نیست به هر علتی)
**** بدترین مرگ: آنان که در آتش سوزانده شده‌اند در دود محو خواهند شد و نمی‌توانند حتی به جهان زیرین روند (در اسلام).
* در یکی از سنت‌های کتابت متن در اینجا پایان می‌یابد ولی لوح‌های نیپور ادامه می‌یابند (چگونگی مراقبت از مردگان).
* ارتباطی تاریخی (اواخر هزاره سوم پیشا دوران مشترک، سقوط سلسله سوم اور)(عیلامی‌ها)(ص ۱۷۷)
* نسخه‌ای از نیمه دوم متن به اکدی لوح XII حماسه را تشکیل می‌دهد.
* در آن روزها، در آن روزهای بسیار دور،
* در آن شب‌ها، در آن شب‌های دور
* در آن سال‌ها، در آن سال‌های بسیار دور
thread_title:  بررسی تطبیقی شعرهای سومری و لوح‌های حماسه 

message: حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، ص ۱۹۵ تا ۲۰۸:
* همان مشکلات نرگاو آسمان را در ترجمه دارد.
* آغاز با بیلگمش خشک‌شده؛ انکی (در قالب نودیمود) به او نشان می‌دهد که جمع خدایان درباره سرنوشت او گفتگو می‌کنند.
** نرگاو وحشیِ بزرگ آرمیده است، هرگز برنخواهد خاست،
** فرمانروا بیلگمس آرمیده است، هرگز برنخواهد خاست ...
* خدایان کارهای او را برمی‌شمارند از جمله رفتنش به پایان جهان و دیدارش با زیوسودرا (فراگیری دانش باستانی)
** نام زیوسودرا ابتدا در انتهای ص ۱۹۸ می‌آید (بیلگمس رسوم سومر را که فراموش شده بازمی‌گرداند از جمله شستن دست و شستن دهان) و سپس در ص ۱۹۹ درباره طوفان صحبت می‌شود و باز نام زیوسودرا تکرار می‌شود و بیان می‌شود که پس از طوفان سوگند خوردند انسان زندگی جاودان نداشته باشد.  
* حکم نهایی را انکی می‌دهد (و انلیل جمع‌بندی می‌کند): 
** با وجود خدایی بودن باید به جهان زیرین رود ولی جایگاه خاصی چون دموزی می‌یابد و روی زمین نیز جشنواره در بزرگداشتش به پا می‌شود.
* بیلگمس بیدار می‌شود و شگفت‌زده است (افتادگی).
* بیلگمس به دنبال تدبیر (بخش پرتکرار - لحن از سوم شخص به اول شخص تبدیل نمی‌شود ولی مشخص است که بیلگمس رویا را برای افراد مختلف بیان می‌کند).
* پاسخ‌ها (و به دنبالش افتادگی)
* انکی، و آغاز بیلگمس به ساختن گور برای خود (ارتباط از طریق سگ و نه انسان).
* تغییر مسیر فرات برای ساختن گور بیلگمس در بستر آن.
* آمادگی حرم و همراهان برای رفتن به گور بیلگمس برای همراهی او در جهان پس از مرگ (پاراگراف طولانی مشهوری که یادآور کشفیات باستان‌شناسی لئونارد وولی در اور است).
* اهدا هدیه به ارشکیگال (مانند لوح VIII)
* بستن ورودی گور و برگرداندن رود به مسیر تا گور پیدا نگردد.
* دو پایان متفاوت:
** تحسین بیلگمس (کمتر سالم مانده)
** انسان‌ها در یاد زندگان باقی خواهند ماند.
thread_title:  مرگ بیلگمس (نرگاو وحشیِ بزرگ آرمیده است) - لوح VIII و XI 

message: حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، صفحه ۱۷۵  تا ۱۹۵:
* رایج در مدرسه‌های نیپور و اور 
* برخلاف سایر شعرهای سومری مقدمه‌ای اسطوره‌ای دارد:
** در زمان‌های دور پس از آن‌که خدایان هستی را در بین خود تقسیم کردند، طوفانی بزرگ برپاشد. انکی به جهان زیرین می‌رفت (آبزو) درختی بر کناره فرات پدیدار شد. اینانا درخت را می‌بیند، به برادرش اوتو می‌گوید، بی‌اعتنا، به بیلگمس می‌گوید و او کار لازم را انجام  می‌دهد و با باقی‌مانده برای خود توپ و چوگان می‌سازد و آنقدر با جوانان شهر بازی می‌کند که زنان آنها به خدایان شکایت می‌کنند (مانند لوح I حماسه). اسباب‌بازی‌ها به جهان زیرین می‌افتند و بیلگمس که دستش به آنها نمی‌رسد به گریه می‌افتد. خادم او، انکیدو، داوطلب می‌شود که برای بازیافتن آنها به جهان زیرین رود. بیلگمس راهنمایی لازم را به انکیدو می‌کند (احترام لازم و عدم جلب توجه همچون مراسم سوگواری) ولی انکیدو آنها را رعایت نمی‌کند و در مخمصه می‌افتد. انلیل کمکی به بیلگمس نمی‌کند، انکی (با کمک اوتو) امکان دیدار بیلگمس و انکیدو را در سپیده‌دم فراهم می‌کند. یکدیگر را در آغوش می‌گیرند. پرسش و پاسخ طولانی آن دو درباره جهان زیرین نقطه اوج داستان است:
*** این بخش بی‌رحمانه بدبینانه است که گاهی طنز آن را کاهش می‌دهد
**** بدترین مرگ: مردن در حالی که بدن متلاشی شده (کامل نیست به هر علتی)
**** بدترین مرگ: آنان که در آتش سوزانده شده‌اند در دود محو خواهند شد و نمی‌توانند حتی به جهان زیرین روند (در اسلام).
* در یکی از سنت‌های کتابت متن در اینجا پایان می‌یابد ولی لوح‌های نیپور ادامه می‌یابند (چگونگی مراقبت از مردگان).
* ارتباطی تاریخی (اواخر هزاره سوم پیشا دوران مشترک، سقوط سلسله سوم اور)(عیلامی‌ها)(ص ۱۷۷)
* نسخه‌ای از نیمه دوم متن به اکدی لوح XII حماسه را تشکیل می‌دهد.
* در آن روزها، در آن روزهای بسیار دور،
* در آن شب‌ها، در آن شب‌های دور
* در آن سال‌ها، در آن سال‌های بسیار دور
thread_title:  بیلگمس و جهان زیرین (در آن روزها، در آن روزهای بسیار دور) - لوح XII 

message: ===== لوح XI =====
حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، ص ۸۸ تا ۱۰۰:
* عصاره:
** گیلگمش از اوتا-ناپیشتی می‌پرسد چگونه به زندگی جاودانه دست یافته، در پاسخ داستان طوفان را می‌‌شنود و اینکه خدایان به او پس از نجات از طوفان زندگی جاوردان دادند. اوتا-ناپیشتی به گیلگمش می‌‌گوید یک هفته نخوابد. گیلگمش نمی‌تواند و درمی‌یابد او که ناتوان از نخوابیدن است، بیهوده به دنبال غلبه بر مرگ است. اوتا-ناپیشتی به قایقرانش دستور می‌دهد پوشاک در خور در اختیار گیلگمش گذارد و او را به اوروک برگرداند. زن اوتا-ناپیشتی از او می‌خواهد رسم هدیه دادن به مهمان را به جا آورد. اوتا-ناپیشتی به گیلگمش نشان گیاهی را در اعماق دریا می‌دهد که او را جوان خواهد کرد. گیلگمش به اعماق می‌رود و گیاه را به دست می‌آورد. او و اور-شانابی به قصد اوروک به راه می‌افتند. برای شستشو در جایی توقف می‌کنند، ماری گیاه را می‌رباید و گیلگمش درمی‌یابد که تمامی تلاش‌هایش بیهوده بوده است. امیدهایش ناامید شده‌اند (نابود شده‌اند)، بهتر بود که اصلا اوتا-ناپیشتی را ندیده بود. او و اور-شانابی به اوروک می‌رسند و گیلگمش با همان واژه‌های مقدمه دیوارها را به عنوان دستاوردش به قایقران نشان می‌دهد.
*** داستان طوفان: 
**** در ص ۹۰ نام آترا-هاسیس به میان می‌آید: به عنوان نام دروازه‌ای که نجار و ... گرد می‌آیند.
**** ساختن کشتی با جزئیات بیان می‌شود.
**** اوتا-ناپیشتی گویی که فردایی نیست از آنها پذیرایی می‌کند (جشنی چون روزهای سال نو)
**** برخلاف توصیه اِآ، اوتا-ناپیشتی طلا و نقره‌اش هم را به کشتی می‌برد.
**** نعمت آسمانی! (نان کیکی و گندم) 
**** ص ۹۱: همگی خدایان (اَدَد، آنوناکی ...) بخشی از کار را انجام می‌دهند و نقشی به عهده می‌گیرند، همه به جز اِآ.
**** خدایان را وحشت فرامی‌گیرد، به بهشت آنو می‌روند، همچون سگ دراز می‌کشند. اینانا (در اینجا: بِلِت-ایلی)همچون زنی در حال زایمان قریاد می‌کشد: ... چرا مردمانم را کشتم ... من به دنیا آوردمشان، مردمان منند... اکنون اقیانوس را چون ماهی پرکرده‌اند.
**** طوفان شش روز و هفت شب طول می‌کشد.
**** روز هفتم طوفان پایان می‌یابد.
**** اوتا-ناپیشتی دریچه را باز می‌کند، نور خورشید بر صورتش می‌افتد. به زانو می‌افتد و می‌گرید. 
**** بر کوه نیموش (هفت روز)؛ سه پرنده (کبوتر، پرستو و در آخر غُراب که برنمی‌گردد)
**** قربانی می‌کند و خدایان چون مگس جمع می‌شوند.
**** بِلِت-ایلی از راه می‌رسد و انلیل را ایجادکننده طوفان می‌داند.
**** انلیل خشمگین که چرا بشری زنده باقی مانده، پاسخ نینورتا، سخنان اِآ (ص ۹۵)
**** در نیمه این سخنان بار دیگر نام آتراهاسیس به میان می‌آید (اینبار برای اوتا-ناپیشتی و زمانی که اِآ می‌گوید چیزی را فاش نکرده، بلکه آتراهاسیس آن را دریافته)
***** با این حال در پاراگراف بعدی، دوباره از خود واژه اوتا-ناپیشتی استفاده می‌شود (از زبان انلیل)
**** مردی میرا جاودان می‌شود ولی دورافتاده
thread_title:  روایت لوح‌های حماسه 

message: حماسه گیلگمش (اندرو جرج)، ص ۸۸ تا ۱۰۰:
* عصاره:
** گیلگمش از اوتا-ناپیشتی می‌پرسد چگونه به زندگی جاودانه دست یافته، در پاسخ داستان طوفان را می‌‌شنود و اینکه خدایان به او پس از نجات از طوفان زندگی جاوردان دادند. اوتا-ناپیشتی به گیلگمش می‌‌گوید یک هفته نخوابد. گیلگمش نمی‌تواند و درمی‌یابد او که ناتوان از نخوابیدن است، بیهوده به دنبال غلبه بر مرگ است. اوتا-ناپیشتی به قایقرانش دستور می‌دهد پوشاک در خور در اختیار گیلگمش گذارد و او را به اوروک برگرداند. زن اوتا-ناپیشتی از او می‌خواهد رسم هدیه دادن به مهمان را به جا آورد. اوتا-ناپیشتی به گیلگمش نشان گیاهی را در اعماق دریا می‌دهد که او را جوان خواهد کرد. گیلگمش به اعماق می‌رود و گیاه را به دست می‌آورد. او و اور-شانابی به قصد اوروک به راه می‌افتند. برای شستشو در جایی توقف می‌کنند، ماری گیاه را می‌رباید و گیلگمش درمی‌یابد که تمامی تلاش‌هایش بیهوده بوده است. امیدهایش ناامید شده‌اند (نابود شده‌اند)، بهتر بود که اصلا اوتا-ناپیشتی را ندیده بود. او و اور-شانابی به اوروک می‌رسند و گیلگمش با همان واژه‌های مقدمه دیوارها را به عنوان دستاوردش به قایقران نشان می‌دهد.
*** داستان طوفان: 
**** در ص ۹۰ نام آترا-هاسیس به میان می‌آید: به عنوان نام دروازه‌ای که نجار و ... گرد می‌آیند.
**** ساختن کشتی با جزئیات بیان می‌شود.
**** اوتا-ناپیشتی گویی که فردایی نیست از آنها پذیرایی می‌کند (جشنی چون روزهای سال نو)
**** برخلاف توصیه اِآ، اوتا-ناپیشتی طلا و نقره‌اش هم را به کشتی می‌برد.
**** نعمت آسمانی! (نان کیکی و گندم) 
**** ص ۹۱: همگی خدایان (اَدَد، آنوناکی ...) بخشی از کار را انجام می‌دهند و نقشی به عهده می‌گیرند، همه به جز اِآ.
**** خدایان را وحشت فرامی‌گیرد، به بهشت آنو می‌روند، همچون سگ دراز می‌کشند. اینانا (در اینجا: بِلِت-ایلی)همچون زنی در حال زایمان قریاد می‌کشد: ... چرا مردمانم را کشتم ... من به دنیا آوردمشان، مردمان منند... اکنون اقیانوس را چون ماهی پرکرده‌اند.
**** طوفان شش روز و هفت شب طول می‌کشد.
**** روز هفتم طوفان پایان می‌یابد.
**** اوتا-ناپیشتی دریچه را باز می‌کند، نور خورشید بر صورتش می‌افتد. به زانو می‌افتد و می‌گرید. 
**** بر کوه نیموش (هفت روز)؛ سه پرنده (کبوتر، پرستو و در آخر غُراب که برنمی‌گردد)
**** قربانی می‌کند و خدایان چون مگس جمع می‌شوند.
**** بِلِت-ایلی از راه می‌رسد و انلیل را ایجادکننده طوفان می‌داند.
**** انلیل خشمگین که چرا بشری زنده باقی مانده، پاسخ نینورتا، سخنان اِآ (ص ۹۵)
**** در نیمه این سخنان بار دیگر نام آتراهاسیس به میان می‌آید (اینبار برای اوتا-ناپیشتی و زمانی که اِآ می‌گوید چیزی را فاش نکرده، بلکه آتراهاسیس آن را دریافته)
***** با این حال در پاراگراف بعدی، دوباره از خود واژه اوتا-ناپیشتی استفاده می‌شود (از زبان انلیل)
**** مردی میرا جاودان می‌شود ولی دورافتاده
thread_title:  لوح XI 

message: * xiii
** یکی از شاهکارهای بزرگ ادبیات جهان / حماسه‌ای درباره ترس از مرگ / و درباره بسیاری دیگر: ... سرشت و پروردن، ... / داستان طوفان با هنرمندی / قهرمان فرهنگ: با دانشی که در انتهای جهان از بازمانده طوفان فراگرفته، معابد سرزمین و آیین‌ها را به کمالِ پیش از طوفان می‌رساند. / و بسیاری از اولین‌ها ... / و بسیاری جزئیات (چرا در تقویم بابلی دو روز نو وجود دارد و ...) / اقتباس‌ها (به زبان‌های مختلف) ... / نسخه‌های مختلف خط میخی / خط برای انجام کارهای اداری پیچیده به‌وجود آمد (نه برای داستان نوشتن و ...) / حماسه گیلگمش به چندین زبان و از چندین عصر به امروز رسیده ... تقسیم‌بندی بر اساس زمان، مکان و زبان ... پنج فصل -  فصل I: اکدی (او که ژرفا را دید) فصل 2 تا 4: اکدی (قدیمی‌تر)(برتر از همه شاهان) + لوح‌های مشق فصل 2: متن‌های نیمه اول هزاره دوم پیشا دوران مشترک (دوره بالی باستان) فصل 3: نیمه دوم هزاره دوم (دوره بابلی میانه) و فصل 4: متن‌های همان دوره از «غرب»ِ باستان (لوانت و آناتولیا)(شام و آناتولی)/ فصل 5: پنج شعر سومری (نسخه کاتبان بابلی ولی از زمان‌های دور)
* گیلگمش و ادبیات بین‌النهرین باستان xvi
** ۲۶۰۰ پیشا دوران مشترک: استفاده از خط برای ادبیات / بسیار سخت برای خواندن (بازتاب همه زبان نیست هنوز(الفبا)) / بین‌النهرین سفلی: مردمانی با دو زبان بسیار متفاوت / سومری (بدون ارتباط با سایر زبان‌ها)(زبانی که به نظر می‌رسد اولین بار به خط در آمده است) - اکدی (متعلق به گروه زبان‌های سامی (مانند عبری و عربی)) این دو زبان سالیان دراز توسط هر دو گروهی که در بین‌النهرین سفلی ساکن بودن استفاده می‌شده است (نزدیکی فرهنگی (واژه آلمانی)). سومری‌های بیشتر در جنوبِ شهری ساکن بودند و اکدی‌ها در شمالِ بیشتر ایالتی. / «سیاه‌سران» / دو زبانی بین‌النهرین باستان شاید همچون فرانسوی و فلامان در بلژیک /   از ۲۳۰۰ متون اکدی بسیار پیدا می‌شوند (زبانِ در خدمت اولین امپراتوری بین‌النهرین / سارگن / از خلیج تا شام). داستان تولد سارگن و موسی (در مقاله گیلگمش هست) / ایشتار / صد سال / متون ادبی خیلی کم / سنت شفاهی / کمرنگ شدن سومری (به عنوان زبان رایج) ولی زبانِ کتابت در رنسانس سومری (آخرین قرن هزاره سوم - سلسله سوم اور - شولگی) .../
*** ظهور بابل: قرن هجدهم / حموراپی (پ) / سومری دیگر زبان گفتار نبود (زبان نوشتار) گویش بابلیِ زبان اکدی / «کاتبی که سومری نداند، چگونه کاتبی است؟» / «مبصر در گفت: چرا بی‌اجازه‌ام رفتی؟ و مرا زد مبصر آب گفت: «چرا بی‌اجازه‌ام خوردی؟ و مرا زد» مبصر سومری گفت «اکدی گفتی» و مرا زد معلم گفت «خط تو بد است» و مرا زد.» 
**** کاتب در آینده برای اثبات اینکه بلد است بنویسد باید به سومری می‌نوشت. بهترین متون سومری که باید یاد می‌گرفت پیکره‌ای تجویز شده از متون ادبی سنتی سومری. / تقریبا هر متن ادبی سومری که داریم، همین‌هاست که کاتبان جوان بابلی نوشته‌اند (در خرابه خانه معلمشان) (نیپور و اور). / تازگی در ایسن متون سومری (از همان زمان)(تل حداد-مه توران) / کریمر / خود شولگی نیز انتظار نداشت شاید. / در بینشان پنج شعر سومری (بیلگمس - فصل پنج) 
** این پنج شعر مشهورترند / حماسه بابلی گیلگمش (اکدی) - داستان‌های مجزا و مفرد بدون تم مشترک / مکتوب شدن: احتمالا در زمان سلسله سوم اور (علاقه خاص به بیلگمس)(گوسان) / سرگرمی / گرچه قرن هجدهم ولی به نه فقط شولگی که به سنت شفاهی /
*** همراهشان کمی ادبیات اکدی («ادبیات بابلی باستان») / چند تا درباره گیلگمش (فصل دو) (بسیار نادر-برنامه درسی نبودند و خود کاتبان برای دلشان نوشته‌اند) 
**** سایر ادبیات اکدی: در میانشان سه لوح بابلی باستان گیلگمش (پنسیلوانیا، ییل و سیپار (فصل دو))
**** شاهکار دیگری در ادبیات بابلی (دوره بابلی باستان): آترام-هاسیس (وقتی که خدایان انسان بودند)   
** آترام-هاسیس: تاریخ بشر از خلقت تا طوفان / استفاده شاعر گیلگمش از همین داستان و داستان طوفان در سفر پیدایش 
*** علم بابلی: طرد شیطان با جادو
** ادبیات در دوره بابل باستان خلاقانه بود ولی برنامه درسی حداقل در مدارسی که می‌شناسیم آنقدر واپس‌گرا که بازتاب این گستره نبود.
** لوح‌های بابلی باستان گیلگمش آشکار می‌کند در این زمان حماسه بکپارچه‌ای شکل گرفته است. / عنوان نسخه پنسیلوانیا: Shūtur eli sharrī برتر از همه شاهان دیگر / سنت شفاهی / پادشاهی، شهرت و ترس از مرگ / یک شاعرِ بی‌نام /  بخشی از نسخه پنسیلوانیا و سیپار فراموش‌نشدنی است.
** تا برای اینکه روشن شود نسخه معیار چیست باید داستان ادبیات بین‌النهرینی ادامه یابد. (ص xxi)
*** قرن هجدهم پیشا دوران مشترک / برنامه درسی مدارس کتابت به کل تغییر کرد (دوران تاریک؟) / مرحله بعد، قرن ششم ولی کتابخانه‌های هزاره اول در تمدن بابل (بابل، اوروک، سیپار و آشور) - نینوا (آشوربانیپال) - مانند شولگی - نابو: خدای کاتبان ... / جزئیات کتابخانه ... لوح‌هایی که چهارصد سال قبل مکتوب شده‌اند / جزئیات مهم / حماسه گیلگمش در حداقل چهار نسخه / پس از مادها و بابلیان ۶۱۲ پیشا دوران مشترک تکه‌ها ماند تا ۲٬۵۰۰ سال بعد (۱۸۵۰ و ۱۸۵۳) - آشورشناسی (هنوز مهمترین منبع) / جزئیات مهم تاریخی - رسام: قهرمانی در آشورشناسی که برایش نسروده‌اند / جرج اسمیت وارد می‌شود 
**** اولین انسانی که پس از ۲٬۰۰۰ سال آنها را خواند «لوح‌ها را روی میز گذاشت، به هوا پرید، از این سو به آن سوی اتاق دوید و لباس‌هایش را درآورد» / با جزئیات مهمِ قبل و بعدش ... آشورشناسی از راه رسید و نیز گیلگمش.
*** سنت کتابت این دوره متون بسیا متفاوتی از سنت دوره بابلی باستان دارد. متون سومری اکثرا باقی نمانده بودند. هر چه مانده بود همراه بود با ترجمه خط به خط اکدی... (جزئیات مهم) قرن‌های آخر هزاره دوم - استانداردسازی متون
**** سین-لیق-اونینی (ای خدای ماه، دعایم را بپذیر (مرا بیامزر)) - جن‌گیر (شغلی مهم) ... چیز دیگری نمی‌دانیم -قرن سیزده تا دوازده (او نمی‌تواند مصنف اصلی حماسه باشد ولی شکل نهایی را شاید داده باشد: نسخه معیار) ... در قدیم: Sha naqba īmuru (او که ژرفا را دید) - مقایسه دو نسخه معیار و بابلی قدیم با هم / 
***** متون درون تمدن بابل: دو تا (نیپور و اور)(فصل سه) (شبیه به نسخه معیار با تفاوتهایی)
***** متون خارج از تمدن بابل: توضیح لازم دارد: قرن چهاردهم، در اوجِ اواخر عصر برنز (پادشاهی جدید مصر و هیتی‌ها در شرق مدیترانه) lingua franca در خاور نزدیک، اکدی بود. پادشاهان آشور و بابل طبیعتا به اکدی برای فرعون می‌نوشتند ولی فرعون نیز به اکدی پاسخ می‌داد. پادشاه هیتی‌ها و فرعون نیز به اکدی مکاتبه داشتند. حاکمان شام نیز زمانی که با اربابانشان مکاتبه می‌کردند، با همین زبان بود (گرچه وسطش اصطلاحات کنعانی و هوریانی بود). این اکدی به روش سنتی و بر روی لوح و به میخی نوشته میشد. کاتبان محلی برای نوشتن نامه‌ها و قرارداها: تکرار .... (ادامه با جزئیات مهم (دو پاراگراف ص xxvi)) این متون در فصل چهار ترجمه شده‌اند.  / سایر نسخه‌های گیلگمش در غربِ باستان: هیتی (خوانا)، هوریان (ناخوانا)، نسخه عیلامی گیلگمش؟ (ص xxvii) (نامه‌ای خصوصی بود و بی‌ربط به گیلگمش)  - نشانی از «عیلامی شناخته‌نشده‌ترین زبان خاور نزدیک باستان است.» 
**** نسخه معیار حماسه بابلی / ۷۳ متن بازمانده: ۳۵ (کتابخانه آشوربانیپال) + ۸ (از سه شهر دیگر آشور) + ۳۰ از سرزمین بابل (بابل و اوروک) / قدیمی‌ترین در کتابخانه آشوربانیپال / جدیدترین ۱۳۰ پیشا دوران مشترک، بل-آهه-اوسور (خدایا، برادران را نگاهبان باش) (آرامی و یونانی) / از این ۷۳ میشود نسخه اونینی را بازساخت ولی خیلی جاهایش خالی میماند که میتوان با نسخه‌های قدیمی‌تر اکدی پر کردشان و حتی در یکجا باید به سراغ نسخه هیتی رفت. نتیجه این کار می‌شود: فصل یک که با یادداشت مشخص شده‌اند.
***** نسخه معیار بر اساس سنت بابلی به بخش‌هایی تقسیم می‌شود. - جزئیات مهم (ص xxviii) / سری گیلگمش در واقع دوازده لوح است. لوح I تا XI (شامل حماسه) + لوح XII (آخرین در سری): ترجمه سطر به سطر نیمه آخر یکی شعرهای سومری (این ترجمه به هزاره اول رسید برخلاف خود شعرها که نرسیدند). گرچه برخی تلاش کرده‌اند نشان دهند لوح XII جایگاهی واقعی در حماسه دارد اکثر محققان بر این باورند که اینگونه نیست و صرفا به آن افزوده شده چون مربوط بوده است (اصل آوردن متون مربوط با هم در تحقیقات بابلی). / تفاوت یازده لوح در تعداد سطرها ۱۸۳ تا ۳۲۶ (در حدود ۳٬۰۰۰ سطر) / در وضعیت فعلی تنها لوح‌های I و VI و X و XI تقریبا کامل هستند. در حدود ۵۷۵ سطر از بین رفته‌اند. / چهار پنجم متن بازمانده قابل خواندن است. در ترجمه این کتاب این وضع روشن است... هر چه درباره حماسه بگوییم موقتی است ... پایانی دلنشین (اشاره به پیدا شدن لوح طوفان در همان سفر اول اسمیت - اشاره به اینکه آن بخش در واقع جز حماسه نبود و بخشی از آترام-هاسیس بود (راهی برای فهمیدن در آن زمان وجود نداشت))
* زمان و مکان حماسه xxxi (مهم)
** اوروک در سومر (بزرگترین شهر)، گیلگمش ستمگر (شبه‌خدایی به واسطه مادر ولی میرا)، بازسازی دیوار اوروک بر بنیاد پیش از طوفان (پایان دادن به برتری شهر کیش)، به عنوان خدا در فهرست آغازین خدایان و در اواخر هزاره سوم خودش دارای آیین: (در یکی از شعرهای سومری) فرمانروایی روح مردگان در جهان زیرین، همانگونه که به احتمال زیاد شاه آرتوری واقعیت تاریخی داشته، شاه گیلگمشی نیز وجود داشته است، فهرست پادشاهان سومری (پنجمین حاکم سلسله اول اوروک (پس ح. ۲۷۵۰ پیشا دوران مشترک)، حکومت ۱۲۶ ساله)، دوره‌ای که مثل حماسه هومر خدایان نفع شخصی در زندگی انسان داشتند و مستقیم با او گفتگو می‌کردند. 
** سه‌گانه (آنو: خدای آسمان / انلیل (مهمتر بود): مدیر امور خدایان و انسان / اآ: باهوش، در آبهای تازه زیرین که «هفت فرزانه» برای متمدن کردن انسان فرستاد)
** بانوی خدایان: ایزدبانوی مادر مهربان، آفرینش انسان به کمک اآ / ادد خشن، خدای طوفان / سین: خدای ماه (پسر انلیل) / فرزندان ماه: شمش (خدای خورشید)(نگاهبان ویژه گیلگمش) و ایشتار: ونوس بابلی، با اشتهایی زیاد برای عشق جنسی و جنگ / ارشکیگال: (پایین قلمرو اآ) ملکه تلخ دنیای زیرین (دستیارش  نامتار)
** انسان در شهرها زندگی می‌کند و زمین را می‌شکافد. جایی را که نمی‌توان آبیاری کرد شبانان با گله‌هایشان پر می‌کنند (نگران از گرگ و شیر). دورتر، دنیای وحشی که شکارچیان و قانون‌گریزان هستند؛ در آنجا مردی که غزال‌ها بزرگ کردند با نام انکیدو. در مسافت چندین ماهه از دنیای وحشی، در فرای چندین رشته کوه، جنگل سدرِ مقدس بود که می‌گفتند خدایان در آنند. غولی مهیب با نام هومبابا (در هفت حفاظ) از آن نگاهبانی می‌کرد. جایی در کناره جهان که عقرب‌مردان بودند، دو کوه ماشو بود که خورشید در آن طلوع و غروب می‌‌کرد. باز هم دورتر، در پایان دیگرِ «راه خورشید»، «باغ گوهران» بود و در میخانه‌ای بر کناره اقیانوسی گذرناپذیر (که زمین را احاطه کرده بود)، ایزدبانوی اسرارآمیز، سیدوری، بود که در پرده خردمندی می‌بخشید. در آنسوی اقیانوس، «آب‌های مرگ» بود و در فرای آنها در جزیره‌ای دورافتاده (که در آن دوباره دجله و فرات از اعماق سربرمی‌آوردند)، دور از همه انسان‌‌ها، در جایی که فقط قایقرانی با نام اور-شانابی راه داشت، پادشاه پیش از طوفانی با نام اوتا-ناپیشتیِ دورافتاده زندگی می‌کرد؛ بازمانده از طوفانی که انلیل در سپیده تاریخ به پا کرد و میرایی شوم را به جان بشر انداخت.     
* حماسه در متن: اسطوره، دین و خرد xxxii (مهم) 
** حماسه گیلگمش یکی از نادر آثار ادبی بابلی است که بدون نیاز به داشتن اطلاعاتی درباره تمدنی که از آن برخاسته، می‌توان آن را خواند. نام شخصیت‌ها ممکن است ناآشنا باشند یا جاهایِ غریبی در آن باشد ولی برخی از تم‌های شاعر آن‌چنان در تجربه بشری جهانی است که خواننده مشکلی در درک نیروی پیشبرنده قهرمان نخواهد داشت و می‌تواند به راحتی با اندوه و ناامیدی او احساس همدلی کند. ویلیام موران اخیرا داستان گیلگمش را قصه جهان بشری دانسته که بر «ارزش‌های انسانی» و «پذیرفتن محدودیت‌‌های انسانی» پافشاری می‌کند. این دیدگاه به آن منجر شده است که وی حماسه را «سند انسان‌گرایی باستانی» بداند؛ حقیقتا داستان گیلگمش حتی برای مردم باستان بیشتر درباره این بود که انسان بودن چیست تا درباره اینکه خدمت به خدایان چیست. همانگونه که در ابتدا و پایان حماسه روشن است، گیلگمش بیشتر به خاطر دستاوردهای انسانی خود تحسین می‌شود و نه ارتباطش با خدایان.
** گرچه حماسه بی‌شک ادبیات داستانی است، تشخیص موران هشداری است که حماسه را اسطوره نخوانیم. اجماع بسیار کمی بر این وجود دارد که اسطوره چه هست و چه نیست و اسطوره‌های بین‌النهرین باستان گونه‌های مختلفی دارند. برخی، به خصوص قدیمی‌ترها، تنها دربرگیرنده یک اسطوره‌اند. بقیه دو اسطوره یا اسطوره‌های بیشتری را دربرمی‌گیرند. این دسته دو ویژگی دارند: از یک طرف، داستان بر محور کردار یک خدا یا بیشتر است و از طرف دیگر قصد آن دارد که پدیده‌ای طبیعی  یا اجتماعی را توضیح دهد. اکثر شخصیت‌های حماسه گیلگمش، بیشتر خدایی هستند ولی در کنار قهرمان بی‌اهمیت می‌شوند. خدایان حتی تشبیه‌های نامناسب می‌شوند: در لوح XI شاعر آنها را با سگ و مگس مقایسه می‌کند، گویی حاکمان کهکشان مردارخوارانی انگل‌صفت هستند. در کل، کارکرد شعر توضیح اصل‌ها نیست. بیشتر به دنبال بررسی شرایط بشری به همان شکلی که هست، است. 
===== گزیده =====
* page xv: To summarize, Chapter 1 presents the version of the epic in the Akkadian language that was standard in the first-millennium Babylonia and Assyria, with some of its gaps filled with older material. This, if you like, is the classical Epic of Gilgamesh. It was known to the Babylonians and Assyrians as ‘He who saw the Deep’. In this book it is referred to as the standard version. Chapters 2—4 give the full text of older material in Akkadian, including earlier, more fragmentary versions of the epic, such as that known in antiquity as ‘Surpassing all other kings’, and isolated extracts of text on school practice tablets. Chapter 2 presents texts from the first half of the second millennium (the Old Babylonian period), Chapter 3 material from Babylonia of the second half of the second millennium (the Middle Babylonian period) and Chapter 4 texts of the same period from the ancient West — the Levant and Anatolia. Chapter 5 contains the five narrative poems in the Sumerian language, best known from copies made ‘by Babylonian apprentice scribes in the eighteenth century BC, but certainly older. In order to understand how the different texts and fragments of Gilgamesh relate to each other it may help to place them in the context of the long history of ancient Mesopotamian literature.
* p. xvi: Literature was already being written down in Mesopotamia by 2600 BC, though because the script did not yet express language fully, these early tablets remain extremely difficult to read. From at least this time, and probably much earlier, lower Mesopotamia was inhabited by people who spoke two very different languages. One was Sumerian, a language without affinities with any known tongue, and this appears to be the medium of the earliest writing. The other was Akkadian, which is a member of the Semitic family of languages and thus related to Hebrew and Arabic. The two languages, Sumerian and Akkadian, had long been used side by side by the people of lower Mesopotamia, though Sumerian predominated in the urban south and Akkadian in the more provincial north. This geographical division was enshrined in the terminology of later tradition, according to which the homeland of ‘the black-headed ones’, as these people called themselves, com- prised two regions, Sumer, the southern part of lower Mesopotamia, and Akkad, the northern part. The bilingualism of the urban civiliz- ation of lower Mesopotamia in the third millennium Bc perhaps resembled the division between French and Flemish in modern-day Belgium.
** Texts in Akkadian appear in quantity from about 2300 Bc, when the language became an administrative tool in the service of the first great Mesopotamian empire. This empire stretched at its height from the Gulf to Levantine Syria. It was built by Sargon and his successors, the kings of Akkade, a northern city which soon lent its name to the region round about and to the language spoken at the court of its kings. A legend describes how Sargon was a foundling like the infant Moses:
* p. xvii: My mother, a priestess, conceived me and bore me in secret, she put me in a basket of reeds, sealed its lid with pitch; ... the river bore me up and brought me to Aqqi, a drawer of water.’ According to tradition, Sargon rose to power by winning the favour of the goddess Ishtar. For nearly a hundred years his dynasty exercised dominion over the city-states of lower Mesopotamia and much of northern Mesopotamia too. The early texts in Akkadian dating from this period include a very small body of literature. Much more, no doubt, was passed down in an oral tradition and was never written down, or only much later. Sumerian seems to have been losing ground to Akkadian as a spoken language from at least this time, but its function as the primary language of writing was bolstered by a Sumer- ian renaissance in the last century of the third millennium. For a short period much of Mesopotamia was again united, this time under the kings of the celebrated Third Dynasty of the southern city of Ur, most famously Shulgi (2094-2047 BC in the conventional chronology). The perfect prince was an intellectual as well as a warrior and an athlete, and among his many achievements King Shulgi was particularly proud of his literacy and cultural accomplishments. He had rosy memories of his days at the scribal school, where he boasted that he was the most skilled student in his class. In later life he was an enthusiastic patron of the arts and claims to have founded special libraries at Ur and at Nippur, further north in central Babylonia, in which scribes and minstrels could consult master copies of, as it were, the Sumerian songbook. Thus he envisaged that hymns to his glory and other literature of his day would be preserved for posterity:
* p. xviii: In this enlightened atmosphere the courts of the kings of Ur and the succeeding dynasty of Isin were witness to the composition of much literature in Sumerian. This literature we know best not from tablets written at the time, though some survive (including a fragment of a Gilgamesh poem), but from the scribal curriculum of the Babylonians. After the rise to power of the city of Babylon in the eighteenth century, under its most famous ruler, King Hammurapi (1792- 1750 BC), the land of Sumer and Akkad was ruled by Babylon. Though the people of Sumer and Akkad did not themselves refer to their homeland as Babylonia, which is a Greek term, it is customary to call them Babylonians from this time onwards. Sumerian had by then died out among the people as a spoken language, but it was still much in use as a written language. 
* p. xviii: Mesopotamian culture was nothing if not conservative and since Sumerian had been the language of the first writing, more than a thousand years before, it remained the principal language of writing in the early second millennium, Much more was written in the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, but Sumerian retained a particular prestige. Its primacy as the language of learning was enshrined in the curriculum that had to be mastered by the student scribe. In order to learn how to use the cuneiform script, even to write Akkadian, the student had to learn Sumerian, for, as the proverb said, ‘A scribe who knows no Sumerian, what sort of scribe is he??? None at all, for in this period the language of tuition was, at least in part, Sumerian. Falling foul of every regulation, one young student lamented, ... To prove he could write, the would-be scribe copied out, on dictation and from memory, texts in Sumerian. The most advanced Sumerian texts that he had to master were a prescribed corpus of traditional Sumerian literary compositions. ... Nearly all the literature that we have in Sumerian derives from the tablets written by these young Babylonian scribal apprentices, many  of which were found in the remains of the houses of their teachers. The two largest such discoveries were made at Nippur, where the scribal quarter was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, and at Ur, where the houses in question are slightly older. More recently significant bodies of Sumerian literature from the same era have been discovered at Isin, a city just south of Nippur, and at Tell Haddad (ancient Mé-Turan) by the river Diyala on the periphery of north-east Babylonia, but most of these tablets remain unpublished. The private dwelling-houses of Nippur and Ur were not the royal Tablet Houses inaugurated by King Shulgi but they amply fulfilled the purpose he envisaged, the preservation of Sumerian literature for future generations. That now we are reading the songs of Shulgi again, four thousand years later, would probably have exceeded even his expectations, and it would have surprised him too that his libraries of Sumerian lived anew, as it were, in the tablet collections of Philadel- phia, London, and other strange and far-away places.
* p. xix:  The two largest such discoveries were made at Nippur, where the scribal quarter was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, and at Ur, where the houses in question are slightly older. More recently significant bodies of Sumerian literature from the same era have been discovered at Isin, a city just south of Nippur, and at Tell Haddad (ancient Mé-Turan) by the river Diyala on the periphery of north-east Babylonia, but most of these tablets remain unpublished. The private dwelling-houses of Nippur and Ur were not the royal Tablet Houses inaugurated by King Shulgi but they amply fulfilled the purpose he envisaged, the preservation of Sumerian literature for future generations. That now we are reading the songs of Shulgi again, four thousand years later, would probably have exceeded even his expectations, and it would have surprised him too that his libraries of Sumerian lived anew, as it were, in the tablet collections of Philadel- phia, London, and other strange and far-away places.
* p. xix:-xx: Among those Sumerian literary texts which have achieved some degree of publicity are the five poems of Gilgamesh (or Bilgames as he is known in older texts), translated in Chapter 5. These are not the same as the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, which was written in Akkadian, but separate and individual tales without common themes. They were probably first committed to writing under the Third Dyn- asty of Ur, whose kings felt a special bond with Bilgames as a legendary hero whom they considered their predecessor and ancestor. It seems likely that much of the traditional Sumerian literary corpus goes back to lays sung by minstrels for the entertainment of the royal court of the Third Dynasty. The Sumerian poems of Bilgames are well suited for such amusement. The texts that we have, although known almost entirely from eighteenth-century copies, are very probably directly descended from master copies placed by King Shulgi in his Tablet Houses. Even so, it is entirely possible that the poems stem ultimately from an older, oral tradition. To some extent these Sumerian poems were source material for the Babylonian epic, but they can be enjoyed for their own sake too. Reading them takes us back four millennia to the courtly life of the Sumerian ‘renaissance’. Alongside the great mass of Sumerian literary tablets from the schools of eighteenth-century Babylonia, we have also recovered a little contemporaneous literature in Akkadian. This we call Old Baby- lonian literature. A few Old Babylonian literary tablets derive from the same schools as the literary tablets in Sumerian and also appear to be the work of apprentice scribes. These include a few scraps of Akkadian Gilgamesh, which are among the texts translated in Chap- ter 2. But though it seems that some literature in Akkadian was studied in the schools of this period, literary tablets in this language are so rare among the huge quantities of Sumerian tablets that it is clear they were not part of the prescribed curriculum. What narrative poems in Akkadian that we do have from the schools may instead have been copied down by students for fun, or even composed by them ad lib.
* p. xx: Other tablets of Akkadian literary works have been recovered from this period which are of less certain provenance than the school tablets. Some of them are finely written and were evidently kept, perhaps by individual scholars, as permanent library-copies. Among these are three Old Babylonian tablets of Gilgamesh which contribute signific- antly to our knowledge of the story: the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets and the fragment reportedly from Sippar. These are also translated in Chapter 2. Another masterpiece of Babylonian literature known from late in the Old Babylonian period is the great poem of Atram- hasis, ‘When the gods were man’, which recounts the history of mankind from the Creation to the Flood.° It was this text’s account of the Flood that the poet of Gilgamesh used as a source for his own version of the Deluge myth. It also provided a striking model for the story of Noah’s Flood in the Bible. Other Akkadian literature begins to appear at this time, such as texts expounding the Babylonian sciences, divination by extispicy, astrology and mathematics, and incantations in both Sumerian and Akkadian whose purpose was to ward off evil by magic means. So the Old Babylonian period was an era of great literary creativity in Akkadian, but the school curriculum, at least in the centres we know best, was evidently too hidebound to reflect this development.
* p. xx: The Old Babylonian Gilgamesh tablets reveal that there was already, at this time, an integrated Gilgamesh epic, which, as the Pennsylvania tablet reports, bore the title Shatur eli sharri, ‘Surpassing all other kings’. Works of ancient Mesopotamian literature were rarely created out of nothing and the origins of this epic probably also go back to an oral tradition. Certainly the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh tablets are far from being translations of the individual Sumerian poems of the scribal curriculum, though the two traditions hold in common several episodes and themes. The Old Babylonian texts bear witness to a wholesale revision of Gilgamesh material to form a connected story composed around the principal themes of kingship, fame and the fear of death. For this reason one suspects that the Old Babylonian epic was essentially the masterpiece of a single, anonymous poet. This epic, ‘Surpassing all other kings’, is only a fragment as it is now preserved, but many find the simple poetry and spare narrative of this poem and of the other Old Babylonian material more attractive than the more wordy standard version. Some stanzas of the Pennsylvania and Sippar tablets, especially, are unforgettable. To explain what is meant by the standard version of the Gilgamesh epic it is necessary to continue the story of Mesopotamian literature.
* Some time after the eighteenth century Bc the contents of scribal curriculum changed radically. We next have large numbers of school tablets at our disposal from the sixth century on, but the best witnesses to the nature and contents of the late scribal tradition are the several first-millennium libraries that have been excavated in Babylonia, especially at Babylon, Uruk and Sippar, and in Assyria. Assyria is the Greek name for the Land of Ashur, a small country to the north of Babylonia on the middle reaches of the river Tigris that was home in the early first millennium Bc to the greatest empire the Near East had yet seen. Foremost among these late libraries is the collection of clay tablets amassed at Nineveh by the last great king of Assyria, Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC). Like Shulgi before him, King Ashurbanipal claimed to have been... . The scriptorium of Nineveh was also engaged on the task of copying out texts. Some of the copyists were prisoners-of-war or political hostages and worked in chains. 
* p: xxii: Among the texts that were copied out by Ashurbanipal’s scribes was the Gilgamesh epic, of which the library may have possessed as many as four complete copies on clay tablets. Whatever was inscribed on wax has perished, of course. After the sack of Nineveh by the Median and Babylonian alliance in 612 Bc, Ashurbanipal’s copies of the epic, like his other tablets, lay in pieces on the floors of the royal palaces, not to be disturbed for nearly 2,500 years. The royal libraries of Nineveh were the first great find of cuneiform tablets to be dis-covered, in 1850 and 1853, and are the nucleus of the collection of clay tablets amassed in the British Museum. They are also the founda- tion stone upon which the discipline of Assyriology was built and for much research they remain the most important source of primary material. The first to find these tablets were the young Austen Henry Layard and his assistant, an Assyrian Christian called Hormuzd Ras- sam, as they tunnelled in search of Assyrian sculpture through the remains of the ‘Palace without Rival’, a royal residence built by Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal’s grandfather. Three years later Rassam returned on behalf of the British Museum and uncovered a second trove in Ashurbanipal’s own North Palace. Rassam is something of an unsung hero in Assyriology. Much later, in 1879-82, his efforts provided the British Museum with tens of thousands of Babylonian tablets from such southern sites as Babylon and Sippar. Neither Layard nor Rassam was able to read the tablets they sent back from Assyria, but of the find he made in what he called the Chamber of Records Layard wrote, ‘We cannot overrate their value.’ His words remain true to this day, not least for the Gilgamesh epic.
* The huge importance of the royal libraries found at Nineveh by Layard and Rassam first became widely known in 1872 when, sorting through the Assyrian tablets in the British Museum, the brilliant George Smith came across what remains the most famous of Gilgamesh tablets, the best-preserved manuscript of the story of the Deluge. His reaction is described by E. A. Wallis Budge in his history of cuneiform studies, The Rise and Progress of Assyriology: ‘Smith took the tablet and began to read over the lines which Ready [the conservator who had cleaned the tablet] had brought to light; and when he saw that they contained the portion of the legend he had hoped to find there, he said, “I am the first man to read that after two thousand years of oblivion.” Setting the tablet on the table, he jumped up and rushed about the room in a great state of excitement, and, to the astonishment of those present, began to undress himself!’ One hopes the George Smith who made his discovery public was a figure more composed and fully clad, since the occasion was a formal paper delivered to the Society of Biblical Archaeology in the presence of Mr Gladstone and other notables. This must be the only occasion on which a British Prime Minister in office has attended a lecture on Babylonian literature. Assyriology had arrived, and so had Gilgamesh.
* p. xxiv: The purpose of this labour was to provide Ashurbanipal with the best possible expertise to govern in the manner that would please the gods. ‘Send me,’ he commanded, ‘tablets that are beneficial for my royal administration!”* With its advice for proper government the Gilgamesh epic certainly came into this category, but it is clear from the contents of the libraries of Nineveh that the phrase summed up the entire scribal tradition current at the time.
* The scribal tradition then current comprised a very different body of texts from that copied by the apprentices of the Old Babylonian period. Much of the Sumerian corpus was no longer extant. Almost without exception, those few texts that survived from it had been supplied with line-by-line Akkadian translations. The Akkadian liter- ary texts known from Old Babylonian copies had been considerably reworked and many new texts in Akkadian had been added. The written traditions of the great professions had been incorporated. Many of the treatises on divination had been enormously expanded and the incantations of the exorcists had been organized and placed in series. This work of revision, organization and expansion is known to have taken place at the hands of many different scholars between seven and four hundred years earlier, in the last centuries of the second millennium. The labour of these individual Middle Babylonian scholars resulted in the creation of standard editions of most texts, editions which remained essentially unaltered until the death of cunei- form writing a thousand years later.
* The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic did not escape the attentions of a redactor. This by tradition was a learned scholar by the name of Sin-lige-unninni, which means ‘O Moon God, Accept my Prayer!...
* p. xxv: Something of the intermediate stages in this development from ‘Surpassing all other kings’ to ‘He who saw the Deep’ can be learnt from the scraps of Babylonian Gilgamesh that survive from the era in which Sin-lige-unninni lived. This material falls into two groups: texts that come from within Babylonia and texts that come from outside it. The first group comprises only two tablets, from Nippur and Ur, translated in Chapter 3. They closely resemble the standard version of the epic attributed to Sin-liqe-unninni, but there are differ- ences. On grounds of content and style it is hard to say whether these tablets are witness to the text as it was immediately before Sin-liqe-unninni’s editorship, or immediately after it.
* The existence of the second group of tablets, from outside Baby- lonia, needs some explanation. In the fourteenth century, at the height of the Late Bronze Age when the eastern Mediterranean was dominated by the great powers of the Egyptian New Kingdom and the Hittite Empire, the lingua franca of international communications in the Near East was the Akkadian language. Kings of Assyria and Babylonia naturally wrote to Pharaoh in Akkadian, but Pharaoh replied in Akkadian too. The Hittite king and Pharaoh likewise corresponded in Akkadian, and, when writing to their overlords, the minor rulers of the Levantine coast and Syria used the same language, though often shot through with local Canaanite and Hurrian idioms. This Akkadian was written in the traditional manner, in cuneiform script on clay tablets. In order to learn to compose their lords’ letters, treaties and other documents in Akkadian, local scribes were trained in cuneiform writing, and they were trained in the time-honoured way, by rote- learning of the lists, vocabularies and literature of the Babylonian scribal tradition. This was not the first time that the cuneiform script had made the journey to the West. The first known occasion was in the mid-third millennium, when cuneiform was exported to Ebla and elsewhere in Syria and texts in both Sumerian and Akkadian went with it as part of the skills that trainee scribes had to master in order to acquire the new technology. In the nineteenth century Akkadian had been written at Kanesh and other Assyrian trading posts in Cappadocia. In the eighteenth century it was widely used in Syria, not only in Mesopotam- ian Syria but also close by the Mediterranean Sea, and it even appears at Hazor in Palestine. But in the later second millennium the spread of cuneiform schooling and scholarship was wider still. The result was that tablets inscribed with Akkadian scholarly and literary texts were copied out at Hattusa (modern Bogazkéy), the Hittite capital in Anatolia, at Akhetaten (el-Amarna), the royal city of Pharaoh Akhenaten in Upper Egypt, at Ugarit (Ras Shamra), a principality on the Syrian coast, and at Emar (Tell Meskene), a provincial town on the great bend of the Euphrates — just to list the principal sites. Except for Amarna, all these sites have produced tablets of Gilgamesh, as too has Megiddo in Palestine. These texts are translated in Chapter 4. Some of the material from Hattusa, which is the oldest in this group, is very similar to the Old Babylonian epic that we know from the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets and clearly predates Sin-lige-unninni. The texts from Emar, which are several centuries younger, are much more like his text, though again, it is impossible at present to determine whether they precede his work or not. Other Gilgamesh texts from the West are abridgements of the Babylonian epic, or reworkings of it, and are probably local develop- ments. Indeed, the epic fired the imagination then as it does now and adaptations of it were composed in local languages. So far a Hittite version and a Hurtian version have come to light, both found in the archives of the Hittite capital. Though Hittite is pretty well understood, Hurrian is still barely comprehensible and our under- standing of both versions of the Gilgamesh story is badly hampered by their fragmentary state of preservation. Therefore no rendering of them is given here. Not so long ago it seemed that a Gilgamesh text had also been composed in Elamite, the language of a people who occupied what became Susiana and is now Khuzistan. The tablet, discovered in Armenia, far from Elam, was published promptly and in due course translations followed. However, further study revealed that the text was, in fact, a private letter with no connection to Gilgamesh at all. This development elicited from one scholar the wry comment that the document was ‘a good illustration of the fact that Elamite remains the worst-known language of the ancient Near East’. With the Akkadian language we are fortunately on much firmer ground.
* p. xxvii: The standard version of the Babylonian epic is known from a total of 73 manuscripts extant: the 35 that have survived from the libraries of King Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, 8 more tablets and fragments from three other Assyrian cities (Ashur, Kalah and Huzirina), and 30 from Babylonia, especially the cities of Babylon and Uruk. Ashurbanipal’s tablets are the oldest. The latest manuscript discovered so far was written in about 130 BC by one Bel-ahhe-usur (‘O Lord, Protect the Brothers!’), a trainee temple-astrologer of Babylon. By that time this once mighty city was much diminished in power and population but, in a country whose inhabitants had long spoken not Akkadian but Aramaic and Greek, its ancient temple was the last surviving bastion of cuneiform scholarship. From the 73 surviving manuscripts it is possible to reconstruct much of Sin-lige-unninni’s epic but there are still considerable gaps. To fill these lacunae it is sometimes possible to fall back on the older material in Akkadian and for one episode it is even necessary to utilize the Hittite version. The result of this reconstruction is the text given in Chapter 1. There, in order clearly to distinguish between text of different periods, old material used to bridge lacunae in the standard version is explicitly identified in editorial notes.
* The standard version of the epic is divided by Babylonian tradition into sections. The definition of a section is that it is the text customarily contained on an individual clay tablet, and so the sections are called, in accordance with Babylonian custom, ‘tablets’. The epic is told over eleven such sections, Tablets I-XI. The organizing of Babylonian literature in the latter part of the second millennium resulted in much of it being arranged in standard sequences of tablets, sequences that were known as ‘series’. The ‘series of Gilgamesh’, in fact, comprises twelve tablets, not just the eleven of the epic. Tablet XII, the last, is a line-by-line translation of the latter half of one of the Sumerian Gilgamesh poems. Somehow this partial translation survived into the first millennium while the original Sumerian text, like the other Sumerian poems of Gilgamesh, did not. Though some have tried to show that Tablet XII had a real place in the epic, most scholars would agree that it does not belong to that text but was attached to it because it was plainly related material. The principle of bringing together related material was one of the criteria by which the scholars of Babylonia organized different texts into the same series.
* p. xxviii: The eleven tablets of the epic vary in length from 183 to 326 lines of poetry, so that the whole composition would originally have been about 3,000 lines long. As the text now stands, only Tablets I, VI, X and XI are more or less complete. Leaving aside lines that are lost but can be restored from parallel passages, overall about 575 lines are still completely missing, that is, they are not represented by so much as a single word. Many more are too badly damaged to be useful, so that considerably less than the four-fifths of the epic that is extant yields a consecutive text. In the translation offered here the damaged state of the text is all too evident, pock-marked as it is by the clutter of brackets and ellipses.
* While there is a temptation for a modern editor to ignore the gaps, to gloss them over or to join up disconnected fragments of text, I believe that no adult reader is well served by such a procedure. The gaps are themselves important in number and size, for they remind us how much is still to be learned of the text. They prevent us from assuming that we have Gilgamesh entire. Whatever we say about the epic is provisional, for new discoveries of text may change our interpretation of whole passages. Nevertheless, the epic we have now is considerably fuller than that which fired the imagination of Rilke. Approach what lies ahead not as you might the poems of Homer but as a book part-eaten by termites or a scroll half-consumed by fire. Accept it for what it is, a damaged masterpiece.
* In time, the holes that pepper the standard version of the epic will undoubtedly be filled by further discoveries of tablets in the ruin-mounds of Mesopotamia and in the museums of the world — for such is the lack of professional Assyriologists everywhere that we have yet to study properly many thousands of tablets that have long been in museum collections. The correct identification and accurate placement of what are often only small fragments make for difficult and painstaking work. Not even a genius like George Smith always came up with the right identification. The Daily Telegraph was so impressed with his famous lecture on the Deluge story from the Gilgamesh epic that in 1873, in the hope of recovering the missing portions of text, they provided the splendid sum of one thousand guineas (£1,050) to enable him to reopen for the British Museum the old excavations at Nineveh. In comparison with those who had dug there before him, Smith brought home only a very small number of tablets — the ‘DT’ collection — from this, his first expedition, but there among them was indeed a fragment of the Flood, one that even filled an important gap in the narrative. This was a most impressive fulfilment of the Daily Telegraph’s expectations, but the expedition was a victim of its own success. The desired fragment so exactly met the newspaper’s requirements that the news of its discovery led to the expedition’s early recall.
* p. xxx: In fact, we now know that this particular fragment of the Deluge story is part of a late version of the poem of Atram-hasis and not a piece of Gilgamesh at all. Smith had no way of knowing that at the time. His identification was the best that could then be expected, and went unchallenged for many years. Employed by the British Museum in 1867 to assist Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, one of the grand pioneers of cuneiform decipherment, George Smith was more than the discoverer of Gilgamesh and the epic’s first translator. He was among the first in a long line of scholars who have sifted through the libraries of Ashurbanipal and, by sorting, joining and identifying thousands of pieces of Assyrian clay tablets, have over a period of 130 years steadily increased our knowledge of the literature of the Babylonians. It is in this continuing work of discovery and identifica- tion of manuscripts, from Nineveh and elsewhere, in the field as well as in museums, that the Gilgamesh epic (along with most other literary texts written in cuneiform on clay tablets) differs from fragmentary texts in Greek and Latin. The eventual recovery of this literature is assured by the durability of the writing medium. It is only a matter of time — providing, of course, that the society in which we live continues to place value on such things and to support the scholars who study them.
* p. xxxii: The Gilgamesh epic is one of the very few works of Babylonian literature which can be read and enjoyed without special knowledge of the civilization from which it sprang. The names of the characters may be unfamiliar and the places strange, but some of the poet’s themes are so universal in human experience that the reader has no difficulty in understanding what drives the epic’s hero and can easily identify with his aspirations, his grief and his despair. The Assyriologist William L. Moran has recently expounded Gilgamesh’s story as a tale of the human world, characterized by an ‘insistence on human values’ and an ‘acceptance of human limitations’. This observation led him to describe the epic as ‘a document of ancient humanism’,’ and indeed, even for the ancients, the story of Gilgamesh was more about what it is to be a man than what it is to serve the gods. As the beginning and end of the epic make clear, Gilgamesh is celebrated more for his human achievement than for his relationship with the divine. Though the story of Gilgamesh is certainly fiction, Moran’s diag- nosis is also a warning not to read the epic as myth. There is little consensus as to what myth is and what it is not, and ancient Meso- potamian mythological texts show considerable variety. Some of them, particularly the older ones, contain just one myth. Others put together two or more myths. Two features are particularly characteristic of these mythological compositions: on the one hand, the story centres on the deeds of a god or gods, and, on the other, its purpose is to explain the origin of some feature of the natural or social world. More of the characters of the Epic of Gilgamesh are divine than not, but set beside the protagonist they are insignificant. The gods even attract unfavourable similes: in Tablet XI the poet compares them to dogs and flies, as if the rulers of the universe were parasitical scavengers. In the main the function of the poem is not to explain origins. It is more interested in examining the human condition as it is. On these grounds the epic is not myth. It certainly contains myths — the myth of the snake which shed its skin in Tablet XI being the purest example, the Flood story the most famous — and it makes many allusions to the mythology of the day, particularly in the episode of Gilgamesh’s repudiation of the goddess Ishtar in Tablet VI. But most such myths are incidental to the story and the epic is certainly much more than the sum of its mythological parts — unlike, for example, Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Nevertheless, the text of Gilgamesh is often studied alongside compositions which are truly mythological. Indeed, no book on the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia can resist it. The reason for this can best be explained by quoting the words of G. S. Kirk, who dealt at length with Gilgamesh in his important study of myth: ‘Above all [the epic] retains, in spite of its long and literate history, an unmistakable aura of the mythical — of that kind of emotional exploration of the permanent meaning of life, by the release of fantasy about the distant past, that Greek myths, at least as we experience them, so often fail to exemplify in their own right.” If not truly mythological, in the sense defined above, what is this poem? Moran’s phrase, ‘a document of ancient humanism’, is again a useful one, for it highlights the fact that the epic is not a religious poem either, at least not in the same way as, for example, John Henry Newman’s ‘Dream of Gerontius’..... There is plenty of Babylonian poetry in which a sufferer, often sick and feeling himself near to death, throws himself on the mercy of one or other of the inscrutable gods and asks for forgiveness and reconciliation. Gilgamesh, however, in his terror and misery spurns the help of his gods — specifically rejecting the good advice of Shamash, the god who protects him — and, even at the last, turns for solace to his own achievements rather than to his creator. The poem concludes with Gilgamesh proudly showing his companion the monument for which he became famous:«O Ur-shanabi, climb Uruk’s wall and walk back and forth! Survey its foundations, examine the brickwork!...» The late Thorkild Jacobsen, a renowned Sumerologist who wrote on ancient Mesopotamian religion with considerable vision, once described the epic as a ‘story of learning to face reality, a story of “growing up”’. Gilgamesh begins as an immature youth, capable of anything and accepting no check; eventually he comes to accept the power and reality of Death, and thus he reaches reflective maturity. But there is more to the epic than that. In charting the hero’s progress, the poet reflects profoundly on youth and age, on triumph and despair, on men and gods, on life and death. It is significant that his concern is not just Gilgamesh’s glorious deeds but also the suffering and misery that beset his hero as he pursues his hopeless quest.‘Read out’, the poet enjoins us in the prologue, ‘the travails of Gilgamesh, all that he went through!’ As a poem which explores the truth of the human condition the epic bears a message for future generations, then as now. Maturity is gained as much through failure as success. Life, of necessity, is hard, but one is the wiser for it. (GO TO Gilgamesh flood myth)  ..... In the ancient world religion permeated intellectual activity in a way that it does not now. Read as ‘wisdom’, ultimately the epic bears a message of serious religious content. Its views on the proper duties of men and kings are strictly in line with the gods’ requirements and conform to the religious ideology of ancient Mesopotamia: do the will of the gods, fulfil your function as they intended. So while the epic can be enjoyed for its own sake without further inquiry, some knowledge of the mythology which expressed the relationship between gods, kings and men, of how the Babylonians understood their uni- verse, and of their religion and how their beliefs conditioned the Babylonians’ approach to the divine, will give us greater insight into this masterpiece.
* We know from many ancient Mesopotamian sources, in Sumerian and in Akkadian, that the Babylonians believed the purpose of the human race to be the service of the gods. Before mankind’s creation, the myth tells us, the cities of lower Mesopotamia were inhabited by the gods alone and they had to feed and clothe themselves by their own efforts. Under the supervision of Enlil, the lord of the earth, the lesser deities grew and harvested the gods’ food, tilled the soil and, most exhaustingly, dug the rivers and waterways that irrigated the fields. Even the rivers Tigris and Euphrates were their work. Eventu- ally the labour became too much for them and they mutinied. The resourceful god Ea (called Enki in the poem of Atram-hasis) devised first the technology to produce a substitute worker from raw clay and then the means by which this new being could reproduce itself. The first humans were duly born from the womb of the Mother Goddess and allotted their destiny, ‘to carry the yoke, the task imposed by Enlil, to bear the soil-basket of the gods’. This act of creation could be repeated as necessary. So when, as related in Tablet I of the Gilgamesh epic, the need arises to make a match for Gilgamesh, which plainly could not be done by human reproduction, The goddess Aruru, she washed her hands, took a pinch of clay, threw it down in the wild. In the wild she created Enkidu, the hero, offspring of silence, knit strong by Ninurta. Enkidu is thus a replica of the first man, born without a mother’s cries of pain. In the poem of Atram-hasis the yoke and soil-basket, the means of carrying earth from the diggings, symbolize the burden imposed on mankind by the god Enlil. This burden was much more than earth- moving, however; it was all the work that went into looking after the gods in their temples on earth, from irrigating their fields, raising their crops and pasturing their livestock to baking their bread, butchering their meat and clothing their statues. And so it was in reality. The principal deities of the Babylonian pantheon lived, embodied in anthro- pomorphic statues, in palatial houses, surrounded by their divine families, courtiers and servants. The ideology was that soon after the sundering of heaven from earth the rulers of gods had divided up the land between the major deities of the pantheon, allocating to each a city and its surrounding territory. Though many cities possessed more than one temple — Babylon traditionally had forty-three — the notion remained that the city and its hinterland belonged in principle to its patron deity, the god to whom they had been given in the original partition of the land, and that they were his to exploit.
** Introduction, p. xlv: In fact, the context of this momentous change in man’s destiny is now confirmed by the newly available text of the Death of Bilgames, in the words of the god Enki to his partners, An and Enlil: After the assembly had made the Deluge sweep over... Ziusudra, one of mankind, still lived! .. . From that time we swore that mankind should not have life eternal.
** The sole exception to the new doom of mankind is the survivor of the Flood, who is made immortal. And how this came about, the story of the Deluge, is the subject of the continuation of Uta-napishti’s teach- ing to Gilgamesh. But, as he himself explains, Uta-napishti’s elevation to immortal status was an isolated event born of a particular set of circumstances never to be repeated. Gilgamesh may acquire the ‘secret of the gods’, the knowledge of how Uta-napishti ‘found life’ in the company of the gods, but he cannot follow in his footsteps. To underline his message of the futility of Gilgamesh’s quest Uta-napishti challenges his visitor to defeat Sleep, the younger brother of Death, knowing that he will fail. Then he arranges that Gilgamesh should find the ‘plant of
** Introduction, p. xlvi: rejuvenation’, knowing that he will lose it by his own hand. Only the snake is destined to benefit from it. ‘Had I only turned back, and left the boat by the shore!’ With these words Gilgamesh laments that he would have been better off had he not made the journey to Uta-napishti at all, when all it has brought him is the cruel realization of his own mortal inadequacy. And aware at last of his own capabilities he becomes reconciled to his lot, and wise. In the words of the prologue, to which we return: ‘He came a far road, was weary, found peace.’ The story of Gilgamesh’s ‘growing up’ is, in fact, the story of a hero who grows wise, wise in the sense of learning his place in the divinely ordained scheme of things. In fact, it is the tale of one whose extraordinary experiences make him extraordinarily wise. The poet makes it clear right at the beginning that we should expect this: He who saw the Deep, the country’s foundation, [who] knew ... , was wise in all matters... and [learnt] of everything the sum of wisdom.
**** Introduction, p. xlviii: In the epic the explicit wisdom that Gilgamesh gained at the end of the world is knowledge of himself and the story of the Deluge. In Babylonian tradition he also gained another kind of wisdom. The prologue of the epic fétes the hero as one who reached through sheer force Uta-napishti the Distant; who restored the cult-centres destroyed by the Deluge, and set in place for the people the rites of the cosmos.
**** There is mythology to be explained here too, relating to the post- diluvian history of mankind. The ancient historical tradition, as reported in the king lists, is that after the Deluge human kingship had to be re-established by the gods: ‘after the Flood had swept over, then, kingship being sent down from heaven, kingship was in the city of Kish’. The dynasty of Kish was followed by that of Uruk, of which Gilgamesh (or Bilgames) was the fifth king. The implication is that, when kings began to reign again, the antediluvian civilization was restored, that is, the order ordained by the gods came back into operation. This was important, for the traditional belief was that the gods had supplied all that was needed for human beings to flourish — cities, agriculture, the arts of civilization — at the outset of human history, in the antediluvian age. Nothing more was to be discovered; the antediluvian model was how human society should be run.
**** According to one ancient view, most fully reported by Berossus in his Babyloniaca, civilization was restored by those who had accompanied Ziusudra (the Sumerian name of Uta-napishti) on board the ark and thus survived the Deluge. This tradition is implicit in the Flood story preserved in Tablet XI of Gilgamesh and in the poem of Atram-hasis, where the mention of the craftsmen and animals taken aboard the ark explains how it was that the skills of artisans and herdsmen (and the animal kingdom in general) survived the catastrophe. But there was also a tradition, local to the town of Lagash in the early second millennium, that the gods withheld kingship for a time. During this time they did not require mankind to look after their needs by irrigating and tilling the land, and no agriculture took place:After the Flood had swept over . . .had not sent down from heaven (once more) ...and for all the overthrown people had not established (once more) mattock, spade, earth-basket and plough, ...
**** p. l: In this feckless, idle state the human race went hungry and failed to flourish. The tablet is broken at this point but there must have followed a description of the re-establishment of kingship and ordered life, for when the text is again legible the gods are re-introducing the people to the arts of agriculture. The implication of the prologue of the epic is that Gilgamesh played a key role in restoring the antediluvian order after the Flood, particularly in restoring the cults of the gods to their proper glory. The new discovery of text of the Sumerian poem we know as the Death of Bilgames confirms this inference. On his deathbed Bilgames has a dream, in which the gods relate to him his heroic achievements: You reached Ziusudra in his abode! The rites of Sumer, forgotten there since distant days of old... [after the] Deluge it was you made known all the tasks of the land.
**** Here also is a connection between Gilgamesh’s journey to the survivor of the Flood and the restoration of cultic life. So the wisdom he brought back from his journey was more than personal knowledge. It did not suit the poet’s needs to include more than allusions to it, but evidently Gilgamesh was responsible for re-civilizing his country. In this he was the tool of the god Ea, like the Seven Sages, for as Ninsun predicted in Tablet III, Gilgamesh grew ‘wise with Ea of the Ocean Below’. The epic’s opening words make the same connection: he ‘saw the Deep, the country’s foundation’. The Deep signifies Ea’s cosmic domain, especially as the fount of wisdom. From this source Gilgamesh learnt the profound truths that underpinned human society and government. In a poem whose hero becomes obsessed with the avoidance of death, it is to be expected that the poet will be much interested in the Netherworld. Conditions there are the subject of a large section of Tablet VII, in which Enkidu on his deathbed dreams of being dragged down to the Netherworld by the Angel of Death. The funeral and wake of Enkidu, described in the latter part of Tablet VIII, can be understood as the ideal model for the mortuary rites that preceded the burial of a Babylonian noble. The appended Tablet XII tells more of the fate of the shades. The relevance of this is more than a question of theme, however. The ultimate destiny of Gilgamesh would be known to every Babylonian: after death he became the deified ruler
**** p. li: and judge of the shades of the dead. In the Sumerian poem of the Death of Bilgames this position is given to him by the gods on account of his mother’s divinity: Bilgames, in the form of his ghost, dead in the underworld, shall be [the governor of the Netherworld,] chief of the shades! [He will pass judgement,] he will render verdicts,  [what he says will be as weighty as the word of ] Ningishzida and Dumuzi.
**** Gilgamesh’s fate as one of the gods of the Netherworld is a matter which is understood in the epic. His posthumous place in the pantheon is not revealed to him, but his mother has foreknowledge of it, as she reminds Shamash in Tablet III: Will he not rule with Irnina the black-headed people? Will he not dwell with Ningishzida in the Land-of-No-Return?
**** It is a neat irony, surely appreciated by every educated Babylonian, that the hero who failed to become a god in life became one in death.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲ نوامبر ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۲۱:۰۰ (UTC)
thread_title:  مقدمه کتاب (xiii-lii) 

message: * page xv: To summarize, Chapter 1 presents the version of the epic in the Akkadian language that was standard in the first-millennium Babylonia and Assyria, with some of its gaps filled with older material. This, if you like, is the classical Epic of Gilgamesh. It was known to the Babylonians and Assyrians as ‘He who saw the Deep’. In this book it is referred to as the standard version. Chapters 2—4 give the full text of older material in Akkadian, including earlier, more fragmentary versions of the epic, such as that known in antiquity as ‘Surpassing all other kings’, and isolated extracts of text on school practice tablets. Chapter 2 presents texts from the first half of the second millennium (the Old Babylonian period), Chapter 3 material from Babylonia of the second half of the second millennium (the Middle Babylonian period) and Chapter 4 texts of the same period from the ancient West — the Levant and Anatolia. Chapter 5 contains the five narrative poems in the Sumerian language, best known from copies made ‘by Babylonian apprentice scribes in the eighteenth century BC, but certainly older. In order to understand how the different texts and fragments of Gilgamesh relate to each other it may help to place them in the context of the long history of ancient Mesopotamian literature.
* p. xvi: Literature was already being written down in Mesopotamia by 2600 BC, though because the script did not yet express language fully, these early tablets remain extremely difficult to read. From at least this time, and probably much earlier, lower Mesopotamia was inhabited by people who spoke two very different languages. One was Sumerian, a language without affinities with any known tongue, and this appears to be the medium of the earliest writing. The other was Akkadian, which is a member of the Semitic family of languages and thus related to Hebrew and Arabic. The two languages, Sumerian and Akkadian, had long been used side by side by the people of lower Mesopotamia, though Sumerian predominated in the urban south and Akkadian in the more provincial north. This geographical division was enshrined in the terminology of later tradition, according to which the homeland of ‘the black-headed ones’, as these people called themselves, com- prised two regions, Sumer, the southern part of lower Mesopotamia, and Akkad, the northern part. The bilingualism of the urban civiliz- ation of lower Mesopotamia in the third millennium Bc perhaps resembled the division between French and Flemish in modern-day Belgium.
** Texts in Akkadian appear in quantity from about 2300 Bc, when the language became an administrative tool in the service of the first great Mesopotamian empire. This empire stretched at its height from the Gulf to Levantine Syria. It was built by Sargon and his successors, the kings of Akkade, a northern city which soon lent its name to the region round about and to the language spoken at the court of its kings. A legend describes how Sargon was a foundling like the infant Moses:
* p. xvii: My mother, a priestess, conceived me and bore me in secret, she put me in a basket of reeds, sealed its lid with pitch; ... the river bore me up and brought me to Aqqi, a drawer of water.’ According to tradition, Sargon rose to power by winning the favour of the goddess Ishtar. For nearly a hundred years his dynasty exercised dominion over the city-states of lower Mesopotamia and much of northern Mesopotamia too. The early texts in Akkadian dating from this period include a very small body of literature. Much more, no doubt, was passed down in an oral tradition and was never written down, or only much later. Sumerian seems to have been losing ground to Akkadian as a spoken language from at least this time, but its function as the primary language of writing was bolstered by a Sumer- ian renaissance in the last century of the third millennium. For a short period much of Mesopotamia was again united, this time under the kings of the celebrated Third Dynasty of the southern city of Ur, most famously Shulgi (2094-2047 BC in the conventional chronology). The perfect prince was an intellectual as well as a warrior and an athlete, and among his many achievements King Shulgi was particularly proud of his literacy and cultural accomplishments. He had rosy memories of his days at the scribal school, where he boasted that he was the most skilled student in his class. In later life he was an enthusiastic patron of the arts and claims to have founded special libraries at Ur and at Nippur, further north in central Babylonia, in which scribes and minstrels could consult master copies of, as it were, the Sumerian songbook. Thus he envisaged that hymns to his glory and other literature of his day would be preserved for posterity:
* p. xviii: In this enlightened atmosphere the courts of the kings of Ur and the succeeding dynasty of Isin were witness to the composition of much literature in Sumerian. This literature we know best not from tablets written at the time, though some survive (including a fragment of a Gilgamesh poem), but from the scribal curriculum of the Babylonians. After the rise to power of the city of Babylon in the eighteenth century, under its most famous ruler, King Hammurapi (1792- 1750 BC), the land of Sumer and Akkad was ruled by Babylon. Though the people of Sumer and Akkad did not themselves refer to their homeland as Babylonia, which is a Greek term, it is customary to call them Babylonians from this time onwards. Sumerian had by then died out among the people as a spoken language, but it was still much in use as a written language. 
* p. xviii: Mesopotamian culture was nothing if not conservative and since Sumerian had been the language of the first writing, more than a thousand years before, it remained the principal language of writing in the early second millennium, Much more was written in the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, but Sumerian retained a particular prestige. Its primacy as the language of learning was enshrined in the curriculum that had to be mastered by the student scribe. In order to learn how to use the cuneiform script, even to write Akkadian, the student had to learn Sumerian, for, as the proverb said, ‘A scribe who knows no Sumerian, what sort of scribe is he??? None at all, for in this period the language of tuition was, at least in part, Sumerian. Falling foul of every regulation, one young student lamented, ... To prove he could write, the would-be scribe copied out, on dictation and from memory, texts in Sumerian. The most advanced Sumerian texts that he had to master were a prescribed corpus of traditional Sumerian literary compositions. ... Nearly all the literature that we have in Sumerian derives from the tablets written by these young Babylonian scribal apprentices, many  of which were found in the remains of the houses of their teachers. The two largest such discoveries were made at Nippur, where the scribal quarter was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, and at Ur, where the houses in question are slightly older. More recently significant bodies of Sumerian literature from the same era have been discovered at Isin, a city just south of Nippur, and at Tell Haddad (ancient Mé-Turan) by the river Diyala on the periphery of north-east Babylonia, but most of these tablets remain unpublished. The private dwelling-houses of Nippur and Ur were not the royal Tablet Houses inaugurated by King Shulgi but they amply fulfilled the purpose he envisaged, the preservation of Sumerian literature for future generations. That now we are reading the songs of Shulgi again, four thousand years later, would probably have exceeded even his expectations, and it would have surprised him too that his libraries of Sumerian lived anew, as it were, in the tablet collections of Philadel- phia, London, and other strange and far-away places.
* p. xix:  The two largest such discoveries were made at Nippur, where the scribal quarter was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, and at Ur, where the houses in question are slightly older. More recently significant bodies of Sumerian literature from the same era have been discovered at Isin, a city just south of Nippur, and at Tell Haddad (ancient Mé-Turan) by the river Diyala on the periphery of north-east Babylonia, but most of these tablets remain unpublished. The private dwelling-houses of Nippur and Ur were not the royal Tablet Houses inaugurated by King Shulgi but they amply fulfilled the purpose he envisaged, the preservation of Sumerian literature for future generations. That now we are reading the songs of Shulgi again, four thousand years later, would probably have exceeded even his expectations, and it would have surprised him too that his libraries of Sumerian lived anew, as it were, in the tablet collections of Philadel- phia, London, and other strange and far-away places.
* p. xix:-xx: Among those Sumerian literary texts which have achieved some degree of publicity are the five poems of Gilgamesh (or Bilgames as he is known in older texts), translated in Chapter 5. These are not the same as the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, which was written in Akkadian, but separate and individual tales without common themes. They were probably first committed to writing under the Third Dyn- asty of Ur, whose kings felt a special bond with Bilgames as a legendary hero whom they considered their predecessor and ancestor. It seems likely that much of the traditional Sumerian literary corpus goes back to lays sung by minstrels for the entertainment of the royal court of the Third Dynasty. The Sumerian poems of Bilgames are well suited for such amusement. The texts that we have, although known almost entirely from eighteenth-century copies, are very probably directly descended from master copies placed by King Shulgi in his Tablet Houses. Even so, it is entirely possible that the poems stem ultimately from an older, oral tradition. To some extent these Sumerian poems were source material for the Babylonian epic, but they can be enjoyed for their own sake too. Reading them takes us back four millennia to the courtly life of the Sumerian ‘renaissance’. Alongside the great mass of Sumerian literary tablets from the schools of eighteenth-century Babylonia, we have also recovered a little contemporaneous literature in Akkadian. This we call Old Baby- lonian literature. A few Old Babylonian literary tablets derive from the same schools as the literary tablets in Sumerian and also appear to be the work of apprentice scribes. These include a few scraps of Akkadian Gilgamesh, which are among the texts translated in Chap- ter 2. But though it seems that some literature in Akkadian was studied in the schools of this period, literary tablets in this language are so rare among the huge quantities of Sumerian tablets that it is clear they were not part of the prescribed curriculum. What narrative poems in Akkadian that we do have from the schools may instead have been copied down by students for fun, or even composed by them ad lib.
* p. xx: Other tablets of Akkadian literary works have been recovered from this period which are of less certain provenance than the school tablets. Some of them are finely written and were evidently kept, perhaps by individual scholars, as permanent library-copies. Among these are three Old Babylonian tablets of Gilgamesh which contribute signific- antly to our knowledge of the story: the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets and the fragment reportedly from Sippar. These are also translated in Chapter 2. Another masterpiece of Babylonian literature known from late in the Old Babylonian period is the great poem of Atram- hasis, ‘When the gods were man’, which recounts the history of mankind from the Creation to the Flood.° It was this text’s account of the Flood that the poet of Gilgamesh used as a source for his own version of the Deluge myth. It also provided a striking model for the story of Noah’s Flood in the Bible. Other Akkadian literature begins to appear at this time, such as texts expounding the Babylonian sciences, divination by extispicy, astrology and mathematics, and incantations in both Sumerian and Akkadian whose purpose was to ward off evil by magic means. So the Old Babylonian period was an era of great literary creativity in Akkadian, but the school curriculum, at least in the centres we know best, was evidently too hidebound to reflect this development.
* p. xx: The Old Babylonian Gilgamesh tablets reveal that there was already, at this time, an integrated Gilgamesh epic, which, as the Pennsylvania tablet reports, bore the title Shatur eli sharri, ‘Surpassing all other kings’. Works of ancient Mesopotamian literature were rarely created out of nothing and the origins of this epic probably also go back to an oral tradition. Certainly the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh tablets are far from being translations of the individual Sumerian poems of the scribal curriculum, though the two traditions hold in common several episodes and themes. The Old Babylonian texts bear witness to a wholesale revision of Gilgamesh material to form a connected story composed around the principal themes of kingship, fame and the fear of death. For this reason one suspects that the Old Babylonian epic was essentially the masterpiece of a single, anonymous poet. This epic, ‘Surpassing all other kings’, is only a fragment as it is now preserved, but many find the simple poetry and spare narrative of this poem and of the other Old Babylonian material more attractive than the more wordy standard version. Some stanzas of the Pennsylvania and Sippar tablets, especially, are unforgettable. To explain what is meant by the standard version of the Gilgamesh epic it is necessary to continue the story of Mesopotamian literature.
* Some time after the eighteenth century Bc the contents of scribal curriculum changed radically. We next have large numbers of school tablets at our disposal from the sixth century on, but the best witnesses to the nature and contents of the late scribal tradition are the several first-millennium libraries that have been excavated in Babylonia, especially at Babylon, Uruk and Sippar, and in Assyria. Assyria is the Greek name for the Land of Ashur, a small country to the north of Babylonia on the middle reaches of the river Tigris that was home in the early first millennium Bc to the greatest empire the Near East had yet seen. Foremost among these late libraries is the collection of clay tablets amassed at Nineveh by the last great king of Assyria, Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC). Like Shulgi before him, King Ashurbanipal claimed to have been... . The scriptorium of Nineveh was also engaged on the task of copying out texts. Some of the copyists were prisoners-of-war or political hostages and worked in chains. 
* p: xxii: Among the texts that were copied out by Ashurbanipal’s scribes was the Gilgamesh epic, of which the library may have possessed as many as four complete copies on clay tablets. Whatever was inscribed on wax has perished, of course. After the sack of Nineveh by the Median and Babylonian alliance in 612 Bc, Ashurbanipal’s copies of the epic, like his other tablets, lay in pieces on the floors of the royal palaces, not to be disturbed for nearly 2,500 years. The royal libraries of Nineveh were the first great find of cuneiform tablets to be dis-covered, in 1850 and 1853, and are the nucleus of the collection of clay tablets amassed in the British Museum. They are also the founda- tion stone upon which the discipline of Assyriology was built and for much research they remain the most important source of primary material. The first to find these tablets were the young Austen Henry Layard and his assistant, an Assyrian Christian called Hormuzd Ras- sam, as they tunnelled in search of Assyrian sculpture through the remains of the ‘Palace without Rival’, a royal residence built by Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal’s grandfather. Three years later Rassam returned on behalf of the British Museum and uncovered a second trove in Ashurbanipal’s own North Palace. Rassam is something of an unsung hero in Assyriology. Much later, in 1879-82, his efforts provided the British Museum with tens of thousands of Babylonian tablets from such southern sites as Babylon and Sippar. Neither Layard nor Rassam was able to read the tablets they sent back from Assyria, but of the find he made in what he called the Chamber of Records Layard wrote, ‘We cannot overrate their value.’ His words remain true to this day, not least for the Gilgamesh epic.
* The huge importance of the royal libraries found at Nineveh by Layard and Rassam first became widely known in 1872 when, sorting through the Assyrian tablets in the British Museum, the brilliant George Smith came across what remains the most famous of Gilgamesh tablets, the best-preserved manuscript of the story of the Deluge. His reaction is described by E. A. Wallis Budge in his history of cuneiform studies, The Rise and Progress of Assyriology: ‘Smith took the tablet and began to read over the lines which Ready [the conservator who had cleaned the tablet] had brought to light; and when he saw that they contained the portion of the legend he had hoped to find there, he said, “I am the first man to read that after two thousand years of oblivion.” Setting the tablet on the table, he jumped up and rushed about the room in a great state of excitement, and, to the astonishment of those present, began to undress himself!’ One hopes the George Smith who made his discovery public was a figure more composed and fully clad, since the occasion was a formal paper delivered to the Society of Biblical Archaeology in the presence of Mr Gladstone and other notables. This must be the only occasion on which a British Prime Minister in office has attended a lecture on Babylonian literature. Assyriology had arrived, and so had Gilgamesh.
* p. xxiv: The purpose of this labour was to provide Ashurbanipal with the best possible expertise to govern in the manner that would please the gods. ‘Send me,’ he commanded, ‘tablets that are beneficial for my royal administration!”* With its advice for proper government the Gilgamesh epic certainly came into this category, but it is clear from the contents of the libraries of Nineveh that the phrase summed up the entire scribal tradition current at the time.
* The scribal tradition then current comprised a very different body of texts from that copied by the apprentices of the Old Babylonian period. Much of the Sumerian corpus was no longer extant. Almost without exception, those few texts that survived from it had been supplied with line-by-line Akkadian translations. The Akkadian liter- ary texts known from Old Babylonian copies had been considerably reworked and many new texts in Akkadian had been added. The written traditions of the great professions had been incorporated. Many of the treatises on divination had been enormously expanded and the incantations of the exorcists had been organized and placed in series. This work of revision, organization and expansion is known to have taken place at the hands of many different scholars between seven and four hundred years earlier, in the last centuries of the second millennium. The labour of these individual Middle Babylonian scholars resulted in the creation of standard editions of most texts, editions which remained essentially unaltered until the death of cunei- form writing a thousand years later.
* The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic did not escape the attentions of a redactor. This by tradition was a learned scholar by the name of Sin-lige-unninni, which means ‘O Moon God, Accept my Prayer!...
* p. xxv: Something of the intermediate stages in this development from ‘Surpassing all other kings’ to ‘He who saw the Deep’ can be learnt from the scraps of Babylonian Gilgamesh that survive from the era in which Sin-lige-unninni lived. This material falls into two groups: texts that come from within Babylonia and texts that come from outside it. The first group comprises only two tablets, from Nippur and Ur, translated in Chapter 3. They closely resemble the standard version of the epic attributed to Sin-liqe-unninni, but there are differ- ences. On grounds of content and style it is hard to say whether these tablets are witness to the text as it was immediately before Sin-liqe-unninni’s editorship, or immediately after it.
* The existence of the second group of tablets, from outside Baby- lonia, needs some explanation. In the fourteenth century, at the height of the Late Bronze Age when the eastern Mediterranean was dominated by the great powers of the Egyptian New Kingdom and the Hittite Empire, the lingua franca of international communications in the Near East was the Akkadian language. Kings of Assyria and Babylonia naturally wrote to Pharaoh in Akkadian, but Pharaoh replied in Akkadian too. The Hittite king and Pharaoh likewise corresponded in Akkadian, and, when writing to their overlords, the minor rulers of the Levantine coast and Syria used the same language, though often shot through with local Canaanite and Hurrian idioms. This Akkadian was written in the traditional manner, in cuneiform script on clay tablets. In order to learn to compose their lords’ letters, treaties and other documents in Akkadian, local scribes were trained in cuneiform writing, and they were trained in the time-honoured way, by rote- learning of the lists, vocabularies and literature of the Babylonian scribal tradition. This was not the first time that the cuneiform script had made the journey to the West. The first known occasion was in the mid-third millennium, when cuneiform was exported to Ebla and elsewhere in Syria and texts in both Sumerian and Akkadian went with it as part of the skills that trainee scribes had to master in order to acquire the new technology. In the nineteenth century Akkadian had been written at Kanesh and other Assyrian trading posts in Cappadocia. In the eighteenth century it was widely used in Syria, not only in Mesopotam- ian Syria but also close by the Mediterranean Sea, and it even appears at Hazor in Palestine. But in the later second millennium the spread of cuneiform schooling and scholarship was wider still. The result was that tablets inscribed with Akkadian scholarly and literary texts were copied out at Hattusa (modern Bogazkéy), the Hittite capital in Anatolia, at Akhetaten (el-Amarna), the royal city of Pharaoh Akhenaten in Upper Egypt, at Ugarit (Ras Shamra), a principality on the Syrian coast, and at Emar (Tell Meskene), a provincial town on the great bend of the Euphrates — just to list the principal sites. Except for Amarna, all these sites have produced tablets of Gilgamesh, as too has Megiddo in Palestine. These texts are translated in Chapter 4. Some of the material from Hattusa, which is the oldest in this group, is very similar to the Old Babylonian epic that we know from the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets and clearly predates Sin-lige-unninni. The texts from Emar, which are several centuries younger, are much more like his text, though again, it is impossible at present to determine whether they precede his work or not. Other Gilgamesh texts from the West are abridgements of the Babylonian epic, or reworkings of it, and are probably local develop- ments. Indeed, the epic fired the imagination then as it does now and adaptations of it were composed in local languages. So far a Hittite version and a Hurtian version have come to light, both found in the archives of the Hittite capital. Though Hittite is pretty well understood, Hurrian is still barely comprehensible and our under- standing of both versions of the Gilgamesh story is badly hampered by their fragmentary state of preservation. Therefore no rendering of them is given here. Not so long ago it seemed that a Gilgamesh text had also been composed in Elamite, the language of a people who occupied what became Susiana and is now Khuzistan. The tablet, discovered in Armenia, far from Elam, was published promptly and in due course translations followed. However, further study revealed that the text was, in fact, a private letter with no connection to Gilgamesh at all. This development elicited from one scholar the wry comment that the document was ‘a good illustration of the fact that Elamite remains the worst-known language of the ancient Near East’. With the Akkadian language we are fortunately on much firmer ground.
* p. xxvii: The standard version of the Babylonian epic is known from a total of 73 manuscripts extant: the 35 that have survived from the libraries of King Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, 8 more tablets and fragments from three other Assyrian cities (Ashur, Kalah and Huzirina), and 30 from Babylonia, especially the cities of Babylon and Uruk. Ashurbanipal’s tablets are the oldest. The latest manuscript discovered so far was written in about 130 BC by one Bel-ahhe-usur (‘O Lord, Protect the Brothers!’), a trainee temple-astrologer of Babylon. By that time this once mighty city was much diminished in power and population but, in a country whose inhabitants had long spoken not Akkadian but Aramaic and Greek, its ancient temple was the last surviving bastion of cuneiform scholarship. From the 73 surviving manuscripts it is possible to reconstruct much of Sin-lige-unninni’s epic but there are still considerable gaps. To fill these lacunae it is sometimes possible to fall back on the older material in Akkadian and for one episode it is even necessary to utilize the Hittite version. The result of this reconstruction is the text given in Chapter 1. There, in order clearly to distinguish between text of different periods, old material used to bridge lacunae in the standard version is explicitly identified in editorial notes.
* The standard version of the epic is divided by Babylonian tradition into sections. The definition of a section is that it is the text customarily contained on an individual clay tablet, and so the sections are called, in accordance with Babylonian custom, ‘tablets’. The epic is told over eleven such sections, Tablets I-XI. The organizing of Babylonian literature in the latter part of the second millennium resulted in much of it being arranged in standard sequences of tablets, sequences that were known as ‘series’. The ‘series of Gilgamesh’, in fact, comprises twelve tablets, not just the eleven of the epic. Tablet XII, the last, is a line-by-line translation of the latter half of one of the Sumerian Gilgamesh poems. Somehow this partial translation survived into the first millennium while the original Sumerian text, like the other Sumerian poems of Gilgamesh, did not. Though some have tried to show that Tablet XII had a real place in the epic, most scholars would agree that it does not belong to that text but was attached to it because it was plainly related material. The principle of bringing together related material was one of the criteria by which the scholars of Babylonia organized different texts into the same series.
* p. xxviii: The eleven tablets of the epic vary in length from 183 to 326 lines of poetry, so that the whole composition would originally have been about 3,000 lines long. As the text now stands, only Tablets I, VI, X and XI are more or less complete. Leaving aside lines that are lost but can be restored from parallel passages, overall about 575 lines are still completely missing, that is, they are not represented by so much as a single word. Many more are too badly damaged to be useful, so that considerably less than the four-fifths of the epic that is extant yields a consecutive text. In the translation offered here the damaged state of the text is all too evident, pock-marked as it is by the clutter of brackets and ellipses.
* While there is a temptation for a modern editor to ignore the gaps, to gloss them over or to join up disconnected fragments of text, I believe that no adult reader is well served by such a procedure. The gaps are themselves important in number and size, for they remind us how much is still to be learned of the text. They prevent us from assuming that we have Gilgamesh entire. Whatever we say about the epic is provisional, for new discoveries of text may change our interpretation of whole passages. Nevertheless, the epic we have now is considerably fuller than that which fired the imagination of Rilke. Approach what lies ahead not as you might the poems of Homer but as a book part-eaten by termites or a scroll half-consumed by fire. Accept it for what it is, a damaged masterpiece.
* In time, the holes that pepper the standard version of the epic will undoubtedly be filled by further discoveries of tablets in the ruin-mounds of Mesopotamia and in the museums of the world — for such is the lack of professional Assyriologists everywhere that we have yet to study properly many thousands of tablets that have long been in museum collections. The correct identification and accurate placement of what are often only small fragments make for difficult and painstaking work. Not even a genius like George Smith always came up with the right identification. The Daily Telegraph was so impressed with his famous lecture on the Deluge story from the Gilgamesh epic that in 1873, in the hope of recovering the missing portions of text, they provided the splendid sum of one thousand guineas (£1,050) to enable him to reopen for the British Museum the old excavations at Nineveh. In comparison with those who had dug there before him, Smith brought home only a very small number of tablets — the ‘DT’ collection — from this, his first expedition, but there among them was indeed a fragment of the Flood, one that even filled an important gap in the narrative. This was a most impressive fulfilment of the Daily Telegraph’s expectations, but the expedition was a victim of its own success. The desired fragment so exactly met the newspaper’s requirements that the news of its discovery led to the expedition’s early recall.
* p. xxx: In fact, we now know that this particular fragment of the Deluge story is part of a late version of the poem of Atram-hasis and not a piece of Gilgamesh at all. Smith had no way of knowing that at the time. His identification was the best that could then be expected, and went unchallenged for many years. Employed by the British Museum in 1867 to assist Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, one of the grand pioneers of cuneiform decipherment, George Smith was more than the discoverer of Gilgamesh and the epic’s first translator. He was among the first in a long line of scholars who have sifted through the libraries of Ashurbanipal and, by sorting, joining and identifying thousands of pieces of Assyrian clay tablets, have over a period of 130 years steadily increased our knowledge of the literature of the Babylonians. It is in this continuing work of discovery and identifica- tion of manuscripts, from Nineveh and elsewhere, in the field as well as in museums, that the Gilgamesh epic (along with most other literary texts written in cuneiform on clay tablets) differs from fragmentary texts in Greek and Latin. The eventual recovery of this literature is assured by the durability of the writing medium. It is only a matter of time — providing, of course, that the society in which we live continues to place value on such things and to support the scholars who study them.
* p. xxxii: The Gilgamesh epic is one of the very few works of Babylonian literature which can be read and enjoyed without special knowledge of the civilization from which it sprang. The names of the characters may be unfamiliar and the places strange, but some of the poet’s themes are so universal in human experience that the reader has no difficulty in understanding what drives the epic’s hero and can easily identify with his aspirations, his grief and his despair. The Assyriologist William L. Moran has recently expounded Gilgamesh’s story as a tale of the human world, characterized by an ‘insistence on human values’ and an ‘acceptance of human limitations’. This observation led him to describe the epic as ‘a document of ancient humanism’,’ and indeed, even for the ancients, the story of Gilgamesh was more about what it is to be a man than what it is to serve the gods. As the beginning and end of the epic make clear, Gilgamesh is celebrated more for his human achievement than for his relationship with the divine. Though the story of Gilgamesh is certainly fiction, Moran’s diag- nosis is also a warning not to read the epic as myth. There is little consensus as to what myth is and what it is not, and ancient Meso- potamian mythological texts show considerable variety. Some of them, particularly the older ones, contain just one myth. Others put together two or more myths. Two features are particularly characteristic of these mythological compositions: on the one hand, the story centres on the deeds of a god or gods, and, on the other, its purpose is to explain the origin of some feature of the natural or social world. More of the characters of the Epic of Gilgamesh are divine than not, but set beside the protagonist they are insignificant. The gods even attract unfavourable similes: in Tablet XI the poet compares them to dogs and flies, as if the rulers of the universe were parasitical scavengers. In the main the function of the poem is not to explain origins. It is more interested in examining the human condition as it is. On these grounds the epic is not myth. It certainly contains myths — the myth of the snake which shed its skin in Tablet XI being the purest example, the Flood story the most famous — and it makes many allusions to the mythology of the day, particularly in the episode of Gilgamesh’s repudiation of the goddess Ishtar in Tablet VI. But most such myths are incidental to the story and the epic is certainly much more than the sum of its mythological parts — unlike, for example, Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Nevertheless, the text of Gilgamesh is often studied alongside compositions which are truly mythological. Indeed, no book on the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia can resist it. The reason for this can best be explained by quoting the words of G. S. Kirk, who dealt at length with Gilgamesh in his important study of myth: ‘Above all [the epic] retains, in spite of its long and literate history, an unmistakable aura of the mythical — of that kind of emotional exploration of the permanent meaning of life, by the release of fantasy about the distant past, that Greek myths, at least as we experience them, so often fail to exemplify in their own right.” If not truly mythological, in the sense defined above, what is this poem? Moran’s phrase, ‘a document of ancient humanism’, is again a useful one, for it highlights the fact that the epic is not a religious poem either, at least not in the same way as, for example, John Henry Newman’s ‘Dream of Gerontius’..... There is plenty of Babylonian poetry in which a sufferer, often sick and feeling himself near to death, throws himself on the mercy of one or other of the inscrutable gods and asks for forgiveness and reconciliation. Gilgamesh, however, in his terror and misery spurns the help of his gods — specifically rejecting the good advice of Shamash, the god who protects him — and, even at the last, turns for solace to his own achievements rather than to his creator. The poem concludes with Gilgamesh proudly showing his companion the monument for which he became famous:«O Ur-shanabi, climb Uruk’s wall and walk back and forth! Survey its foundations, examine the brickwork!...» The late Thorkild Jacobsen, a renowned Sumerologist who wrote on ancient Mesopotamian religion with considerable vision, once described the epic as a ‘story of learning to face reality, a story of “growing up”’. Gilgamesh begins as an immature youth, capable of anything and accepting no check; eventually he comes to accept the power and reality of Death, and thus he reaches reflective maturity. But there is more to the epic than that. In charting the hero’s progress, the poet reflects profoundly on youth and age, on triumph and despair, on men and gods, on life and death. It is significant that his concern is not just Gilgamesh’s glorious deeds but also the suffering and misery that beset his hero as he pursues his hopeless quest.‘Read out’, the poet enjoins us in the prologue, ‘the travails of Gilgamesh, all that he went through!’ As a poem which explores the truth of the human condition the epic bears a message for future generations, then as now. Maturity is gained as much through failure as success. Life, of necessity, is hard, but one is the wiser for it. (GO TO Gilgamesh flood myth)  ..... In the ancient world religion permeated intellectual activity in a way that it does not now. Read as ‘wisdom’, ultimately the epic bears a message of serious religious content. Its views on the proper duties of men and kings are strictly in line with the gods’ requirements and conform to the religious ideology of ancient Mesopotamia: do the will of the gods, fulfil your function as they intended. So while the epic can be enjoyed for its own sake without further inquiry, some knowledge of the mythology which expressed the relationship between gods, kings and men, of how the Babylonians understood their uni- verse, and of their religion and how their beliefs conditioned the Babylonians’ approach to the divine, will give us greater insight into this masterpiece.
* We know from many ancient Mesopotamian sources, in Sumerian and in Akkadian, that the Babylonians believed the purpose of the human race to be the service of the gods. Before mankind’s creation, the myth tells us, the cities of lower Mesopotamia were inhabited by the gods alone and they had to feed and clothe themselves by their own efforts. Under the supervision of Enlil, the lord of the earth, the lesser deities grew and harvested the gods’ food, tilled the soil and, most exhaustingly, dug the rivers and waterways that irrigated the fields. Even the rivers Tigris and Euphrates were their work. Eventu- ally the labour became too much for them and they mutinied. The resourceful god Ea (called Enki in the poem of Atram-hasis) devised first the technology to produce a substitute worker from raw clay and then the means by which this new being could reproduce itself. The first humans were duly born from the womb of the Mother Goddess and allotted their destiny, ‘to carry the yoke, the task imposed by Enlil, to bear the soil-basket of the gods’. This act of creation could be repeated as necessary. So when, as related in Tablet I of the Gilgamesh epic, the need arises to make a match for Gilgamesh, which plainly could not be done by human reproduction, The goddess Aruru, she washed her hands, took a pinch of clay, threw it down in the wild. In the wild she created Enkidu, the hero, offspring of silence, knit strong by Ninurta. Enkidu is thus a replica of the first man, born without a mother’s cries of pain. In the poem of Atram-hasis the yoke and soil-basket, the means of carrying earth from the diggings, symbolize the burden imposed on mankind by the god Enlil. This burden was much more than earth- moving, however; it was all the work that went into looking after the gods in their temples on earth, from irrigating their fields, raising their crops and pasturing their livestock to baking their bread, butchering their meat and clothing their statues. And so it was in reality. The principal deities of the Babylonian pantheon lived, embodied in anthro- pomorphic statues, in palatial houses, surrounded by their divine families, courtiers and servants. The ideology was that soon after the sundering of heaven from earth the rulers of gods had divided up the land between the major deities of the pantheon, allocating to each a city and its surrounding territory. Though many cities possessed more than one temple — Babylon traditionally had forty-three — the notion remained that the city and its hinterland belonged in principle to its patron deity, the god to whom they had been given in the original partition of the land, and that they were his to exploit.
** Introduction, p. xlv: In fact, the context of this momentous change in man’s destiny is now confirmed by the newly available text of the Death of Bilgames, in the words of the god Enki to his partners, An and Enlil: After the assembly had made the Deluge sweep over... Ziusudra, one of mankind, still lived! .. . From that time we swore that mankind should not have life eternal.
** The sole exception to the new doom of mankind is the survivor of the Flood, who is made immortal. And how this came about, the story of the Deluge, is the subject of the continuation of Uta-napishti’s teach- ing to Gilgamesh. But, as he himself explains, Uta-napishti’s elevation to immortal status was an isolated event born of a particular set of circumstances never to be repeated. Gilgamesh may acquire the ‘secret of the gods’, the knowledge of how Uta-napishti ‘found life’ in the company of the gods, but he cannot follow in his footsteps. To underline his message of the futility of Gilgamesh’s quest Uta-napishti challenges his visitor to defeat Sleep, the younger brother of Death, knowing that he will fail. Then he arranges that Gilgamesh should find the ‘plant of
** Introduction, p. xlvi: rejuvenation’, knowing that he will lose it by his own hand. Only the snake is destined to benefit from it. ‘Had I only turned back, and left the boat by the shore!’ With these words Gilgamesh laments that he would have been better off had he not made the journey to Uta-napishti at all, when all it has brought him is the cruel realization of his own mortal inadequacy. And aware at last of his own capabilities he becomes reconciled to his lot, and wise. In the words of the prologue, to which we return: ‘He came a far road, was weary, found peace.’ The story of Gilgamesh’s ‘growing up’ is, in fact, the story of a hero who grows wise, wise in the sense of learning his place in the divinely ordained scheme of things. In fact, it is the tale of one whose extraordinary experiences make him extraordinarily wise. The poet makes it clear right at the beginning that we should expect this: He who saw the Deep, the country’s foundation, [who] knew ... , was wise in all matters... and [learnt] of everything the sum of wisdom.
**** Introduction, p. xlviii: In the epic the explicit wisdom that Gilgamesh gained at the end of the world is knowledge of himself and the story of the Deluge. In Babylonian tradition he also gained another kind of wisdom. The prologue of the epic fétes the hero as one who reached through sheer force Uta-napishti the Distant; who restored the cult-centres destroyed by the Deluge, and set in place for the people the rites of the cosmos.
**** There is mythology to be explained here too, relating to the post- diluvian history of mankind. The ancient historical tradition, as reported in the king lists, is that after the Deluge human kingship had to be re-established by the gods: ‘after the Flood had swept over, then, kingship being sent down from heaven, kingship was in the city of Kish’. The dynasty of Kish was followed by that of Uruk, of which Gilgamesh (or Bilgames) was the fifth king. The implication is that, when kings began to reign again, the antediluvian civilization was restored, that is, the order ordained by the gods came back into operation. This was important, for the traditional belief was that the gods had supplied all that was needed for human beings to flourish — cities, agriculture, the arts of civilization — at the outset of human history, in the antediluvian age. Nothing more was to be discovered; the antediluvian model was how human society should be run.
**** According to one ancient view, most fully reported by Berossus in his Babyloniaca, civilization was restored by those who had accompanied Ziusudra (the Sumerian name of Uta-napishti) on board the ark and thus survived the Deluge. This tradition is implicit in the Flood story preserved in Tablet XI of Gilgamesh and in the poem of Atram-hasis, where the mention of the craftsmen and animals taken aboard the ark explains how it was that the skills of artisans and herdsmen (and the animal kingdom in general) survived the catastrophe. But there was also a tradition, local to the town of Lagash in the early second millennium, that the gods withheld kingship for a time. During this time they did not require mankind to look after their needs by irrigating and tilling the land, and no agriculture took place:After the Flood had swept over . . .had not sent down from heaven (once more) ...and for all the overthrown people had not established (once more) mattock, spade, earth-basket and plough, ...
**** p. l: In this feckless, idle state the human race went hungry and failed to flourish. The tablet is broken at this point but there must have followed a description of the re-establishment of kingship and ordered life, for when the text is again legible the gods are re-introducing the people to the arts of agriculture. The implication of the prologue of the epic is that Gilgamesh played a key role in restoring the antediluvian order after the Flood, particularly in restoring the cults of the gods to their proper glory. The new discovery of text of the Sumerian poem we know as the Death of Bilgames confirms this inference. On his deathbed Bilgames has a dream, in which the gods relate to him his heroic achievements: You reached Ziusudra in his abode! The rites of Sumer, forgotten there since distant days of old... [after the] Deluge it was you made known all the tasks of the land.
**** Here also is a connection between Gilgamesh’s journey to the survivor of the Flood and the restoration of cultic life. So the wisdom he brought back from his journey was more than personal knowledge. It did not suit the poet’s needs to include more than allusions to it, but evidently Gilgamesh was responsible for re-civilizing his country. In this he was the tool of the god Ea, like the Seven Sages, for as Ninsun predicted in Tablet III, Gilgamesh grew ‘wise with Ea of the Ocean Below’. The epic’s opening words make the same connection: he ‘saw the Deep, the country’s foundation’. The Deep signifies Ea’s cosmic domain, especially as the fount of wisdom. From this source Gilgamesh learnt the profound truths that underpinned human society and government. In a poem whose hero becomes obsessed with the avoidance of death, it is to be expected that the poet will be much interested in the Netherworld. Conditions there are the subject of a large section of Tablet VII, in which Enkidu on his deathbed dreams of being dragged down to the Netherworld by the Angel of Death. The funeral and wake of Enkidu, described in the latter part of Tablet VIII, can be understood as the ideal model for the mortuary rites that preceded the burial of a Babylonian noble. The appended Tablet XII tells more of the fate of the shades. The relevance of this is more than a question of theme, however. The ultimate destiny of Gilgamesh would be known to every Babylonian: after death he became the deified ruler
**** p. li: and judge of the shades of the dead. In the Sumerian poem of the Death of Bilgames this position is given to him by the gods on account of his mother’s divinity: Bilgames, in the form of his ghost, dead in the underworld, shall be [the governor of the Netherworld,] chief of the shades! [He will pass judgement,] he will render verdicts,  [what he says will be as weighty as the word of ] Ningishzida and Dumuzi.
**** Gilgamesh’s fate as one of the gods of the Netherworld is a matter which is understood in the epic. His posthumous place in the pantheon is not revealed to him, but his mother has foreknowledge of it, as she reminds Shamash in Tablet III: Will he not rule with Irnina the black-headed people? Will he not dwell with Ningishzida in the Land-of-No-Return?
**** It is a neat irony, surely appreciated by every educated Babylonian, that the hero who failed to become a god in life became one in death.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲ نوامبر ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۲۱:۰۰ (UTC)
thread_title:  گزیده 

thread_title:  روایت اندرو جرج (حماسه بابلی گیلگمش) 

message: *  p. 116-117
* The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 996pp, Oxford University Press (England) (2003) . vol 1, pp. 47-54: Tablet XII: what, when and why?
* 
** Introduction, p. xxviii: ...into sections. The definition of a section is that it is the text customarily contained on an individual clay tablet, and so the sections are called, in accordance with Babylonian custom, ‘tablets’. The epic is told over eleven such sections, Tablets I-XI. The organizing of Babylonian literature in the latter part of the second millennium resulted in much of it being arranged in standard sequences of tablets, sequences that were known as ‘series’. The ‘series of Gilgamesh’, in fact, comprises twelve tablets, not just the eleven of the epic. Tablet XII, the last, is a line-by-line translation of the latter half of one of the Sumerian Gilgamesh poems. Somehow this partial translation survived into the first millennium while the original Sumerian text, like the other Sumerian poems of Gilgamesh, did not. Though some have tried to show that Tablet XII had a real place in the epic, most scholars would agree that it does not belong to that text but was attached to it because it was plainly related material. The principle of bringing together related material was one of the criteria by which the scholars of Babylonia organized different texts into the same series.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۲ اکتبر ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۱:۴۳ (UTC)
thread_title:  مساله لوح XII 

message: *  Cultural Borrowings And Ethnic Appropriations In Antiquity by Erich S Gruen 
** articles including: Semiramis in History and Legend: A case study in interpretation of an Assyrian historical tradition, with observations on archetypes in ancient historiography, on euheroerism before Euhemerus, and on the so-called Greek ethnographic style (2005) (Stephanie Dalley)
** articles including: Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass (Erich S. Gruen)
** articles including: Rom as Enemy of Iran (Josef Wiesehofer)
* The Oxford companion to world mythology (David Adams Leeming)
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۰ اکتبر ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۹:۰۵ (UTC)
thread_title:  منابع برای ارزیابی 

message: * همگی ارجاعات به George 2003a و Mason 1972 (طبیعتا بیش از) چک شدند. 
* در ویرایش ها (۱۱ ژوئیه ۲۰۲۲) همه ارجاعات به Powel 2012 و Black & Green 1992 (حین کار بر نرگاو) چک شدند.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱ نوامبر ۲۰۲۲، ساعت ۱۳:۰۹ (UTC)
thread_title:  بررسی تکمیلی منابع 

message: 1:28:55
* Gojko Barjamovic (00:04-03:53)
* Andrew George (03:54-1:04:26)
* Peter Machinst (1:04:29-1:11:32)
* David Damrosch (1:11:34-1:17:56)
* Irene Winter (1:17:57-1:28:42)
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۵ ژانویهٔ ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۰:۰۹ (UTC)
=== اندرو جرج ===
... درباره یکی از موضوعات مورد علاقه ام حرف خواهم زد، گیلگمش. زیر عنوانش «بازیابی شاهکار شعر بابلی» است. اما نخست اینکه اصلا گیلگمش چیست؟ گیلگمش تقریبا همه جا است (نشان دادن تصویر کتاب زیولکوسکی (دانشگاه پرینستون)) گیلگمش به ناخودآگاه هنری غرب، عراق امروزی، اروپا و آمریکای شمالی وارد شده است. از ۱۹۱۲ که اولین ترجمه به یک زبان مدرن انجام شد؛ هنرمندان، شاعران موسیقیدانان و ... از داستان باستانی گیلگمش تغذیه کردند و آن را به مالکیت خود در آوردند که حقشان نیز هست. اینکه چنین کاری را میتوانند انجام دهند نشان از انسانگرایی و اهمیت حماسه باستانی است. امیدوارم در پایان سخنرانی من معلوم شده باشد چرا این متنِ به خصوصِ چهار هزار ساله چنین تاثیر عمیقی بر فرهنگ مدرن غربی گذاشته است. چون فکر میکنم منصفانه است اگر بگوییم پس از کتاب مقدس هیچ متنی در خاور نزدیک باستان وجود ندارد که به اندازه گیلگمش بر دنبای مدرن اثرگذار بوده باشد. و تا جایی که من میدانم گرچه کتاب مقدس، کتابی آسمانی است اما هنوز هیچ فرقه ای در دنیا وجود ندارد که ادعا کند حماسه گیلگمش کتاب آسمانی است؛ گرچه ممکن است اشتباه کنم. گیلگمش متن بابلی چهار هزار ساله است. پنج رویکرد برای آن در نظر گرفته ام؛ درباره داستان؛ باستانشناسی و خواندن؛ بازسازی متن؛ درباره شعر بودن آن؛ و در پایان اینکه آیا برای ما (با گذر چهار هزار سال) معنایی دارد، حرف خواهیم زد. نخست، داستان را روایت کنیم تا اصل ماجرا را بدانیم چیست (Tablets I-II: Coming of Enkidu)(Clay figurine from Tell Asmar, Old Babylonian, Musee du Louvre (AO 12475)) تکه اول؛ گیلگمش معرفی میشود که پادشها اوروک است. شهری باستانی در جنوب بابل (عراق امروزی) شخصیت با ابهت و عظیمی دارد، پادشاه و قهرمان. و البته ترسم از این است که بهترین شهرتی که از او به ما رسیده هیچ کدام از اینها نیست. (درباره تصویر) میدانیم گیلگمش است چون بر سر یکی از دشمنانش که کشته، ایستاده است. گیلگمش پادشاه اما ستمگر و اتوکرات بود؛ از حقوق پادشاهی خود سو استفاده میکرد. جالب است که شاعر بابلی به دنبال این نیست که این قهرمان و پادشاه بزرگ را تبدیل به انسانی یک بعدی کند. به جای آن، او را تبدیل به یک انسان میکند. او ستمگر است چون قدرت به او تفویض شده و از آن استفاده مطلقه میکند. خدایان به شکایت اهالی اوروک گوش میدهند و مردی وحشی را به پایین میفرستند؛ او از هر جهت تصویری از گیلگمش است، به جز در اینکه در حالی که گیلگمش مردی از شهر است، انکیدو (نامش این بود) از دنیای وحش است. شاعر باید راهی برای آوردن انکیدو به شهر پیدا کند تا گیلگمش را بیابد و انرژی فرابشری او را به خودش معطوف کند؛ تا گیلگمش از آزار مردمش دست بردارد. این اتفاق طی چند رویداد انجام میشود که در آن یک روسپی انکیدو را اغوا میکند؛ سپس او از یک حیوان به انسان تبدیل میشود؛ و اجتماعی شدن او نخست در چادر شبان که در آنجا خوردن، آشامیدن و پوشش خود چون انسانها را می آموزد؛ و در پایان اجتماعی شدن او در خود شهر. انکیدو به شهر میاید، مصمم است به گیلگمش درسی بدهد چون ستمگریهای گیلگمش را شنیده است و همچون هر موجودِ ناخودآگاهی، آن را بیعدالتی میداند (به نظرم حتی کودکان مفهوم بیعدالتی را ناخودآگاهانه میتوانند درک کنند). انکیدو و گیلگمش میجنگند، به بن بست میرسند (هیچ یک از دیگری قویتر نیست و برنده نشده)؛ رفیق میشوند و همین هم برای یکدیگر باقی میمانند.(09:58)(Clay plaque, Old Babylonian, Musee du Louvre AO 12475)(Clay plaque, Old Babylonian, Vorder-asiatisches Museum Berlin VA 7246) گیلگمش و انکیدو با هم از شهر خارج میشوند تا برای ماجراجویی به جنگل سدر روند و غولی که در آنجاست (هومبابا در سمت چپ، تصویر احتمالی هومبابا، با چهره چروکیده اش) و از آن نگاهبانی میکند (در لبنان) را از پای درآورند و با درختان سدر به اوروک بازگردند. همین کار را انجام میدهند (در تصویر، کشتن هومبابا را میبینید) این اولین قهرمانی آنهاست. (Jewellery from Ur, Early Dynastic period, Iraq Museum Baghdad)(Clay plaque, Old Babylonian,Vorder-asiatisches Museum Berlin VA 5392) قهرمانی دوم آن دو در زمانی است که پس از شکست هومبابا به اوروک باز میگردند و درختان سدر را با خود به اوروک آورده‌اند؛ ایشتار الهه اوروک آنچنان تحت تاثیر قرار میگیرد و از زیبایی گیلگمش خوشش می آید؛ عاشق گیلگمش میشود، اگر اصلا بتواند عاشق شود، چون چنین کاری برای الهه ای چون ایشتار سخت است، وی در واقع یک روسپی است. مجذوب فیزیک، مردانگی و زیبایی گیلگمش میشود و به او پیشنهاد ازدواج میدهد. گیلگمش پاسخ میدهد که هیچکس جز یک احمق با تو روسپی ای چون تو  ازدواج نمیکند، ببین بر سر عاشقان قبلی تو چه آمده است، همگی نابود شده اند، مرا با تو کاری نیست. ایشتار که الهه اوروک است تحقیر میشود و به نزد پدرش در آسمان میشتابد و به او میگوید ای پدر نرگاو آسمان را به من بده تا درسی به گیلگمش و انکیدو دهم. و اگر اینکار را انجام ندهی، چنان فریادی خواهم زد که مردگان از جهان زیرین برخیزند و زندگان را بخورند. فکر میکنم اولی موردی باشد که در ادبیان جهان زامبی ها وارد صحنه می شوند. پدر او نمیخواهد زامبی ها برخیزند و روی زمین راه بروند، ترجیح میدهد در همان جهان زیرین باشند، نرگاو آسمان (صورت فلکی گاو، گاو خشمگین آسمان) را به دخترش میدهد. وی آن را به اوروک فرو میفرستد که در آنجا خسارتهای زیادی وارد میکند اما در نهایت گیلگمش و انکیدو آن را از پای در می آورند (تصویر سمت راست، برلین) آن دو نفر به بزرگترین دستاورد خود رسیده اند؛ غولی را در جنگل سدر کشته اند، نرگاو اسمان را از پای در آورده اند اما هیچکدان از این کارها کار پر افتخاری نبوده است. زیرا خدایان  آن غول در جنگل سدر قرار داده بودند تا از آنان نگاهبانی کند و نرگاو آسمان هم، خب معلوم است نرگاو آسمان است و به خدایان تعلق دارد. در زمانی که پس از رویدادها جشنی در کاخ  بر پا کرده اند، خدایان به شور نشسته اند و انکیدو به خواب میرود و این نشست آنان را در رویا میبیند. خدایان تصمیم میگیرند چون این دو قهرمان بدرفتاری کرده اند و پا را از حد فرا گذاشته اند پس باید یکی از آنها بمیرد؛ و آنی که برای مرگ انتخاب میشود انکیدوست. (Grave, Early Dynastic period, Abu Salabikh, Iraq)(Crushed skull with jewellery, Early Dynastic period, Ur, Iraq) انکیدو بیمار میشود و پس از یک بیماری طولانی که در آن اکثرا هذیان میگوید و رویای جهان زیرین را میبیند، میمیرد. سوگواری حماسی بزرگی بر پا میشود (این را تازگی بازیابی کرده ایم). همه حماسه ها در بین النهرین باستان و در خاور نزدیک باستان سوگواری مهمی دارند. همه اشیایی که قرار است در قبر قرار گیرد بر شمرده میشود و در پیشگاه خدایان قرار میگیرد تا زمانی که انکیدو به جهان زیرین رسید حمایت خدایان را با خود داشته باشد. در تصویر مقبره ای را در ابو سلبیخ میبینید (مسلما انکیدو نیست) و در سمت راست مقبره ای پر از جواهرات را در اور که در ۱۹۲۰ در گورستان شاهی اور پیدا شد. قبر انکیدو مسلما مانند این یکی پر از جواهرات بوده است. انکیدو معشوق گیلگمش بود، آن دو عاشق هم بودند؛ مرگ انکیدو تغییر بزرگی در گیلگمش ایجاد میکند، او انسانی را بیش از همه در جهان دوست داشته، از دست داده است. این موضوع سبب دیوانگی اش میشود، نه فقط چون دوستش را از دست داده است، اما همچنین برای اینکه ناگهان در مییابد که مرگ حقیقی ست. برای خودش نگران میشود و در او هراس از مرگ شکل میگیرد چون میداند که خودش نیز چون انکیدو خواهد مرد. سر به جستجویی دیوانه وار میگذارد. (Clay map of the world, Babylon, ca 500 BC. British Museum ME 92687)(Detail of Neo-Assyrian relief, North palace, Nineveh, ca 640 BC) به آخر جهان میرود، تا راز جاودانگی را پیدا کند، میداند در جایی دوردست، در آنسوی زمین، هنوز یکی از نیاکان او زندگی میکند که زمانی پادشاه سومر بود (نه در شهر اوروک، در شهری دیگر ولی نه چندان دورتر). هنوز پس از هزاران سال زنده است و در واقع جاودانه است. گیلگمش چنین فکر میکند که اگر یک انسان توانسته است جاودانه باشد شاید او هم بتواند و به آنچه میخواهد دست یابد. گریز از مرگ. به پایان جهان میرود، پس از عبور از آبهای مرگ به نزد اوتنپیشتی (نیاکانش) میرسد که با همسرش زندگی میکند. اوتنپیشتی به او میگوید که در واقع جاودانگی او توسط خدایان داده شده است چون نمیدانستند که با او چه میتوانند کنند، او از طوفان بزرگ نجات پیدا کرده بود. در زمانهای بسیار دور خدایان تصمیم گرفته بودن همه بشریت را نابود کنند و تقریبا موفق شدند، جز اینکه یک نفر از میان خدایان به اوتنپیشتی پیام داد تا کشتی بسازد، همه خانواده اش را به عرشه ببرد و نیز دانه همه چیزهای زنده را (بله همان داستان نوح است، اصل بابلی آن است). اوتنپیشتی داستان را برای گیلگمش تعریف میکند و میگوید من جاودانه ام چون خدایان پس از آن نمیدانستند با من چه کنند. پس در این جزیره دوردست قرارم دادند و چون خودشان به من نیز جاودانگی دادند. اما چنین اتفاقی برای تو تکرار نخواهد شد. تو هیچوقت نمیتوانی مانند من جاودانه شوی، راه حلی بوده برای رویدادی که تنها یکبار اتفاق می افتد. اما چرا سعی نمیکنی برای یک هفته بیدار بمانی تا نشان دهی که اصلا آماده هستی برای غلبه بر مرگ. ببین آیا میتوانی بر خواب غلبه کنی. گیلگمش که ماهها و ماهها است که در حال سفر است بدون آنکه چشم بر هم گذاشته باشد، میگوید البته که میتوانم و به سرعت به خواب فرو میرود. با دیدن اینکه برای هفت روز است که چیزی نخورده در مییابد هفت روز است که خوابیده و نمیتواند بر مرگ غلبه کند. اوتنپیشتی او را روانه خانه میکند اما برای جبران نشان گیاهی را به او میدهد که نه جاودانگی، اما به او بازجوانی میدهد. گیلگمش به ته اقیانوس میرود، گیاه را به دست می آورد اما به آنچه به او گفته شده اعتماد ندارد (در خواهیم یافت که او بسیار یک انسان است) میگوید این را در کمربند خود میگذارم و به اوروک میبرم، زمانی که به آنجا رسیدم بر مردی جوان (؟) آزمایش میکنم و اگر مرد جوان دوباره جوان (؟) شد میفهمم اثرگذار است و خودم از آن استفاده میکنم. پس به خانه میرود و قبل از رسیدن به آنجا به برکه ای زیبا میرسد، خسته است، وسایلش را که گیاه بازجوانی در میان آنان است در کناری میگذارد و به برکه فرو میرود. مار، بوی خوش گیاه را احساس میکند و گیاه را میرباید و در راه پوست می اندازد. در اینجا گیلگمش به دو چیز پی میبرد؛ اول اینکه آنچه اوتنپیشتی به او گفته حقیقت داشته است، و میفهمد که گیاه را برای همیشه از دست داده است و کاملا شکست خورده است. با فهمیدن این موضوع به خانه بازمیگردد. و داستان خاتمه می یابد. اکنون که داستان را دانستید برویم به سراغ رویکرد دوم و درباره باستانشناسی و دوباره خواندن گیلگمش صحبت کنیم. دو سوال اصلی وجود دارد؛ یکی اینکه منابع این شعر از کجا آمده اند و دیگر اینکه چه کسی آنان را بازخواند و منتشر کرد. داستانی طولانیتر از آن است که فکر میکنید. در قرن نوزدهم آستین هنری لایارد (مردی که در تصویر لباس بختیاری پوشیده است)(Austen henry Layard (1817-1894)) قصد بازگشت به انگلستان را داشت اما نتوانست و سر از بین النهرین در آورد. مجذوب خرابه هایی شد که در شمال بین النهرین پیدا کرد. به خصوص آنچه را در موصول دید، آنسوی دجله (همان شهری که الان دولت عراق سعی میکند از دست دولت اسلامی به در آورد). این نقشه موصول در ۱۸۵۲ است (Felix Jones' map of Nineveh, 1852) بومیها معتقد بودند در آنجا خرابه هایی است که متعلق به شهرهای باستانی است، لایارد تصمیم گرفت به جای بازگشت، این موضوع را تحقیق کند. اول در نمرود حفاری کرد و سپس به موصول بازگشت. (Walls and citadel (Kuyunjik) from S, 1989. Photo John Russell)(Aerial photo of the citadel (Kuyunjik) from NE, 1930s. Photo RAF)  لایارد خرابه های کاخ سناخریب را پیدا کرد همان شاهی که زمانی اورشلیم را محاصره کرد. (A H Layard's excavations 1847-51)(Watercolour by F C Cooper, 1850)(Plan of Sennacherib's palace)(Layard drawing wall-slabs in Room 42) در همین ساختمانی که میبینید انبوهی از لوح های شکسته قرار داشت (به قول لایارد «تا زانو»knee deep). خودش نمیتوانست آنان را بخواند، اما تشخیص داد به خط میخی هستند و آنان را در سال ۱۸۵۰ و گروهی دیگر در ۱۸۵۳ به موزه بریتانیا فرستاد. بیست هزار لوح گلی به موزه بریتانیا فرستاده شد و اساس آشورشناسی قرار گرفتند. این لوح ها در آور پیدا شده بودند پس آنها که میخواستند آنان را بخوانند آشورشناس لقب گرفتند. آشورشناسی پیشرفتی نکرد چون کسی در موزه بریتانیا نبود که بتواند آنان را بخواند (K 231, a manuscript of Gilgamesh Tablet VI)(Archive room, Ebla, Syria, 1975) هیچکس وجود نداشت که این بیست هزار لوح را بتواند بخواند. تا در سال ۱۸۶۶ مرد جوانی به نام جرج اسمیت استخدام شد. در تصویر لوحی از همان گروه وجود دارد که در کاخ سناخریب پیدا شد. در واقع به نوه او، آشور بانیپال تعلق دارد و نام او بر آن (K 231) قرار دارد که در مالکیت اوست. در ۱۸۶۶ جرج اسمیت استخدام شد (Smith's lecture of 1872 - THE ELEVENTH TABLET OFTHE IZDUBAR LEGENDS. - The Chaldean Accountof the Deluge - text and notes to accompany paper - read 3rd December 1872) او آشورشناس فوق العاده ای بود، اولین کسی که از اینکار درآمد به دست آورد. پس از چند سال چیزهای شگفتی پیدا کرد. هنوز بر لوحها M برای mythology؛ H برای historical و R برای religious وجود دارد. در میان لوح های M تعدادی درباره قهرمانی بود که او نامش را ایزدوبار گذاشت. ما اکنون به او گیلگمش میگوییم. او دریافت که در افسانه های ایزدوبار روایتی از طوفان وجود دارد و درباره اش در انجمن باستانشناسی کتاب مقدس در لندن سخنرانی کرد. شور زیادی ایجاد شد، روایتی از طوفان بود که بسیار به سفر پیدایش (داستان نوح) شبیه بود. این متن کامل نبود. دیلی تلگراف هزار گینی برای سفر جرج اسمیت پرداخت تا به عراق برود و قطعه گمشده را بیابد (انگار به همین راحتی است). اسمیت دو بار به نینوا رفت و واقعا توانست قطعه گمشده طوفان را بیابد (هر چند باورکردنی نباشد). البته این تکه گیلگمش نبود (خودش در آن زمان نمیدانست) روایت طوفان دیگری بود که بخشی از شعر بلند دیگری بود.  (D(aily) T(elegraph) 42 found by Smith at Ninevah in 1873) (1876: Smith buys 1000 Late Babylonian tablets in Baghdad - 1878-82: British Museum buys at least 20/000 Babylonian tablets) چنان این کشف موفقیت آمیز بود که دیلی تلگراف فورا از ادامه پشتیبانی مالی منصرف شد. اسمیت به بغداد رفت و الواح زیادی را خرید. اینان الواح آشوری از شمال (موصول) نبودند، بلکه الواح متفاوتی از جنوب و از گونه دیگری بودند. اما متن مشترک بود (همان گیلگمش). موزه بریتانیا قطعات بسیاری را خرید. مردم عادی از کوهها آنان را جمع آوری میکردند و میفروختند. بعدا هرمزد رسام به آنجا رفت (Aquiring 50/000 tablets in Babylonia) پس در موزه بریتانیا در حدود نود هزار لوح وجود داشت و تنها دو نفر که میتوانستند آنان را بخوانند. همین الان هم وضعیت همین است، آشورشناسی دو مشکل عمده دارد، تعداد خیلی زیادی لوح وجود دارد (در حدود نیم میلیون در موزه های جهان) و تنها چند نفر هستند که میتوانند آنان را بخوانند. به این طریق تضمین شده است که آشورشناسی تا ابد طول بکشد. تا حالا تنها توانسته ایم روی ده درصدِ این نیم میلیون کار کنیم. به گیلگمش برگردیم.(from Haupt's Das babylonische Nimrodepos (Leipzig, 1891-94))(Paul Haupt (1858-1926)) الواحی را که اسمیت با عنوان گیلگمش تشخیص داد مرد جوانی از آلمان به موزه بریتانیا آمد و همه شان را طراحی کرد، فقط طراحی و نه ترجمه. دانشوران به تحقیق ادامه دادند و قطعات بیشتری را بررسی کردند. (R C Thompson (1876-1941) - The epic of gilgamish (Oxford, 1930) - Mainly tablets from Ashurbanipal's library - a few Late Babylonian tablets from Rassam's acquisitions - three Old Babylonian tablets (18th century BC) - one 12th century tablet from Anatolia - all together 112 tablets and fragments known in 1930) زمانی که من در سال ۲۰۰۳ آغاز به کار کردم (217 sources extant in 2003- 184 Neo-Assyrian and Late Babylonian MSS - 33 second millennium tablets) هنوز قطعات تازه پیدا میشوند،   (Now 226 sources, and rising) خبرش را در روزنامه میبینید (ancient epic yields a new chapter) این قطعه در موزه سلیمانیه پیدا شد، بیشتر قطعات نه در باستانشناسی بلکه در موزه ها پیدا میشوند که هنوز قطعات زیادی هستند که دسته بندی نشده اند. این قطعه (موزه سلیمانیه) در بخش تحت کنترل کردها در عراق در سال ۲۰۱۲ به دست آمد و من و یکی از همکاران با فاصله کمی منتشرش کردیم و سپس در ۲۰۱۵ خبرش در روزنامه منتشر شد که میبینید. بلاگرها کامنتهای زیادی گذاشتند. یکی از آنها در history blog آقایی به اسم بورت است که فهمیده قطعه تازه ای از گیلگمش پیدا شده و نگران شده است. گفته «به خاطر همه خوبیها در جهان، متنهای تازه را با صدای بلند نخوانید. باعث میشوید «افراد کهن» فرا خوانده شوند. حداقل به زبان اصلی نخوانیدشان، فکر نمیکنم That Which Shan't Be Named انگلیسی بداند». That Which Shan't Be Named از نظر او بابلی بلد است. امیدوارم بورت اینجا نباشد چون بخشی از آن را به اصل بابلی خواهیم خواند. (رویکرد سوم) این قطعاتی را که در باستانشناسی پیدا میکنیم به عنوان یک آشورشناس چه کار میکنیم تا بتوانیم شعر را بخوانیم؟ ... (خواندن متن بابلی (37:05))(Gilgamesh XI 101-6) نمیدانم بابلیها متوجه میشوند که چه خواند یا نه اما وقتی خود ما آشورشناسها برای هم میخوانیم، میفهمیم. ترجمه متن این است (در تصویر) آن بخشی از داستان است که اوتنپیشتی برای گیگلمش داستان طوفان را تعریف میکند، روایت اول شخص، و او این تصویر را ارائه میکند از آغاز طوفانی که باعث سیل شد. ساختار شعر بابلی (39:17) (رویکرد چهارم - هنر شاعر) (The seduction of Enkidu: Babylonian)(SB Gilgamesh I 188-98, ed. George 2003: 548-51)(40:35) (OB Gilgamesh BM+VAM iii 8-14)(43:45)  (َAt the end of the world)(44:16) (Wise advice: OB VAM+BM iii)(45:44) (رویکرد آخر (پنجم))(46:34) (At the end of the world)(46:52) (Prologue - Tablet I 1-10)(47:55) (Prologue, end - Tablet I 18-28) (49:50) (The wisdom of Utanapishti: Death - Tablet X 301-7)(52:47)   (The wisdom of Utanapishti: the Mayfly - Tablet X 308-15)(54:23)   (The wisdom of Utanapishti: Destiny - Tablet X 316-22)(56:04)
RousouR (بحث) ‏۹ مارس ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۰۲ (UTC)
=== پیتر مشنیست ===
صحبت من درباره ارتباط پادشاهی و جاودانگی در نسخه معیار اکدی حماسه گیلگمش است. از نظر من حماسه از چندین مرحله گذر می‌کند که در آنان به نظر می‌آید جاودانگی قابل دستیابی است اما در نهایت همگی یک به یک رد می‌شوند. دقیقتر بگویم: داستان با سرآغازی شروع می‌شود که دیوار اورک که گیلگمش ساخته  و خود شهر اوروک در آن حضور دارند و در نسخه نئوآشوری که در نیمرود پیدا شده است ارجاع دیگری نیز به صندوق لوحی اشاره می‌شود که در پای دیوار دفن شده است و داستان قهرمانیهای گیلگمش در آن است. در این نقطه از داستان اهمیت دیوار و لوح و ارتباطش با جاودانگی اصلا روشن نمی‌شود. داستان با ماجراهای گیلگمش و و رفیقش انکیدو ادامه پیدا می‌کند که در آن هومبابا و نرگاو آسمان را از پای در می‌آورند. اگر قرار بوده است این قهرمانیها برای گیلگمش و انکیدو نوعی از جاودانگی (مشهور بودن) را به همراه داشته باشد اما فاجعه‌ای که با الهه ایشتار پیش می‌آید، قضیه منتفی می‌شود. سپس گیلگمش به جستجوی قهرمان طوفان می‌رود تا از اوتنپیشتیم راز جاودانگی شخصی را دریابد. در اینجا نیز قضیه به شکست می‌انجامد که شکست دیگری را نیز در پی دارد (از دست دادن گیاه بازجوانی). در پایان داستان در لوح XI دیوار اوروک و خود شهر را دوباره می‌بینیم که بازمی‌گردند. و این بازگشت دیوار و شهر در پایان داستان پس از آنکه در سرآغاز نیز آمده بودند، نشانگر اهمیت آنان است. به نظر می‌رسد پاسخی برای پرسش دایمی جاودانگی باشند. جاودانگی به صورت نه یک بی‌مرگی فردی بلکه به صورت ساختاری فیزیکی نمایش می‌یابد که گیلگمش از خود بر جای می‌گذارد. اما همین پاسخ نیز پاسخی نهایی نیست. به دو شکل خراب می‌شود: یکی آنکه با لوح XII ادامه پیدا می‌کند (هزاره اول پیشا دوران مشترک، نسخه معیار). در آن تصویری از جهان زیرین است که انکیدو بازگو می‌کند (در لوح VII و در رویای دوم انکیدو پیشبینی شده بود). انکیدو که شبیه به مرگ شده است به نوعی در جهان پس از مرگ زنده است اما شرایط جهان زیرین وحشتناک و غیرقابل تحمل و ناخواستنی است. جهان زیرین نمی‌تواند پاسخی برای پرسش جاودانگی باشد. دوم آنکه دوباره ظاهر شدن دیوار و شهر اوروک در پایان لوح XI ما را دوباره به دیوار و شهر اوروک در سرآغاز در لوح I برمی‌گرداند که حداقل در نسخه نئوآشوری نمرود با دیوار پایان نمی‌یابد بلکه به سراغ صندوق لوحی می‌رود که در پای دیوار دفن شده است. در درون آن لوح قهرمانیهای گیلگمش اهمیتی دوباره پیدا می‌کند زیرا محتویات آن هر روایتی نیست بلکه خود حماسه گیگلگمش است. به زبانی دیگر، تنها دیوار و شهر اوروک نیست که با جاودانگی گیلگمش ارتباط پیدا می‌کند بلکه این جاودانگی در نهایت در به جای ماندن داستانِ به دنبال جاودانگی بودن، دنبال می‌شود: پس حماسه درباره خودِ حماسه و جاودانگی آن است. اما همین نیز پایان نیست. باید بپرسیم چه نوعی از جاودانگی است که در حماسه درباره حماسه بازگو می‌شود. مسلما جاودانگی شخصی نیست  که گیلگمش به دنبال آن است و اگر جاودانگی غیرشخصی است چیزی که ارائه می‌شود جستجویی بی‌ثمر برای به جای ماندن شخصی است. حتی بیش از این  اگر در پایان داستان حماسه دوباره به آغاز آن برمی‌گردیم پس این جستجوی بی‌حاصل دوباره از سرگرفته می‌شود. حلقه بی‌سرانجامی که به هیچ جا نمی‌رسد، نوعی از «روز گراندهاگ» که گیلگمش نقش بیل مری را دارد. دو نتیجه از این تحلیل می‌شود گرفت: یکی آنکه معنای جاودانگی در حماسه گیلگمش تداومی در تاریخ نسخه‌های حماسه است که جایگزین یکدیگر شده‌اند. دوم آنکه در کل این جستجو سایه‌ای از شک بر پادشاهی به آن صورت که گیلگمش بوده می‌اندازد (پادشاهی الهی)(ویلیام موران). خلاصه آنکه حماسه گیلگمش نه تنها حماسه‌ای درباره خود است بلکه حماسه‌ای است که خود را رد می‌کند.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۹ مارس ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۱۳ (UTC)
=== دیوید دمراش ===
در ادامه بحث پیتر مشنیست درباره گیلگمش و پادشاهی، درباره انکیدو و به خصوص در بخش جنگل سدر صحبت می‌کنم. در بین‌النهرین باستان سفر برای به دست آوردن درخت سدر، فعالیت اقتصادی و سیاسی بسیار مهمی بوده است (خواندن نامه یک معمار به سارگن دوم برای آنکه پیامدهای ساختن بنا با درخت بدرد نخور را به پای او ننویسند و مجازاتش نکنند و از شاه نامه‌ای بگیرد که از او خواسته بنا را با همام درخت‌های موجود (صنوبر) و نه درخت سدر بسازد). پادشاهان برای به دست آوردن سدر یا به غرب ایران و یا پس از آن به لبنان می‌رفتند. پس کار گیلگمش، سنت قدیمی‌ای است که یک پادشاه باید انجام می‌داده است. این بخش از حماسه برای پادشاه حاضر جذاب بوده، اما اکثر حاضران پادشاه و یا خانواده‌اش نبودند. کاتبان، بوروکراتها و مشاوران پادشاه بودند که انکیدو را شبیه به خود می‌یافتند (طبقه مدیریتی متخصص). چیزی که در بخش درخت سدر (و نیز در بخش ایشتار) خواهیم دید این است که انکیدو هر بار در نقشی که باید به عنوان همراه و مشاور پادشاه بر عهده بگیرد، شکست می‌خورد. او باید گیلگمش سرسخت را از کار خود بازدارد: از حمله به هومبابا که خدای بزرگ انلیل منصوبش کرده است، بزرگان شهر تلاش می‌کنند او را از این کار بازدارند، خود انکیدو هم حتی می‌گوید نباید این کار را انجام دهیم. پادشاه سرخت اصرار می‌کند و انکیدو رضایت می‌دهد. گیلگمش سپس پشت سر هم رویاهای هشداردهنده می‌بیند (نباید این کار را انجام دهی) خواب آتشفشان می‌بیند، خواب حمله نرگاو، عقابی با سر شیر، تبری بر وی می‌افتد. ترس او را فرا می‌گیرد و از انکیدو درباره خواب خود می‌پرسد. این خواب‌ها معنایش چیست؟ اینجا است که انکیدو راه سقوط خویش را در پیش می‌گیرد. او در دام تله سنتی مشاور یک اتوکرات می‌افتد. همان چیزی را می‌گوید که پادشاه می‌خواهد بشنود. خوابها را تفسیر مسخره‌ای می‌کند: گیلگمش همان نرگاو قوی است (در حالی که کاملا در تضاد با آن در خواب این نرگاو است که به گیلگمش حمله کرده است). زمانی که به جنگل سدر می‌رسند انکیدو کاملا در کارهایش جوشی می‌شود و در زمانی که هومبابا را به اسارت در می‌آورند، کاملا بی‌رحم است. هیولا برای رحم کردن به او التماس می‌کند، می‌گوید هدایای گرانبها به آنها خواهد دادبادآوری می‌کند که انلیل نگاهدار او است. گیلگمش تمایل به بخشیدن او دارد (این مساله واقعا از جنبه سیاسی مهم است. با گروهی که بر آنها غلبه کرده‌اید چه می‌کنید؟ نابودشان می‌کنید یا کنار می‌آیید؟) انکیدو می‌گوید باید او را در جا بکشند، نگران خشم انلیل نباشند و برای آنکه اصلا کار به خشم او کشانده نشود، سریعتر عمل کنند تا خبر به او نرسد. گیلگمش به صحبت انکیدو گوش می‌کند و سر هومبابا را جدا می‌کند. هیولا قبل از جدا شدن سرش نفرینشان می‌کند که همراه با یکدیگر پیر نشوند. این داستانی است که به زمان سومریان برمی‌گردد. این بخش از داستان بازتاب فشاری است که مشاوران پادشاهان با آن مواجه هستند. می‌خواهد گیلگمش و انکیدو باشد و یا جرج دبلیو بوش و کولین پاول. به پادشاه چیزی را می‌گویند که پادشاه می‌خواهد بشنود. انکیدو بارها در انجام نقش درست خود شکست می‌خورد و نتیجه‌اش مرگ وی است. پس از جنبه حاضرین و شنوندگان حماسه (مثلا در نینوا) که در زیر شعله‌های مشعل در جشن آشوربانی‌پال در کاخ به آن گوش می‌دهند، بخشی از حماسه درباره قهرمانی‌های پادشاه است. برای مشاوران آشور بانی‌پال، حماسه به همان اندازه داستانی هشداردهنده درباره تراژدی انکیدو است.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۹ مارس ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)
=== ایرن وینتر ===
سخنرانی اندرو جرج (۲۰۱۶) ایرن وینتر: امکان یافتن چیزهای جدید درباره حماسه و ناکامل بودن آن، از این جنبه شباهتی با هومر و کتاب مقدس ندارد. تصاویر ممکن است که با حماسه در ارتباط باشند. سه اثر هنری در سه رسانه مختلف (از هزاره دوم تا هزاره اول). تکرار بارها و بارها و بارها. هومبابا. صورت عجیب. سر گورگن در یونان. پاهای خمیده. نرگاو آسمان (انکیدو با سه حلقه مو- گیلگمش شهری و انکیدوی وحشی). رجوع به دوره بابلی باستان تا دریابد در آن ماجرا چه بوده و نه در نسخه‌های متاخر. فضای آنان متفاوت است و زمانی که حماسه آغاز گشت  بیشتر درباره حاکم است (دوره آغاز تمدن و شکل‌گیری دولت). یک حاکم خوب. در نسخه‌های متاخر جستجوی فردی و سرنوشت بشری برجسته می‌شود. کتیبه نارام‌سین.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۹ مارس ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۲۶ (UTC)
thread_title:  سخنرانی اندرو جرج در موزه هاروارد (۲۰۱۶) 

message: ... درباره یکی از موضوعات مورد علاقه ام حرف خواهم زد، گیلگمش. زیر عنوانش «بازیابی شاهکار شعر بابلی» است. اما نخست اینکه اصلا گیلگمش چیست؟ گیلگمش تقریبا همه جا است (نشان دادن تصویر کتاب زیولکوسکی (دانشگاه پرینستون)) گیلگمش به ناخودآگاه هنری غرب، عراق امروزی، اروپا و آمریکای شمالی وارد شده است. از ۱۹۱۲ که اولین ترجمه به یک زبان مدرن انجام شد؛ هنرمندان، شاعران موسیقیدانان و ... از داستان باستانی گیلگمش تغذیه کردند و آن را به مالکیت خود در آوردند که حقشان نیز هست. اینکه چنین کاری را میتوانند انجام دهند نشان از انسانگرایی و اهمیت حماسه باستانی است. امیدوارم در پایان سخنرانی من معلوم شده باشد چرا این متنِ به خصوصِ چهار هزار ساله چنین تاثیر عمیقی بر فرهنگ مدرن غربی گذاشته است. چون فکر میکنم منصفانه است اگر بگوییم پس از کتاب مقدس هیچ متنی در خاور نزدیک باستان وجود ندارد که به اندازه گیلگمش بر دنبای مدرن اثرگذار بوده باشد. و تا جایی که من میدانم گرچه کتاب مقدس، کتابی آسمانی است اما هنوز هیچ فرقه ای در دنیا وجود ندارد که ادعا کند حماسه گیلگمش کتاب آسمانی است؛ گرچه ممکن است اشتباه کنم. گیلگمش متن بابلی چهار هزار ساله است. پنج رویکرد برای آن در نظر گرفته ام؛ درباره داستان؛ باستانشناسی و خواندن؛ بازسازی متن؛ درباره شعر بودن آن؛ و در پایان اینکه آیا برای ما (با گذر چهار هزار سال) معنایی دارد، حرف خواهیم زد. نخست، داستان را روایت کنیم تا اصل ماجرا را بدانیم چیست (Tablets I-II: Coming of Enkidu)(Clay figurine from Tell Asmar, Old Babylonian, Musee du Louvre (AO 12475)) تکه اول؛ گیلگمش معرفی میشود که پادشها اوروک است. شهری باستانی در جنوب بابل (عراق امروزی) شخصیت با ابهت و عظیمی دارد، پادشاه و قهرمان. و البته ترسم از این است که بهترین شهرتی که از او به ما رسیده هیچ کدام از اینها نیست. (درباره تصویر) میدانیم گیلگمش است چون بر سر یکی از دشمنانش که کشته، ایستاده است. گیلگمش پادشاه اما ستمگر و اتوکرات بود؛ از حقوق پادشاهی خود سو استفاده میکرد. جالب است که شاعر بابلی به دنبال این نیست که این قهرمان و پادشاه بزرگ را تبدیل به انسانی یک بعدی کند. به جای آن، او را تبدیل به یک انسان میکند. او ستمگر است چون قدرت به او تفویض شده و از آن استفاده مطلقه میکند. خدایان به شکایت اهالی اوروک گوش میدهند و مردی وحشی را به پایین میفرستند؛ او از هر جهت تصویری از گیلگمش است، به جز در اینکه در حالی که گیلگمش مردی از شهر است، انکیدو (نامش این بود) از دنیای وحش است. شاعر باید راهی برای آوردن انکیدو به شهر پیدا کند تا گیلگمش را بیابد و انرژی فرابشری او را به خودش معطوف کند؛ تا گیلگمش از آزار مردمش دست بردارد. این اتفاق طی چند رویداد انجام میشود که در آن یک روسپی انکیدو را اغوا میکند؛ سپس او از یک حیوان به انسان تبدیل میشود؛ و اجتماعی شدن او نخست در چادر شبان که در آنجا خوردن، آشامیدن و پوشش خود چون انسانها را می آموزد؛ و در پایان اجتماعی شدن او در خود شهر. انکیدو به شهر میاید، مصمم است به گیلگمش درسی بدهد چون ستمگریهای گیلگمش را شنیده است و همچون هر موجودِ ناخودآگاهی، آن را بیعدالتی میداند (به نظرم حتی کودکان مفهوم بیعدالتی را ناخودآگاهانه میتوانند درک کنند). انکیدو و گیلگمش میجنگند، به بن بست میرسند (هیچ یک از دیگری قویتر نیست و برنده نشده)؛ رفیق میشوند و همین هم برای یکدیگر باقی میمانند.(09:58)(Clay plaque, Old Babylonian, Musee du Louvre AO 12475)(Clay plaque, Old Babylonian, Vorder-asiatisches Museum Berlin VA 7246) گیلگمش و انکیدو با هم از شهر خارج میشوند تا برای ماجراجویی به جنگل سدر روند و غولی که در آنجاست (هومبابا در سمت چپ، تصویر احتمالی هومبابا، با چهره چروکیده اش) و از آن نگاهبانی میکند (در لبنان) را از پای درآورند و با درختان سدر به اوروک بازگردند. همین کار را انجام میدهند (در تصویر، کشتن هومبابا را میبینید) این اولین قهرمانی آنهاست. (Jewellery from Ur, Early Dynastic period, Iraq Museum Baghdad)(Clay plaque, Old Babylonian,Vorder-asiatisches Museum Berlin VA 5392) قهرمانی دوم آن دو در زمانی است که پس از شکست هومبابا به اوروک باز میگردند و درختان سدر را با خود به اوروک آورده‌اند؛ ایشتار الهه اوروک آنچنان تحت تاثیر قرار میگیرد و از زیبایی گیلگمش خوشش می آید؛ عاشق گیلگمش میشود، اگر اصلا بتواند عاشق شود، چون چنین کاری برای الهه ای چون ایشتار سخت است، وی در واقع یک روسپی است. مجذوب فیزیک، مردانگی و زیبایی گیلگمش میشود و به او پیشنهاد ازدواج میدهد. گیلگمش پاسخ میدهد که هیچکس جز یک احمق با تو روسپی ای چون تو  ازدواج نمیکند، ببین بر سر عاشقان قبلی تو چه آمده است، همگی نابود شده اند، مرا با تو کاری نیست. ایشتار که الهه اوروک است تحقیر میشود و به نزد پدرش در آسمان میشتابد و به او میگوید ای پدر نرگاو آسمان را به من بده تا درسی به گیلگمش و انکیدو دهم. و اگر اینکار را انجام ندهی، چنان فریادی خواهم زد که مردگان از جهان زیرین برخیزند و زندگان را بخورند. فکر میکنم اولی موردی باشد که در ادبیان جهان زامبی ها وارد صحنه می شوند. پدر او نمیخواهد زامبی ها برخیزند و روی زمین راه بروند، ترجیح میدهد در همان جهان زیرین باشند، نرگاو آسمان (صورت فلکی گاو، گاو خشمگین آسمان) را به دخترش میدهد. وی آن را به اوروک فرو میفرستد که در آنجا خسارتهای زیادی وارد میکند اما در نهایت گیلگمش و انکیدو آن را از پای در می آورند (تصویر سمت راست، برلین) آن دو نفر به بزرگترین دستاورد خود رسیده اند؛ غولی را در جنگل سدر کشته اند، نرگاو اسمان را از پای در آورده اند اما هیچکدان از این کارها کار پر افتخاری نبوده است. زیرا خدایان  آن غول در جنگل سدر قرار داده بودند تا از آنان نگاهبانی کند و نرگاو آسمان هم، خب معلوم است نرگاو آسمان است و به خدایان تعلق دارد. در زمانی که پس از رویدادها جشنی در کاخ  بر پا کرده اند، خدایان به شور نشسته اند و انکیدو به خواب میرود و این نشست آنان را در رویا میبیند. خدایان تصمیم میگیرند چون این دو قهرمان بدرفتاری کرده اند و پا را از حد فرا گذاشته اند پس باید یکی از آنها بمیرد؛ و آنی که برای مرگ انتخاب میشود انکیدوست. (Grave, Early Dynastic period, Abu Salabikh, Iraq)(Crushed skull with jewellery, Early Dynastic period, Ur, Iraq) انکیدو بیمار میشود و پس از یک بیماری طولانی که در آن اکثرا هذیان میگوید و رویای جهان زیرین را میبیند، میمیرد. سوگواری حماسی بزرگی بر پا میشود (این را تازگی بازیابی کرده ایم). همه حماسه ها در بین النهرین باستان و در خاور نزدیک باستان سوگواری مهمی دارند. همه اشیایی که قرار است در قبر قرار گیرد بر شمرده میشود و در پیشگاه خدایان قرار میگیرد تا زمانی که انکیدو به جهان زیرین رسید حمایت خدایان را با خود داشته باشد. در تصویر مقبره ای را در ابو سلبیخ میبینید (مسلما انکیدو نیست) و در سمت راست مقبره ای پر از جواهرات را در اور که در ۱۹۲۰ در گورستان شاهی اور پیدا شد. قبر انکیدو مسلما مانند این یکی پر از جواهرات بوده است. انکیدو معشوق گیلگمش بود، آن دو عاشق هم بودند؛ مرگ انکیدو تغییر بزرگی در گیلگمش ایجاد میکند، او انسانی را بیش از همه در جهان دوست داشته، از دست داده است. این موضوع سبب دیوانگی اش میشود، نه فقط چون دوستش را از دست داده است، اما همچنین برای اینکه ناگهان در مییابد که مرگ حقیقی ست. برای خودش نگران میشود و در او هراس از مرگ شکل میگیرد چون میداند که خودش نیز چون انکیدو خواهد مرد. سر به جستجویی دیوانه وار میگذارد. (Clay map of the world, Babylon, ca 500 BC. British Museum ME 92687)(Detail of Neo-Assyrian relief, North palace, Nineveh, ca 640 BC) به آخر جهان میرود، تا راز جاودانگی را پیدا کند، میداند در جایی دوردست، در آنسوی زمین، هنوز یکی از نیاکان او زندگی میکند که زمانی پادشاه سومر بود (نه در شهر اوروک، در شهری دیگر ولی نه چندان دورتر). هنوز پس از هزاران سال زنده است و در واقع جاودانه است. گیلگمش چنین فکر میکند که اگر یک انسان توانسته است جاودانه باشد شاید او هم بتواند و به آنچه میخواهد دست یابد. گریز از مرگ. به پایان جهان میرود، پس از عبور از آبهای مرگ به نزد اوتنپیشتی (نیاکانش) میرسد که با همسرش زندگی میکند. اوتنپیشتی به او میگوید که در واقع جاودانگی او توسط خدایان داده شده است چون نمیدانستند که با او چه میتوانند کنند، او از طوفان بزرگ نجات پیدا کرده بود. در زمانهای بسیار دور خدایان تصمیم گرفته بودن همه بشریت را نابود کنند و تقریبا موفق شدند، جز اینکه یک نفر از میان خدایان به اوتنپیشتی پیام داد تا کشتی بسازد، همه خانواده اش را به عرشه ببرد و نیز دانه همه چیزهای زنده را (بله همان داستان نوح است، اصل بابلی آن است). اوتنپیشتی داستان را برای گیلگمش تعریف میکند و میگوید من جاودانه ام چون خدایان پس از آن نمیدانستند با من چه کنند. پس در این جزیره دوردست قرارم دادند و چون خودشان به من نیز جاودانگی دادند. اما چنین اتفاقی برای تو تکرار نخواهد شد. تو هیچوقت نمیتوانی مانند من جاودانه شوی، راه حلی بوده برای رویدادی که تنها یکبار اتفاق می افتد. اما چرا سعی نمیکنی برای یک هفته بیدار بمانی تا نشان دهی که اصلا آماده هستی برای غلبه بر مرگ. ببین آیا میتوانی بر خواب غلبه کنی. گیلگمش که ماهها و ماهها است که در حال سفر است بدون آنکه چشم بر هم گذاشته باشد، میگوید البته که میتوانم و به سرعت به خواب فرو میرود. با دیدن اینکه برای هفت روز است که چیزی نخورده در مییابد هفت روز است که خوابیده و نمیتواند بر مرگ غلبه کند. اوتنپیشتی او را روانه خانه میکند اما برای جبران نشان گیاهی را به او میدهد که نه جاودانگی، اما به او بازجوانی میدهد. گیلگمش به ته اقیانوس میرود، گیاه را به دست می آورد اما به آنچه به او گفته شده اعتماد ندارد (در خواهیم یافت که او بسیار یک انسان است) میگوید این را در کمربند خود میگذارم و به اوروک میبرم، زمانی که به آنجا رسیدم بر مردی جوان (؟) آزمایش میکنم و اگر مرد جوان دوباره جوان (؟) شد میفهمم اثرگذار است و خودم از آن استفاده میکنم. پس به خانه میرود و قبل از رسیدن به آنجا به برکه ای زیبا میرسد، خسته است، وسایلش را که گیاه بازجوانی در میان آنان است در کناری میگذارد و به برکه فرو میرود. مار، بوی خوش گیاه را احساس میکند و گیاه را میرباید و در راه پوست می اندازد. در اینجا گیلگمش به دو چیز پی میبرد؛ اول اینکه آنچه اوتنپیشتی به او گفته حقیقت داشته است، و میفهمد که گیاه را برای همیشه از دست داده است و کاملا شکست خورده است. با فهمیدن این موضوع به خانه بازمیگردد. و داستان خاتمه می یابد. اکنون که داستان را دانستید برویم به سراغ رویکرد دوم و درباره باستانشناسی و دوباره خواندن گیلگمش صحبت کنیم. دو سوال اصلی وجود دارد؛ یکی اینکه منابع این شعر از کجا آمده اند و دیگر اینکه چه کسی آنان را بازخواند و منتشر کرد. داستانی طولانیتر از آن است که فکر میکنید. در قرن نوزدهم آستین هنری لایارد (مردی که در تصویر لباس بختیاری پوشیده است)(Austen henry Layard (1817-1894)) قصد بازگشت به انگلستان را داشت اما نتوانست و سر از بین النهرین در آورد. مجذوب خرابه هایی شد که در شمال بین النهرین پیدا کرد. به خصوص آنچه را در موصول دید، آنسوی دجله (همان شهری که الان دولت عراق سعی میکند از دست دولت اسلامی به در آورد). این نقشه موصول در ۱۸۵۲ است (Felix Jones' map of Nineveh, 1852) بومیها معتقد بودند در آنجا خرابه هایی است که متعلق به شهرهای باستانی است، لایارد تصمیم گرفت به جای بازگشت، این موضوع را تحقیق کند. اول در نمرود حفاری کرد و سپس به موصول بازگشت. (Walls and citadel (Kuyunjik) from S, 1989. Photo John Russell)(Aerial photo of the citadel (Kuyunjik) from NE, 1930s. Photo RAF)  لایارد خرابه های کاخ سناخریب را پیدا کرد همان شاهی که زمانی اورشلیم را محاصره کرد. (A H Layard's excavations 1847-51)(Watercolour by F C Cooper, 1850)(Plan of Sennacherib's palace)(Layard drawing wall-slabs in Room 42) در همین ساختمانی که میبینید انبوهی از لوح های شکسته قرار داشت (به قول لایارد «تا زانو»knee deep). خودش نمیتوانست آنان را بخواند، اما تشخیص داد به خط میخی هستند و آنان را در سال ۱۸۵۰ و گروهی دیگر در ۱۸۵۳ به موزه بریتانیا فرستاد. بیست هزار لوح گلی به موزه بریتانیا فرستاده شد و اساس آشورشناسی قرار گرفتند. این لوح ها در آور پیدا شده بودند پس آنها که میخواستند آنان را بخوانند آشورشناس لقب گرفتند. آشورشناسی پیشرفتی نکرد چون کسی در موزه بریتانیا نبود که بتواند آنان را بخواند (K 231, a manuscript of Gilgamesh Tablet VI)(Archive room, Ebla, Syria, 1975) هیچکس وجود نداشت که این بیست هزار لوح را بتواند بخواند. تا در سال ۱۸۶۶ مرد جوانی به نام جرج اسمیت استخدام شد. در تصویر لوحی از همان گروه وجود دارد که در کاخ سناخریب پیدا شد. در واقع به نوه او، آشور بانیپال تعلق دارد و نام او بر آن (K 231) قرار دارد که در مالکیت اوست. در ۱۸۶۶ جرج اسمیت استخدام شد (Smith's lecture of 1872 - THE ELEVENTH TABLET OFTHE IZDUBAR LEGENDS. - The Chaldean Accountof the Deluge - text and notes to accompany paper - read 3rd December 1872) او آشورشناس فوق العاده ای بود، اولین کسی که از اینکار درآمد به دست آورد. پس از چند سال چیزهای شگفتی پیدا کرد. هنوز بر لوحها M برای mythology؛ H برای historical و R برای religious وجود دارد. در میان لوح های M تعدادی درباره قهرمانی بود که او نامش را ایزدوبار گذاشت. ما اکنون به او گیلگمش میگوییم. او دریافت که در افسانه های ایزدوبار روایتی از طوفان وجود دارد و درباره اش در انجمن باستانشناسی کتاب مقدس در لندن سخنرانی کرد. شور زیادی ایجاد شد، روایتی از طوفان بود که بسیار به سفر پیدایش (داستان نوح) شبیه بود. این متن کامل نبود. دیلی تلگراف هزار گینی برای سفر جرج اسمیت پرداخت تا به عراق برود و قطعه گمشده را بیابد (انگار به همین راحتی است). اسمیت دو بار به نینوا رفت و واقعا توانست قطعه گمشده طوفان را بیابد (هر چند باورکردنی نباشد). البته این تکه گیلگمش نبود (خودش در آن زمان نمیدانست) روایت طوفان دیگری بود که بخشی از شعر بلند دیگری بود.  (D(aily) T(elegraph) 42 found by Smith at Ninevah in 1873) (1876: Smith buys 1000 Late Babylonian tablets in Baghdad - 1878-82: British Museum buys at least 20/000 Babylonian tablets) چنان این کشف موفقیت آمیز بود که دیلی تلگراف فورا از ادامه پشتیبانی مالی منصرف شد. اسمیت به بغداد رفت و الواح زیادی را خرید. اینان الواح آشوری از شمال (موصول) نبودند، بلکه الواح متفاوتی از جنوب و از گونه دیگری بودند. اما متن مشترک بود (همان گیلگمش). موزه بریتانیا قطعات بسیاری را خرید. مردم عادی از کوهها آنان را جمع آوری میکردند و میفروختند. بعدا هرمزد رسام به آنجا رفت (Aquiring 50/000 tablets in Babylonia) پس در موزه بریتانیا در حدود نود هزار لوح وجود داشت و تنها دو نفر که میتوانستند آنان را بخوانند. همین الان هم وضعیت همین است، آشورشناسی دو مشکل عمده دارد، تعداد خیلی زیادی لوح وجود دارد (در حدود نیم میلیون در موزه های جهان) و تنها چند نفر هستند که میتوانند آنان را بخوانند. به این طریق تضمین شده است که آشورشناسی تا ابد طول بکشد. تا حالا تنها توانسته ایم روی ده درصدِ این نیم میلیون کار کنیم. به گیلگمش برگردیم.(from Haupt's Das babylonische Nimrodepos (Leipzig, 1891-94))(Paul Haupt (1858-1926)) الواحی را که اسمیت با عنوان گیلگمش تشخیص داد مرد جوانی از آلمان به موزه بریتانیا آمد و همه شان را طراحی کرد، فقط طراحی و نه ترجمه. دانشوران به تحقیق ادامه دادند و قطعات بیشتری را بررسی کردند. (R C Thompson (1876-1941) - The epic of gilgamish (Oxford, 1930) - Mainly tablets from Ashurbanipal's library - a few Late Babylonian tablets from Rassam's acquisitions - three Old Babylonian tablets (18th century BC) - one 12th century tablet from Anatolia - all together 112 tablets and fragments known in 1930) زمانی که من در سال ۲۰۰۳ آغاز به کار کردم (217 sources extant in 2003- 184 Neo-Assyrian and Late Babylonian MSS - 33 second millennium tablets) هنوز قطعات تازه پیدا میشوند،   (Now 226 sources, and rising) خبرش را در روزنامه میبینید (ancient epic yields a new chapter) این قطعه در موزه سلیمانیه پیدا شد، بیشتر قطعات نه در باستانشناسی بلکه در موزه ها پیدا میشوند که هنوز قطعات زیادی هستند که دسته بندی نشده اند. این قطعه (موزه سلیمانیه) در بخش تحت کنترل کردها در عراق در سال ۲۰۱۲ به دست آمد و من و یکی از همکاران با فاصله کمی منتشرش کردیم و سپس در ۲۰۱۵ خبرش در روزنامه منتشر شد که میبینید. بلاگرها کامنتهای زیادی گذاشتند. یکی از آنها در history blog آقایی به اسم بورت است که فهمیده قطعه تازه ای از گیلگمش پیدا شده و نگران شده است. گفته «به خاطر همه خوبیها در جهان، متنهای تازه را با صدای بلند نخوانید. باعث میشوید «افراد کهن» فرا خوانده شوند. حداقل به زبان اصلی نخوانیدشان، فکر نمیکنم That Which Shan't Be Named انگلیسی بداند». That Which Shan't Be Named از نظر او بابلی بلد است. امیدوارم بورت اینجا نباشد چون بخشی از آن را به اصل بابلی خواهیم خواند. (رویکرد سوم) این قطعاتی را که در باستانشناسی پیدا میکنیم به عنوان یک آشورشناس چه کار میکنیم تا بتوانیم شعر را بخوانیم؟ ... (خواندن متن بابلی (37:05))(Gilgamesh XI 101-6) نمیدانم بابلیها متوجه میشوند که چه خواند یا نه اما وقتی خود ما آشورشناسها برای هم میخوانیم، میفهمیم. ترجمه متن این است (در تصویر) آن بخشی از داستان است که اوتنپیشتی برای گیگلمش داستان طوفان را تعریف میکند، روایت اول شخص، و او این تصویر را ارائه میکند از آغاز طوفانی که باعث سیل شد. ساختار شعر بابلی (39:17) (رویکرد چهارم - هنر شاعر) (The seduction of Enkidu: Babylonian)(SB Gilgamesh I 188-98, ed. George 2003: 548-51)(40:35) (OB Gilgamesh BM+VAM iii 8-14)(43:45)  (َAt the end of the world)(44:16) (Wise advice: OB VAM+BM iii)(45:44) (رویکرد آخر (پنجم))(46:34) (At the end of the world)(46:52) (Prologue - Tablet I 1-10)(47:55) (Prologue, end - Tablet I 18-28) (49:50) (The wisdom of Utanapishti: Death - Tablet X 301-7)(52:47)   (The wisdom of Utanapishti: the Mayfly - Tablet X 308-15)(54:23)   (The wisdom of Utanapishti: Destiny - Tablet X 316-22)(56:04)
RousouR (بحث) ‏۹ مارس ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۰۲ (UTC)
thread_title:  اندرو جرج 

message: صحبت من درباره ارتباط پادشاهی و جاودانگی در نسخه معیار اکدی حماسه گیلگمش است. از نظر من حماسه از چندین مرحله گذر می‌کند که در آنان به نظر می‌آید جاودانگی قابل دستیابی است اما در نهایت همگی یک به یک رد می‌شوند. دقیقتر بگویم: داستان با سرآغازی شروع می‌شود که دیوار اورک که گیلگمش ساخته  و خود شهر اوروک در آن حضور دارند و در نسخه نئوآشوری که در نیمرود پیدا شده است ارجاع دیگری نیز به صندوق لوحی اشاره می‌شود که در پای دیوار دفن شده است و داستان قهرمانیهای گیلگمش در آن است. در این نقطه از داستان اهمیت دیوار و لوح و ارتباطش با جاودانگی اصلا روشن نمی‌شود. داستان با ماجراهای گیلگمش و و رفیقش انکیدو ادامه پیدا می‌کند که در آن هومبابا و نرگاو آسمان را از پای در می‌آورند. اگر قرار بوده است این قهرمانیها برای گیلگمش و انکیدو نوعی از جاودانگی (مشهور بودن) را به همراه داشته باشد اما فاجعه‌ای که با الهه ایشتار پیش می‌آید، قضیه منتفی می‌شود. سپس گیلگمش به جستجوی قهرمان طوفان می‌رود تا از اوتنپیشتیم راز جاودانگی شخصی را دریابد. در اینجا نیز قضیه به شکست می‌انجامد که شکست دیگری را نیز در پی دارد (از دست دادن گیاه بازجوانی). در پایان داستان در لوح XI دیوار اوروک و خود شهر را دوباره می‌بینیم که بازمی‌گردند. و این بازگشت دیوار و شهر در پایان داستان پس از آنکه در سرآغاز نیز آمده بودند، نشانگر اهمیت آنان است. به نظر می‌رسد پاسخی برای پرسش دایمی جاودانگی باشند. جاودانگی به صورت نه یک بی‌مرگی فردی بلکه به صورت ساختاری فیزیکی نمایش می‌یابد که گیلگمش از خود بر جای می‌گذارد. اما همین پاسخ نیز پاسخی نهایی نیست. به دو شکل خراب می‌شود: یکی آنکه با لوح XII ادامه پیدا می‌کند (هزاره اول پیشا دوران مشترک، نسخه معیار). در آن تصویری از جهان زیرین است که انکیدو بازگو می‌کند (در لوح VII و در رویای دوم انکیدو پیشبینی شده بود). انکیدو که شبیه به مرگ شده است به نوعی در جهان پس از مرگ زنده است اما شرایط جهان زیرین وحشتناک و غیرقابل تحمل و ناخواستنی است. جهان زیرین نمی‌تواند پاسخی برای پرسش جاودانگی باشد. دوم آنکه دوباره ظاهر شدن دیوار و شهر اوروک در پایان لوح XI ما را دوباره به دیوار و شهر اوروک در سرآغاز در لوح I برمی‌گرداند که حداقل در نسخه نئوآشوری نمرود با دیوار پایان نمی‌یابد بلکه به سراغ صندوق لوحی می‌رود که در پای دیوار دفن شده است. در درون آن لوح قهرمانیهای گیلگمش اهمیتی دوباره پیدا می‌کند زیرا محتویات آن هر روایتی نیست بلکه خود حماسه گیگلگمش است. به زبانی دیگر، تنها دیوار و شهر اوروک نیست که با جاودانگی گیلگمش ارتباط پیدا می‌کند بلکه این جاودانگی در نهایت در به جای ماندن داستانِ به دنبال جاودانگی بودن، دنبال می‌شود: پس حماسه درباره خودِ حماسه و جاودانگی آن است. اما همین نیز پایان نیست. باید بپرسیم چه نوعی از جاودانگی است که در حماسه درباره حماسه بازگو می‌شود. مسلما جاودانگی شخصی نیست  که گیلگمش به دنبال آن است و اگر جاودانگی غیرشخصی است چیزی که ارائه می‌شود جستجویی بی‌ثمر برای به جای ماندن شخصی است. حتی بیش از این  اگر در پایان داستان حماسه دوباره به آغاز آن برمی‌گردیم پس این جستجوی بی‌حاصل دوباره از سرگرفته می‌شود. حلقه بی‌سرانجامی که به هیچ جا نمی‌رسد، نوعی از «روز گراندهاگ» که گیلگمش نقش بیل مری را دارد. دو نتیجه از این تحلیل می‌شود گرفت: یکی آنکه معنای جاودانگی در حماسه گیلگمش تداومی در تاریخ نسخه‌های حماسه است که جایگزین یکدیگر شده‌اند. دوم آنکه در کل این جستجو سایه‌ای از شک بر پادشاهی به آن صورت که گیلگمش بوده می‌اندازد (پادشاهی الهی)(ویلیام موران). خلاصه آنکه حماسه گیلگمش نه تنها حماسه‌ای درباره خود است بلکه حماسه‌ای است که خود را رد می‌کند.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۹ مارس ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۱۳ (UTC)
thread_title:  پیتر مشنیست 

message: در ادامه بحث پیتر مشنیست درباره گیلگمش و پادشاهی، درباره انکیدو و به خصوص در بخش جنگل سدر صحبت می‌کنم. در بین‌النهرین باستان سفر برای به دست آوردن درخت سدر، فعالیت اقتصادی و سیاسی بسیار مهمی بوده است (خواندن نامه یک معمار به سارگن دوم برای آنکه پیامدهای ساختن بنا با درخت بدرد نخور را به پای او ننویسند و مجازاتش نکنند و از شاه نامه‌ای بگیرد که از او خواسته بنا را با همام درخت‌های موجود (صنوبر) و نه درخت سدر بسازد). پادشاهان برای به دست آوردن سدر یا به غرب ایران و یا پس از آن به لبنان می‌رفتند. پس کار گیلگمش، سنت قدیمی‌ای است که یک پادشاه باید انجام می‌داده است. این بخش از حماسه برای پادشاه حاضر جذاب بوده، اما اکثر حاضران پادشاه و یا خانواده‌اش نبودند. کاتبان، بوروکراتها و مشاوران پادشاه بودند که انکیدو را شبیه به خود می‌یافتند (طبقه مدیریتی متخصص). چیزی که در بخش درخت سدر (و نیز در بخش ایشتار) خواهیم دید این است که انکیدو هر بار در نقشی که باید به عنوان همراه و مشاور پادشاه بر عهده بگیرد، شکست می‌خورد. او باید گیلگمش سرسخت را از کار خود بازدارد: از حمله به هومبابا که خدای بزرگ انلیل منصوبش کرده است، بزرگان شهر تلاش می‌کنند او را از این کار بازدارند، خود انکیدو هم حتی می‌گوید نباید این کار را انجام دهیم. پادشاه سرخت اصرار می‌کند و انکیدو رضایت می‌دهد. گیلگمش سپس پشت سر هم رویاهای هشداردهنده می‌بیند (نباید این کار را انجام دهی) خواب آتشفشان می‌بیند، خواب حمله نرگاو، عقابی با سر شیر، تبری بر وی می‌افتد. ترس او را فرا می‌گیرد و از انکیدو درباره خواب خود می‌پرسد. این خواب‌ها معنایش چیست؟ اینجا است که انکیدو راه سقوط خویش را در پیش می‌گیرد. او در دام تله سنتی مشاور یک اتوکرات می‌افتد. همان چیزی را می‌گوید که پادشاه می‌خواهد بشنود. خوابها را تفسیر مسخره‌ای می‌کند: گیلگمش همان نرگاو قوی است (در حالی که کاملا در تضاد با آن در خواب این نرگاو است که به گیلگمش حمله کرده است). زمانی که به جنگل سدر می‌رسند انکیدو کاملا در کارهایش جوشی می‌شود و در زمانی که هومبابا را به اسارت در می‌آورند، کاملا بی‌رحم است. هیولا برای رحم کردن به او التماس می‌کند، می‌گوید هدایای گرانبها به آنها خواهد دادبادآوری می‌کند که انلیل نگاهدار او است. گیلگمش تمایل به بخشیدن او دارد (این مساله واقعا از جنبه سیاسی مهم است. با گروهی که بر آنها غلبه کرده‌اید چه می‌کنید؟ نابودشان می‌کنید یا کنار می‌آیید؟) انکیدو می‌گوید باید او را در جا بکشند، نگران خشم انلیل نباشند و برای آنکه اصلا کار به خشم او کشانده نشود، سریعتر عمل کنند تا خبر به او نرسد. گیلگمش به صحبت انکیدو گوش می‌کند و سر هومبابا را جدا می‌کند. هیولا قبل از جدا شدن سرش نفرینشان می‌کند که همراه با یکدیگر پیر نشوند. این داستانی است که به زمان سومریان برمی‌گردد. این بخش از داستان بازتاب فشاری است که مشاوران پادشاهان با آن مواجه هستند. می‌خواهد گیلگمش و انکیدو باشد و یا جرج دبلیو بوش و کولین پاول. به پادشاه چیزی را می‌گویند که پادشاه می‌خواهد بشنود. انکیدو بارها در انجام نقش درست خود شکست می‌خورد و نتیجه‌اش مرگ وی است. پس از جنبه حاضرین و شنوندگان حماسه (مثلا در نینوا) که در زیر شعله‌های مشعل در جشن آشوربانی‌پال در کاخ به آن گوش می‌دهند، بخشی از حماسه درباره قهرمانی‌های پادشاه است. برای مشاوران آشور بانی‌پال، حماسه به همان اندازه داستانی هشداردهنده درباره تراژدی انکیدو است.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۹ مارس ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)
thread_title:  دیوید دمراش 

message: سخنرانی اندرو جرج (۲۰۱۶) ایرن وینتر: امکان یافتن چیزهای جدید درباره حماسه و ناکامل بودن آن، از این جنبه شباهتی با هومر و کتاب مقدس ندارد. تصاویر ممکن است که با حماسه در ارتباط باشند. سه اثر هنری در سه رسانه مختلف (از هزاره دوم تا هزاره اول). تکرار بارها و بارها و بارها. هومبابا. صورت عجیب. سر گورگن در یونان. پاهای خمیده. نرگاو آسمان (انکیدو با سه حلقه مو- گیلگمش شهری و انکیدوی وحشی). رجوع به دوره بابلی باستان تا دریابد در آن ماجرا چه بوده و نه در نسخه‌های متاخر. فضای آنان متفاوت است و زمانی که حماسه آغاز گشت  بیشتر درباره حاکم است (دوره آغاز تمدن و شکل‌گیری دولت). یک حاکم خوب. در نسخه‌های متاخر جستجوی فردی و سرنوشت بشری برجسته می‌شود. کتیبه نارام‌سین.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۹ مارس ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۲۶ (UTC)
thread_title:  ایرن وینتر