Notes on "Lugalbanda and Enmerkar"

Abstract

IN 1971, SAMUEL NOAH KRAMER OFFERED A DETAILED ANALYSIS of the ambiguities of the plot of and in a review' of Claus Wilcke's edition of the tale.2 While he acknowledged that Wilcke's editio princeps required modifications to his own earlier views of the story, Kramer offered a critique of Wilcke's interpretation. Kramer concluded that while no single interpretation solved all difficulties, Assyriologists would now be able to judge the evidence for themselves. My interest in this composition arose during a close examination of all tablets in the University Museum, Philadelphia, belonging to and Enmerkar.3 I take this opportunity to publish the resulting notes as well as to reflect on the structure of the story. Discussions of the plot of and have centered on three problems: 1) the relationship of this tale to other heroic tales about Lugalbanda and Enmerkar; 2) the relationship of the first half of the story to the second half; and 3) the interpretation of the different versions of the second half of the story.4 The primary contribution I would like to make here is a redefinition of the issues related to these three areas of inquiry. This would be especially useful for the third question, where Wilcke's and Kramer's views are stalemated. One Lugalbanda Epic or Two? pp. 5-8, has suggested that and may be only the second half of a composition, the first half being the tale which he named im Finstersten des Gebirges, Kramer calls Lugalbanda, the Wandering Hero, while others speak of it as and Hurrum(-kurra) as well as and I.'5 Both Kramer and J. Klein6 have adequately rebutted all of Wilcke's arguments in favor of one epic except the question of why and (II) seems to start in medias res. That is, how did Lugalbanda become lost and what is the origin of Enmerkar's difficulties? The story appears to start in medias res from an occidental point of view. Many non-Western and even occidental narratives appear to us to start abruptly. Consider this case. According to a given story, a certain king mounts an expedition against a distant city, lays siege to it without success, and finally finds victory through the extraordinary efforts of one of his lieutenants. There is also a story about this lieutenant and his wanderings through hostile regions in his attempt to find his family and friends. Furthermore, we cannot understand why the lieutenant was lost and wandering unless we know the first story about the war. Shall we dare call the Iliad and the Odyssey two halves of one epic? The case for only one Lugalbanda ' Acta Orientalia 33 (1971), 363-78 (hereafter cited as Kramer, p. ...). 2 Das Lugalhantlaepos 1969 (hereafter cited as Wilcke, p..). A list of reviews of Wilcke's edition, as well as some collations and additional texts, was published by Wilcke himself in Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur in tier Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena [Abhandlungen der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. KI., Band 65, Heft 4], 1976 (hereafter cited as Wilcke, Kollationen, p..). Add to this H. Sauren, OLZ, 68 (1973), 580-86; and the comments by S. Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, Dissertation University of Pennsylvania, 1973 (hereafter cited as Cohen, ELA2), 7, 9, 19-21, 23-25. Among the various reviews, J. Bauer's is very useful for his many corrections to typographical errors and readings. J. Klein's supplements Kramer's discussion of ambiguous lines. M. Civil's contains references to new texts, a few philological notes and general comments on text editions. 3 Together with Prof. Ake W. Sjdberg, whose guidance and advice I gratefully acknowledge here. More than a few of his suggested readings have been incorporated in this paper. 4 See notes I and 2. ' As distinct from our story, called and 11 (or simply and Enmerkar). This numeration does not imply an organic unity between the compositions. 6 JAOS 91 (1971), 297.