Paradoxical Military Operations: lines 69-81 This is where it gets complicated. Previously we had noticed conflicting interpretations of key parts of this myth in the works of Kramer [1963] and Jacobsen [1987], and the question remained who ultimately to refer to. Alternatively one could also refer to the Etcsl versions particularly on the military skirmish part of this myth. So Ive determined the only way to flush out who was more right, or what is "correct" as it currently stands, was an overview of the interpretation of the myth over the decades. If your just joining this discussion, it may be helpful to pick up your nearest copy of "Gilgamesh and Agga" and give it a once over, or read it at
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.1.1 . In particular note also the Bibliography found in the transliteration. (This might get...long)
The first publication of the myth appeared in the American Journal of Archaeology, 1949, an article by S.N. Kramer entitled "Gilgamesh and Agga" (with comments by Thorkild Jacobsen.) As will become apparent their interpretational differences were there from the beginning. Here is some of Kramers introductory sketch then:
AJA 1949
Kramer/Jacobsen "Agga, the king of Kish, has sent envoys to Gilgamesh in Erech (lines 1-2); The purpose of the mission is not stated but the following context makes it certain that they brought an ultimatum demanding that the Erechites submit to Kish or take the consequences. Gilgamesh seeks the advice of elders and urges them for reasons that are far from clear, to fight rather then submit. (lines 3-8) *note 9*. But the elders are contrary with Kish rather then submission to its rule (lines 15-23). In a long statement ending with a eulogy of Gilgamesh and with highly encouraging words of victory, the assembly of "men" declare for war and independence. (lines 24-39). Gilgamesh is now well pleased; in a speech to Enkidu his servent and companion urging him to perhaps take up arms, he shows himself highly confident of victory over Agga (lines 40-47). In a very short time, however, Agga besieges Erech, and in spite of their brave words the Erechites are dumbfounded (lines 48-50) Gilgamesh then addresses the "heros" of Erech and asks for a volunteer to go before Agga (lines 51054). One Birhurturri readily volunteers; he is confident that he can confound Agga's judgement (55-58). No sooner does Birhurturri pass through the city gate, however, then he is seized, beaten, and brought before Agga. He begins to speak to Agga, but, before he is finished, another hero from Erech, one Zabar...ga by name, ascends the wall (lines 59-67). There now follows a series of passages which are of utmost importance for the understanding of the tale, but which, for reasons outlined in the commentary below, are difficult and obscure. Certain it is, nevertheless, that in some way Agga has been induced to take a more friendly attitude and probably lift the siege (lines 68-99). We then come to a certain passage whose meaning is quite certain; it consists of a address by Gilgamesh to Agga in which he thanks him for all his kindness (lines 100-106). The poem concludes with a paean of praise addressed to Gilgamesh (lines 107 to the end). "
note 9: "It is well to note at this point that our poem provides an excellent example of one of the major difficulties confronting the translator of the Sumerian unilingual material. Here is a composition whose text is in practically perfect condition; there is hardly a single word broken or missing. Moreover, the reading of almost all the signs is certain and so, too, is the meaning of most of the individual words. In spite of these favorable conditions, however, several crucial passages remain uncertain and obscure; c.f. particularly lines 5-7, a passage which is repeated in lines 11-14 and 20-22; lines 76-81 and the corresponding passages consists of their laconic style; the aphoristic, riddle-like character of their contents obscures, at least for the present, their real meaning."
[Translation of lines 57-107][Birhurturri:]
57: 'I would go to Agga
58: Verily his judgment will be confounded, verily his council will be dissipated.'
59: Birhurturri went out through the city gate
60. As Birhuturri went out through the city gate
61: They [*106] seized him at the entrance of the city-gate
62: Birhurturri - they crush his flesh
63: He was brought before Agga
64: He speaks to Agga
64: He had not finished his word (when) Zabar...ga ascends the wall;
66: He peered over the wall
67: He saw Agga
68: Birhurturri says to him [*107]
69: O servent of the stout man, thy king,
70: The stout man - is he not (also) my king?
71: "Verily the stout man, is my king
72: Verily it is in...his forehead
73: Verily it is in...his face
74: Verily it is in his beard of lapis lazuli
75: Verily it is in his gracious finger."
76: The multitude did not cast itself down the multitude did not rise
77: The multitude did not cover itself with dust
78: (the people) of all the foreign lands were not overwhelmed
79: On the mouths of (the people) of the land dust was not heaped
80: The prow of the magurra-boat was not cut down
81: Agga, the king of kish, restrained mot his soldierly heart.
82: They keep on striking him, they kept on beating him,
83: Birhurturri - they crush his flesh.
84: After Zabar...ga, Gilgamesh ascends toward the wall
85: Terror fell upon the old and young of Kullab,
86: The men of Erech held their battle weapons at their sides
87: The door of the city - they stationed themselves in its approaches
88: Enkidu went out toward the city-gate
89: Gilgamesh peered over the wall,
90: He saw Agga:
91: "O Servent of the stout man, thy king
92: The stout man is my king
93: As he spoke,
94: The multitude cast itself down, the multitude rose
95: The multitude covered itself with dust
96: (the people) of all the foreign lands were overwhelmed,
97: On the mouths of (the people) of the lands dust was heaped,
98: The prow of the magurru-boat was cut down
99: Agga, the king of kish, restrained his soldierly heart"
100: Gilgamesh, the lord of Kullab
101: Says to Agga:
102:"O Agga, my overseer. O Agga, my steward
103: O Agga, my army leader,
104: O Agga, the fleeing bird thou hast sated with grain,
105: O Agga, thou hast given me breath, thou has given me life
106: O Agga, thou bringst the fleeing man to rest."
107: Erech, the handiwork of the gods,
108: The great wall touching the sky,
109: The lofty dwelling place established by Anu
110: Thou has cared for, thou who art king (and) hero
111: O thou ...-headed, thou prince of Anu
112: Anu has set you free
113: Before Utu he has returned to thee the power of former days;
114: O Gilgamesh, lord of Kullab,
115: Thy praise is good.
note 106: "They" presumably refers to Agga's men"
note 107: "For the ambiguity involved in the "him" of this line, cf. the commentary to lines 68-75"
Kramers accompanying commentary on lines 68-75:"The meaning of this [segment] presumably contains the words uttered by Birhurturri in the hope of soothing Agga and inducing him to call off his men and lift the siege, is quite uncertain and obscure. One of the major difficulties results from the ambiguity of the "him" of line 68. If we assume that it refers to Agga, then Birhurturri seems to say to him that an individual described as a "stout man" is not only Agga's "king" but also his, that is, Birhurturri's. Presumably this "stout man" would be Gilgamesh, since the latter is not only Birhurturri's overlord, but also, as lines 102-103 seem to indicate, that of Agga as well. But just how was the statement expected to pacify Agga? Indeed if Agga recognized Gilgamesh as his king, why did he proceed against Erech in the first place? Another difficulty with this assumption is that it does not in any way explain the presence of Zabar...ga on the wall. Perhaps there we must assume the "him" of line 68 refers to Zabar...ga who is looking down on the scene from the wall, that Agga is the acknowledged king of both."
commentary on lines 70-81:
"The highly doubtful rendering of this passage assumes that Birhurturri's words had failed to satisfy Agga and his men, and that as a result the siege continued. The "multitude" of lines 76-77, the "people of all the lands" of line 79, if the translations are correct, all refer to Agga's motley host besieging Erech; the acts attributed to them in those lines are descriptive of their total indifference to Birhurturri's words. Line 80 may indicate that the siege was conducted by sea as well as land; just what the cutting down of the prow of the magurra boat signified, however, is not clear."
Us4-he2-gal2's note:
a) [Sovereignty in line 69] It seems at this time Kramer was undecided as to whether lines 68-75 indicate the overall sovereignty of Agga or Gilgamesh. He has Birhurturri referring to Agga as a servant of the stout king [Gilgamesh]. line 69
b) [Intent of the speech in lines 70-75] At this time he believes Birhurturri's words were interpreted as appeasing or placatory in nature (or soothing is the word used. Perhaps this interpretation is tied to problems of a)
c) [Nature of the action in lines 76-81] the 'multitude' action is portrayed as Predictive (anticipating the events to come) and is considered to refer to the action of Agga's men
d) [Victor of the battle] On reading Jacobsens closing comment (below) I recognized that Kramer believes in this time as well, 1949, that Agga is the victor, and translates "99. Agga, the king of kish, restrained his soldierly heart." This cause's the remaining lines 100-115 to be interpreted as Gilgamesh's recognition of a present tense mercy as opposed an event that occurred in the past. - thus Gilgamesh is submitting.]
Kramers appendix:In the appendix, Kramer relays that prior to publication he had sent the above work to Jacobsen, and Jacobsen's response is included in the appendix as well. The response was very insightful, and Kramer acknowledges a number of improvements, such as the contribution of the "reading of the hero's name in lines 68 and 84 as zabar-dib-unu[ku]-ga." Still he also comments on Jacobsens responses that "the suggested renderings of lines 25-28, 67-75, and 90-94 seem less certain; nevertheless they may prove to be closer to the truth then those of this writer."
Jacobsen: "Here are a few comments. I feel that the text is still full of difficulties and unsolved problems and I offer these suggestions in a very tentative fashion."
Jacobsen's commentary on lines 67-75: "The immediately preceding section is difficult to the extreme. Tentatively I suggest that we have parallelisms with the episode in line 84ff. This would mean that Birhurturra is the slave of Zabardibunuga (I would read the Sumerian signs for that name as zabar-dib-unu[ki]-ga), just as Enkidu is the slave of Gilgamesh. Lines 67-68 I would render as: "Agga saw him (Zabardibunuga), Birhurturri calls out to him (to his master, Zabardibunuga)." Line 69 I take to contain a question directed by Agga to Birhurturri, and is to be rendered: "Slave, is thy master the 'grain-giver'?" "Grain-giver" I take to be a title like "lord" which originally meant "the one who distributes the loaves." The "grain-giver" is the employer who distributes the grain rations, and refers to Gilgamesh, the ruler of Erech. In line 69, therefore, Agga is asking Birhurturri who is standing before him whether the man on the wall, really Zabardibunugi, is Gilgamesh. Birhurturri's answer is given in lines 70-75 which I would read as follows:
70. "My master is not the "grain-giver" (Gilgamesh)
71. Though my master might (as well) have been, the "grain-giver,"
72. Though it might as well have been his (Gilgamesh's) wrathful forehead
73. Though it might (as well) have been his bisons face
74. Though it might (as well) have been his dark blue beard
75. Though it might (as well) have been his gracious fingers.
Birhurturri states in this speech that his master is not "the lord" (i.e Gilgamesh), although he is so impressive in appearance (and valor) that it might well have been the lord at whom Agga was looking. For the meaning "through," cf GSG 439; for the third sign in line 71 read hus (!?); for the second sign in line 72 read alum (!?).
Turning now to the parallel passage in lines 84ff., I suggest that line 90 (cf line 66) is to be rendered: "Agga saw him (Gilgamesh)": that line 91 (cf line 68) is to be rendered "Slave, is thy master the "grain-giver?" and contains a question directed by Agga to Enkidu; that lines 92-93 contain Enkidu's answer and may be rendered in strict literalness, "It is like you said that my master is the 'grain-giver'." Grammatically this rendering of lines 91-92 is to be justified as follows: "It is" is for the final -am of gim-nam (gim(i)n-am); "like" is for gim(i)n, "what" is for the final -a of bi-in-dug4-ga; "you said" assumes that bi-in-dug4 is for bi-e-dug4; "that" is for the final -a of i-me-a; the rest of the sentence offers no grammatical difficulties.
As for the remainder of the story I am not able to give a substantiated account of my interpretation and rendering without further study, and so have nothing constructive to offer. I still believe Gilgamesh rather than Agga was victorious. But I can see why you feel obliged to take the opposite view."
[Us4-he2-gal2's note:
a) [Sovereignty in line 69] Due to differences in interpretation, perhaps especially who is talking to who in line 69, Jacobsen does not read into the same problems of sovereignty as Kramer poses here. His interpretation of line 69 avoids this altogether.
d) [Victor of the battle] Gilgamesh as victorious
**End of the Summation of the 1949 Entry**
Key Differences-You can really see that Sumerology is progressing, even in the span of one lifetime. In order to be remotely brief I will try and outline only the relevant changes/differences in interpretation of the works in question:
Kramer in 1965 from "the Sumerians" pg186:a) [Soveignty in line 69] Kramer now translates line 69 as "Slave, is that many your king?" The question is interpreted as being asked by Agga to Birhurturri (following Jacobsen possibly - this clears up the sovereignty confusion)
b) [Intent of the speech in lines 70-75] The idea of placation would seem to be abandoned by this time or isn't mentioned, though of course line 58 is still present indicating confounding. Confounding and placating are two different tactics..
c) [Nature of the action in lines 76-81] No change from 1949. The 'multitude 'action is portrayed as Predictive (anticipating the events to come) and is considered to be the action of Agga's men (pg.187 "Agga and his men continue to besiege Erech.")
d) [Victor of the battle] Kramer continues with Agga as the victor, still rendering line 99 as Agga's mercy (in this case his troops), and Gilgmesh's gratitude for this present tense mercy, even changing his 1949
"112: Anu has set you free" to 112. "Agga has set you free for the sake of Kish."
Jacobsen in 1987 sketch's a fascinating literary context for this myth, found in the introductory comments. Its apparent that the his early interpretation of line 69 "Slave, is thy master the 'grain-giver'" now reads "Slave, is your master the man from yonder?"
The man from yonder fits somewhat better into said literary context.
1987 from "The Harps that once..." Pg.345:b) [Intent of the speech in lines 70-75] Presumably in line with line 58 "May his doings be confused"
c) [Nature of the action in lines 76-81] The 'multitude' action in lines 76 -81 is seen as describing Girish-gurdur's (Birhurturri's) failed "sortie" - that sortie is preemptive of "Enkidu's sortie" that follows and is not the action of Agga's men.
d) [Victor of the battle] Jacobsen maintains Gilgmesh's victory, translating line 112. "He [Gilgamesh] let Aka go free to Kishi" which contrasts sharply here with Kramer on the same line. Also see below Klien comments
Further Improvements and Progress-I was ushered out of the library before being able to finish reviewing the following piece (summer hours). But even the first page I thought very noteworthy, Im sure the whole thing would have been better.
From "The Capture of Agga by Gilgames"
by Jacob Klien JAOS 1983
The auther refers to lines 70-81 and 92-99 using the term strophes:"When in 1949 Kramer published his edito princeps of Gilgamesh and Agga, relatively little was understood of the above two strophes. The concluding lines in these two parallel passages, which also constitute the climax of the epic, namely ll. 81 and 99, were rendered by Kramer as follows:
81. "Agga, the king of Kish, restrained not his soldierly heart."
92. "Agga, the king of Kish, restrained his soldierly heart."
Kramers translation of these lines, although grammatically defendable, makes little sense contextually, and deprives our epic of a crucial piece of information, without which the dramatic and unconventional end of the story is incomprehensible, namely that Agga is captured by Gilgamesh and his troops."
Klien also states that Jacobsen as early as 1957, made a significant improvement to these lines with the contention that "Gilgamesh and Enkidu make a successful sortie from beleaguered Uruk, penetrate the boat-camp of the attackers and take the leader Agga of Kish as captive. He translated 'Agga, king of Kish, at his (place in the ) center of the army he took captive'."
This cleared a way for an understanding of the end of the myth. Further contributions were made by Kramer, Falkenstein and Romer.
Origin of Bilgamesh/Akka over Gilgamesh/Agga-S. N. Kramers review of the work of
Wilhelm H Romer, "Das Sumerische Kurzepos: Bilgames and Akka."
from Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1982 I have read elsewhere of Romers work (1980) the goal of which was to include all the new texts, and incorporate in the commentary all the secondary literature with the interpretations of the composition, and especially to propose a new interpretation based on "three decades [of] progress in the field of Sumerian grammar and lexicography". (J. Cooper JCS 1981).
In his brief review of this work, Kramer expresses general enthusiasm for the "minutely detailed philological commentary" adding "he had thus succeeded in translating some of the text with more precision then his predecessors." However Kramer also comments
"Changing Gilgames to Bilgames and Agga to Akka may or may not be justified and judicious. But in any case it is of little help in interpreting and understanding some of the more crucial enigmatic passages, such as that involving the "completion of wells" (lines 5-7, 11-13, 20-22); or the ambiguous answer of the Assembly of the gurus of the city (line 25-28); or the seemingly paradoxical military operations depicted in lines 76-80 and 94-98; or the real meaning and historical implications of the concluding lines of the composition. But this is not Romers fault, these obscurities and ambiguities are due primarily to the remarkable and extraordinarily laconic, cryptic, epigrammatic, elusive style of the poet, and they will be cleared up only with the help of parallel passages in controllable contexts that may hopefully come to light in future years. Until then, this little book Will be the indispensable reference work for all scholars interested in the study of Gilgamesh and his times."
The Speech of lines 70-75 becomes the Speech of lines 70-81Jerrold S. Cooper JCS 1981In another review article of Romer's work this one by Jerrold S. Cooper, besides interesting praise and critique on the work in question, Cooper also provides his own translation of the epic, I believe to contrast some interpretational differences with Romer. Coopers version appears quite matured, and close to what is currently on the etcsl:
[Agga:]
69. "Slave is that man your king?
70. " That man is not my king!
71. "Were that man my king,
72. "Were that his angry brow,
73. "Were those his bison eyes,
74. "Were that his lapis beard,
75. "Were those his beneficial fingers
76. "Then would not multitudes fall, would not multitudes rise,
77. "Would not multitudes be covered with dust,
78. "Would not all the lands be overwhelmed
79. "Would not the mouths of the land('s people) be filled with dust,
80. "Would not the prows of the ships be torn off,
81. "Would not Agga, king of Kish, be taken captive in the midst of his troops? [note 48]"
note 48: "Since the same verbal prefix is used here as in the preceding lines, this line must still be part of Birhuture's answer to Agga."
Im thinking that since Cooper makes this point as a note, it may be intended as a correction to Romer's version and so may be the first time this assertion is made or published. The merging of the two segments into one speech results in some significant modifications in the interpretation of the military operations sequence.
b) [Intent of the speech in lines 70-75] The intent of the speech, placatory in 1949, later seemed to generally confounding in accordance with line 58. While the intent of the speech may still be to confound Agga here, the way the words and the confoundation are delivered now seem decidedly inflammatory as opposed placatory (which also works well with him being beaten in the following lines.)
c) [Nature of the action in lines 76-81] Coopers (?) recognition of the "verbal prefix" seems to have resulted in the two segments being merged, but also had the result that lines 76-81 not only are rendered in the negative (not), but also taking on a hypothetical (would not). This in contrast to Jacobsen's 1987 'was not'. ( 77. "Was not able to tumble the myriads in the dust.")
d) [Victor of the battle] Gilgamesh as victor was probably established by 1957, with the present level interpretations this seems to be firmly established, also Jacobsen's literary context is the best explanation I have seen for the relationship between Gilgamesh and Agga that follows the latter's submission.
A. George's work seems to follow these developments closely as does the translations at Etcsl:
70-81. "That man is not my king! Were that man my king, were that his angry brow, were those his bison eyes, were that his lapis lazuli beard, were those his elegant fingers, would he not cast down multitudes, would he not raise up multitudes, would multitudes not be smeared with dust, would not all the nations be overwhelmed, would not the land's canal-mouths be filled with silt, would not the barges' prows be broken, and would he not take Aga, the king of Kiš, captive in the midst of his army?"
