Customer Reviews

The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I ordered the hardcover edition of this book from ... , and it is unfortunate that it is not readily available in the US. At least the softcover edition is now available, and worth acquiring for anyone interested in a glimpse of what life-and thought-was like nearly 4000 years ago. I was unaware, before reading this volume, that Gilgamesh, despite it's significance and popularity in its day, does not come down to us in any complete form. George provides both a background of the civilization that produced Gilgamesh and also a history of the various partial versions that have survived and been found. Throughout the text he is careful to explain where different versions disagree, where he has interpolated fragments from other versions to fill gaps, and where no known version exists. He appends translations of various fragments and of earlier Sumerian poems of "Bilgames". While lacking the completeness, and therefore coherence, of the Homeric epics, George's translation of Gilgamesh offers at least a peephole, if not truly a window, into a civilization very far removed from ours. Despite the distance the desires and fears-particularly the fear of death-expressed seem very human and recognizable. In fact, and in spite of, the archaic structure of the verse, Gilgamesh seems more human to me than many of the semi-divine heros of Homer. Certainly not light reading, but very much worth the time and effort.

Not having read scores of Gilgamesh translations, I really don't know how many stars to give this one, but I am very happy with it. In addition to giving a 'complete' version, mainly from Standard Babylonian texts from the Nineveh library but supplemented from other sources (even Hittite editions) for the sake of having a complete story, the book publishes in separate chapters, older, more fragmentary sources. Even Sumerian versions are covered. Also, in the beginning is an excellent treatment of the history of the rebirth of the Gilgamesh epic and the state of cuneiform translation and research in general. No speculation about the epic on literary or religious levels is given. George doesn't bother to tell us about the literary or historical relationship of Gilgamesh to the bible, nor does he try to use the epic to define for us Mesopotamian religion. He is simply interested in providing a good translation and is very thorough and scientific in cataloguing his sources and judgment calls, yet he hands us a lively and fluid English text.

Andrew George gives you the best of both worlds. He reprints the Old Babylonian version of Gilgamesh, which I find the poetry to be gritty, raw and exciting. (. . . until the maggot dropped from his nose.) He also gives you the newer versions of the story,including tablets 11 and 12. I found that these two additions to the story, written at a later date, did not quite match the OB version. Each version twisted the story from the original Man vs. Hero, into Man vs. King and then Man vs. God. I do believe, though, that this is the best of any Gilgamesh book you will read.

So many translations are either painful transliterations, coming from someone who knows the language better than his mother tongue; or they arwe car-crash renderings into a stale "academica-eese." Andrew George manages to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis in this translation. I hope more people with the "gift of tongues" can add some honey like Seamus Heany did in his beautiful rendfering of Beowulf a few years of god. These stories are beautiful, and we need to transpose that beauty in to English.

I love the format of this book. It has the standard text of Gilgamesh, but has copies of all the alternate texts and readings, so you are getting the full whammie with the book. George also included maps, "dramatis personae," helpful chronologies, a glossary of the oddf names you read in the story, adn a publication history. His essay on "from tablet to stone" is helpul in expalining all the lacunae and the gaps in the poem.

I love the illustrations which seve as a sweet spice to the text you are reading. You can actually picture Gilgamesh moving in the ancient Babylonian realm, going forth conquoring and to conquor.

This book is designed for college level reading, and it more than delivers with all of the goodies. You rarely see a book this good, that hits all of the targets in tyhe right way. I hope that other ancient texts get a similar five star treatment.

You wouldn't think a 4000-year old story about a dead king would be that interesting or exciting, but actually, I enjoyed this book. The story is the archetypal heroic epic, and has been useful for learning about everything from ancient Mesopotamian beliefs and customs to tracking changes in the traditional scribal curriculum in ancient Akkadia and Sumeria.

Speaking of people getting excited, the translater, Andrew George, says a dignified and emminent 19th-century British archaeologist ran naked through his lab when he realized he was the first person in perhaps 2000 years to read an original copy of the story of Noah, once thought to be part of the Epic of Gilgamesh (we now know this isn't true).

George also makes the interesting claim that the text is the oldest written text accessible to a modern reader without special archaeological or scholarly knowledge. I found this was borne out by the actual reading, as Gilgamesh's actions and motivations are very easy to understand--he is concerned with fundamental issues of life and death--honor, loyalty, friendship, fear, loss, happiness, and so on.

I also enjoyed some of the historical details George provides in the introduction. By 1800 BC, during the time of Hammurabi, Sumerian, which had once been the dominant language in the more advanced, urban south, had died out, leaving only Akkadian, which had been more prevalent in the more rural north. Up till that time, most citizens in the area were accustomed to speaking both languages in their day-to-day affairs. Sumerian still retained the prestige of the scholarly and historical language, however, and in the written scribal curriculum.

We actually have clay tablets that go back as far as 2600 BC, according to George, but he points out that these texts are very difficult to translate and understand. It's thought that this is because the language was still making the transition to a full written language, and that this process was incomplete at that time, an interesting theory.

An interesting character George discusses is the ancient King Shulgi, who lived around 2000 BC. Shulgi prided himself on both his educational and cultural accomplishments, as well as his athletic and physical prowess, bragging about about his excellence as a student in the scribal schools and as the patron and creator of important public libraries. Shulgi is reminiscent of Gilgamesh and perhaps the king consciously modeled himself after the legendary hero of the famous epic.

Anyway, the introduction and epic made for more interesting reading than I had imagined.

vor wenigen tagen (5. september 2000) ist eine neue gilgamesch-übertragung bei penguin erschienen, die die bisherige, von chr. lindenberg mir noch persönlich empfohlene übertragung [besser: nacherzählung!] von n.k. sandars nun definitiv abgelöst hat. ich habe sie mir gestern aus dem tempel des (an-)stössigen stiers, dem cour khorsabat, mitgebracht: genial. kleiner wehrmustropfen: zwar werden (nach 4800 jahren!) auch erstmalig alle sex&crime-scenes übersetzt ('while the two of them together were making love', P 46, gemeint sind, um missverständnissen vorzubeugen, shamhat und enkidu); bei schott (reclam) heisst es noch: 'endlich wurden hier und da (...) in unserer übersetzung unerträglich scheinende sachliche und sprachliche härten gemildert...'. die namen der götter wurden zwecks besserer lesbarkeit jedoch aus dem text bereinigt. (Bsp: I 109: 'coated in hair like the god of animals' muss heissen: '...like sumukan').

A very interesting story of the flood that predates the Bible. The Bible's version of the flood most likely came from a older source, the Sumarian version of the flood came first.