Blogtrotter

Gilgamesh: Two versions reviewed

Andrew George's: I recommend this Penguin Classic, but it offers more thorough scholarly apparatus than usual for the series. This is not meant as a criticism! But, a beginner may find a "version" such as Stephen Mitchell's easier to start with for an overview of the storyline, and a briefer introduction and helpful endnotes. The poem itself is not lengthy, but the ancillary texts and sources, as Andrew George shows us, do take up considerable space which may please enthusiasts but discourage newcomers to this epic poem.

George prepared for Oxford UP in 1999 a two-volume edition, and this Penguin adapts the core of the English translation for a wider audience. It appears ideal for a college classroom or the reader wanting to learn more about the lacunae, the gaps, the language, and the editorial decisions made by George and fellow translators. A fascinating appendix shows how out of grammatical markers, syllabic, and half-syllabic cuneiform incisions the sounds and rhythms and absences that fill this most ancient of narratives turn into what we can understand. To a point.

Terms such as "louvre-door," "glacis-slope," "hie to the forge," and notably Ishtar's exhortation to "stroke my quim" give a rather archaic diction to parts of the translation. George aims obviously for precision in such terminology, but this does clash with the more demotic vernacular chosen by Mitchell in his popularization. Mitchell's also considerably more erotic and develops passages that in their original state, reading George, remain terse. Again, George approaches the thousands of fragments that are still being assembled nearly 150 years after their discovery and observes that this epic is still, amazingly and poignantly, one in progress as we await trained Assyriologists able to decipher not only the later Akkadian but the considerably more challenging and often cryptic Sumerian sources. It's a shame that in a region where so many billions have been spent to destroy the area between the Tigris & Euphrates that a few thousands can not be provided for the study and restoration of the oldest story text we have ever found.

Stephen Mitchell's:

I read Mitchell's freer version immediately after Andrew George's Penguin Classic (also reviewed by me). Readers need to remember how incomplete our Gilgamesh story remains for us today. The plot breaks or perplexing contexts are not the fault of its translators or retellers. George-- editor of the first scholarly edition in English-- meticulously keeps the brackets and the italics that expose modern concessions to our ignorance. The two-thirds of the epic estimated that we have today fills with conjectures; the spaces, and the breaks intervene over thousands of years to keep us from the complete epic that once existed. I wonder if may still be revived among the thousands of untranslated tablets that keep being unearthed.

Mitchell admits his lack of Akkadian and his reliance on experts. Many criticize Mitchell's attempt; he has a long career -- reminding me of Ezra Pound's efforts to render the archaic Chinese into vibrant English despite his lack of academic training-- in popularizing scholarly effort so a wider audience can enjoy the tales vigorously and fluently told. So, be warned that this is not a crib or a line-by-line equivalence. This being said, in his defense, the endnotes Mitchell provides often show carefully how he has changed the original word-for-word translations into more poetic form. He retells, therefore, an exciting and moving tale.

Most beginners-- thus educated-- may find a "version" such as Stephen Mitchell's easier to start with for an overview of the storyline, and a briefer introduction-cum-commentary and helpful textual notes that follow the story proper. The poem itself is not lengthy, and can be read easily. From here, moving on to more accurate translations could reward the still curious. But, for many who want the story and not the scholarship, the sufficient introduction, comments, and glossary here will satisfy the curious first-time reader.

I returned to this after thirty-plus years and profited from a mature encounter with a text that for a teenager proved too enigmatic. Intriguingly, talking with my own fourteen-year-old son who had read the poem for school, he found Gilgamesh and Enkidu far more recognizably like ourselves than stoic Beowulf or stern Aeneas! Many want also to bowdlerize or censor the few sexual encounters, but I defend Mitchell's claims for the primacy of the civilizing power of the erotic as dramatized sparely but evocatively in the suggestive verse. Speaking of relevance for teens, the slanging sparring verbal showdown between Inanna and Gilgamesh rivals any rapper's challenge today.

George aimed for precision in his translation, and while I liked the careful results, they did aim at academics in their vocabulary. which tended occasionally towards the overly technical or remained awkward. Mitchell chooses more explicit terms for action; he shows an awareness to entertain the reader whereas George may seek to inform the student. Mitchell's also considerably more erotic and develops passages that in their original state, reading George, remain terse. So, be aware of these crucial differences between the more accurate and the more vivid words.

Reviewers have shown surprise that Mitchell makes reference to the current destruction in Iraq. Yet, the irony that this tale is set amidst death, the longing to be one with the gods, battles with fearsome foes, contentious marketplaces, angry citizens, and terrifying journeys shows how narratives of human concerns age but little. The story cannot be properly blamed for its leaps in events or jumps between settings. We must remember that a third of the tale is not in our possession, so neither Mitchell or the anonymous tellers can bear fault for the ravages of time and our own lack of understanding of the nuances of Sumerian!

George observes that this epic is still, amazingly and poignantly, one in progress as we await trained Assyriologists able to decipher not only the later Akkadian but the considerably more challenging and often cryptic Sumerian sources. Mitchell reminds us in what Rilke called "the epic of the fear of death" how mortality in its cradle, here amidst one of the earliest civilizations in the Middle East, remains open to violence and ravages today. It's humbling and necessary to learn from such a fragile literary moral and a long-attenuated cultural heritage. It's a shame that in a region where so many billions have been spent to destroy the area between the Tigris & Euphrates that a few thousands can not be provided for the study and restoration of the oldest story text we have ever found.

Apologies for any overlap, but the two reviews lap at each other's shores. Here's the encounter of the "hierodule" Shámhat with Enkidu-- the wild man tamed between a woman's legs-- from a great depiction of Mitchell's lecture on his version as illustrated by Gordon McAlpin at http://www.strippedbooks.com/comics/stripped03/gilgamesh01.html