A NEW EDITION OF GILGAMESH AND AKKA.

• Author: Vanstiphout, Herman L. J.
• Position: Review

The study under review, which is compact and handsomely produced, consists basically of two parts. First we have a general introduction, presenting the tale and discussing succinctly the history of publication, the literary structure, the materials of the plot and textual problems. Somewhat more detailed are discussions of three topics the author deemed of special importance: the historicity of the composition, the literary traditions concerning the war, and the governmental institutions and their historicity. The introduction ends with a brief literary and chronological evaluation. The second part of the book is devoted to the text. After a list (which regrettably does not describe the manuscripts) we find a detailed discussion of the affiliation of the manuscripts; then the text is presented in transliteration and translation, with a notice of variant readings and half a page of commentary. The book ends with a bibliography and a glossary.

On the whole the language is clear and adequate, although there are a number of solecisms and not quite idiomatic turns of phrase that might have been avoided; for example, the strange title of section 6: "The historicity of the composition,"(1) and what, if anything, is "exact literal meaning" (p. 4 n. 13)? Typographic errors are few: I have noted "followes" on p. 3; "occurence" on p. 6; "foudation" on p. 9; "scholing" on p. 19; "an usurper" on p. 31 (twice).

The text is presented as a composite, based mainly on MSS a and b, but there are a few pages of eclectic remarks on variant readings. This editorial policy is acceptable on the ground that, as the author says, a and b seem to represent the same tradition (p. 38), which, as J. Cooper pointed out ("Gilgamesh and Agga," JCS 33 [1981]: 224-39), is superior to the other manuscripts. Yet the provenance of MS a is unknown; it does not look like a Nippur text and it is in any case not identical to MS b. Unfortunately this policy results in some places in nonexistent lines (see below ad 1.42). These things may not always be very important, but they might have been clearly noted in the presentation of the text and not just relegated to the commentary on pp. 46-48, which does not always give sufficient information (and is sometimes misleading: see the comments on p. 47 ad 1. 42, and compare with my remarks below ad 1.42). Furthermore, where MSS a and b disagree, it is not made clear why in some instances MS a is preferred over MS b or vice versa (compare 1.42 to lines 94-95). In the absence of a score, or a discussion of the relevant variants, the following notes might be useful.

In 1.1 it would have been more prudent to say that MS c has ak- rather than "aka for ak-[[ka.sub.3]]" (p. 46 ad 1.1); furthermore, MS d has either [[-gi.sub.4]]-a -ka, or -[[gi.sub.4]] a-ka, or, possibly, [-a] a-ka. In 1.2 there seems to be no reason for not reading [[re.sub.6]] for [DU] in MS c. In 1. 3, I read [[-uru.sup.ki]]-[na]-[se.sub.3] in MS f. In 1. 6 (re)collation seems indicated for MS d: on the copy the third sign looks like a clear TI, but the one following looks like TIL; the erasure and the spelling in the next line argue for TI.TI corrected into TIL.TIL, with incomplete erasure of the first TI. In 1. 8 MS a has an unequivocal ga-[am.sub.3]-ma-[sig.sub.3]-ge-en-[de.sub.3]-en. In 1.10 MS a has mu-na-ni-[[ib.sub.2]]-[gi.sub.4]-[gi.sub.4]. In 1.17 no text has nu-umma-[gid.sub.2]; the [UM] in MS a is possible, but not certain. Conforming to the author's stated policy (p. 46 fn. 1), I propose to read nu-um-[gid.sub.2] with MS b. In 1.24 the "restoration" of RA after dGilgames should be indicated as dGilgames, since no MS has the space for [-ra]. In 1.27 note that the signs for HAS and ANSE are nearly identical to UNUG and KIS in the Old Babylonian script (I owe this observation to Niek...