Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh

Bilgamesh?

In the more recent editions of Andrew George's translation, the Sumerian stories use the name Gilgamesh just like the Standard Babylonian version. Does that mean Andrew George's claim in the older editions that the Sumerian stories used "Bilgames" was incorrect? -- NetSpiker (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No, Bilgames is the Sumerian form; see the sources cited at Gilgamesh. Furius (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why was Bilgames changed to Gilgamesh in the more recent editions of the Sumerian translations? If Andrew George wanted to switch to using the more familiar Babylonian name throughout the book, then why were other Sumerian names like Huwawa, Inanna and An left unchanged? --NetSpiker (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You would have to ask Andrew George those questions, assuming he doesn't explain why in the newest editions or elsewhere. Ultimately, there's nothing we can do until reliable sources publish about it. Inferring anything from George changing (only) "Bilgamesh" to "Gilgamesh" would be original research. Woodroar (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

who is his husband?

• cought*

31.47.11.97 (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I like how this article describes Enkidu as Gilgamesh's "friend". Especially since both Old Babylonian and Standard Babylonian sources say that Gilgamesh will love his new companion like a wife. Angry bee (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Translations

Revise list of translations

The section on translations at the bottom of the article still lists N. K. Sandars' translation, which was last revised in the 1970s. The issue with this is that Gilgamesh translations become outdated for two reasons: (1) the knowledge of Babylonian language in general improves as new clay tablets and fragments are discovered and deciphered, and (2) new fragments of the Gilgamesh epic are discovered (like the "monkey tablet" a few years ago) and older translations don't contain this new content. For this reason, I suggest we remove Sandars' translation and replace it with newer ones, i.e. the translations by Andrew George (Penguin, 1999) and Benjamin R. Foster (Norton, 2nd edition, 2019). I would also list translations of the Old Babylonian version and the Standard Babylonian version separately. ChristopheS (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Revise/undo the revision

The fact that translations are outdated has no bearing on their existence. Currently, the article is pretending that Gilgamesh first began influencing modern culture with an Arabic translation in the '60s, which is patent nonsense. Add the "outdated" "wrong" translations back, definitely including the first into a modern European language and the first into English and any other major ones. Regardless of how "wrong" they were, they are part of the history of this work and its influence on modernity, which the article itself currently states was already occurring by the WWI era.

As a single example, "flower of immortality" is a clearly mistaken invention of translators that doesn't appear in the original texts. It's still extremely common in discussion of the work and there's no way from the current article to go find the touchstone (mis)translations that produced it. If the list gets long enough it's UNDUE and needs its own separate subarticle... that would be great. Blanking content was a huge mistake and disservice. — LlywelynII 17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Flower of Immortality

Speaking of which, given its importance to the story, scholarship on the story, and its cultural relevance more generally, we should be including the actual name of (G|B)ilgamesh's miracle cure in translation, cuneiform, and transcription and have a sourced {{efn}} note on at least the two most common mistakes about it, pointing out that "flower" appears nowhere in the text and that naming it "Old Man Who Becomes Young" was a misparsing of (G|B)ilgamesh's plan to see if his guinea pig old man became young or not, after which he was planning to take it himself. — LlywelynII 17:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Alexandrines & snakes

The article currently sources

The first is that Gilgamesh seeks the plant of youth whereas Alexander seeks the water of life. The second is that the motif of the snake shedding its skin in the Gilgamesh legend is replaced in the Alexander legend by a fish returning to life upon being washed in the fountain. The reasons for these differences was due to the Christianizing force involved in the adaptation of the Gilgamesh legends.

to a JSTOR article, which is fair enough. Whether the misreading and inexactness is the scholar's or the editor's, though, (a) there is no "plant of youth" in the text. There's a heartbeat plant or medicinal agent credited with restoring youth. Again, we should have the plant/agent's actual name from the text and then use a form of it consistently in the article in place of inexact glosses or inaccurate loose translations and mistranslations. If it varies across sources, note that and use the most standard one. (b) The Alexander Romance wasn't Christian, even if versions of it were later Christianized. Unless these particular plot points only appeared in later Christian editions (which should be noted) they shouldn't be credited to Christian allegories, even if a single scholar can be found overstating that case. (c) Very pointedly, the medicinal plant in Gilgamesh is found under water and the involvement of Abzu was likely directly related to its supposed potency. The plant needing to be pearldived should be at least mentioned in any discussion of a transfer of the magical power from the plant to the body of water itself. — LlywelynII 18:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(c2) Ishtar’s Descent into the Underworld and other early Levantine myths already have waters of youth/immortality themselves, presumably without reference to Christian allegory. — LlywelynII 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Triple-stranded rope claim

I'd just like to note that this Wikipedia article was the subject of a discussion on the Literature StackExchange in December 2020. The discussion is about a sentence that is still present in this article 5 years later, still sitting without citation.

This sentence in particular: "A rare proverb about the strength of a triple-stranded rope, "a triple-stranded rope is not easily broken", is common to both books.[citation needed]"

I interpret the result of the discussion as being slightly skeptical of the claim made in the article. How do others feel? — Gmarmstrong (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)