Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
>
Week 1: Tablets I & II
A couple of observations I found interesting: The opening lines of the poem give us a bird’s eye view of the city and invite us to “see,” to “step,” to “climb,” to “look” as if we are standing alongside the poet. We are then asked to narrow our focus and look for a cedar wood box, take out the tablets and “read aloud” the story of Gilgamesh. “Read aloud” assumes we know how to read. It also suggests the possibility of a performance or some sort of a communal reading where one person reads aloud for an audience who might then discuss it. But I suspect there is more to it than that. The act of reading breathes life into and animates the written word. So, in a sense, when we give voice to the epic, we are bringing it to life, particularly if we read it aloud.
My mind sometimes makes strange and unexpected leaps, and here is no exception because I am about to make a gigantic leap to (of all places!) Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18: Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem...
In it, Shakespeare acknowledges the futility of comparing his beloved to anything in nature because all things in nature will decline and die. He concludes the sonnet with these lines:
Nor death shall brag thou wander’st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee.
Shakespeare suggests that by reading the sonnet, we give life to his words, which, in turn, give life to his beloved, i.e. readers of his sonnet confer both his words and his beloved with immortality, but it’s not the flesh and blood type of immortality. It is an immortality that requires a partnership between the otherwise lifeless words and the reader. I see the Gilgamesh poet doing the same thing: inviting us to read the epic as a means of conferring it and Gilgamesh with a literary immortality—breathing life into what would otherwise be dead. Reading the poem keeps the epic and memory of Gilgamesh alive.
I am not suggesting Shakespeare was even remotely influenced by a 4,000-year-old poem from Ancient Mesopotamia. That would be absolutely ridiculous—even for me. But I see a thematic connection between the two poems, a connection that thrills me to the bones.
Another observation: We are told Gilgamesh’s story is written on tablets of lapis lazuli. Why lapis lazuli when most of the time writing was done on clay tablets? Clay turns into a gloopy mess when hit by water. So the Great Flood not only destroyed everything and nearly everyone, it also destroyed all their historical records, all their monuments, all their knowledge of the past. Gilgamesh is able to retrieve their lost history and teach them the rituals they had forgotten when he visits a survivor of the flood. He can now impart invaluable knowledge of a time before the flood. To guarantee this knowledge of the past isn’t lost, again, the poet tells us it is preserved on tablets of lapis lazuli—an imperishable, semi-precious stone which reflects the significance of and high value placed on its contents. And, of course, lapis lazuli has the additional benefit of not turning into a gloopy mess when hit by water.
Are there any observations you would like to share?What do you think of the gods so far? How do they compare with Greek and/or Roman gods?
Gilgamesh is two-thirds god and one-third man, so we know right away he is out of balance. And it shows. He has inexhaustible energy, is willful, arrogant, insatiable, and emotionally out of control. And since he is king, his manic excesses have set the whole of Uruk out of balance. He tyrannizes his subjects with his inordinate demands until they beg the gods for help. What qualities has he shown so far—if any—that qualify him to be a hero?
What do you make of Enkidu? Is he a suitable companion for Gilgamesh?
Shamhat tells Enkidu that Gilgamesh does not sleep:He sleeps not, neither by day nor by night.In the next paragraph:
And it came to pass that Gilgamesh arose from his slumber and went to seek his mother, Ninsun, the Great Wild Cow Goddess, to relate his dream unto her.Does he sleep or not sleep?
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation. Insignia Publishing. Kindle Edition.
The two dreams Gilgamesh has are very similar, differing only in a rock in the first dream and an axe in the second.The first dream:
It augers that a comrade will come unto you, a stout-hearted man will come unto you and stand by you. He shall be your savior. His strength is the greatest in all the length and breadth of this land. Unto your breast like a friend shall you hold him. Mighty is his power. And you shall he save manifold times. This is the meaning of your dream.”The second dream:
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (p. 22). Insignia Publishing. Kindle Edition.
“My son, that axe which you beheld will be as a companion unto you. Like unto a friend shall you hold him. I shall account him as your own equal. Unto you will come a mighty comrade. He shall be your savior. Great is his power. His strength is the greatest in all the length and breadth of this land. Like unto a rock fallen from the Heavens is his might.”The fallen star/rock dream and the fallen axe dream both seem to foretell of Enkidu, does the fact the rock and axe are fallen foreshadow Enkidu will fall or is that too literal? The interpretations seems so similar that I feel like I am missing a crucial difference. Or is it just the rock for steadfastness and the axe as a weapon, i.e., fighting companion?
I did some research on this and some translations the second dream refers to Enkidu as a wife, as in help-mate.
There's a lot of poetic repetition in the story.
David wrote: "Does he sleep or not sleep?."He does sleep, but probably very little because we are told he wreaks havoc on the people of Uruk day and night:
"Day and night, he stormed around in fury."
Shamhat's task is to seduce Enkidu, initiate him into the human community, and take him to Gilgamesh to serve as his companion. In order to entice Enkidu to go to Gilgamesh, she exaggerates everything about him. She says he never sleeps, and she tells Enkidu he is stronger than you. I think all of this is designed to get Enkidu riled up to meet Gilgamesh and challenge him--which is what he does as soon as he gets to Uruk.
Didn't anyone think of just having Shamhat civilize Gilgamesh? Given how effective this plan was with Enkidu and the emphasis on Enkidu and Gilgamesh being equals, it might have worked.
David wrote: "The fallen star/rock dream and the fallen axe dream both seem to foretell of Enkidu, does the fact the rock and axe are fallen foreshadow Enkidu will fall or is that too literal? The interpretations seems so similar that I feel like I am missing a crucial difference. Or is it just the rock for steadfastness and the axe as a weapon, i.e., fighting companion?"The translations I have say it is a meteorite in the first dream, not a rock. Gilgamesh tries to pick it up, but it is too heavy. The second dream has the axe.
I think the dreams foreshadow the role Enkidu will play. Enkidu as meteorite is probably because he was sent by the gods (Anu is the god of the skies) to be a companion to Gilgamesh. Enkidu as an axe foreshadows one of their adventures later in the poem and also, as you said, because he is Gilgamesh's fighting companion.
Although Gilgamesh’s dreams of Enkidu show great physical tenderness, and although we are told he will love Enkidu “like a wife,” the poem never explicitly shows the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu as homosexual in nature.
Roger wrote: "There's a lot of poetic repetition in the story."Is all the parallelism and repetition just a byproduct of speeches and the tradition of oral storytelling, or is there something more to it?
Roger wrote: "There's a lot of poetic repetition in the story."The repetition probably served as an aid to memory, especially if it was recited orally. The poet could just plug in the same series of words. I also tend to think of repetition a bit like the chorus in a song.
David wrote: "Didn't anyone think of just having Shamhat civilize Gilgamesh? Given how effective this plan was with Enkidu and the emphasis on Enkidu and Gilgamesh being equals, it might have worked."The problem with Gilgamesh was not a lack of sexual activity. After all, he sleeps with every virgin before her wedding night. Plus he has easy access to Shamhat and other priestesses in the temple of Ishtar. So what worked on Enkidu would not have worked on Gilgamesh.
The gods realize that Gilgamesh is out of control because he has no peer. He needs a buddy to be his equal, to go on adventures with him, to spar with him, to kill monsters with him, etc. etc. A woman cannot fill that role. Only a man can.
I think this also suggests that for the Mesopotamians, true bonding between two people can exist only if they are of the same gender.
Tamara wrote: "David wrote: "Didn't anyone think of just having Shamhat civilize Gilgamesh? Given how effective this plan was with Enkidu and the emphasis on Enkidu and Gilgamesh being equals, it might have worke..."I understand your point that Gilgamesh’s issue wasn’t a lack of sex, and I think you’re absolutely right that the gods intervene because he lacks an equal, not because he needs more intimacy. Your observation about Mesopotamian views on same-gender bonding is also really interesting, especially how Enkidu is framed as a perfect companion for Gilgamesh in a way a female companion or help-mate could not be.
I do wonder, though, if Shamhat was able to civilize Enkidu, her influence must have extended beyond just sex. Enkidu gains wisdom, culture, morals, and an awareness of society from her, not just a physical transformation. But yet we do not hear of Shamhat curbing Gilgamesh’s excesses? If civilization itself is what tempers wildness, why did it require a peer rather than a guide? Does the story suggest that transformation for some can only come through struggle with an equal rather than instruction from a mentor? Or should we assume Gilgamesh was already civilized, but was corrupted by his power or somehow in need of further tempering?
An interesting thing about Shamhat:She acts as Enkidu's guide and teacher. She has sex with him, clothes him, introduces him to the shepherds, teaches him to eat bread and drink beer, and entices him with news of Uruk and Gilgamesh. She is very much in charge while they are outside of the city. At one point we are told Enkidu sits at her feet, as if he were a student absorbing a lesson.
And then we get this very telling line when Shamhat and Enkidu go to Uruk:
"Enkidu went off, with Shamhat behind him."
As they approach the city, Enkidu assumes the leadership role. This suggests the woman who was once his guide and teacher can fulfill that role but only outside of the city boundary. Once inside the city, she assumes a subordinate role to the male. She knows her position and walks behind him. And, somehow, Enkidu has figured out that, as the man, he takes priority over her. So he leads the way.
David wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Does the story suggest that transformation for some can only come through struggle with an equal rather than instruction from a mentor?."I think what we'll see is that transformation does not come easily to Gilgamesh. I don't want to get too far ahead, so all I can say is for now is it doesn't come through struggle with an equal.
It's also important to note that just because Enkidu has been initiated into civilization and knows how to eat, drink, clothe himself, etc. etc. now that he has entered the city, it does not necessarily mean he has gained wisdom.
Tamara wrote: "Roger wrote: "There's a lot of poetic repetition in the story."The repetition probably served as an aid to memory, especially if it was recited orally. The poet could just plug in the same series..."
It reminds me of incremental repetition in a ballad.
Tamara wrote: "now that he has entered the city, it does not necessarily mean he has gained wisdom."That is an interesting point about Shamhat leading outside of the city, and Enkidu leading back to the city.
And it came to pass that the twain journeyed unto Uruk; Enkidu walked in front and the woman, Shamhat the temple harlot, walked behind him."I think we agree that Enkidu was uncivilized before meeting Shamhat and civilized afterward but does it also suggests that he developed moral judgment? After all, it is Enkidu, not the people of Uruk, who first challenges Gilgamesh’s right to take a bride on her wedding night. If civilization alone did not grant him wisdom, where did this sense of justice come from?
The King shall know the wife before her husband. Gilgamesh will be first to lie with the bride. This is ordained by divine decree. From the moment the birth-cord of Gilgamesh was cut, this was destined for him.” Upon hearing these words of the traveler, Enkidu’s face grew pale with wrath.If he had not met Shamhat, would he have been angered at Gilgamesh for the wrong he was committing; just against Gilgamesh, but against the gods' divine decree? Or did he already demonstrate a sense of justice before civilization, when he was spoiling the hunter’s traps? And if so, does this suggest that of all the other things civilization teaches, it does not teach morality and may even corrupt it? (view spoiler)
I find it interesting that the fight-to-friendship trope exposes yet another flaw in Gilgamesh’s character; he only respects those who can match or surpass him, never recognizing the worth of those beneath him. Ironically, this very flaw is what the gods exploit in their attempt to temper him, using Enkidu as both the bait and the solution.
Tamara wrote: "Another observation: We are told Gilgamesh’s story is written on tablets of lapis lazuli. Why lapis lazuli when most of the time writing was done on clay tablets? Clay turns into a gloopy mess wh..."
As you probably know, many of the earliest paintings of the (Christian) Virgin Mary use a blue for her robe/gown, The blue in the pigment often derived from (finely ground) lapis lazuli. Since antiquity, a royal blue color.
Tidbits from Merriam Webster:
"a semiprecious stone usually of a rich azure blue color that is essentially a lazurite but contains hauynite, sodalite, and other minerals, occurs usually in small rounded masses frequently showing spangles of iron pyrites, and is probably the sapphire of the ancients"
"Lapis lazuli blue: a moderate blue that is redder and duller than average copen and redder and deeper than azurite blue, dresden blue, or pompadour"
David wrote: "...And if so, does this suggest that of all the other things civilization teaches, it does not teach morality and may even corrupt it?.."What are you really asking with this question? (Perhaps I need to search Seneca. Emerson? "Nature." Or even Thrasymachus challenging Socrates - environment where others have commensurate power. How real is it to say morality is taught by storytelling, e.g., Good Samaritan, ...?)
I am simultaneously reading and listening to Stephen Mitchell’s translation — it helps me appreciate the poetry and improves my comprehension. In the very beginning I was struck by Anu saying to Aruru “Create a new hero, let them balance each other perfectly, so Uruk has peace.” That suggested to me that Gilgamesh is not all bad, not just a tyrant, but has somehow become unbalanced. He did, after all, tell the trapper to take Shamhat to tame the wild man (Enkidu) rather than sending someone to destroy him. It also suggests to me that Enkidu’s role is to help Gilgamesh find his balance again, or to offset his negative actions in some way. It was also interesting to me that although Gilgamesh defeated Enkidu in physical combat he did not kill him or destroy him in some way. Instead we are told “They embraced and kissed. They held hands like brothers. They walked side by side. They became true friends.” And this from a man who earlier had been described as “a wild bull of a man”, an arrogant king who tramples the citizens of Uruk, who takes what he wants.
Mary wrote: “That suggested to me that Gilgamesh is not all bad; not just a tyrant, but has somehow become unbalanced.”Gilgamesh is out of balance. He is two-thirds god, one-third man. Enkidu is his opposite since he is more animal than human. Whereas Gilgamesh is arrogant, Enkidu in the wilderness is child-like and innocent. Whereas Gilgamesh is aggressive, Enkidu is a peace-loving vegetarian who lives among animals and protects them from traps and predators. By putting the two together, the gods hope to create a balance. The plan succeeds to some extent since we no longer hear of Gilgamesh terrorizing the people of Uruk. But whether or not he has achieved some sort of internal balance remains to be seen.
We know Gilgamesh has dreamt of a companion, so he is expecting Enkidu. I think that’s why he doesn’t want him killed but tamed and brought to Uruk. And the way to do that is to send Shamhat to seduce him, i.e. use eros as the civilizing agent.
Mary wrote: “It was also interesting to me that although Gilgamesh defeated Enkidu in physical combat he did not kill or destroy him in some way.”It seems to me that physical combat is not about winners and losers or good guys vs. bad guys. Enkidu is physically well built and strong. The citizens of Uruk say he even looks like Gilgamesh. I think the fight between the two is more of a test to see if Enkidu can hold his own against Gilgamesh. As David noted (#19), Gilgamesh has respect for those who match or surpass him. The two fight like bulls, breaking walls and doors. Enkidu passes the test by proving himself capable of keeping up with Gilgamesh. The two embrace and become like brothers.
It's interesting that the two of them have in common an aggressive streak. When civilized Enkidu first hears about Gilgamesh from Shamhat, he declares his intention to challenge him and subdue him by force. As soon as he gets to Uruk, he stands in the doorway to prevent Gilgamesh from gaining access to the bride. In other words, he goes there itching for a fight. And, predictably, Gilgamesh’s reaction is to fight.
Lily wrote: "David wrote: "...And if so, does this suggest that of all the other things civilization teaches, it does not teach morality and may even corrupt it?.."What are you really asking with this question?."
My head is still relating everything to the interim read of Seneca's letters, so you are very right to ask. What I’m really getting at is this: If Enkidu’s sense of justice seems to exist before he is fully civilized, does this suggest that morality is something innate, rather than a product of civilization?
Civilization teaches many things: how to eat bread, drink beer, and dress, but does it genuinely teach moral behavior, or does it merely provide stories and social norms that can sometimes be exploited?
And if morality is innate, as Enkidu’s actions might suggest, then could civilization, with its power structures and self-interest, actually distort that innate sense of right and wrong rather than cultivate it? If so, is Gilgamesh, along with his absolute power, a victim of this distortion of morals?
David wrote: "Civilization teaches many things: how to eat bread, drink beer, and dress, but does it genuinely teach moral behavior, or does it merely provide stories and social norms that can sometimes be exploited?.."You raise an interesting point about civilization and whether it teaches moral behavior or distorts an innate sense of right and wrong. But when you suggest that civilization "merely provide stories," I think you are underestimating the role story-telling plays in teaching moral behaviors. Story-telling has been--and continues to be--a very important means of teaching moral behavior.
I think it could even be argued that when the poet invites us to open the cedar box to read the story of Gilgamesh and "open the door to its secrets," he may be using the story to impart some moral lessons. It's too soon to tell what those lessons are and whether or not he succeeds in imparting them.
Enkidu’s five-step process of initiation into civilized life is interesting. First, he is initiated through sexual intercourse. This suggests sex was viewed positively by the Babylonians as a civilizing agent and as a vehicle of transformation. Second, he has to wear clothes. Third, he has to learn how to drink beer and eat bread, which I take to mean that to be a member of the human community, he has to eat food humans eat and “break bread” with others, i.e. participate in the bonding ritual of sharing a meal. Fourth, his fur-like, hairy body is shaved. And fifth, he is given weapons to fight off animals. It is also noteworthy that the animals reject Enkidu after he has had sexual intercourse with Shamhat probably because they can smell the human in him. We are told he is weaker than he was before, having has lost strength, but he has gained reason:
Enkidu was weakened and could not keep up,
but now he could reason and think.”
He may be able to "reason and think," but does that necessarily signify he has attained wisdom? In the process of becoming civilized, Enkidu now betrays the animals he once protected and has learned to use weapons to kill them.
Susanna wrote: "Mary and Tamara wrote: "Gilgamesh is out of balance."Would we consider Gilgamesh bipolar now?"
I don't think so. I might be wrong because I don't know enough about bipolar disorder but I associate it with a manic-depressive state and with huge mood swings. Gilgamesh doesn't show signs of depression or extreme mood swings.
Susanna, I do not think of him as bipolar at all, more that he has lost his way, lost his center.
Perhaps he is a bit bipolar, but not in the modern DSM sense, but instead he is more like a Terrier/Herding dog mix that can’t decide whether to kill vermin outright, or herd them around the property.“Gilgamesh was the son of King Lugalbanda and suckling child of the Great Wild Cow Goddess, Ninsun. . . . Two-thirds of him was a God, one-third of him was a Man. The Great Goddess Aruru, Mother of All Birth, designed the form of his body. Ea, the God of Wisdom, endowed him with perfection.”I suppose that makes him quadpolar? His godlike attributes have set him so far above regular mortals that he lacks even a basic sense of human connection; almost like the Stoic view of the gods: they exist, but they are too perfect to care about mortals. Maybe Ea should have spent a little more time endowing wisdom.
Davis, Gerald J., Gilgamesh: The New Translation*
Tamara wrote: "What do you think of the gods so far? How do they compare with Greek and/or Roman gods?..."You know that feeling when you see a familiar face in an unexpected environment? Like spotting a work colleague while visiting a different city. You're bewildered and confused at first, but then you recognize the person. This is how I felt when I encountered the gods in Gilgamesh. They aren't just similar to the gods from the Iliad; they ARE the same messy, narcissistic, vengeful, yet likable gods, just with different names.
Speaking of vengeful gods, here we might have the earliest mention of the flood myth, around 1000 years earlier than the Hebrew Genesis and Hindu myths. There was significant contact between the Hebrews and Babylonians. Do you think Judaism "borrowed" this myth through religious syncretism? Or perhaps there was a real event—a cataclysmic flood that left a mark on early human civilization.
Emil wrote: "They aren't just similar to the gods from the Iliad; they ARE the same messy, narcissistic, vengeful, yet likable gods, just with different names."So far, I don't see the gods here as being punitive or vengeful--at least not yet. I see them as being responsive to human needs. They chastise Anu for unleashing Gilgamesh on the people. They realize Gilgamesh is running amok because he has no equal, so they ask Aruru to create a counterpart. That says to me they have some understanding of human nature, that they take responsibility for the suffering of Uruk's citizens, and they take measures to alleviate that suffering.
None of that sounds like the Greek gods to me who are a narcissistic, vengeful, and self-absorbed lot.
Emil wrote: "Speaking of vengeful gods, here we might have the earliest mention of the flood myth, around 1000 years earlier than the Hebrew Genesis and Hindu myths..."Let's delay a discussion of the flood until we get to it in the reading and hear what Utnapishtim has to say about it.
Tamara wrote: "Are there any observations you would like to share?What do you think of the gods so far? How do they compare with Greek and/or Roman gods?
Gilgamesh is two-thirds god and one-third man, so we kn..."
this is what I have so far:
What do you think of the gods so far? How do they compare with Greek and/or Roman gods?
From reading tablet 1&2 – they work together a lot better. I also don’t have a sense of anyone leading.
What do you make of Enkidu? Is he a suitable companion for Gilgamesh?
From reading tablet 1&2 – he seems to be designed to bring out a better side of Gilgamesh, and he’s thinking of others more, although he talks about heroic deeds, I did like that line where he says to Enkidu (and I’m paraphrasing) do they expect me to just sit at home.
Tamara wrote: "So far, I don't see the gods here as being punitive or vengeful--at least not yet. ..."I was rereading the creation of Enkidu and I must admit you’re right, looks like the gods were not trying to punish Gilgamesh as I suspected initially.
David wrote: "Didn't anyone think of just having Shamhat civilize Gilgamesh? Given how effective this plan was with Enkidu and the emphasis on Enkidu and Gilgamesh being equals, it might have worked."
I would rather say that she “initiated” him, or/and “tamed” him.
Given that Shamhat serves as a sacred prostitute of the temple of Ishtar, the goddess of: Love, sexuality, fertility, war and power, harvest and agricultural abundance I am coming to the conclusion that instead of civilizing Enkidu, she domesticated him.Shamhat focuses on modifying Enkdu's external behavior, not instilling civic or ethical understanding. That’s domestication, not civilization. He seems like a wild dog that that has been tamed for the purpose of becoming a companion pet, suitable for a king of Gilgamesh's stature. This also reinforces the fact he is being used by the gods as a means to their ends and not being improved for his own benefit.
David wrote: "I am coming to the conclusion that instead of civilizing Enkidu, she domesticated him.Shamhat focuses on modifying Enkdu's external behavior, not instilling civic or ethical understanding. That’s domestication, not civilization. "
I like the distinction you're making. I think you're right: she's domesticating him so he can live with humans. But as a result of being domesticated and living in the city, won't Enkidu be exposed to civilizing influences?
What I'm trying to get at is this: for someone like Enkidu who has lived exclusively with animals, isn't his domestication a necessary step before he can become civilized?
Tamara wrote: "I like the distinction you're making. I think you're right: she's domesticating him so he can live with humans. . . .isn't his domestication a necessary step before he can become civilized?"I see what you're saying: since Enkidu now lives in Uruk, it's reasonable to think that the environment might eventually civilize him, even if he was initially domesticated. And I agree, that civilization does tend to shape people over time; our surroundings influence how we think, act, and interact.
But I wonder, was Enkidu domesticated so he could live with humans, or was he domesticated so he could live for humans? The gods do not seem interested in integrating him into society; they created him to curb Gilgamesh's excesses. Furthermore, Enkidu no sooner arrives in Uruk, before he is being prepared to go out and fight monsters, against his better judgement. Enkidu was clearly created to benefit the well being the citizens of Uruk rather than than to become a citizen himself.
And the Gods summoned Aruru, Goddess of Birth, and said unto her, “You, Aruru, did create the multitudes of mankind. Now accomplish what Anu has commanded. Let this creature be the equal of Gilgamesh. His heart make as tempestuous as the heart of Gilgamesh. Let them contend, one with the other, that Uruk may have surcease."Would mere exposure to the city truly civilize Enkidu? Or does the story suggest that domestication and civilization are two very different processes?
re domestication, vs civilizationMy initial thought was, as David says, Enkidu was being tamed, but then in tablet 2 Gilgamesh is responding to Enkidu’s pain re Humbaba, where Enkidu has a voice and Gilgamesh is listening, so then I wasn’t sure about this.
Having said this, I also think Enkidu’s purpose is to be Gilgamesh’s companion.
Anisha Inkspill wrote: "re domestication, vs civilizationMy initial thought was, as David says, Enkidu was being tamed, but then in tablet 2 Gilgamesh is responding to Enkidu’s pain re Humbaba, where Enkidu has a voice ..."
That’s a great point. Enkidu does seem to gain a voice when he warns Gilgamesh about Humbaba, and Gilgamesh does pause to listen, at least briefly. Maybe that's less about civilization and more about finally having a buddy to go on a monster-killing road trip with. At least he citizens of Uruk will get a little peace and quiet while their king is off chasing eternal glory through deforestation and divine monster-slaying. I wonder if they will all try and schedule their weddings while they are away before Gilgamesh returns to practice his divine right with the virgin brides. 🙂
Anisha Inkspill wrote: "Having said this, I also think Enkidu's purpose is to be Gilgamesh's companion ..."You're right. Enkidu's sole purpose is to be Gilgamesh's companion. The gods create him for that purpose. They don't say anything about domesticating him or civilizing him. It is Gilgamesh who recognizes that Enkidu must be tamed before he can join him in Uruk to be his companion.
Enkidu initially asks the elders of Uruk to advise Gilgamesh against making the trip to Humbaba. They try to caution him, but he ignores them. And he ridicules Enkidu who also warns him:When Gilgamesh heard this,
he looked at Enkidu and laughed:
"Look, my friend, how scared I am,
I am so scared I will not go! Bah!
I'm with the elders of Uruk in their assessment of Gilgamesh:
"You are young, Gilgamesh. Your heart carries you away,
you do not understand the things you say."
There hasn't been much discussion of the prologue which I thought was so beautiful and built in the reader great anticipation about hearing the story of Gilgamesh. I almost felt like Indiana Jones being led to the great wall, see how the ramparts gleam like copper in the sun, climb the stone staircase. approach the Temple, walk on the wall, appreciate its magnificence. Find the cornerstone and under it the copper box that is marked with his name. Unlock it. Open the lid. Take out the tablet of Lapis Lazuli. Read how Gilgamesh suffered all and accomplished all. WOW!! It was vivid in its description and made me eager to know his story.
As I read Mitchell's translation, the people of Uruk complained to the Gods about Gilgamesh's behavior and my favorite line should a shepherd savage his flocks? Initiating the creation of Enkidu by the Goddess Aruru that we all agree is to be a equal companion but one who provides a balance to Gilgamesh's nature. The dream in my translation he saw a bright star that fell at his feet & lay like a boulder I took it in my arms. I embraced and caressed it the way a man caresses a wife....You told me that it was my double , my second self. in the dream Gilgamesh's mother says He will be your double, your second self, a man who is loyal who will stand at your side through the greatest dangers. Soon you will meet him, the companion of your heart
It seems to say that Enkidu may embody both male friendship and wifely love. I'll be interested to see how their relationship plays out.
BTW, I only read one dream with the star/boulder, but no second dream or one with an axe.
Tamara wrote: "You're right. Enkidu's sole purpose is to be Gilgamesh's companion. The gods create him for that purpose."I think we need to clarify what we mean when we say Enkidu's purpose is to be Gilgamesh's companion. The text suggests that an ending of the people's suffering under Gilgamesh's rule is Enkidu's real real purose.
We see this intention right from the start when the gods order Enkidu to be created to contend with Gilgamesh, that Uruk may have surcease. The gods aren't giving Gilgamesh a buddy to go monster-hunting with; they are domesticating the force of nature that is Enkidu, to he can stand up to Gilgamesh, befriend him, and redirect his wild, oppressive energy into something more productive.
Next Gilgamesh's mother, Ninsun, primes him, and us the audience of the story, by interpreting his dreams as foretelling the arrival of an equal, a friend, and ally. Finally, when Ninsun meets Enkidu, she doesn't exactly roll out the welcome mat.
Enkidu has no father or mother. No brother has he. His hair is long and unkempt. In the wilderness was he born. By the wild beasts was he reared. No one has he.I thought these are incredibly harsh and insensitive things to say upon their first meeting and it makes Enkidu cry. But, I think Ninsun knew exactly what she was doing. She understands her son and how he bonds with others. By emphasizing Enkidu's isolation, she triggers Gilgamesh’s instinct to connect and protect and he responds immediately as she must have known he would:
'Whereupon did Gilgamesh take the hand of Enkidu and clasp it like that of a brother.'Thus Ninsun cements their friendship. If friendship is the final goal and purpose of Enkidu, then the story could end here. But the gods do not just want a friend for Gilgamesh, they want someone who can contend with him, match his strength, and pull his focus outward, giving the people of Uruk some much needed relief from Gilgamesh's oppressive and tyrannical rule. The friendship is just the means to that ultimate purpose.
These interesting discussions made me think more about Enkidu's creation.Why did the gods create Enkidu in his raw/wild form? Why didn't they create a fully prepared Enkidu? Was it because they simply couldn't create a complete human being?
Perhaps Enkidu wasn't truly "wild" or "uncivilised". Maybe he was just a child in a man's body. I'm considering the existentialist proposition that "existence precedes essence." The gods can create a human, but its essence/personality cannot be created—it must develop.
If we were to drop a small child into the wild, they would become feral and might even be able to live with the animals. As for Enkidu being hairy, many babies are born with a type of hair called lanugo (Latin for wool).
According to this interpretation, Enkidu became a grown-up after Shamhat's initiation through prolonged sexual intercourse. In many cultures, a boy becomes a man only after his first sexual act and his first successful hunt.
Chris wrote: "There hasn't been much discussion of the prologue which I thought was so beautiful and built in the reader great anticipation about hearing the story of Gilgamesh. I almost felt like Indiana Jones ..."The city must have been amazing, and the poet's description shows how much pride he has for it.
In Weavers, Scribes, and Kings: A New History of the Ancient Near East, Amanda Podany says that as many as 40,000 people lived in Uruk around the fourth millenium BCE. A city that size was on a completely different scale than its neighbors, being ten times the size of the next biggest city in the region. It was the same size as Athens in 500 BCE, 3,000 years later.
It must have been breathtakingly beautiful.
David wrote: "I think we need to clarify what we mean when we say Enkidu's purpose is to be Gilgamesh's companion. The text suggests that an ending of the people's suffering under Gilgamesh's rule is Enkidu's real real purose.I agree. I think we are saying the same thing. Enkidu is a means to an end--the end being to alleviate the people's suffering due to Gilgamesh's excesses. But the means to achieve that is Enkidu befriending Gilgamesh and becoming his companion.
Tamara wrote: "Still restless, Gilgamesh announces his decision to go to the Cedar Forest, kill the monster Humbaba, and bring back cedar logs to build Uruk’s walls..."I'm reflecting on Beowulf and his exploits. Beowulf fought Grendel because the monster was terrorizing Heorot. Later, he fought the dragon because it posed a threat to his kingdom. In other stories and myths, there was always a solid reason for fighting the monster. Fame was just a by-product.
However, I don't see any rational reason for Gilgamesh to attack Humbaba other than seeking fame. Sure, there's mention of using the cedar logs, but seems to me that's just a "nice to have", the main reason is proving his strength:
"But the days of men are numbered,
all that we do is nothing but wind.
[...]
If I die, I will only have made a name for myself."
When I look back at the scene where Humbaba is first mentioned, I notice a lot of text is missing. Perhaps this missing text would help us understand Gilgamesh's casus belli against Humbaba.
Now, my friend · ·
· ·in the land· ·
· ·Humbaba· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·the savage Humbaba · ·
let us kill him, crush his mind!
It's mentioned that Humbaba controlled a territory with a thousand-mile radius. That's a lot, even for such a monster. Maybe Humbaba symbolized another city-state Uruk waged war with or competed against. What do you think?
David wrote: "Finally, when Ninsun meets Enkidu, she doesn't exactly roll out the welcome mat.Enkidu has no father or mother. No brother has he. His hair is long and unkempt. In the wilderness was he born. By the wild beasts was he reared. No one has he.
I thought these are incredibly harsh and insensitive things to say upon their first meeting and it makes Enkidu cry."
It is harsh, but it is also very realistic. The issue of who will mourn for you and bury you when you die was incredibly important for people at the time. Ninsun is reminding Enkidu he has no family and, therefore, no one to bury him.
She is doing two things here. As you said, she triggers Gilgamesh's instinct to reach out to Enkidu. But she is also reminding Enkidu he has no one but Gilgamesh. In other words, she is cementing the bond between the two of them. She does even more than that as we'll see in next week's reading.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
On Liberty (other topics)The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (other topics)
Weavers, Scribes, and Kings: A New History of the Ancient Near East (other topics)
Tablet I opens with a flashforward that paints a positive portrait of Gilgamesh. The Prologue describes him as a wise ruler who accomplished great things and who traveled great distances to bring back a story from before the Flood. With obvious pride, the poet invites us to admire the wall and city of Uruk. We are then invited to look for a cedarwood box, unlock it, and read aloud the contents of the tablets (“open the door to its secrets”) which tell the story of Gilgamesh and his journey to Utnapishtim. In other words, we are invited to read this very poem where he (Gilgamesh?) “set down all his trials on a slab of stone.”
Two-thirds god and one third man, Gilgamesh is larger than life and with unmatched strength. He terrorizes his subjects with unbridled emotions, excessive energy, and an insatiable appetite. The gods respond to the people’s pleas for help by fashioning Enkidu, a wild man made of clay who lives and eats with animals. He is spotted by a trapper who tells his father who sends him to Gilgamesh who sends him to Shamhat, a priestess of Ishtar. She initiates Enkidu into civilization through sexual intercourse that continues for six days and seven nights. After Enkidu has “had his fill of her delights,” he learns of Gilgamesh and is eager to challenge him. Shamhat praises Gilgamesh and tells him he dreamt of you.
Tablet II
After Enkidu’s initiation through non-stop love-making, Shamhat takes him to the herdsmen’s huts where he is introduced to bread and beer. Now estranged from the animals, Enkidu hunts them. He meets a caterer heading to a wedding who complains about Gilgamesh claiming first-night rights with all brides-to-be to satisfy his ravenous sexual appetite. Enkidu is incensed and goes to Uruk to challenge Gilgamesh. They engage in a sort of primal combat, at the end of which they embrace. Still restless, Gilgamesh announces his decision to go to the Cedar Forest, kill the monster Humbaba, and bring back cedar logs to build Uruk’s walls. Enkidu tries to dissuade him, but to no avail. They arm themselves with weapons for the trip.