Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
>
Week 3: Tablets V & VI
date
newest »
newest »
Shamash’s intervention to pin down Humbaba is a case of divine intervention. Just like the gods in Homer and Virgil, the god here takes sides to help his favorites. If, as David suggested in #5 of last week’s reading, this conflict is between Shamash and Enlil because Shamash wants to illuminate the dark places Enlil wants to keep dark, hasn’t this been achieved with Humbaba’s defeat and offer to help cut down the trees? If Shamash got what he wanted, why would Enkidu say even Shamash will be angry if they kill Humbaba? Destroy him, kill him! Crush his mind—
Before Enlil hears of it, the leader of the gods!
The great gods will grow angry with us,
Enlil in Nipur, Shamash in Larsa,
So make for yourself an everlasting name:
How Gilgamesh killed the brutal Humbaba.
I can understand Enlil’s anger since he commissioned Humbaba to protect the Cedar Forest. But why would Shamash be angry? And if he didn’t want Humbaba killed, why help them in the first place?
Humbaba has been defeated, pleads for mercy, and offers to serve Gilgamesh and supply him with timber. If the original intention was to get logs from the cedar forest, why not take Humbaba up on the offer? Why kill him? And if Gilgamesh’s intention was to make an everlasting name for himself, wouldn’t he get enough glory by claiming he has subdued Humbaba? Does he have to kill him?
The Cedar Forest is described in detail as a place of a natural beauty, teeming with life, resplendent with plush greenery, and sheltering animals that fill it with sounds of “resounding joy.” All of this changes after the slaughter of Humbaba. At his death-roar the mountains of Lebanon shook,
The valleys ran with his blood, for ten miles
The forest resounded. Then the two friends
Sliced him open, pulled out his intestines,
Cut off his head with its knife-sharp teeth
And horrible bloodshot staring eyes.
A gentle rain fell onto the mountains.
A gentle rain fell onto the mountains.
(Stephen Mitchell translation)
The gentle rain falling on the mountains suggest to me tears falling from the sky. Even Enkidu recognizes they have inflicted devastating violence on this natural world: “My friend, we have turned the forest into a wasteland.” How do you read this section? Is the poet of 4,000 years ago an environmentalist? Is he condemning unnecessary devastation of the natural environment and suggesting we should preserve a place of natural beauty and not strip it for its economic value?
As a scorned goddess, Ishtar is willing to sacrifice hundreds of people for the sake of revenge against Gilgamesh. In his capacity as king, Gilgamesh is the intermediary between his city and the gods. One of his most important duties is to assume the role of main priest for the city and to secure a good relationship between his city and the gods. He builds temples in their honor, presides over festivals, performs rituals, gives offerings, etc. When the relationship between the king and a god goes sour, the whole city is made to suffer.
By offending Ishtar, Gilgamesh has abdicated one of his main responsibilities as king and endangered the city. How do you view his behavior? Has he always been this irresponsible or is this a new level of irresponsibility?
Here are the numbers for Tablets V & VI from my Davis Translation. Note: neither Davis nor Lombardo mention that Humbaba has seven sons. Even though Humbaba is a fearsome monster, killing his seven sons ads a somewhat tragic tone to it. Plus we know Gendel's mother did not take the death of Grendel well, should we prepare for a mother's wrath?Three (3): Trial, Strength, Elements in a balanced battle
1. One of us alone cannot slay Humbaba. Together, our might cannot be matched, just as the rope with three strands cannot be broken.
2. . . .the three warriors. . . (Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and Humbaba)
3. At the third blow did Humbaba fall.
4. And then did the Bull of Heaven snort a third time, whereupon the ground cracked open and Enkidu did fall therein up to his middle.
Seven - Transformation/Transcendence, Divine Completeness, Cosmic Order
1. Loved you also the lion, unsurpassed in strength. Yet you did dig for him seven pits and again seven pits to entrap him.
2. You ordained that he should gallop without pause for seven leagues and slake his thirst from muddied waters.
3. then will there be seven years of drought in the land of Uruk. For seven lean years will the farmer harvest only chaff
4. Against seven lean years have I husbanded sufficient foodstuffs
Thirteen (13): Chaos, destruction, divine intervention
1. Shamash let rise thirteen winds to blind Humbaba’s vision.
That's interesting. The Helle translation differs somewhat from the ones above. The reference to the number 3 in Helle that I could find is to the three snorts of the bull. And the references to the number 7 are about the lean years/drought.
The differences are possibly due to translating the different versions of the epic and/or different beginnings and endings for the tablets.
Tamara wrote: "why would Enkidu say even Shamash will be angry if they kill Humbaba?"I read this as Enkudu is trying to get Gilgamesh to finish the job before doubt sets in. Failing to do so would invite the wrath of Enlil for attacking Humbaba and the wrath of Shamash for backing out of their deal with him after Shamash had already assisted them. Enkidu may see these consequences from the gods towards them may be worse if they quit before killing him than if they killed him. I am reminded of Poseidon's anger with Odysseus for blinding his cyclops offspring, Polyphemus.
David wrote: "I read this as Enkudu is trying to get Gilgamesh to finish the job before doubt sets in. Failing to do so would invite the wrath of Enlil for attacking Humbaba and the wrath of Shamash for backing out of their deal with him after Shamash had already assisted them..."I see a couple of problems with this.
First of all, they haven't attacked Humbaba yet. And it's clear Enlil will be angry with them if they kill Humbaba. So why not avoid killing Humbaba and somewhat mitigating Enlil's anger?
Second, unless your translations say something differently, none of the translations I'm reading have Shamash actually ordering the death of Humbaba. Shamash sends the winds to subdue him, but he doesn't say anything about killing him. Shamash may have wanted Humbaba defeated but not killed, especially since Humbaba has pledged to help them cut down the trees.
Also, there is a connection between Humbaba and Shamash. Humbaba appeals to Shamash as the god of justice and as someone who raised him:
Shamash, be my king and my judge!
No mother gave birth to me, no father brought me up:
the mountain gave birth to me, you brought me up
It seems to me that both Enlil and Shamash will be angry if Humbaba is killed but for different reasons.
Enkidu is taking the extreme position here by insisting on killing Humbaba and, later, in Uruk when he not only insults Ishtar but has the unmitigated gall to fling the bull's penis at her. His actions strike me as being pretty stupid. He was created to moderate Gilgamesh's excesses. Instead, he is taking more extreme positions than Gilgamesh.
Tamara wrote: "First of all, they haven't attacked Humbaba yet."In my translation, Enkidu urges Gilgamesh to finish Humbaba off after they had defeated him and was starting to waiver at Humbaba's pleas to spare him. It seemed pretty clear in my translation that killing evil Humbaba was one of the primary reasons for the trip, the other being the Cedar trees. There is also no appeal to Shamash from Humbaba. I believe our respective translations are very different.
I do see your point about Enkidu's excessive behavior though. And I did certainly did not foresee Humbaba's offer to aid Gilgamesh in Cedar related goals, but there it is:
O Gilgamesh, scion of high-wall’d Uruk, you are verily a great and mighty King. I beg you to stay your hand. A dead creature cannot serve his master. You shall be my master and I shall be your servant. Let me continue to dwell here in the Forest of Cedars, and I will fell for you as many trees as you desire. For you will I construct the most proud Palace of Cedar, one that will be spoken of by men for ages to come.”I suppose Humbaba's betrayal of his purpose for being might upset Enlil even more than Gilgamesh and Enkidu killing Humbaba.
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (p. 42). Insignia Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Tamara wrote: "By offending Ishtar, Gilgamesh has abdicated one of his main responsibilities as king and endangered the city. How do you view his behavior? Has he always been this irresponsible or is this a new level of irresponsibility?"If any of Gilgamesh’s charges are accurate and true, then his rejection is not an irresponsible insult but a rational decision based on historical evidence. It is probably the most rationally responsible thing Gilgamesh has done. How can you blame the guy?
She is described as fickle, and unreliable, with a potential for serious disaster.
1. A fire that goes out in the cold
2. A door that doesn’t keep out wind
3. A battering ram that fails against a foe
The list of her past lovers' tragic ends highlights her dangerous lack of trustworthiness.
1. Tammuz: Elevated to divinity, then sent to the Underworld where he is mourned yearly.
2. Roller Bird: Loved, then crippled by her and left to cry over its broken wing.
3. Lion: Entrapped in seven pits.
4. War Horse: Forced to run endlessly, denied proper rest and nourishment.
5. Shepherd: Provided for her, only to be turned into a wolf and exiled.
6. Ishullanu the Gardener: Refused her advances and was changed into a frog, trapped in his own grove.
Given a history like that, it seems inevitable that Ishtar is bad news whether he rejects her or not. It definitely looks like one of those, pay a little now or pay a lot more later on situations.
David wrote: "If any of Gilgamesh’s charges are accurate and true, then his rejection is not an irresponsible insult but a rational decision based on historical evidence. ..."I don’t have an issue with Gilgamesh rejecting Ishtar. I do, however, have an issue with the way he rejects her. He has a right to reject her knowing her reputation for nastiness and revenge. But surely that should have made him more circumspect in how he rejects her marriage proposal, especially when he knows how he handles her will have a direct bearing on the welfare of his city? Could he not have done so diplomatically? Instead, he insults her bitterly and, in the process, endangers the whole city:
You are winter too warm to freeze ice,
A half-door that blocks no wind or draft,
A place that crumbles and kills its heroes,
An elephant that throws off its rider,
A lump of pitch that stains the hand,
A flask of water that soaks the cloak,
A block of limestone that weakens the wall,
A ram that wrecks or walls for the enemy,
A shoe that bites the foot of the owner.
Was there any need for all of that? Why heap insult upon insult on her? Was it smart to upset her in this way knowing what she is capable of doing? Wouldn’t a simple, “I’m very flattered, dear, but not tonight. I have a headache,” have sufficed?
I see this is just another example of Gilgamesh’s excesses.
Tamara wrote: "I see this is just another example of Gilgamesh’s excesses."Tamara, you’re absolutely right that Gilgamesh goes overboard; it is not so much a rejection but a poetic Roast® sans Dean Martin or The Roastmaster General, Jeff Ross, and Comedy Central. If diplomacy were his strong suit, Gilgamesh could have certainly softened the blow.
But if Ishtar is the type of goddess who sends a divine bull rampaging through the city just for being told a harsh truth; would a more tactful rejection have spared Uruk from her wrath?
Consider that if If Gilgamesh had been more tactful, wouldn’t he have been forced to soften the truth with lies, even white ones? And if so, how would Ishtar have reacted, not just to the truth, but to the implication of the truth hidden within a polite rejection? would she have felt Gilgamesh was stringing her along and there was still hope? Would she have responded any better to deception and the harsh truth than to to the harsh truth alone? Isn't it better to nip it in the bud under no uncertain terms?
Given Gilgamesh's glimpse into Ishtar's personality, does it not seem most likely that Ishtar was going to retaliate the moment she didn’t get her way?
David wrote: "Given Gilgamesh's glimpse into Ishtar's personality, does it not seem most likely that Ishtar was going to retaliate the moment she didn’t get her way?Maybe, but we don't know that. Granted, she is ruthless and vindictive and is behaving like a spoilt child who didn't get her way. Even Anu suggests she is to blame for Gilgamesh's behavior:
Ah, but did you not goad King Gilgamesh
into spouting slander about you
It's possible, as you suggest, a more tactful approach wouldn't have made a difference. But all we have to go on are the words in the text. And the words in the text make it clear she is angry because Gilgamesh insulted her. She says nothing about his rejection of her marriage proposal. She complains to Anu:
Father! Gilgamesh keeps insulting me.
He keeps spouting slander about me--
slander about me and insults me!"
That's it. Nothing about rejecting the marriage proposal. She goes on to threaten Anu with releasing the dead from the underworld if she doesn't get her way. And so Anu caves.
Tamara wrote: "She says nothing about his rejection of her marriage proposal."That’s an interesting distinction. Ishtar doesn’t complain that Gilgamesh rejected her in your translation, Just that he insulted and slandered her. But can the truth be slander?
In my Davis translation, she is primarily upset at being rejected, followed by slandered, and lastly is she insulted, telling her father:
O Father, again and again does Gilgamesh disdain me. Slanderous words has he uttered about me. He does insult me with despicable imprecations.” (Davis)And in the Lombardo translation Ishtar is again primarily upset at being rejected, then slandered, and finally insulted.
“Father Anu, Gilgamesh keeps scorning meGilgamesh’s accusations aren’t false—he simply lists her past lovers and what happened to them and the implications of which align with her established behavior. If he’s stating historical fact, does that mean she’s really upset about being insulted, or is she angry that the truth is being said aloud? It is also interesting to note that Ishtar does not deny anything Gilgamesh says about her.
And slandering me with obscene stories.
I am insulted!"(Lombardo)
Maybe her fury isn’t about the words themselves—maybe it’s about losing control over the narrative. If she lets this stand, she loses authority, influence, and reputation. So is her reaction truly about personal offense, or is it about maintaining power over how she is perceived, even though it all appears to have been said in private between them.
Having defended Gilgamesh’s words to Ishtar, I’m now considering whether this will be another rash and irresponsible act that provokes further divine retaliation, for the sake of the story. Killing Humbaba, harvesting the cedar trees, rejecting Ishtar, and killing the bull of heaven sounds like a dangerous rap sheet. Fate doesn’t seem to play as dominant a role among the Mesopotamian gods as it does in Greek mythology, but Gilgamesh’s ongoing defiance of the gods is likely going to catch up with him at some point.
David wrote: "Killing Humbaba, harvesting the cedar trees, rejecting Ishtar, and killing the bull of heaven sounds like a dangerous rap sheet. .."Ain't that the truth!
Another neat example of a tablet’s beginning and endings. In the Helle translation, Tablet V begins with Gilgamesh and Enkidu at the entrance to the Cedar Forest, and it ends with them leaving it. We enter the Cedar Forest with them at the beginning of Tablet V and we leave with them at the end of Tablet V.
Tamara, I have come completely around to your way of thinking about these events. I still say Ishtar had it coming to her, but I made myself laugh too much with this not to share. I have to credit AI helping me with this and apologize to Mark Twain and his Literary Offenses of James Fenimore Cooper.The Divine Offenses of Gilgamesh and Enkidu: A Most Ill-Advised Guide to Making Enemies in High Places
It is a curious and lamentable fact that, despite their brawn, bravery, and inexhaustible supply of reckless enthusiasm, Gilgamesh and Enkidu possess about as much divine diplomacy as a drunken mule at a coronation. Their offenses against the gods are not just transgressions, but a masterclass in how to go from hero to divinely cursed in five easy steps.
Let us examine their most egregious blunders, which could only have been committed by men with a peculiar immunity to common sense:
1. The tyranny of Gilgamesh, or How to make your own Citizens Pray for Divine Intervention
(view spoiler)
2. The Matter of Humbaba, Who Was Minding His Own Business
(view spoiler)
3. The Harvesting of the Sacred Cedar Trees, or How to Double Down on Blasphemy with a Handcrafted Door
(view spoiler)
4. The Rejection of Ishtar, or How to Get a Goddess to Declare War on Your City
(view spoiler)
5. The Bull of Heaven, or How to Get Yourself and Your Best Friend Killed
(view spoiler)
FINAL VERDICT
(view spoiler)
This is hilarious! I love it. I laughed long and hard. Thank you so much for sharing it.
Lumber was scarce in the unforested region of Uruk. At the time, bringing cedars from Lebanon was a heroic act.
Tamara and David I have enjoyed the discussions about these tablets and it sure highlights the differences in translations or interpretations by various scholars. And thanks David for the funny guide to making enemies in high places!Some differences in the Mitchell rendering:
-No mention of seven sons of Humbaba
-The rejection of Ishtar's marriage proposal; her rage does seem to focus on the slander and insult and not that he wouldn't marry her.
Father, Gilgamesh slandered me! He hurled the worst insults at me he said horrible, unforgivable things!
She does act like a spoiled child without any thought to what she
requests as punishment for the offenses may wreck among the populous.
- No penis throwing When Enkidu heard these words, he laughed, he reached down, ripped off one of the Vull's thighs, and flung it in Ishtar's face.
Although a subsequent section says Ishtar assembled her priestesses, those who offer themselves to all men in her honor. They placed the Bull's gory thigh on the altar, and began a solemn lament That would make more sense to me if it was the Bull's penis, a symbol of manhood.
Humbaba cursed Enkidu. and Gilgamesh.Knowing he was doomed, Humbaba cried out, "I curse you both. Because you have done this, may Enkidu die, may he die in great pain, may Gilgamesh be inconsolable, may his merciless heart be crushed with grief."
Is this just one last attempt to save his own life by putting fear into their hearts? Or a foreshadowing of what is to come?
Chris wrote: "Is this just one last attempt to save his own life by putting fear into their hearts? Or a foreshadowing of what is to come?."Maybe both.
I feel for Humbaba. I think he has been given a bad rap. He and Enkidu have something on common: they are both children of the wilderness. When we first meet Enkidu, he is child-like, innocent, a vegetarian who lives with and protects animals, showing them compassion by rescuing them from the hunter’s traps. Humbaba also has a compassionate streak. He lets Enkidu live when he encounters him in the wilderness:
And you, Enkidu! Fish that never knew its father,
Turtle spawn that never drank its mother’s milk!
I watched you when you were young, but I let you be.
And later, he says:
When Enkidu slept with the beasts, I never called him
Or sullied the cedar-bearing mountains with his blood.
After Enkidu’s exposure to the city, he re-enters the wilderness, but now he seems stripped of compassion. Instead, he is an invader, bringing with him death, destruction, and devastation of the natural environment. He takes a more extreme position than Gilgamesh in insisting on the death of Humbaba and in his insults to Ishtar. Why? What has happened to Enkidu? Has he changed for better or worse now that he has joined the human community?
I'm also thinking about what is being suggested here. Is the wilderness more conducive to ethical and compassionate behavior than the city?
I felt for Humbaba as well. He was only doing what the God Enil asked of him, protecting the forest. The only person that intimated that he was evil, was Ninsun. Did she put that idea into their heads so that in the face of fear, Enkidu & Gilgamesh could complete their quest by exhibiting valor in killing something evil?Even though Enkidu was created to counter the hubris of Gilgamesh, you are right, he seems to have taken on some of the less worthy aspects of Gilgamesh such as vanity, aggressiveness, dominance and violence.
Urban settings versus rural, pastoral or even the wilderness you suggest; all the latter have often been presented in all works of art, writing and the like as the softer aspect of our nature. There is connectedness with the cycle of life in nature and smaller communities, symbiotic relationships at times all which facilitate the need to help one another. There is less to provoke the baser side of our nature. Of course, it's not all that simple. All shades of the ethical and compassionate spectrum can be found in both types of settings. I just think there is more opportunity to choose self over others in a place with more people. I hate to say in the cities, shoot we call them that from our ideas of what it is to be civilized, don't we?
Chris wrote: "Urban settings versus rural, pastoral or even the wilderness you suggest; all the latter have often been presented in all works of art, writing and the like as the softer aspect of our nature. There is connectedness with the cycle of life in nature..."I love what you're saying about urban and rural settings, Chris.
I'm just trying to figure out why Enkidu has turned so nasty. There is a simplicity, beauty, and empathy to Enkidu and Humbaba in their "wilderness" state. Humbaba retains that. He appeals to Enkidu's sense of empathy, which suggests empathy still means something to him. But not any more to Enkidu who seems to have lost all the positive qualities associated with the wilderness when he adjusts to city life. There must be a reason for the change--or, at least, there must be a point the poet is trying to make about why Enkidu has changed. Yes, he has been tamed, "civilized," but hasn't he lost something in the process?
Chris wrote: "All shades of the ethical and compassionate spectrum can be found in both types of settings. I just think there is more opportunity to choose self over others in a place with more people."
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that a poet 4,000 years ago reached the same conclusion you did. I find that remarkable. The thought gives me goosebumps.
David wrote: "Having defended Gilgamesh’s words to Ishtar, I’m now considering whether this will be another rash and irresponsible act that provokes further divine retaliation, for the sake of the story. Killing..."I see this passage a bit differently. Ishtar is the goddess of love, war, and fertility. She is strong, beautiful, and cunning. Rejecting Ishtar might require more courage, will, and strength than killing Humbaba.
I don't think Gilgamesh is trying to insult Ishtar; he is just doing his best to resist her by enumerating why marrying her would be the worst decision. Moreover, he doesn't even have to say it aloud; the communication between mortals and gods is often non-verbal, so Gilgamesh's slander might have just been a thought or a whisper.
According to my translation, Gilgamesh 'worked his words' beforehand. If this is accurate, he might have actually said the insults, not just thought them, but he did ponder them first, so it was not a 'rash' reply.
Regarding my previous assumption that the Mesopotamian gods not only resemble the Greek Gods, but They are the Greek Gods. Ishtar's reaction reminded me of the time when Aphrodite got mad at Hippolytus for rejecting her and made his stepmother fall in love with him—which ultimately caused his death.
Aphrodite's frequent need for validation, her vindictive reactions to rejection, and her manipulative behavior match what I have seen of Ishtar so far.
'Aphrodite' is supposed to derive from (ἀφρός) aphrós, meaning 'sea-foam,' but I tend to believe it has been imported from the Mesopotamians via the Cypriot Canaanites: Ishtar > Attart > Astarte > Aprodit - > Aphrodite
Emil wrote: "Moreover, he doesn't even have to say it aloud; the communication between mortals and gods is often non-verbal, so Gilgamesh's slander might have just been a thought or a whisper...."I agree with you that Gilgamesh's response to Ishtar was not rash. He has thought it out before speaking. But I don't see any evidence anywhere in the text suggesting communication between mortals and gods can be non-verbal. As far as I can tell, it has always been verbal. Even the gods communicate with each other verbally, as in Tablet 1:
The gods of heaven, lords of words,
Said to Anu, the god of the skies:
"Why did you unleash this savage aurochs in Uruk?
I'd love to see any words in the text to support your reading because I may have missed them.
Emil wrote: "so Gilgamesh's slander might have just been a thought or a whisper."I like the nod to syncretism. It means we can go further than mere simile in comparing gods of different cultures in geographically distributed locations, but can, in many cases claim one is derived from another.
I am interested to know which translation you’re using. Neither the Davis nor Lombardo translations I’m following indicate that Gilgamesh 'worked his words beforehand.'
By the way, I like the idea that since Ishtar is a god they might have communicated by thought alone. But I think with all of the, "and so-and-so spoke these words to (insert god here) that they are all on speaking terms with each other.
Since my texts did not specify, I had assumed, until now, it was a private conversation. But you got me thinking about slander. Slander requires a third party by definition. If Gilgamesh had only insulted Ishtar either in thought or in private to her alone, it wouldn’t qualify as slander. So to me, the text seems to support it was an event of verbal, public humiliation containing reputation-damaging statements. It is just still unclear to me where the insults fall on the spectrum between rash and unthinking to premeditated and intentional.
David wrote: "Since my texts did not specify, I had assumed, until now, it was a private conversation. But you got me thinking about slander. ..."In the Helle translation, Ishtar uses the word "slander" when complaining to Anu and demanding the Bull of Heaven. And Anu repeats it:
"Ah, but did you not goad King Gilgamesh
into spouting slander about you--
Slander about you and insults against you?"
David wrote: "I am interested to know which translation you’re using. Neither the Davis nor Lombardo translations I’m following indicate that Gilgamesh 'worked his words beforehand.' ..."I am using Sophus Helle's translation:
'"Gilgamesh Worked us words, saying to Ishtar:
"As if I would ever marry you! [...]'
I've seen several translations, and it's fascinating how different they are. Perhaps this is due to the incomplete nature of the text? Or maybe the ambiguity is inherent in the writing of Gilgamesh?
David wrote: "I like the nod to syncretism. It means we can go further than mere simile in comparing gods of different cultures in geographically distributed locations, but can, in many cases claim one is derived from another. ..."
I am quite sure that Aphrodite is derived from Ishtar, but I did not expect the two to be so similar
Tamara wrote: "I agree with you that Gilgamesh's response to Ishtar was not rash. He has thought it out before speaking. But I don't see any evidence anywhere in the text suggesting communication between mortals and gods can be non-verbal....."
..."
I am uncertain whether the Babylonian gods were regarded as omniscient, but if they were, it would have been impossible for Gilgamesh to conceal his thoughts or soften the rejection.
Regardless, I was merely speculating about the non-verbal communication; I haven't found any direct evidence in the text—yet.
Emil wrote: " was merely speculating about the non-verbal communication; I haven't found any direct evidence in the text—yet."And you should not, at least for the insulting of Ishtar incident if the word slander is translated accurately since it implies it was audible to other people.
But what about the dreams? Are the dreams from the gods, or are they just in them? Could this be an example of non-verbal communication, if so, from who?
Do we need to discuss the narrator of this story? Who is telling the story of Gilgamesh, and why? I think it is ultimately just the result of an old oral story finally being written down. But I am curious since the narrator seems to know the minds of the gods and relays not only mortal thoughts, but also the thoughts of the gods and private conversations between them.
David wrote: "Do we need to discuss the narrator of this story? Who is telling the story of Gilgamesh, and why? I think it is ultimately just the result of an old oral story finally being written down. But I am ..."The identity of the narrator is given in Tablet I. I think the narrator is supposed to be Gilgamesh even though he speaks of himself in the third person--maybe to distance himself from what he was like in the past to what he has become. I'm basing this on the opening of Tablet I:
He sought out rulers everywhere
and came to grasp all wisdom in the world.
He discovered a secret, revealed a hidden matter,
and brought home a story from before the Flood.
He came back from far roads, exhausted but at peace,
as he set down all his trials on a slab of stone.
The Gilgamesh after his journey to Utnapishtim has gained wisdom and is "at peace," unlike the restless Gilgamesh of before. He is reformed. He sets down "all his trials," in other words, everything he went through from beginning to end, on "a slab of stone."
Gilgamesh writes it all down to share the wisdom he has learned with his people. He retrieves all recorded knowledge that was destroyed by the Great Flood, including their history, performance of rituals, etc. through his discussion with a survivor of the flood. We are invited to read the story of his suffering and how he attained his wisdom by opening the cedarwood box, picking up the lapis lazuli tablet where he recorded his story, and to read it aloud.
We might need to see what happens at the end of the poem to figure out when and how he ostensibly achieves this wisdom.
That's my reading of it. Any other possible readings?
Tamara wrote: "The identity of the narrator is given in Tablet I."I did not get the impression that we are reading what Gilgamesh himself wrote down. To me, it reads more like how a modern biographer might write, "Benjamin Franklin wrote his autobiography from 1771 to 1790." In such a case, we are not reading the autobiography itself but rather a work about the autobiographer, that also invites us to read the autobiography.
Afar he journeyed and returned home, weary and worn. Whereupon did he grave upon a tablet of stone the account of his travels and his travails. . .But the text remains third person omniscient. If Gilgamesh were truly the narrator, I would expect to see more first-person narration rather than the third-person omniscient perspective we actually encounter.
. . .Seek out the tablet-box of copper. The clasp of bronze unlock. Open the lid and reveal the Unknown. Take up the tablet of lapis lazuli and recite aloud how Gilgamesh underwent all manner of hardship.
Davis, Gerald J. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet I).
David wrote: "Tamara wrote: "The identity of the narrator is given in Tablet I."I did not get the impression that we are reading what Gilgamesh himself wrote down. To me, it reads more like how a modern biogra..."
Ok, but then how do you reconcile what you're suggesting with the words that he (Gilgamesh) set down the account of his travels on the tablet which we are then invited to read, i.e. the poem we are actually reading?
The only way I can see it working is if Gilgamesh sets down his account on the lapis lazuli tablet tablet, but we are invited to read a different tablet written by an autobiographer. But that's not what it says. The words clearly say the following: he wrote it down; he put it in the box; find the box; open it; and read aloud what he wrote. I don't see any way around that.
It's not unusual for a person to write his/her story in the third-person and to disclose at some point in the narrative (sometimes not until the end) that he/she is the actual narrator and the events described happened to him/her. The only difference here is we are told at the outset Gilgamesh is the narrator.
Tamara wrote: ". . .how do you reconcile what you're suggesting with the words that he (Gilgamesh) set down the account of his travels on the tablet which we are then invited to read, i.e. the poem we are actually reading?"I agree that it is not unusual for someone to write their own story in the third person, and that is a very good call out. However, there are a few points that prevent me from accepting we are reading Gilgamesh's words here.
First, I picture the scene as if I am visiting Uruk long after the events being described. The narrator, perhaps a city priest or scribe, acts like a museum tour guide, providing a tour of the city and recounting the tale orally to us. He tells us that Gilgamesh wrote down his story and that we could view it on the tablets, but then he simply continues telling the story in the third person without transitioning into Gilgamesh’s own words.
There is nothing in the text (my translations 🙂 ) to indicate a shift in narration from the external storyteller to Gilgamesh himself. The perspective remains the same even after we are invited to imagine the tablets, and there is no formal introduction marking a transition, such as: “And these are the words that Gilgamesh set down on the tablets…” or “And Gilgamesh chiseled these words into stone…” If the intent were to move to Gilgamesh’s own voice, we might expect some indication of that shift, but we do not get one.
Second, I get the sense that the mention of the tablets and the suggestion that we "read" them serve as a literary device to give the story a sense of authority and authenticity that lends legitimacy to the story rather than signaling a direct transmission of Gilgamesh’s own words.
Finally, another key consideration is that these stories were most likely passed down orally for generations before being written down. it is not common in oral storytelling to switch narrators for long. (view spoiler)
For these reasons, I see the narration as continuous and external, rather than a direct reading of what Gilgamesh supposedly wrote.
David wrote: "If the intent were to move to Gilgamesh’s own voice, we might expect some indication of that shift, but we do not get one..."I'm just not sure that it's necessary to have some sort of statement to reflect a shift in the narrative voice. But I get what you're saying and I think it's very possible the narrator is an anonymous scribe, especially since the stories were probably transmitted orally long before being written down in Sumerian around 2150 BCE. I've just always gone with the words in the text and assumed Gilgamesh was the narrator. But you've made me rethink that. Thanks--I guess 🙂
(I had to copy and paste your smiley face because I don't know how to do one on goodreads.)
Tamara wrote: "(I had to copy and paste your smiley face because I don't know how to do one on goodreads.)"On a Windows PC you can Press Windows key + . (period) or Windows key + ; (semicolon) on your keyboard. An emoji panel will pop up and you can click the one you want.
Got it! Thanks. 👍 You've created a monster! 😉
David wrote: "And you should not, at least for the insulting of Ishtar incident if ..."
Guilty! Thank you, I didn't know that slander means to insult someone publicly
I see the term 'slander' being used by Ishtar only in the Helle translation. My other German translation uses the terms 'Beschimpfungen und Flüche'—insults and curses.
David wrote: " But what about the dreams? Are the dreams from the gods, or are they just in them? Could this be an example of non-verbal communication, if so, from who?"
I've read the passage again and I don't see any indication that there was an actual dialogue between Ishtar and Gilgamesh. Ishtar just appears out of nowhere, and nobody else is participating in this discussion. This could have been Ishtar appearing in Gilgamesh's dreams or hallucinations.
Here are some thoughts on tablet V- The Helle translation confirms the Cedar Forest was a home to the gods, though in the notes it isn't clear if it was home to the high gods or to the gods of the underworld
- The Dalley translation makes Enkidu's acting as a guide seem a sacrilegious betrayal of his earlier knowledge of the place. Humbaba says, "You have found out the nature of my forest, the | nature of [my dwelling]..." If he had been initiated in the ways or knowledge of the forest, then he may have been thought of as an insider, and his actions become those of an apostate.
- We have some graphic violence. First, Humbaba's threat "I will split his throat and gullet | and fed his flesh to bugs, eagles, hawks, and vultures" and then in the Helle translation the little nugget that Gilgamesh road Humbaba's severed head down the Euphrates on his return trip home.
- I'm not sure about this but to me, Enkidu floating home on the door from Enlil's forest seems more sacrilegious than Gilgamesh's floating on Humbaba's head.
- For any that might still be interested, the Helle translation does offer names for Humbaba's children / seven cloaks
his cloaks of dread flee into the forest... | My friend, catch a bird and where go the chicks? | Let us find the cloaks of dread later, | they are like chicks running wild in the forest.
They are later listed as "the Cicada, The Growler, The Blizzard, The Loudmouth, the Wise Man, Kappah, and the Demon"
With regard to Tablet VI, I feel it is important to zoom out for some context before interpreting Gilgamesh's rejection of Ishtar. First, he is ambitious and wants immortality. He is 2/3 a god because his father, Lugalbanda, was deified. In a way, he is trying to follow his father's path.
Second, he and Enkidu just came back from a heroic adventure that hasn't seemed to have any negative consequences. They seem to be flying high.
Third, in addition to being the goddess of love, Ishtar is associated with royal power. King's would seek her favor to solidify their power. Marrying her legitimizes a king. See: https://www.worldhistory.org/ishtar/#....
Summing all of this up, Gilgameth is on a high from his adventures and likely feels he does not need to marry her to legitimize his kingship. He also knows that marrying her is not the path to immortality
- "Tell me, did any of your lovers last? | Did any of your lovebirds fly to the skies?" (Helle translation)
- "Which of your masterful paramours went to heaven?" (Dalley translation)
Oh, and one more thought on a Gilgameth-Ishtar union. It feels a little like the inversion of his abuse of newlywed brides with his "jus primae noctis". Ishtar is claiming her divine right to bed kings.
Some information on IshtarFrom Weavers, Scribes, and Kings (Podany, Amanda H)
- Every Mesopotamian city had a resident god. An and Inana (alternate names for Anu and Ishtar) were the gods of Uruk. They likely had two because the city grew together from two smaller cities/towns
- "She was associated with the planet we know as Venus..."
- There was a statue of her in the temple in the city of Uruk. The statue would have been thought of as literally her - what Gilgamesh would have married. The marble representation of her face was found in 1939. It is impressive to see an image - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of...
From Enheduanna (translated by Sophus Helle)
- Inana (Ishtar) was the only female high god in the pantheon and was a rule breaker. Her example wasn't to be followed. She fell out of favor and disappeared from myths after the Old Babylonian period.
-----
Flinging bloody genitals at her, the goddess of fertility, is about as insulting as things can get. It does, however, remind me of Uranus/Kronos/Aphrodite.
- Kronos "reached out from the ambush with his left hand; with his right he took the huge sickle with its long row of sharp teeth and quickly cut off his father's genitals, and flung them behind him to fly where they might" (Hesiod's Theology - M.L. West translation)
- Aphrodite was born of the foaming immortal flesh of the genitalia in the sea.
- Kronos (time and history?) came to power.
Does the popularity of writing to convey myth in the Gilgamesh stories also mark the beginning of history? It is a foundational cultural myth for the region, and maybe these foundational myths require large castrated penises for some reason? What do I know?
David wrote: "The Divine Offenses of Gilgamesh and Enkidu: A Most Ill-Advised Guide to Making Enemies in High Places ..."This is gold, fire
Some wonderful comments and insights, Michael.I have also read the Podany and Helle's translation of Enheduanna, the first known poet in the world. I loved both books.
Michael wrote: "Does the popularity of writing to convey myth in the Gilgamesh stories also mark the beginning of history? It is a foundational cultural myth for the region, and maybe these foundational myths require large castrated penises for some reason? What do I know?"
I have no idea where you're going with this. Castrated penises are somehow connected with the writing of foundational myths? This may be a bit of a stretch : )
Just that castration is a vivid image that is tied to both stories linked to goddesses of love. Because it is in both, I'm am trying to go beyond seeing it as a coincidence. It is beyond me what the deeper meaning is though. Related to myth and history, I was saying that Kronos (Time) becoming the primary god ushered in a new phase and perhaps, The Epic of Gilgamesh as a foundational myth for the region, with is disrespect for Ishtar might be representative of a transition. In the Enheduanna, Helle suggests that she fell out of favor and wasn't represented in stories after a certain point. This is a major stretch though, just a stray idea.
Michael wrote: "The Epic of Gilgamesh as a foundational myth for the region, with is disrespect for Ishtar might be representative of a transition. In the Enheduanna, Helle suggests that she fell out of favor and wasn't represented in stories after a certain point. This is a major stretch though, just a stray idea..."Actually, this isn't such a major stretch. It does indicate the transition which gave primacy to male gods.
All female goddesses were eventually demoted, their position among the gods being secondary to that of the males. We see Ishtar being disrespected in Gilgamesh, but the fate of Tiamat, the mother goddess who gave birth to the gods in the Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Epic of Creation is even worse. She is killed by the male god, Marduk. He straddles her corpse, splits it open, and creates the heavens, earth, and cosmos out of her dismembered body. He pierces her eyes out of which flow the Tigris and Euphrates.
I've read several translations of the poem, but, once again, I prefer the Sophus Helle translation which came out last year.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu arrive at the Cedar Forest. It is a pristine, lush forest, full of birds’ songs and chattering monkeys. The forest flourishes. Gilgamesh and Enkidu pluck up the courage to fight Humbaba together. Shamash responds to Gilgamesh’s plea for help by urging them to go after Humbaba before he can return to his lair and be “ wrapped in his seven cloaks of dread.” Humbaba confronts them, insulting Enkidu and threatening Gilgamesh. His face changes shape, which terrifies Gilgamesh. But Enkidu urges him to fight.
Shamash unleashes storms and winds that arrest Humbaba’s movements. Humbaba pleads for mercy, promising to serve Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh wavers. But Enkidu is deaf to Humbaba’s pleas and urges Gilgamesh to kill him before Enlil hears the commotion. Humbaba weeps. He curses Enkidu. Gilgamesh and Enkidu collaborate to kill Humbaba and cut the tusks off his head. They then kill Humbaba’s seven (seven!) sons. They use axes to cut the cedars (Enkidu as an “axe” in Gilgamesh’s dream), make a raft, and transport the logs down the river. They place Humbaba’s head at the front of the raft.
Tablet VI
After they get back to Uruk, Gilgamesh bathes. He looks mighty dashing, catching the eye of Ishtar who proposes marriage and offers him all manner of wonderful bribes. But Gilgamesh declines her offer, heaping a barrage of insults at her in the process. He cites Ishtar’s lovers and how she transformed and punished each one. Ishtar throws a tantrum and runs crying to daddy (her father, Anu), demanding revenge. She wants Anu to give her the Bull of Heaven to kill Gilgamesh. Anu reminds her she provoked Gilgamesh. Ishtar threatens to open the gates to the underworld, releasing hordes of the dead to eat the living unless Anu gives her what she wants. After reassuring Anu she has stored sufficient food supplies for seven years (again, the number seven!), he agrees to release the Bull of Heaven.
Ishtar leads the Bull down to earth. Marshes dry up and water levels fall. With each of the bull’s snorts, a pit opens and hundreds of men fall in and die. Enkidu and Gilgamesh collaborate to kill the bull. They cut out its heart and offer it to Shamash. Ishtar mourns. Enkidu insults her and flings the bull’s penis at her.
The citizens of Uruk are impressed with the size of the bull’s horns which Gilgamesh takes to the local craftsmen to decorate with lapis lazuli. He uses the horns to hold the oil in Lugalbanda’s temple. Gilgamesh and Enkidu celebrate their victory over the bull with a parade and party. Gilgamesh struts around like a champion athlete. That night, Enkidu has a dream.