Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
>
Week 6: Tablet XI and the Poem as a Whole
date
newest »
newest »
Just as the epic doesn’t follow the pattern of epics we are accustomed to, Gilgamesh does not conform to the typical epic hero. He is arrogant, self-absorbed, tyrannical. He needlessly kills a monster he has already subdued. He angers the gods, insults Ishtar, and goes off on his quest motivated by a fear of death. Until his return to Uruk where he shares knowledge about the Flood, Gilgamesh’s motives have been selfish. At the end of his journey, Gilgamesh has gained self-knowledge, learned his limitations, become wise, and embraced his position as the caretaker of Uruk. His journey to that end point has been long, arduous, challenging, and riddled with errors. He has experienced anger, grief, despair, confusion, and humility.
His journey has not been easy. But is any journey to self-knowledge easy? Aren’t all journeys to self-knowledge characterized by struggle? They don’t happen in a flash, and they don’t come easily. They are challenging, painful, and usually involve some suffering. To let go of what you once were, as Gilgamesh has to do, and to evolve into a wiser person as Gilgamesh does, is difficult and painful. I would argue pain and suffering are intrinsic to the process.
Gilgamesh may not be a typical epic hero. But in my mind, he is a hero, nevertheless. He embarks on a difficult journey and emerges on the other side having shed his old skin and given birth to himself anew. He has fought and won the hardest battle there is to fight: the battle against himself.
I don't agree with your definition of a "typical epic hero". Odysseus is very arrogant, it defies the son of Poseidon just because he thinks he is invencible. If was not Athena, he would have died the first day. I would say arrogance is a typical feature of epic heroes, at least the Greek ones.
Rafael wrote: "I don't agree with your definition of a "typical epic hero". Odysseus is very arrogant, it defies the son of Poseidon just because he thinks he is invencible. If was not Athena, he would have died ..."Good point, Rafael. I agree with you about Odysseus. When I said "typical epic hero," I was thinking more along the lines of the ideal--someone who is selfless, larger than life, and does something heroic to save the community.
I get it, but what you (and people in general) consider a hero is not always how heroes are in epics. They can help other people, but the aim is always (or almost always) the glory.
Gilgamesh fits Joseph Campbell’s outline for the hero's arc. He begins as a powerful but arrogant king, undertakes a journey in his grief from Enkidu’s death, and crosses into the unknown in search of immortality. Along the way, he faces trials, meets mentors like Utanapishtim, and endures a symbolic death when he fails to stay awake and later loses the plant of youth. But his true reward is not eternal life or some magical item. Instead it is acceptance of his mortality and understanding of the world and his place in it. By the end, or the beginning thanks the cyclic nature of the story, he is transformed: no longer trying to defy death, but embracing what it means to live well. His journey is both heroic and deeply human.
Since we are nearing the end of our discussion, I would love to hear your thoughts about the epic. Was it what you expected? Did it surprise you in any way? As David points out above, the poem can fit the hero's arc as outlined by Joseph Campbell. Do you see any additional themes/interpretations for the poem?
As a junior in high school, I wrote a term paper comparing Gilgamesh to other epics. Over half a century later, I see a lot more in it than I did then, of course. But it still seems different from the others. A reader might easily want to take Achilles or Odysseus or Jason as a role model. I can't see that with Gilgamesh.
Roger wrote: "As a junior in high school, I wrote a term paper comparing Gilgamesh to other epics. Over half a century later, I see a lot more in it than I did then, of course. But it still seems different from ..."I am impressed that you read Gilgamesh in high school. Not a single student had ever heard of it before I taught it in a college level Early World Lit class.
I'm not sure I agree with you about taking Achilles or Odysseus or Jason as role models. They were each riddled with flaws and behaved as if the rules of common decency didn't apply to them: Achilles desecrated Hektor's body; Odysseus put his men's lives in danger; and Jason abandoned Medea.
Tamara wrote: "Roger wrote: "As a junior in high school, I wrote a term paper comparing Gilgamesh to other epics. Over half a century later, I see a lot more in it than I did then, of course. But it still seems d..."That's true; they all have their flaws. Maybe the post-epic Gilgamesh (of whom we see very little) could be a role model, having his godlike power hitched to some mortal wisdom. But I wonder: Gilgamesh is twice as much god as man. He's eighteen feet tall, or thereabouts. Could a boy really want to be a wiser Gilgamesh the way he might want to be a less-proud Achilles?
Roger wrote: "A reader might easily want to take Achilles or Odysseus or Jason as a role model. I can't see that with Gilgamesh.Tamara wrote: "I'm not sure I agree with you about taking Achilles or Odysseus or Jason as role models."
Regarding the Greek heroes, their flaws are balanced by clear heroic virtues: bravery in battle, cunning, endurance, or dedication to a cause. We admire them despite their flaws. They also tend to succeed in concrete ways by winning wars, returning home, achieving quests.
Gilgamesh, on the other hand, fails in his quest. He does not gain immortality. But he grows and changes. He learns to grieve, to accept limits, and to appreciate what it means to be human. He is not a role model for strength or cleverness, but for self-awareness, transformation, and wisdom hard-earned through loss.
In that way, Gilgamesh may not be the hero we want to be when we’re young—but he becomes the kind of man we might hope to become with age.
The question seems to be around the subjective nature of role models and how our perspectives may evolve.
David wrote: "He is not a role model for strength or cleverness, but for self-awareness, transformation, and wisdom hard-earned through loss.In that way, Gilgamesh may not be the hero we want to be when we’re young—but he becomes the kind of man we might hope to become with age..."
That's a really great point, David. Our perspectives are evolving, and what we consider to be heroic today may lose some of its luster tomorrow.
Tamara wrote: "Since we are nearing the end of our discussion, I would love to hear your thoughts about the epic. Was it what you expected? Did it surprise you in any way? As David points out above, the poem can fit the hero's arc as outlined by Joseph Campbell ..."When I first encountered Gilgamesh in high school, it was through a dreadful translation that read more like a prose summary. Thanks to this group I had the good fortune to discover Helle's translation, which is truly remarkable.
I expected Gilgamesh to be complex and thought-provoking, and I anticipated the Babylonian gods to serve as prototypes for the Greek gods. What I didn’t expect, however, was how strikingly similar the Babylonian gods are to their Greek counterparts. I was also surprised by the remarkable commonalities with the Abrahamic religions—beyond the well-known flood story.
Another thing that surprised me was how funny and witty Gilgamesh turned out to be. Enkidu hurling the bull's penis at a god is not only hilarious but also the ultimate act of rebellion. I can’t help but wish the Abrahamic religions had borrowed this element—it might have made the world a more interesting place.
The biggest revelation for me was the relevance and relatability of Gilgamesh. While the Homeric epics are among my all-time favorite works, I often feel the immense passage of time that separates me from them. With Gilgamesh, it’s different. For some reason I still don’t fully understand, I see my own dreams, flaws, and mistakes reflected in its pages.
As for Campbell, I read The Hero with a Thousand Faces before encountering Gilgamesh. In my view, Gilgamesh doesn’t "fit" Campbell’s hero’s journey framework. Instead, I suspect Campbell constructed his theory with Gilgamesh in mind, making it, in a way, the other way around.
Emil wrote: "The biggest revelation for me was the relevance and relatability of Gilgamesh. While the Homeric epics are among my all-time favorite works, I often feel the immense passage of time that separates me from them. With Gilgamesh, it’s different. For some reason I still don’t fully understand, I see my own dreams, flaws, and mistakes reflected in its pages..."Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Emil.
I share your sentiments about Gilgamesh. For some reason, the epic feels modern to me in spite of the fact it was written 4,000 years ago. The more I read it, the more I find things in it that resonate with me. And the more depth I find in it. I think it is an astonishing poem. I'm not sure I share Rainer Maria Rilke's sentiment that Gilgamesh is the greatest thing a person can experience. But it is certainly among one of the top experiences for me.
Thank you, again.
I agree with all you say with one exception. It sounds like his quest was a bit of a failure if all he brought back was “only” wisdom. If we go to the opening of Tablet 1, we see this:
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.
Notice how there is no mention of killing of monsters, or heroic deeds in battle, or conquering territory, or any of the “grand” deeds we associate with epics. Those things are insignificant. What is celebrated, what he is remembered for is bringing home a story from before the Flood. He has retrieved knowledge of their past and has shared it with them. The past had been “a secret” because the flood destroyed all their records. Gilgamesh brought it back. They don’t care about his battles or anything else. They value knowledge above all else. He is their hero for sharing his knowledge.
It is a different way of looking at things. It is not the boon that we have come to expect from reading other epics. But it was a valuable gift to them, nevertheless. It was the only thing that mattered, that is recorded for posterity. And doesn’t it say something wonderful about a people 4,000 years ago for placing such a high premium on shared knowledge instead of on conquests and killings?