Answer TWO of
the following…
Q1: According to
Enkidu, what is the true nature of the Underworld? How does this complicate the
idea of kings/servants, as well as the quest for immortal deeds and victories
in life?
Q2: Enkidu’s
speech in Tablet VII against death is one of the first ‘existential’ speeches
in literature. What is the nature of his anger, and why is it particularly
poignant and ironic? Related to this, why does Gilgamesh call it “profanity”
(not meaning curses, necessarily, but maybe more like blasphemy)?
Q3: If you were
a member of Sumerian/Babylonian society, and this was actually your culture and
your gods, would you feel comforted by the will of the gods? Do their actions
in these tablets seem just? Does the poem explain why Enkidu deserves to die
and Gilgamesh to suffer? Do the gods seem to be embodiments of eternal truths…or
heroes and tyrants in a larger form?
Q4: If Gilgamesh
is the hero of our tale, and this tale is about the triumph of
civilization/humanity over beasts and barbarians, why does Gilgamesh begin his
wanderings clad in lion skins, foraging for water, and chasing the winds? In a
sense, why does Gilgamesh reject society and humanity after Enkidu’s death? Is
this, too, ‘heroic,’ or is it part of his journey toward heroism and reason?
Q1: The true nature of the underworld, according to Enkidu, is very grim, much like our current views of hell. I find it interesting this book references the afterlife only in terms of there being an underworld. No heaven-like place. I'm not very well-versed on ancient gods and beliefs but I wonder if they had a heaven-like place, considering the mentions of past kings and various other people being sent to the underworld. It even mentions the kings of the past were very loyal to the gods, yet they still ended up in the underworld? It mentions "darkness, hunger, thirst, no rewards other than one's surviving kin..." Enkidu's dream of being dragged to the underworld by a monster is pretty terrifying. This makes it hard to understand what the point of being loyal to the gods in the mortal life is. If these kings and servants are all equals in the afterlife, what is the point of having the hierarchy? It seems the afterlife is an equalizer by their beliefs. If I'm interpreting it right.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I would NOT feel comforted by the will of the God's this culture believed in. Their gods seem very unjust and seem to have no rhyme or reason to their actions sometimes, like a toddler who needs a nap. The version I'm reading didn't seem to go into why Enkidu deserves to die... the gods seem to be tyrants in my opinion. But then again, I would have probably been a normal person and not a queen or hero back then, so maybe I could have dodged the spotlight and avoided the wrath of these gods by just taking care of my children and doing whatever my husband wanted, and not attracting any unwanted attention. I think maybe doing my chores and calling it a day would be ignored and I could sleep peacefully at night knowing the gods are more focused on people like Gilgamesh who slay forest guardians for convoluted personal reasons. But overall, I don't think I would feel very safe in daily life or have a very positive outlook in regards to my soul in the afterlife if I was a part of this culture. I would probably just feel doomed all the time.
- Jess Petty
Right, why be loyal at all--even an "innocent" like Enkidu (the gods call him innocent before Enlil demands his death) is carried away and thrown into darkness. But then so are the great kings of yore! This work could be a bold statement against the royalty and the gods, suggesting that common men--and poets--have the last laugh. Maybe it's suggesting that all men and women should rise up and be more like Gilgamesh and Enkidu? For even the gods can be beaten with enough fortitude.
DeleteQ2: Enkidu’s angry speech is ironic because all of that which he lists as a curse or something that deserves to be cursed is something that was good in his life. The trapper, for example, was what led Shamhat to him, and she led him to Gilgamesh, who is arguably according to the story one of the most important events in Enkidu’s life, as it gives him a Brother. On top of this, a god comes down and scorns him for cursing all of these things, to which he immediately goes to praise Shamhat again, wishing her life to be good and bountiful after he is gone. Gilgamesh calls it a “profanity” because he knows how good Enkidu’s life has really been.
ReplyDeleteQ4: I believe that Gilgamesh’s reclusion is a heroic part of the story. Many Epics and myths have the hero go into the wild to find the truth about themselves and the world. Gilgamesh needs to be alone according to the story so that he will find acceptance and knowledge/power/strength. Gilgamesh himself is rejecting society because he believes it was his fault that Enkidu died, and that it should have been him to go. But for the story, he has gone into the wilderness because he needs to learn that even if it WAS his fault, Enkidu still made his life better.
Great responses; having Gilgamesh follow Enkidu's journey in reverse is not only dramatically satisfying, but it states an important theme: what IS civilization if it can be so easily cast aside or lost? Gilgamesh even throws his clothes aside as if they are "taboo," even though earlier, clothes are one of the things that made Enkidu human. So the poem is again asking what makes a man human and what makes a hero worth of the title. These tablets leave us with a big question mark for both.
DeleteQ2: Enkidu's anger is coming from a dark and twisted version of himself. His anger is ironic because he wants to curse almost everything he ever interacted with, rather that thing was good or bad. For example, he wants to curse the farmer and Shamhat, when they are the real and only reasons he can think and reason like a human and not an animal. Giglamesh calls his anger profanity because it is uncalled for as profanity is in many ways. There is most definitely a reason for Enkidu to be angry about the situation, but there is no reason for him to have the raging anger he portrayed. Giglamesh was trying to look out for Enkidu by trying to calm him down.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I would not feel comforted or safe in their society. I believe the will of the gods is not always in the best interest of all of the members of the society. The gods were unjust to both Enkidu and Gilgamesh. Enkidu did not deserve to die, for he really did nothing wrong. He lead his "brother" to the place he wanted to go, nothing wrong there. Also, Gilgamesh does not deserve to suffer the way he does after Enkidu's death. He and Enkidu were punished by the gods for a small act against the gods. The gods in this poem particularly are more tyrants. They try to control everything and do not give those that are not gods room to be their own person, so to speak.
Yes, it's a frightening world to live in, where nothing guarantees you safe passage in this world or the next. The gods are not only fickle but uncaring, unless there is a better place for true servants...maybe all these kings were corrupt? And yet, there should have been at least a good one or two, though Enkidu is clear that "all the kings of yore" are present. So maybe, like Gilgamesh, you have to take what you can get and defy the gods before they betray you?
DeleteQ1: Enkidu describes the Underworld as a dark and grim place. Unlike contemporary depictions of hell/purgatory/etc., this afterlife seems inevitable. This paints an image of divine beings are culture isn't really used to, in the sense that they act impulsively and irrationally, just like the humans they rule over. The author could have intended the description of servants and kings becoming equal as a way to say that all human pursuits are ultimately in vain, and that death is the great equalizer.
ReplyDeleteQ3: If I lived in this sort of culture, the behavior of these gods would probably make the Epic feel a lot more like a horror story than a heroic tale. The "will of the gods" seems a lot more like whimsical impulse than divine rule. Their actions certainly don't seem just. The poem seems to suggest that Enkidu needed to die because the gods knew that Gilgamesh's grief and new-found fear of death would render him docile. In a way, Enkidu could only fulfill his original purpose by dying. I think that the poet is trying to assert that heroism and villainy are irrelevant when the gods themselves are morally gray.
Great responses; if death is the great equalizer, a place where kings and servants are lumped together in mutual misery, would this take away from Gilgamesh's exploits and heroism? If a hero becomes a clay-eater in hell, why admire him at all? Or is this a culture that glorifies in the brief existence/youth of humanity since it's all downhill from there?
DeleteQ2: I find his speech to be one of anger and despair. He's angry because he has seen what the gods have in store for him. So in his anger, he starts cursing everything and everyone. I could also see how his speech could be one of despair because of how it starts. Perhaps it starts from a place of despair to move onto anger and hate. I say this because at first, he is just cursing the door. He talks to the door as if the door itself, chose for him to die. He is despairing because he built this great door for Enlil, only to be betrayed by Enlil when he says to kill him. Then it quickly transcends into anger.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I would not be comforted by the will of the gods. First, in my opinion, I thought that Gilgamesh had delivered the killing blow to both Hambaba, by stabbing him in the throat, and the bull, by stabbing him "between the yoke of the horns and the slaughter-spot" (Tablet VI, 146). So it doesn't make any sense to me as to why kill Enkidu. Sure, he lead Gilgamesh on, but Gilgamesh still delivered the killing blows. I do not think that these gods are beings of eternal truths.
Yes, don't you love the door speech? I love that he focuses all his rage on the door, as if it were a living thing. The door represents his folly and his thickheaded drive to do a single deed. Now it mocks him, since he can't take it back--the door will never become a tree again (nor will his sin or his punishment ever be erased). So he tries to 'unmake' other people around him, most notably Shamhat, by making her a 'prostitute' in the modern sense. It's a powerful and petty speech, and shows a god forced to be a man again, contemplating his eventual doom.
ReplyDelete