Reading Classics, Chronologically Through the Ages discussion

The Epic of Gilgamesh is a Sumerian poem from ancient Mesopotamia, and considered the world’s first great work of literature. Although the exact date of its first existence is up for debate, we can generally say it’s from sometime around 2,000 BCE (give or take a couple hundred years).

I began thinking about the original languages that many of the books we are reading were written in and I stumbled upon this link: http://www.openculture.com/2010/10/th.... It is part of the epic read in the original Akkadian. While I don't expect any of us to understand it, it is cool to hear what it would have sounded like to the first listeners of the tale.

Wow, how fascinating! I just listened to it. Thank you for sharing!

I just finished the book. I read the translation by N. K. Sandars (Penguin Classic). It was so much better than I thought it'd be. I'm not really into epic tales with heroes and monsters and what not, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it covered so much more than just mindless monster slaying: Friendship, mortality, destiny. I really really enjoyed it.

I would love to hear other people's thoughts. What translations have others read? What struck them? Anything they didn't like?

Heidi wrote: "I would love to hear other people's thoughts. What translations have others read? What struck them? Anything they didn't like? "

I listened to the audio CD of Stephen Mitchell's "new English version". He smoothes out the story, writes it in loose non-rhyming verse, and fills in the blanks. There's also an essay by Mitchell on the CDs that goes through the story episode by episode with his commentary included. I really liked the story and his essay gave me lots more insight and made me love the story.

The non-Puritan attitudes about sex struck me as interesting. In the version I listened to at least, there are priestesses of Ishtar who have dedicated themselves to her, making themselves available to any man for sex, though it's not stated how this is arranged or what the attendant customs and rules are. And it is interesting that it is a woman seducing Enkidu that civilizes him.

The killing of Humbaba is also interesting, in that in most stories the hero kills the monster essentially "because it's there". But in Gilgamesh, Mitchell says that the monster wasn't supposed to be killed and it is because they killed Humbaba that Enkidu takes ill and dies. I didn't understand that from just listening to the text, however, though I may have just not paid close enough attention. And Mitchell says that Gilgamesh and Enkidu also do not make the connection between the slaying of Humbaba and Enkidu's death.
As Kenia mentions in the Genesis/Gilgamesh discussion thread, there is of course a similarity in Enkidu living as a wild man and then becoming knowledgeable and losing his innocence after being seduced in a sense by a woman. And the flood story is truly striking in its similarity to the Noah's Ark story.
Both the Egyptians and this Gilgamesh story struggle with the fear of death. The ancient Egyptian civilization was in full swing around the time of Gilgamesh. From what I've read, the Egyptians were obsessed with preparing for death and assuring themselves of an afterlife. Gilgamesh ultimately seems to accept the inevitability of death, but only after railing against it in profound grief and seeking an escape from it.
The terror of death is something humankind has to confront, and there is evidence it is one of the main things civilizations were preoccupied with after farming and cities were instituted.
I also liked the rebuke of Gilgamesh to Ishtar, when she asked him to be her lover. Based on her apparent past behavior (destroying her lovers after tiring of them), he was right to refuse her.
I can't think of much that I did not like.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, Heidi. I was going to try for a re-read of it this month but I just have too many other books on-the-go at the moment. However, I can add a few of my thoughts from my blog review.

I found many paradoxes in this poem: Gilgamesh is a strong leader, yet he also abuses his power; Gilgamesh is two-thirds god, yet he is also doomed to die; Gilgamesh and Enkidu fight in order to bring peace to Uruk; women are portrayed as vehicles for pleasure, yet are also shown as being wise and having foresight; Enkidu is initially a wild-man, yet he is the one who "tames" Gilgamesh; and in spite of often not sleeping throughout most of the poem, Gilgamesh sleeps at the end, which prevents him from attaining immortality.

Yet in spite of the contradictions, the poet is clear that strength over reason is valueless. Gilgamesh learns that it is trust and integrity in the end that bring acclaim: valuing a friend's life over his own, discovering the wisdom of accepting death as a part of life, and that being a true leader is about good character and responsibility to his subjects, rather than exercising tyranny, oppression and conquest over them.

Oooo Julie and Cleo, you bring up so many fascinating points!!

The top 3 things that struck me were: immortablity, the flood myth, and....were Enkidu and Gilgamesh actually lovers? The last one could be a reach, and I don't have much solid ground for it; but neither did I pull it out of thin air.

Here's an excerpt from my blog essay (http://www.keniasedler.com/gilgamesh/):

"OK, now perhaps this one is a little out there, but I couldn’t help but notice little hints that maybe, perhaps, Enkidu and Gilgamesh were lovers, rather than like brothers. After their first fight, when they make-up, they “embraced, and kissed, and took each other by the hand.” (First in Tablet II|III.iii, but it occurs several times) Now, granted, what was considered culturally acceptable between hetersexual men has changed greatly over time. So, I am not implying this as proof, but merely an alternate interpretation to their relationship.

At Enkidu’s death, Gilgamesh is feminized, metaphorically compared to a woman and then to a lioness as he grieves for Enkudu, and Enkidu is referred to as “companion” rather than, say, “brother,”, and likened to a “bride”:

Tablet VIII.i: “It is Enkidu, the companion, whom I weep for, weeping for him as if I were a woman.” “Gilgamesh covered Enkidu’s face with a veil like the veil of a bride. He hovered like an eagle over the body, or as a lioness does over her brood.”

Later on his journey, when Gilgamesh is speaking with the tavern keeper, Siduri, he speaks of his love for Enkidu, referring once again to Enkidu as his “companion” and himself as a “woman”:

Tablet X.i: “Enkidu, the companion, whom I loved, who went together with me on the journey no one has ever undergone before.” “Weeping as if I were a woman I roam the paths and shores of unknown places…”

These were the only hints I found to support this theory. Again, just a theory, and, I think, an interesting perspective on the story."

Sorento62 wrote: "The non-Puritan attitudes about sex struck me as interesting. In the version I listened to at least, there are priestesses of Ishtar who have dedicated themselves to her, making themselves available to any man for sex, though it's not stated how this is arranged or what the attendant customs and rules are. And it is interesting that it is a woman seducing Enkidu that civilizes him..."

Cleo wrote: "I found many paradoxes in this poem: ... women are portrayed as vehicles for pleasure, yet are also shown as being wise and having foresight..."

I find both of your points fascinating. The role that women play or how they were seen within that culture...somehow I didn't take notice of that when I read this. More ideas to chew on...

Kenia wrote: "were Enkidu and Gilgamesh actually lovers?"

Most googling I've done seems to find the text ambiguous on that point. Stephen Mitchell in his essay says that the Tablet XII which is sometimes tacked on to the main epic says they were sexual with each other -- but I haven't seen the reasoning backing that up.

So many interesting points!

In the version I read (ugh, I returned it to the library. I wish I could quote it from the book!) in the introduction, the author really highlights the idea of being 2/3s god yet mortal, and the restlessness Gilgamesh feels - the constant quest once Enkidu dies, and being soooo close.....only to have a stupid serpent eat the flower. What a waste!

I also kept thinking as I read the book about something a priest once said at Mass (I'm a recent convert and practicing Catholic, just to give context): he brought up the really interesting point of how so many people today say that Christianity, the creation story, and other "how things came to be" stories, are like so many other stories out there, and really what's the difference between Christianity and any other faith, ancient or modern? And for those who may not really know much about the stories themselves, or just quickly glance at the surface of the stories, yeah maybe (just look at the flood accounts). And yet he stressed that other creation/myth stories are sooooo full of lust or violence, or what have you, that most people would absolutely blush if they had to retell them to, say, a fellow co-worker. I confess I've read or heard very few other ancient stories, and those I'm familiar with have been children's versions or very watered down.

So to dive into Gilgamesh and read for myself how an ancient people looked at life and the bigger issues, like the dignity (or lack of) humans, mortality, sex, power - it really made me appreciate my faith! And to see in a fresh new way how the Jewish faith, and eventually the Christian faith, really was radical compared to how so many other cultures understood the world around them. A god of love, rather than lust? A god of might, rather than tyrannical power? A god who just aches to give mercy and forgiveness rather than seeking revenge? The idea that every life is precious and matters, rather than the strong shall destroy the weak because they can and that's the order of things? I think so many of these ideas are just taken for granted in our culture today, and reading Gilgamesh really highlighted that for me. Great great book. :)

Kenia wrote: " .... ....were Enkidu and Gilgamesh actually lovers? ..."

In our culture, it's a question that is probably inevitably brought up, so I'm certain you're not the only person who has asked it. It's often problematic to view historical context through a modern lense. We now see male relationships very differently from how they used to be viewed. Historically, most of the time males could have close friendships with nothing sexual about the relationship. Ask eighty-year-olds how same sex friendship was viewed in their time and generally you will get a different picture from the present. Read old books. It can be very different. Not that the question isn't valid and should be addressed if there is evidence of it but if there is no evidence, the value of examining it is questionable given the context of the times.

There have been a number of close male friendships in literature: Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Damon and Pythias, Tom and Huck, Holmes and Watson, George, Harris and Jerome K. Jerome, Frodo and Sam, Pooh and Piglet ....... If we remove the wonderful values of friendship and sexualize it, I think we can lose something enriching and invaluable. And it becomes something else entirely.

However, I'm probably addressing this question as a "go-to question" in many same sex friendships instead of addressing your direct question, Kenia. From my reading of Gilgamesh, I didn't pick up on it. As for the "women" references, women are known for conveying emotion much better than men, and also for being more connected on a deeper level. Perhaps the appellation was then used to emphasize Gilgamesh's loss, sadness and deep grieving. Not sure, but just throwing that out there.

Heidi wrote: " A god of love, rather than lust? A god of might, rather than tyrannical power? A god who just aches to give mercy and forgiveness rather than seeking revenge? The idea that every life is precious and matters, rather than the strong shall destroy the weak because they can and that's the order of things? I think so many of these ideas are just taken for granted in our culture today, and reading Gilgamesh really highlighted that for me...."

Some really good points, Heidi. Have you read Beowulf? If not, you would probably enjoy it. It shows the change from a blood feud type society to a more Christian-based society of temperance and forgiveness. I've read it a number of times and it remains one of my favourites!

Cleo wrote: "Heidi wrote: " A god of love, rather than lust? A god of might, rather than tyrannical power? A god who just aches to give mercy and forgiveness rather than seeking revenge? The idea that every lif..."

I have not! And I confess, when I first heard about Beowulf years and years ago, it just didn't sound like my cup of tea: heroes and monsters and what not. But I had no idea these epics were full of other themes.

In a strange way they almost reminds me of science fiction, where on the surface sci-fi just appears to be about aliens and planets and space travel and what not, but sci-fi fans know (when well done) these books are almost always about more than just a futuristic thriller. They usually deal with topics like - what it means to be human.

Anyway, it is definitely on my list to read. Thanks for the recommendation. :)

Hi all! Jumping into this discussion three years later :) I think you have some great insights in this thread, so here are my two cents!

I read Gilgamesh earlier this year (the Stephen Mitchell translation). It was the first book I have read for my own TWEM project. I'm not planning on going through in a strictly chronological order. I might stick to the genres lists later on, but I think some of these early books are really essentials, as they provide the myths upon which most of Western literature has been built. So I started with the Gilgamesh and it was a quick read and easy to follow, making it a great start into this project.

I found it was a very interesting story and I think it's a very valuable document as it gives some insight into how the old Sumerians might have looked onto life and which myths they had. I was also stricken by the similarities with some of the earliest parts of the Bible, like the flood story and the snake robbing Gilgamesh of the possibility of being immortal. Without going into discussions about which book was written earlier (I know there's another v. interesting thread on this topic), I think it is perfectly possible that both Gilgamesh and the Genesis book have been inspired by the same oral traditions. After all, the old Sumarian civilisation was not too far from the craddle of the Jewish people.

Most early civilisations have been equally concerned and fascinated with death and the possibility of an afterlife, and these fascination and concerns have been ingrained in their foundational myths, which sometimes have even evolved into religions. For me, that was the most interesting part of the Gilgamesh - how gods were depicted as immortals, know-it all beings who decided over humans life, and how humans, although knowing that their lifespan is limited somehow tried to emulate the gods.

“We are mortal men. Only the gods live forever. Our days are few in number, and whatever we achieve is a puff of wind. Why be afraid then, since sooner or later death must come?”(Tablet III).

“We build houses, make contracts, brothers divide their inheritance, conflicts occur - as though this human life lasted forever. […] And who can know when the last of his days will come? When the gods assemble, they decide your fate, they establish both life and death for you, but the time of death they do not reveal.” (Tablet X).

I also found the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu rather ambiguous but I really don't know much about Sumerian civilisation, so I don't feel qualified to draw any conclusions in here :) However, this is an epic poem and the story might have originated on some true facts (there might have been a king called Gilgamesh at some point in history who was a tyrant) and it reflects the mentality of the society at that time. While I agree with Cleo, that removing the value of friendship from the many male close friends that appear in many great literary works would change those stories completely and probably diminish them, I think it's important to notice that Tom and Huck, Holmes and Watson, Frodo and Sam, all of them are literary constructs, fiction. Gilgamesh and Enkidu could be literary versions of real people and I think that to explain their relationship the story alone does not suffice. Historical context is also necessary.

Hi Irene,

Thank you for chiming in with you interesting insights! I specifically enjoyed those two lines you quoted. I've been thinking about death recently, and how the knowledge that we will die influences so much of human behavior, even when it is not a conscious thought. There's a lot of fear that comes with it, so it's no wonder so many civilizations have some sort of concept of an afterlife - there's comfort in the idea that death isn't the end. On the other hand, there can be a sense of freedom when one believes that death is the end. In the end, none of this matters, so why not take the risk/follow your passion/be generous?