Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Tablet VII
Enkidu dreams about his own death. In the first dream, the gods assemble and decide one of the heroes must die for killing Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven. Although Shamash tries to defend them, Enlil is intransigent and declares Enkidu must die. Enkidu weeps. He blames others for his fate, including the huge door they built at Enlil’s temple in Nippur. He curses the hunter who first saw him, Shamhat who initiated him to human society, and the potter. Shamash berates him for cursing Shamhat, reminding him she was the one who civilized him and led him to Gilgamesh who will honor him in death. Shamash predicts Gilgamesh will journey to the wilderness. Enkidu retracts his curse and blesses Shamhat, wishing for her a wealthy husband.

His second dream includes a description of Irkalla (the underworld). He dreams he is captured by a thunderbird with lion paws and eagle claws who drags him to Irkalla, a place of dust and darkness, where all are wrapped in feathers and all are subjected to the same treatment regardless of their previous status in life. Belet-seri, the underworld scribe, questions him. Enkidu lies dying in his bed for twelve days.

Tablet VIII
Enkidu dies and Gilgamesh mourns his death. He calls upon all of nature and all of Uruk to weep for Enkidu. He tears off his clothes and pulls his hair in grief. He orders a statue of Enkidu to be built of gold and lapis lazuli. He commits to wander through the wilderness dressed in lion skin. He slaughters bulls and raids his treasury to send a gift to each god in the underworld to welcome Enkidu in their presence.

A couple of observations:

Enkidu’s second dream in which he describes Irkalla as a place of dust and darkness with the dead clothed in bird feathers may be a description of the Babylonian perception of the underworld. However, it’s important to note this dream begins with the words, “But Enkidu’s mind was ill. This throws doubt on his description as being an accurate account of the Babylonian view of the underworld. That his mind was “ill” even suggests he may be hallucinating.

The gods punish Gilgamesh and Enkidu for killing Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven. They punish Enkidu by killing him off; they punish Gilgamesh by depriving him of his friend and ally. But the insults to Ishtar do not factor in their decision at all. They weren’t even significant enough to deserve a mention. Their dismissal of the insults to Ishtar coupled with Ninsun’s earlier request that Shamash’s wife, Aya, speak to him without fear suggests there is gender hierarchy among the gods just as there is in the city. Women’s concerns and women’s voices are marginalized, silenced, or dismissed. Just like Shamhat when she enters Uruk, the females among the gods apparently take second place to the males.

You may have noticed an interesting thing happens at the opening of Tablet VIII. Until the death of Enkidu, neither Enkidu nor Gilgamesh address each other by their names. Others will address them as Enkidu and Gilgamesh, but they always address each other as “my friend.” But after the death of Enkidu, Tablet VIII opens with Gilgamesh addressing Enkidu by his name for the first time:

At the first flood of daylight,
Gilgamesh wept for his friend:
‘Enkidu! Born to a gazelle

I suspect what is happening here is that while Enkidu is alive, the two friends want to collapse the distance between them, to minimize their separate identities, and to behave as if they are one person, speaking with one voice. But with the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh experiences a crisis. A part of him has died. He mourns for his friend but he now wants to create distance between his living self and the dead Enkidu. He emphasizes their separate identities/states by addressing him as Enkidu. But because they were once so close, Gilgamesh realizes he will meet the same fate as his friend. He, too, will die.

Enkidu initially curses Shamhat for setting in motion a series of events that ultimately lead to his death. But he retracts his curse when Shamash reminds him of all the good that came of their interaction. This suggests the outcome of the same series of events can be looked at as being either positive (Shamash) or negative (Enkidu). It all depends on who is telling the story, on how one chooses to tell the story, and on what one chooses to emphasize or ignore in telling the story. Is the implication here that the connection between an action and its consequence is not as simple as claiming that because of this, this happened? Is it also demonstrating that who controls the narrative and the way the narrative is framed makes a big difference in how we or others understand it?

Does Enkidu’s retraction of the curse on Shamhat reflect growth on his part?

It takes Gilgamesh a while to recognize his friend is dead. It seems as if he doesn’t understand death, as if this is the first time he has come face to face with the reality of death:

What sleep has seized you now?
Come back! You do not hear me.
But he did not turn his head.
He touched his heart—it beat no more.

Gilgamesh is grief-stricken. What do you think of his lament? Do you find it powerful and moving?

After ordering a statue of Enkidu, Gilgamesh puts on animal skin and leaves Uruk. He goes from civilization to wilderness, reversing Enkidu’s journey from wilderness to civilization. Why does he do that?

Tamara wrote: "Gilgamesh is grief-stricken. What do you think of his lament? Do you find it powerful and moving? "

The shock in reading of the maggot crawling out of Enkidu’s nose was a visceral and unsettling image that helped me feel the brutal reckoning of the realities of death that Gilgamesh was experiencing. Until that moment, his grief kept him in denial, refusing to let go. But this gruesome detail forced him to confront the undeniable truth that Enkidu was gone.

And it came to pass that Gilgamesh did then mourn Enkidu for the space of six days and seven nights. For the space of six days and seven nights did Gilgamesh mourn Enkidu, and he would in nowise suffer his friend to be buried, until, at last, a maggot crawled out of his nostril.
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VIII).

I realize the death of someone close to you is felt more acutely than acquaintances of those you do not know, but I do have to wonder though, I assumed Gilgamesh is a battle tested warrior that should have been more accustomed to seeing death, both of his own soldiers, and those enemies he killed. If not, I guess, as a monster, the death of Humbaba didn't count?

Maybe death in battle is easier to understand than succumbing to disease.

David wrote: "I realize the death of someone close to you is felt more acutely than acquaintances of those you do not know, but I do have to wonder though, I assumed Gilgamesh is a battle tested warrior..."

Gilgamesh has certainly encountered death before. We know of at least two he killed: Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven. As you said, he's a warrior, so he has probably killed many more we don't know about. But until the death of Enkidu, he seems to have a very flippant attitude towards death. For example, when Enkidu tries to warn him of the danger before they set off to the Cedar Forest and Humbaba, Gilgamesh acknowledges death but dismisses it. It's as if he takes it as a joke and thinks himself immune from death. To me, it indicates his lack of maturity.

He feels Enkidu's death strongly because a part of him has died with Enkidu. He has never been as close to anyone as he has been to Enkidu. He is devastated by his death. He mourns for his friend and is reluctant to acknowledge his death until he has no choice but to accept it. I think Enkidu's death also forces him to confront the reality of death and to realize that he, like his friend, is not immune.

(By the way, the maggot crawling out of Enkidu's nose does not make its appearance until Tablet X in my translation.)

Roger wrote: "Maybe death in battle is easier to understand than succumbing to disease."

That was what Enkidu's final words were about, lamenting not so much why, but how he meets his death.

And then did Enkidu cry out to Gilgamesh, “My friend, the Gods have cursed me and I die in shame. No glory shall I have, unlike a warrior who falls in battle. I feared combat, so I must die in my bed. The soldier who dies in battle is blessed for his valor. But I shall not fall in battle, and so my name will never attain everlasting renown.”
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VII).

But just prior to that Gilgamesh claims to know of the inevitability of death, at least on paper.

There is no quantity of silver, no quantity of gold, which may erase what Enlil has ordained. What Enlil has ordained cannot be annulled. My friend, it is the Destiny of every man to die. What is unknowable is the hour of his Death.”
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VII).

Does this mean Gilgamesh has knowledge of death, but doesn't understand it?

We have discussed how some translations refer to Enkidu as a wife. Davis finally gets around to it with this touching simile,

But Enkidu did not open his eyes. Gilgamesh touched the heart of Enkidu, but it beat no longer. So Gilgamesh placed a veil over the face of his friend, as one veils a bride.
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VIII).

David wrote: "But just prior to that Gilgamesh claims to know of the inevitability of death, at least on paper.
There is no quantity of silver, no quantity of gold, which may erase what Enlil has ordained. What Enlil has ordained cannot be annulled. My friend, it is the Destiny of every man to die. What is unknowable is the hour of his Death.”
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VII)."

That's strange because in my translation it is Enkidu who says that to Gilgamesh just after Gilgamesh promises to make him a gold statue.

Tamara wrote: "That's strange because in my translation it is Enkidu who says that to Gilgamesh just after Gilgamesh promises to make him a gold statue."

My Lombardo translation is matching up well with yours on Tablets VII and VIII. The maggots do not appear until Tablet X. And it is Enkidu who tells Gilgamesh

“No, my friend, offer no silver, no gold.
Enlil’s words are not like the other gods’.
What he commands he does not rub out,
Does not rub out the decrees he sets down.
My fate is fixed, my friend.
People do go to their doom before their time.”
Beckman, Gary; Lombardo, Stanley. Gilgamesh (Tablet VII).

It makes sense that Enkidu speaks these words, and that Gilgamesh hasn't quite reached this level of understanding of death.

Good to know. Thanks.

And, as to that foul wretch of a hunter who found me naked and unsullied in the wilderness, and thereby did sunder me from a state of Grace, may his traps always be empty and his quarry always elude him. Make his prey always be meager, so that he will lose his livelihood.” And, after he had execrated the hunter to his heart’s content, Enkidu did then resolve to curse Shamhat, the temple harlot who had taken his innocence.
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VII)

And he continues is words against Shamhat

“By reason that you tainted me when I was pure and undefiled in the wilderness do I now cast my curse upon you. Yea, I was pure and undefiled in the wilderness, and there you did seduce and corrupt me.”
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VII)

Then Shamash reminds him of the bread, wine, fine clothes, Gilgamesh's friendship, a magnificent bed, and how everyone will be overcome with woe when he is gone. Enkidu does not forgive the hunter, but he takes back his curses against Shamhat and praises her instead.

First I am very tempted to compare and contrast Enkidu's fall from grace with Adam and Eve's. And second, I wonder if Shamash's list of benefits is sufficient consolation in exchange for Enkidu's untimely death and self-admitted corruption.

David wrote: "First I am very tempted to compare and contrast Enkidu's fall from grace with Adam and Eve's. And second, I wonder if Shamash's list of benefits is sufficient consolation in exchange..."

That's a great comparison. They are all innocent, naked, and vegetarian. After Adam and Eve's fall from grace/Enkidu's seduction, they lose their innocence, are cast out, clothed, and eat meat.

As for your second point, Enkidu initially lashes out against all who were involved in his transition from wild man to city man. As a wild, animal-like man, he has no knowledge of his own mortality. He gains that when he moves to the city. He is initially reluctant to encounter Humbaba because he fears death. He seems to have a greater understanding of the finality of death than does Gilgamesh.

Shamash's list of benefits may not seem much of a consolation. On the other hand, what choice does he have? He knows he can't fight death. Plus, now that he has been adopted by Ninsun as her son and has Gilgamesh as his brother, he knows he will receive the proper burial and mourning rites, a significant factor for the Babylonians.

Apparently, the gods, or, at least, Shamash can see into the future. He comforts Enkidu and predicts how Gilgamesh will honor him. He also predicts Gilgamesh will go to the wilderness:

Now Gilgamesh, your friend and brother,
Will lay you on a mighty bed,
Will lay you on a bed of glory.
You will sit at ease by his left hand
While the lords of the underworld kiss your feet.

He will make Uruk weep for you, wail for you,
The merry he will fill with misery for you.
When you are gone, he will wander unwashed
Through the wild, wearing only the skin of a lion.

Gilgamesh repeats virtually the same words after Enkidu’s death before leaving Uruk for the wilderness.

Reading all these comments makes me realize even more how much Steven Mitchell's rendition differs at times from stricter translations. It has made me seek out another copy and I was able to get from the library The 2nd edition translation by Andrew George. Hopefully I can begin to dip into that one soon.

Having said that here are some things out of the Mitchell that either differ or align from postings. First, because it sticks in my mind and I had to re-read to make sure I hadn't missed it: but no maggots coming out of Enkidu's nose in Tablet VIII.

Tablet VII. Enkidu said "There is no gold statue that can cure this illness, beloved friend. What Enlil has decided cannot be changed. My fate is settled. There is nothing you can do."

There is no period of mourning i.e six days and seven nights in this rendition. After I read that post that highlighted that passage, I did think it odd that Mitchell does not put that in as it fits with the many times numerology is utilized especially sixes and sevens.

At the end of Tablet VII Gilgamesh sits vigil over Enkidu's last night of life when he heard the death rattle, Gilgamesh moaned like a dove. His face grew dark. "Beloved, wait, don't leave me. Dearest of men, don't die, don't let them take you from me".
It then moves to Tablet VIII when at dawn he begins his lament

IN the body of that narration, I found the most compelling of his sorrow in "hear me, elders, hear me, young men, my beloved friend is dead, he is dead, my beloved brother is dead, I will mourn him as long as I breathe, I will sob for him like a woman who has lost her only child.

Tamara wrote: But with the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh experiences a crisis. A part of him has died. He mourns for his friend but he now wants to create distance between his living self and the dead Enkidu. He emphasizes their separate identities/states by addressing him as Enkidu. But because they were once so close, Gilgamesh realizes he will meet the same fate as his friend. He, too, will die.

Interesting. Combined with other comments about how Gilgamesh perhaps had reacted to other deaths, I do think this is different. It had been emphasized since the creation of Enkidu that he was Gilgamesh's "other half" providing those qualities that Gilgamesh did not have; the ones that could temper his arrogant, impulsive and violent behavior. So to witness a death, a slow one at that, of your "soulmate" must have been heart rendering. The grief we see in Gilgamesh's lament. It is either not in the Mitchell rendition or I missed a remark, but I didn't see anything yet that made me think that Gilgamesh came to a realization that he will die as well at some point.

Tamara wrote: Does Enkidu’s retraction of the curse on Shamhat reflect growth on his part?

When I read this part I didn't appreciate growth, more an understanding when one is provided an alternative explanation or POV.

David wrote: That was what Enkidu's final words were about, lamenting not so much why, but how he meets his death.
And then did Enkidu cry out to Gilgamesh, “My friend, the Gods have cursed me and I die in shame. No glory shall I have, unlike a warrior who falls in battle. I feared combat, so I must die in my bed. The soldier who dies in battle is blessed for his valor. But I shall not fall in battle, and so my name will never attain everlasting renown.”
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VII).

I am missing anything like this from my rendition. It certainly puts a different spin on Enkidu's feelings about his impending death.

There is a point as death draws closer that he sat up and called out to Gilgamesh:" Have you abandoned me now, dear friend? You told me that you would come to help me when I was afraid. But I cannot see you, you have not come to fight off this danger. Yet weren't we to remain forever inseparable, you and I? Even though he knows there is nothing Gilgamesh can do as he had stated before. The beginnings of losing one's ability to hang onto the corporeal and fear of the unknown gets the best of him as he cries out to Gilgamesh.

Chris wrote: "Reading all these comments makes me realize even more how much Steven Mitchell's rendition differs at times from stricter translations. It has made me seek out another copy and I was able to get fr..."

The Stephen Mitchell translation has been criticized because he fills in the gaps and embellishes to make it more accessible to a modern audience. He admits to doing so in his introduction. His translation came out in 2004. I think the Andrew George translation came out a little before that. I prefer the Helle translation, which came out in 2021, because it seems to be the most accurate and up to date. Helle doesn't embellish. He shows you where the gaps are without filling them.

The different translations certainly lend themselves to different ways of viewing the poem. The poem is a work in progress because its content may be modified as more tablets are found and translated.

Chris wrote: "Tamara wrote: Does Enkidu’s retraction of the curse on Shamhat reflect growth on his part?

When I read this part I didn't appreciate growth, more an understanding when one is provided an alternat..."

I agree. I don't think he has grown.

Chris wrote: "David wrote: That was what Enkidu's final words were about, lamenting not so much why, but how he meets his death.
And then did Enkidu cry out to Gilgamesh, “My friend, the Gods have cursed me and..."

The lines David cites about Enkidu wanting to die in battle from the Gerald Davis translation are also not in the Helle translation.

We know the poem was copied, so some of the differences in translation may be because translators were working from the different versions that have survived of the poem.

Tamara wrote: "Chris wrote: "Tamara wrote: Does Enkidu’s retraction of the curse on Shamhat reflect growth on his part?

After reading those letters from Seneca, I have to suggest the retraction demonstrates growth. By shifting his perception and aligning his will with what has happened and what is happening rather than railing against it, he achieves a stoic form of ataraxia (inner tranquility). His final acceptance of his fate and his appreciation of Shamhat’s role demonstrate that he has come closer to the Stoic ideals of living according to nature, i.e., understanding our mortality, and understanding that we do not control events, only our judgments about them.

Tamara wrote: We know the poem was copied, so some of the differences in translation may be because translators were working from the different versions that have survived of the poem.

And if I am reading Schmidt's book about Gilgamesh, he states not only various translations and renditions but different people copying the tablets in different languages and sometimes centuries apart. Is that correct?

Chris wrote: "And if I am reading Schmidt's book about Gilgamesh, he states not only various translations and renditions but different people copying the tablets in different languages and sometimes centuries apart. Is that correct?.."

Yes. That's my understanding.

This passage in the Davis translation seems to resolve our earlier inquiry into whether Shamash orchestrated the death of Humbaba, rather than it being solely an act of Gilgamesh’s hubris in seeking glory.

“And then Shamash, the Sun God, spoke unto valorous Enlil, ‘It was by my command that they smote the Bull of Heaven and also Humbaba. Should now Enkidu perish, although innocent?’” (Davis, Gerald J., *Gilgamesh: The New Translation*, Tablet VII).

The Lombardo translation is even more expicit:

. . .Then Shamash replied to Enlil:
‘Didn’t I tell them to kill the Bull of Heaven
And Humbaba too? Didn’t they kill them at my behest?
And now innocent Enkidu must die?"
Beckman, Gary; Lombardo, Stanley. Gilgamesh (Tablet VII)

However, it’s important to note that this revelation comes from Enkidu’s dream, which raises questions about reliability. Just as we must consider whether it is hearsay to take Gilgamesh at his word when he claims that Shamash viewed Humbaba as evil and willed his death, we must also ask if Enkidu’s dream accurately reflects the gods’ true stance or his own biases. Nevertheless, the dream along with the mutual coherence of Gilgamesh's claim, does add weight to the charge that Shamash instigated the expedition to kill Humbaba, but it does not definitively settle the issue.

Does the lack of a clear answer suggests that Gilgamesh is exploring the subjectivity of divine will, or a blurring between divine command and human will?

Tamara wrote: " they punish Gilgamesh by depriving him of his friend and ally. But the insults to Ishtar do not factor in their decision at all. They weren’t even significant enough to deserve a mention. Their dismissal of the insults to Ishtar coupled with Ninsun’s earlier request that Shamash’s wife, Aya, speak to him without fear suggests there is gender hierarchy among the gods just as there is in the city..."

I don't know, that's odd. Gilgamesh is even invoking Ishtar, as if nothing happened between them:

"A weapon of kallire, the sacred wood,
he offered in the sun to Ishtar, the mighty queen.
"May Ishtar, the mighty queen, accept my gift.
May she welcome my friend and walk by his side"

Perhaps Gilgamesh is thinking, 'I've rejected you, and you've tried to kill me. Now we're even, and we can be friends again.'

David wrote: "Does the lack of a clear answer suggests that Gilgamesh is exploring the subjectivity of divine will, or a blurring between divine command and human will?"

Maybe it suggests the inscrutability of divine will.

David wrote: "Does the lack of a clear answer suggests that Gilgamesh is exploring the subjectivity of divine will, or a blurring between divine command and human will?"

When you say Gilgamesh here, I'm assuming you mean the poem, not the individual. Right?

I think it is very possible the poem is exploring the subjectivity, or, as Roger put it, the inscrutability of divine will and the fickle role of the gods in human affairs. I agree there is the lack of a clear answer. But the way I see it is this is one of the many issues raised by the poem that does not give a clear answer. I see a pattern in which the poem consistently takes us in one direction but then undermines it. Some examples:

*Enkidu was created by the gods to quell Gilgamesh's restless spirit. Not only does he fail in this, he turns out to be even more aggressive than Gilgamesh.

*Our intrepid heroes go chasing after Humbaba. Maybe they do so because Shamash sent them or maybe he didn’t. We don’t know for sure because, as you point out, we can’t necessarily trust Enkidu’s dream. But they claim Humbaba is evil and we believe them. We might even root for them to kill the evil monster. But as it turns out, Humbaba wasn't evil, at all. The poor chap is simply performing a task assigned to him by a god. They kill Humbaba, but this turns out to be a strike against them because the gods punish them for killing him.

*They go to the Cedar Forest to get lumber for the Uruk wall. A good thing, right? Uruk needs strong walls to deter enemies and keep out the ghosts and goblins residing in the wilderness. But this turns out not to be so good either because by their own admission, by stripping the pristine Cedar Forest of its trees, they create a wilderness. That can’t be good.

*Knowing Ishtar’s history with her previous partners, Gilgamesh is probably justified in rejecting Ishtar’s marriage proposal. But is he justified in piling on the insults? Is Enkidu justified in throwing the bull's penis at her?

*They have the right to defend themselves against the Bull of Heaven who is killing their people. Or do they? Apparently, the gods don’t think so because they list that as one of the reasons for punishing them.

What I’m getting at here is there are no easy answers to any of this. There is a morally ambiguity in the poem by which something is consistently presented as a good but then it turns out it’s not so good. We are constantly having the rug pulled from under our feet. The line between good and evil here is fuzzy. Actions may have positive intentions but they can have unintended consequences that can prove disastrous.

The poem consistently refuses to give us easy, clear-cut answers. Maybe that’s the point. Maybe the point is there are not easy answers in the poem. Just as there aren’t any in life.

Emil wrote: "Perhaps Gilgamesh is thinking, 'I've rejected you [Ishtar], and you've tried to kill me. Now we're even, and we can be friends again.'.."

That's how I read it, Emil. I think he is also bribing her to be good to the dead Enkidu just as he bribes the other gods.

i>Tamara wrote: "When you say Gilgamesh here, I'm assuming you mean the poem, not the individual. Right?"

I was assuming the poem, but you made me wonder if Gilgamesh benefits as much as the audience. I think the understanding that both parties, Gilgamesh and us as readers, gain is that certainty is elusive, the gods cannot be fully understood, and life’s forces must be navigated rather than conquered. For us, it is an understanding best digested with acceptance; for Gilgamesh, it is a lesson in humility.

Tamara wrote: "Enkidu was created by the gods to quell Gilgamesh's restless spirit. Not only does he fail in this, he turns out to be even more aggressive than Gilgamesh."

I’m not convinced yet that Enkidu fails in his purpose. If this were Star Trek, Enkidu would be wearing a red shirt, a character whose death advances the story. Thanks to Shamash’s consolations to Enkidu, we already know that Gilgamesh will go on a journey because of Enkidu’s death:

“And, after you are dead, Gilgamesh will let his hair grow long and matted, and will don the pelt of a lion, and will wander throughout the length and breadth of the wilderness in mourning.” (Davis, Gerald J., *Gilgamesh: The New Translation*, Tablet VII)

Knowing what we know about the symbolism of journeys, Gilgamesh probably won’t return with what he is seeking, but he will likely gain knowledge of himself. If so, perhaps it is Enkidu’s death that ultimately fulfills his purpose. I’m sure most of us can think of at least one character who was created for the purpose of dying so that others may benefit; I am of course thinking of Darth Vader 😉

David wrote: "Knowing what we know about the symbolism of journeys, Gilgamesh probably won’t return with what he is seeking, but he will likely gain knowledge of himself. If so, perhaps it is Enkidu’s death that ultimately fulfills his purpose..."

We know from the opening lines of the poem that Gilgamesh returned from his journey a changed man. No longer restless and aggressive, he is described as a wise ruler who "saw the deep."

The implication was the gods created Enkidu to be Gilgamesh's partner in life and to quell his restless spirit. But you may be right: it isn't Enkidu's life that acts as the catalyst for Gilgamesh's transformation. It's Enkidu's death. I really like that.

Shamash predicts Gilgamesh's journey after Enkidu's death. But Enkidu is already dying by then. But now you've got me wondering about Ninsun. We are told she is "clever and wise, who knows everything." Did Ninsun know it's Enkidu's death that will precipitate the transformation in Gilgamesh? Is that why she adopts him as her son, promising him proper mourning and burial rites?

Tamara wrote: "Did Ninsun know it's Enkidu's death that will precipitate the transformation in Gilgamesh? Is that why she adopts him as her son, promising him proper mourning and burial rites?"

I really like the question about Ninsun's foresight. I had the feeling from the beginning that Enkidu was being created, domesticated, used, and somehow disposable. I do wonder about how Ninsun's omniscience guided her part in all of this. As pointed out, Ninsun is described as clever and wise, who knows everything, which suggests she knows more than she lets on.

I did wonder at Ninsun's interpretation of Gilgamesh's dreams where the fallen rock and the fallen axe, represent a fallen comrade and fallen companion, i.e., a fallen Enkidu. I thought it was interesting that she referred to Enkidu as Gilgamesh’s savior which brought to mind a completely unintended, but fitting comparison to a certain other savior.

He shall be your savior.
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet I)

The gods claimed they made Enkidu to balance Gilgamesh, yet their reckless behavior together only amplified each other, like two wavelengths interfering constructively instead of canceling each other out. So maybe Enkidu’s true purpose was not to tame Gilgamesh in life, but to be sacrificed to break the cycle.

If Ninsun knew that Gilgamesh’s true transformation would only come through loss, then by first calling out the Enkidu was an orphan prompting Gilgamesh's offer of friendship and then her adoption of Enkidu she ensured he would be mourned as family, making his death hit Gilgamesh even harder.

Great post, David! I especially liked the part about "fallen" Enkidu, as well as the point you make in your last paragraph.

Tamara and David: I had not thought about Ninsun perhaps having the knowledge that Enkidu was created not only for friendship but also death and his death becoming the catalyst for the transformation of Gilgamesh. I certainly am persuaded by that idea.
And it would feed into the idea that Enkidu did show some growth; although I had taken the opposite view in that I didn't really appreciate any growth in him when he was able to acknowledge Shamash's POV about the 'gifts" that were given to Enkidu by those he had just cursed and then made an about face on his thinking after Shamash spoke to him. This is certainly the view that Michael Schmidt takes in his book Gilgamesh: The Life of a Poem

The full humanising cycle of his life is complete He has developed from a lump of clay to a child of nature, then into a social being, and through learning to accept and to bless the woman who brought him out of the wild and into the presence of Gilgamesh, even despite the bleak fate through which he is passing, he develops into the more engaging brother, as it were. He becomes conscious of self and discovers a conscience. He can step outside his circumstances. On the brink of death, he reaches this point of moral maturity, well before his friend the king does.

Chris wrote: "This is certainly the view that Michael Schmidt takes in his book Gilgamesh: The Life of a Poem
.."

Thanks for the quote, Chris. I have the Michael Schmidt book but I haven't looked at it recently. However, I still wasn't convinced Enkidu reaches this point of moral maturity, well before his friend the king does as Schmidt claims. So I went back to the poem, and lo and behold, I found this in the Helle translation:

Enkidu heard the words of Shamash the hero,
. . . his angry heart found peace.
. . . his furious heart found peace.

So now I'm convinced. Thanks.

That’s a really great point, Chris. If we see Enkidu’s transformation as a full cycle, then his death isn’t just a catalyst for Gilgamesh’s growth, but also the culmination of his own, even if it is cut short. Enkidu moved along a path from wildness → civilization → moral maturity and it seems to be the path that Gilgamesh may be starting now with his proclaimation

". . .And, after you have gone to your bier, will I allow my hair to become long and matted, and I shall don the skin of a lion and wander in the wilderness.”
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet VIII)

I don't know if Enkidu's forgiveness of Shamhat represents growth or not. I accept that it could but I also have an alternate reading in mind. He only accepted it after being told of the funeral that Gilgamesh would give him. It could be that he realized that he is mortal and had no choice but to die at some point but because he is Gilgamesh's brother we will have the best possible outcome in the underworld with all of the gifts he would likely carry with him. As readers we don't learn of the gifts until the next tablets but Enkidu and more contemporary audiences could have known.

I really like the reading that Enkidu's life AND death, not his life alone, is what makes Gilgamesh change.

Michael wrote: "I really like the reading that Enkidu's life AND death, not his life alone, is what makes Gilgamesh change."

I do, too. And it's something that hadn't occurred to me before.

Tamara wrote: "Michael wrote: "I really like the reading that Enkidu's life AND death, not his life alone, is what makes Gilgamesh change."

I do, too. And it's something that hadn't occurred to me before."

Enkidu is Jesus-like in a way. Created specifically by god(s) to spend a life with humans, and die to save them. In the Davis translation, Ninsun refers to the coming comrade/companion Gilgamesh's dreams as his savior. It wasn't much of a stretch from there.

He shall be your savior.
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation (Tablet I)

One can easily speculate that without Enkidu's death the pair would have continued there reckless, one might even say Impious, ways instead of Enkidu demonstrating his growth by recanting of his curse to Shamhat, and Gilgamesh undertaking his grief motivated journey.

David wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Michael wrote: "I really like the reading that Enkidu's life AND death, not his life alone, is what makes Gilgamesh change."

I do, too. And it's something that hadn't occurred to me..."

What ethical teaching did Enkidu give?

Roger wrote: "What ethical teaching did Enkidu give?"

Nothing as extensive as the teachings of Jesus. However, I think a case could be made that Enkidu did provide Gilgamesh with an experience of friendship and love for the first time that he would or could not have otherwise. Hmm, maybe it was closer to Jesus's teachings than I originally thought.