Bias in Hammurabi

In King Hammurabi of Babylon by Marc Van de Mieroop, the author states many of Hammurabi’s accomplishments in order to show why Hammurabi is still remembered now. Hammurabi had a famous throne, which still lives on, such as in his law code. However, Van de Mieroop acknowledges, “we know of his accomplishments exclusively from Hammurabi’s own statements” (10) leading us to realize that some parts in this book may be exaggerated and others may even be false.

Van de Mieroop mentions Hammurabi’s statements “provide only a very partial and biased account, selected tidbits that aimed to portray the king in a positive light.” (10). So far, Hammurabi is portrayed in a positive light as he shown to relieve debt, take care of the temples, excavate irrigation canals, and protect the people from danger. It could be true that Hammurabi accomplished these tasks, but how the people felt about is never known unless an account from the people’s perspective is shown. After finishing certain tasks, Hammurabi proclaimed himself in a way to show he communicated with the gods. He once stated he is “the one who listens to god Shamash” (13). When put in such a high regard with gods, people were forced to have respect for him.

Nevertheless, when reading this text, the audience needs to be wary of what they are taking in and be able to recognize that not everything binded is the truth.

A True Warrior

Power is everywhere. Nobody can live life without using and exerting control. We have seen this everywhere, in stories, literature, history and life today. King Hammurabi is very set on power and uses it to his advantage when ruling over his land.

It is very interesting that King Hammurabi is a warrior. Through all that we have seen in our readings, it looks like a leader who wishes to maintain power must be a person who is a warrior. Gilgamesh was a warrior. He was in power and kept it that way by fighting. Enkidu, his later adopted brother, wished to take Gilgamesh out of power and tried to through combat. However, Gilgamesh succeeded him in strength and kept his power of the throne. If Gilgamesh had not known how to fight, then he would not have been able to stay in power. His expertise as a warrior made him a leader and kept him in control of Uruk.

Kind Hammurabi does the same; he is a warrior. Yet his warrior like ways can be seen in a different light. He uses his brains more than his brawn. This can be seen through his treaty with the Zimri-Lim, the King of Elam. They worked together and compromised in order to let both sides be recognized. That was a warrior like way to work, by strategizing and seeing the reason for negotiation and concession.

Compare and Contrast

There are striking differences and similarities between the two rulers, Gilgamesh and Hammurabi. The one major difference between the two rulers is the way in which they rule over their subjects and how it affects the society in which they live in.

In the epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh is clearly the mean ruler. He is the one who does not care about being just or fair, but just wants to satisfy his desires and do as he pleases. He rapes any woman he pleases, regardless of the fact that she may be taken, and he hurts individuals that come in his way. He also has a big ego and thinks that he is superior to all, even Endiku, who plays a big role in their battle. Even though Endiku made a lot of smart calls in their battles, Gilgamesh ignored that and still thought he was smarter.

Hammurabi, is strikingly different. He is the one who instates fairness and a just system in his society. He protects his citizens from injustice and from the neighboring countries through a code of laws and consequences. He helps individuals to lower their debts and he also was in charge of making multiple temples for gods that he wanted to honor, selflessly. Clearly, he is not just involved in dressing up himself as a fantastic ruler without doing anything. He works to make the society a better place through various deeds and earns the respect of his subjects.

An act of Justice?

The debt system that existed in Babylon is strikingly similar to the loan system that currently exists in the United States: the high interest rates basically trap the debtor in a continuous cycle of debt, loans, and foreclosure. However, King Hammurabi, following the trend of other similar rulers, decides to do free his people from this oppression by releasing the common people of their debts. However, like the government bailouts of banks and companies in the modern day, I am not so sure if releasing the common people of debt is the best option for Hammurabi. In the text, Mieroop argues that this act of justice was practical because it did not negatively affect the creditor class and also because it benefited the king’s reputation. However, like modern day government bailouts, I feel as though the debt-release system would be detrimental for the society as a whole in the long run because the common people would continue to borrow money from the creditor class, with the mindset that if all goes wrong, the king will release them from the debt. It interferes with the morale of the working class, as they will be more likely to borrow knowing that the consequences are not too disastrous and also not work as hard to work off the debt. Therefore, although King Hammurabi’s act of “justice” may seem commendable at first, in the long-run, it may have caused problems in the society as a whole.

Hammurabi and Gilgamesh

In The Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh is portrayed as a king that does not treat his citizens well and acts unlike the shepherd of his people. He is described as not allowing the daughters or sons of his people from going back to their mothers and fathers and sleeps with the bride before the groom.
Hammurabi, on the other hand, was a great king from the beginning of his reign of Babylon in 1792 B.C. In King Hammurabi of Babylon, Marc Van De Mieroop writes that Hammurabi “started off his reign by ‘establishing justice in the land’“ (10). There was a large debt problem in Babylonian society and Hammurabi enacted debt cancellations at irregular intervals in order to relieve people from debt-servitude. Hammurabi helped people further economically through excavated irrigation canals to cultivate the fields in Lower Mesopotamia.
Unlike Gilgamesh, Hammurabi was known for taking care of the Gods. Hammurabi was known for building great temples to honor the deities in his cities and even the cities that he conquered such as the southern state of Larsa, where he built a temple for the goddess Inanna. Also, Hammurabi is often documented mentioning the gods and he sought the approval of the gods before declaring war on Elam and Larsa.
Finally, Hammurabi was a great king because he safeguarded his people. “He was like a good shepherd who took care of his flock” (Meiroop 13). He protected his people through his army, law codes, and reinforcements of his city walls. Just like Gilgamesh, Hammurabi glorified his walls, especially those of the northern city of Sippar.

Political Power in King Hammurabi of Babylon

In King Hammurabi of Babylon by Marc Van De Mieroop, political power from Michael Mann’s “Society as organized power networks” is evidently presented in the first chapter of the biography. Michael Mann defines political power as deriving from “the usefulness of centralized, institutionalized, territorialized regulation of many aspects of social relations” wherein the “regulations and coercion” are “centrally administered and territorially bounded” to state power, a definition that proves true in the case of the city-states early on before Babylon.

Mieroop mentions that the commonalities of the city-states include a palace, temple, and a house of patron deity of the city at the center of the state (1-2). Deliberately, the palace and/or temple serve as the political source of power in which the palace and/or temple are the centers of administration. At the same time, we see the latter of Mann’s definition when Mieroop discusses territorial control becoming more common (2). Mieroop also points out the different states at the time: Hammurabi’s kingdom “controlled the very northern part of Babylonia;” King Rim-Sin “unified the south and center of Babylonia;” as well as the state of Eshnunna whose kings “consolidated power from the Zagros mountains down to the river plane” (3-4). While some states were stronger than others, the point I think Mieroop is trying to make is that the political source of power plays a major role in the success of the state. If it were not for the central administration, city-states would constantly take over each other barbarically. Another example is if one city-state did not have a central administration, it would quickly become conquered by a state with a central administration. Each state had kingdoms, which would not have happened were it not for the political power present in those states.

Early Irrigation

Although the first three chapters of the Hammurabi's biography were mainly concerned with his accomplishments as a diplomat and warrior I did find the mention of canals on page 13 to be noteworthy. The passage is short and does not mention how many canals are built, but merely states that he did excavate some early in his reign. 
I found this noteworthy for a few reasons. First of all it seems to show the continued importance of maintaining a strong crop of barley and other grains. The importance of canals in increasing crop production has of course already been discussed in class. It makes sense that this would be a key responsibility for the king, and I found it interesting that these canals received names that could include the king's name. The concept of irrigation being closely linked the concept of ruling is not unusual or isolated to the Middle East. Many scholars agree that the King's responsibility for canals and irrigation is emphasized in the Chinese character for law which includes the symbol for water. 
The author seems to wrap these concepts together with the closing line of the paragraph where the Law Code of Hammurabi is quoted. It states that Hammurabi's work on the canal "extended the cultivated areas" and "filled the granaries." The increase in grain and general stabilization of Babylon was now doubt essential in allowing Hammurabi to attack Elam, Larsa, and later Eshnunna. 

In the Spirit of Gilgamesh and Hammurabi . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAMRTGv82Zo

Just an Ordinary Human Being

From the very beginning, Gilgamesh is introduced as the ultimate hero who has super-human powers. He is so powerful that he is thought of to be godlike and is described as being two-thirds god and one-third human. However beginning in Tablet IX, we begin to see Gilgamesh’s true colors unfold as he begins his quest for immortality. Although he seeks to live forever, he fails to understand that he is just an ordinary person like everyone else who just so happens to be physically strong and rather large. When his closest ally becomes ill and eventually dies, Gilgamesh becomes heartbroken. He exclaims, “Sorrow has entered my heart! I am afraid of death…” (Gilgamesh 70). Gilgamesh was once very strong without Enkidu’s existence. Why all of a sudden is he deteriorating into a weak soul solely because of the death of his best friend? This proves how powerful and strong Enkidu and Gilgamesh’s relationship is and this marks the first time we can clearly see Gilgamesh’s fears and weaknesses. In the opening tablets, no way could we have ever predicted the almighty Gilgamesh to be afraid of anything, but realistically, he is a very emotional and sensitive character that is just as ordinary as any other mortal being.

When in the tunnel within the mountain, he is embedded in darkness for a long period of time. This darkness enables him to find his inner self, and he struggles to do this until he eventually reaches the light on the other side of the mountain. He sees this beautiful garden and its vegetation. “…There was brilliance: he went straight, as soon as he saw them, to…the trees of the gods” (Gilgamesh 75). This marks the new beginning of a journey that offers Gilgamesh more than he would have ever imagined. It instills hope and happiness back into his life and eventually he is forced to realize he must enjoy the time he has on earth because he will not live forever.

Unavoidable Death

When Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh realizes his own mortality, and therefore fears his own death. This prompts his journey to find Uta-napishti and learn how he achieved his immortality. The journey is difficult and long, but with his superhuman abilities Gilgamesh has no issue racing the sun through a path under the mountains, chopping down enough trees to fashion 300 punting poles, and traveling a boat journey of a month and a half in three days.

Sleep is used as a metaphor for death at the conclusion of The Epic of Gilgamesh when Gilgamesh is challenged by Uta-napishti to sleep for six days and seven nights in return for immortality. However Gilgamesh immediately falls asleep for the entirety of the challenge. Upon waking Gilgamesh realizes that if he cannot beat sleep there is no hope of conquering death. Still Gilgamesh is granted a second chance to combat mortality. Uta-napishti tells Gilgamesh of a plant that can make him feel as he did in his youth. Excitedly Gilgamesh recovers the plant, but he loses the plant when a snake steals the plant from him.

Two separate chances were presented to Gilgamesh to escape or forestall death. Yet Gilgamesh could not capitalize on either of these opportunities. These instances show that death is unavoidable, especially if such a strong and powerful character can overcome such demanding challenges and then ultimately fail. Gilgamesh finds comfort in the fact that he will be remembered for Uruk’s wall, which he is proud of. Even if he himself cannot live forever, the physical structure he helped create will last for generations. After an entire epic, he realizes that his fate is tied with that of Uruk’s on one of the last lines of the final tablet.

The Nurturing Role of Women

In Images of Women in the Gilgamesh Epic, Harris presents a convincing argument that analyzes the role of female characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh. He emphasizes the point that, “Women are regarded positively only when they assist Gilgamesh (and Enkidu) in their activities, when they nurture, advise, in maternal fashion”. Ultimately, he says, the role of women in the majority of The Epic of Gilgamesh is a microcosm for how Mesopotamian women led their lives in the real world.

Harris provides a very sound and structured argument for her reader, beginning with her general thesis that describes the purpose of women in the epic, and then following with an analysis of several female characters in the story. I think that the selection of the word “motherly” to describe most of the female characters is very appropriate due to the nurturing nature of the relationships between the women in the epic and Enkidu and Gilgamesh. Shamhat , who was told to “do for the man the work of a woman”, is a great example of a female character whose sole purpose was to aid in the development of Enkidu. She was maternal in a way that she allowed Enkidu to be transformed from a beast into a human-being, through the teachings of reason and understanding. We must not forget, that Shamhat is supposedly a prostitute, a figure that is looked down upon in Mesopotamian society, yet she manages to play an essential “intermediary role” in shaping Enkidu’s future.

Shamhat also brings about an interesting contrast between her role as a sexual catalyst and as a “facilitator of Enkidu’s socialization”. Shamhat’s character is unique in a way that she manages to interchange two purely feminine societal roles, something that no other female character in the epic manages to do. She is able to teach Enkidu the fundamentals of living, establishing her maternal role, yet she is also responsible for satisfying his sexual desires-establishing her role as a sexual employee. It is intriguing that in both of these cases, she is still fulfilling her “supporting” responsibility, further enforcing the normative female role in Mesopotamian society.

An Alternative Look at the Biblical Flood

In Tablet XI, Uta-napishti recounts his escape of the great Diluge and its consequences which gives a different view of the biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood. The differences in the way the two tellings of the story reveal the differences in the way the authors view the gods, humanity in relation to the gods, and the aftermaths tell us how each society viewed the future of humanity under the reign of their gods.

From the text it is unclear the cause(s) of the Deluge, though George says it was because the human population's rapid growth caused unbearable noise, preventing Enlil from sleeping. Since no other means was sufficient to diminish the human population for long all the gods swear to keep this plot a secret and finally destroy all of humanity with a flood. Ea tricks them and tells Uta-napishti/Atram-hasis to build an ark which preserves him, his possessions and one of every animal (Introduction pg xliii-xlv). Tablet XI gives an account of the proportions and design of the ark (specified by Ea, built by Uta-napishti), as well as the contents of the ark to be preserved from destruction:"Everything I owned I loaded aboard . . . all the living creatures I had loaded aboard. I sent on board all my kith and kin, the beasts of the field, the creatures of the wild, and members of every skill and craft" (pg 91). It also describes the magnitude of the Deluge, "Even the gods took fright at the Deluge, they left and went up to the heaven of Anu . . ." which means this flood gave no chance for any human to survive on land (pg 92). The Deluge, however, only lasts 7 days, after which Uta-Napishti sends out a sequence of birds to test if the flood has subsided (pg 93-94). Uta-napishti offers a nourishing sacrifice to the gods, Ea reverses Enlil's blame by exposing how close Enlil almost came to wiping out all their worshipers and Enlil and the gods bless Uta-napishti and his wife with eternal life (pg 95). Mortal life is consigned to man at the end of Tablet X (pg 87), and even Gilgamesh cannot escape death, but rather despondently says, "Not for myself did I find a bounty, for the "Lion of the Earth" I have done a favor!" (pg 99). Ultimately, we are left with gods still at odds with humanity for their incessant noise, although now death, still-births, barrenness, etc. prevent them from becoming too numerous. Furthermore, our protagonist is left with only the hope that his legacy remains in the testimony of Uruk's walls. This view of the story depicts gods whose sovereignty is incomplete, who are dependent on humanity's worship, yet who are at odds with it's flaws, who demand the death of humans yet offer no hope for redemption.

On the other hand, the biblical account gives a different perspective of God and man's relation to him and therefore also gives a different outcome while recounting the same events. The biblical account in Genesis 6-9 starts with similar circumstances: mankind's proliferation "When man began to multiply on the face of the land . . . " (Genesis 6:1, ESV), God's abhorrence of the magnitude and universality of their sin, "The Lord saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man . . ." (Gen. 6:5-6). God, in this case, sets man's lifespan at "120 years" before the Flood (Gen. 6:3), which means the Flood is not the solution to a problem God has with humanity itself, but rather with its sin, which George calls mankind's "innate rebelliousness" (Intro xliii). God chooses Noah out of everyone of the earth and tells him to make an ark to save himself, his family, and two of every living thing, which Noah does (Gen. 6:8-22). Like the Gilgamesh account, the proportions of the ark are described (Gen. 6:14-16), as well as the contents to be saved from the flood, "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you" (Gen. 6:19). The Flood's magnitude is described as lasting "forty days and forty nights," and "the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered" and "Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died" (Gen. 7:17,19,22). An interesting difference here is that God, who is the author of the Flood as in Gilgamesh, is not affected or threatened by the flood as the gods are in Gilgamesh. Rather than multiple, competing, non-immutable, dependent gods, the ancient Hebrew accounts depict God as one, sovereign creator God, who is independent from his creation. However, the account continues to be similar to Gilgamesh in the fact that Noah (our Uta-napishti equivalent) offers a burnt offering to the Lord after his deliverance from the Flood (Gen. 8:20). As a result, God makes a covenant with Noah, promising never to destroy the earth by flood again, and requires a blood price for man's life (Gen. 8:21-22,9:1-17).

Basically, what we have here are two tellings of the same story. The essential difference between the two narratives comes from this outcome difference: in Gilgamesh humanity is left in peril of death and of provoking the wrath of the fickle gods, whereas the biblical account presents a sovereign God who demands justice for sin, and so humanity remains mortal, but with the promise of never destroying them utterly ever again and the promise of a reckoning for the shedding of man's blood, which shows how much God values humanity, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" (Gen. 9:6). The Judeo-Christian accounts of the Bible point in hope from this story towards a Messiah who will save Israel from their 'innate rebelliousness' and restore pre-flood and pre-Fall perfection. Gilgamesh, however, offers only the hope of immortality in the legacy one leaves behind and proposes no resolution to the enmity between the gods and humanity.

Gilgamesh is Unrecognizable?

After reading through Tablets IX-XI in "The Epic of Gilgamesh," I have noticed a disconnect between the first few tablets and the later ones. In the first few tablets, there are so many descriptions of the greatness of Gilgamesh and everyone who sees him immediately notices him and knows who that he is the great king of Uruk. However, when we reach Tablet IX, there is a physical transformation of Gilgamesh that seems to have noticeably affected him. Gilgamesh is extremely affected by the death of Enkidu and this is apparent because it is constantly repeated in the tablets that he mourns for Enkidu and has done so for six days and seven nights. Along his journey in Tablet X, he meets Siduri, the goddess, Urshanabi, and Utnapishtim. All of these characters see Gilgamesh and fail to recognize him. Each of them notices his transformation and asks: “Why are your cheeks so hollow, [your face so] sunken, your mood so wretched, [your visage so wasted?]. There is a lot of repetition that occurs throughout the tablets, and after each of these three characters meets Gilgamesh, they give him the same advice to stop his quest for immortality. Each time, Gilgamesh describes to them his motives behind his quest, which revolve around his fear of death. The epic started off so gloriously and Gilgamesh was shown off so grandiosely but as the epic progresses, Gilgamesh’s weakness and cowardice is shown more and more. However, I can see how this can be an effective way of describing the story because it starts with a grand prologue and ends with a grand lesson and eventual glorification of Gilgamesh again. Unfortunately, I still find the small disconnects and hypocritical moments to be unbelievable. For example, Shamash helps Enkidu and Gilgamesh slay Humbaba knowing that the gods would be angry and punish the humans. It just seems as if the gods, who are supposed to be models for humans, play to human flaws as well.

Shamhat as mother-figure and teacher

I was really intrigued by Harris' assertion that Shamhat plays the role of a mother-figure to Enkidu. I wasn't thinking in that direction, although the text clearly supports it, because of her first role- the sexual initiation of Enkidu. However, she clothes, feeds, and in all respects "raises" Enkidu from beast to human. The explanation of this, role reversal, proves interesting when you think about the cultural interpretation of a prostitute-mother. As Harris says in the article, prostitutes were looked down upon in this society because they were seen to destroy the family unit. A prostitute acting as one of the pillars of the family unit must have been quite amusing or alarming to ancient listeners. In this way, role reversal is used to the fullest. The prostitute taking on a maternal role makes her more palatable to that kind of audience. Even though she isn't in a respected position, she acts as a respectable woman should.

The second reason that Shamhat is so important is her role attached to both her maternal qualities as well as her job. Harris mentions that prostitutes were seen as part of city-living. Since Uruk is presented as a civilized environment, it only makes sense that one of the true marks of a city is the one to initiate Enkidu into humanity. As a woman, she uses her maternal instincts to care for Enkidu. As a worldly person, she uses her notions of culture and society to teach Enkidu. Shamhat's role is so essential in the epic because of her duality of nature. Both sides of her are needed to tame the wild man. In one way, she is a temptress, luring Enkidu out of his natural habitat. In another way, she is a savior, showing him civilization and culture. The destroyer of the family unit is maternal; the one who is looked-down upon is the liberator.

Freudian Ideas in GE

After reading Harris' article "Images of Women in the Gilgamesh Epic," it seemed to me that the epic of Gilgamesh was written by and for males who have extremely masculine desires and subconscious ideas. The modern psychologist Sigmund Freud argued that males have a deep, subconscious lust towards their mothers, because of their maternal and nurturing nature. He also argued that the humans' subconscious is driven by the sexual desires. According to Freud, then, the epic of Gilgamesh was created without any repressions of these subconscious desires. The women are depicted as sexual creatures yet when the male characters (Gilgamesh, Enkidu) are in need, the women transform to become nurturing, supporting, and wise. It seems quite evident that the men who created this story for a most likely male audience, wrote with their natural instincts in order to appeal to the mass audience. The epic of Gilgamesh is almost like a male fantasy in that the women are depicted as sexual creatures, yet at the same time they can become motherly. This is especially evident in the fact that Gilgamesh and Enkidu "respect" Shamhat, who is a prostitute, whereas Ishtar, they ridicule and disrespect. Ishtar is the complete opposite of a male fantasy, because she presumes a masculine role in the epic and is not the motherly figure. It is quite interesting that the Freudian concepts are so prevalent in an epic written in such ancient times, which prove the universality of the themes in the epic.

A Changed Man?

Gilgamesh is heartbroken over his brother’s death. He is sits by Enkidu’s body, mourning the loss and the fact that he must now be alone in the word. His grief spreads to everyone around him. As a tribute to Enkidu, Gilgamesh tells the craftspeople of Uruk to make a statue. Gilgamesh only leaves Enkidu’s body when a worm crawls out of its nose. Then he sets off to find Utnapishtim, the only person who the gods granted immortality.

The affect that Enkidu’s death has on Gilgamesh is very interesting. In one sense, it makes him more human. It emphasizes the sacred notion of life and that all things must come to pass. After Enkidu’s death, Gilgamesh’s mind is plagued with fear. He is not ready to die or endure what his brother endured. This human side of Gilgamesh makes him unworthy of immortality. When Utnapishtim hears that Gilgamesh wants to become immortal, he is scornful. He sets up a test that Gilgamesh fails which justifies Utnapishtim’s attitude. The fact that Gilgamesh seeks immortality so highly is because he is a human, with human desires, such as the gift of everlasting life. He does not deserve this ability.

On the other hand, when Gilgamesh finishes the initial grieving process and leaves Enkidu’s body, he is a changed man. He is not the same person who cared about riches and other materialistic items. In fact before starting on his quest to find Utnapishtim, Gilgamesh strips himself of all his fine clothes and covers himself in animal skins. Even while he stays with Siduri, the veiled barmaid, he cannot be swayed from his mission. Earthy pleasures that once satisfied him no longer do so. In this respect, Gilgamesh has matured and shows his worthiness of immortality.

The answer to whether Gilgamesh should be granted immortality by the Gods is questionable. While it is true that Gilgamesh lets go of his desire for material possessions, he also withdraws from the idea of death and does his best to shield himself from it. However, it is clear that Enkidu’s death brings about a change of heart. The death of his brother affects Gilgamesh in a harsh and strong way.

The Epic and The Odyssey

While there may be no significant connection to The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Odyssey, by Homer, the first thing that came to my mind while reading tablet X was how similar Gilgamesh’s trek to find Utnapishtim was like Odysseus’s journey to go back home in that both had to go through a series of events to reach their destination, or in this case find Utnapishtim.

In tablet X, Gilgamesh comes across his first “task,” which is trying to get Siduri to tell him how to reach Utnapishtim. After she sees that she cannot sway Gilgamesh from trying to achieve immortality, Siduri gives in and gives Gilgamesh directions to the house of Urshanabi, Utnapishtim’s boatman. When he gets near where the Urnu-snakes and Stone Things live, he attacks them with his axe and dagger. He then introduces himself to Urshanabi and finds out that it was the snakes and Stone Things that allowed for protection of the boat. In order to cross the seas safely, Gilgamesh’s next task was to go back into the forest and cut poles. However, since Gilgamesh is so strong, he ended up breaking all of the poles and instead used his animal skin as a sail.

Back to Square 1

I think the death of Enkidu really hit Gilgamesh hard. Although I did not expect to see such a deep-rooted friendship between the two characters, it is clear that the death affected Gilgamesh very intensely. He became so upset that he did not care what he looked like, he was upset and felt depressed, and he did everything in his power to respect his death. There was a statue made for him and Gilgamesh put his most prized possessions into Enkidu’s burial casket. I think that for the most part, the idea that I got from the reading was that the two were just partners in crime, and that Gilgamesh still had some sort of superior power. However, through the novel it becomes clear that this is not necessarily the case. It turns out that Enkidu was actually the one who decides how to kill the bull and Gilgamesh just went along with the plan. It was not as though he did any work in deciding how to go about taking on this challenge.

After his death, Gilgamesh is so upset that he doesn’t even want any material possessions anymore, which leads the reader to believe that he is becoming less selfish and self absorbed. This is out of character for Gilgamesh, who always feels that he is the ruler and he should have all luxuries in life. But as he is affected by the death of Enkidu, he realizes how insignificant these things are. This makes him seem more real and more human like, in that he realizes that there is more to life.

Instead, Gilgamesh strives to become immortal. Personally, I don’t think this is much better, because he is still striving to be, have, or do something that others can’t, and something that will give him infinite power over other beings. He once again resumes his role as a “God”, in that he wants to reign over others instead of be a simple man with no desires.

The Inevitability of Death

Death is an unavoidable and inescapable destiny of human life, and turns out to be the greatest lesson that Gilgamesh learns throughout the epic. Gilgamesh is accustomed to having superior powers, but he is bitter when he finds out that the gods are immortal, but he, the almighty Gilgamesh, is not. As Gilgamesh witnesses Enkidu’s rather agonizing death, Gilgamesh becomes depressed and weak as their bravado rings hollow. Although Shamash comforts Enkidu, reminding him about all the highlights of his life, Enkidu eventually surrenders and resigns to his death. Gilgamesh then becomes terrified of his own fate, marking the first time in the epic that we, as readers, can see fear in Gilgamesh’s eyes. His quest to Uta-napishti is the only way to escape the realities of life and death. It is said that death is so carefully woven into the fabric of creation. Gods are immortal decide on their own who comes and who goes off into the underworld. Even though people continue to die, humanity continues to live.

Along his journey, however, is very interesting to note that along his journey, none of the three characters that he encounters recognizes him. He appears weak and distraught. However, all of them give the same advice, emphasizing that he should stop searching for immortality and that he should accept the realities of life. It is clear that each take note on his dilapidated appearance, as they patiently listen as he illustrates the reasons for his “terror of death.” He fails to understand that death is his destiny and life is something we can hold on to for as long as we remain alive. Even Uta-napishti, the immortal god, prompts Gilgamesh to stop his quest for immortality. This suggests that Uta-napishti, with all of his knowledge, has more of an idea regarding the value of life that has not yet been discovered by the stubborn Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh is ultimately forced to live life as a mortal, all whilst accepting death as part of life’s vicious and natural cycle.

Ur-Shanabi The New Enkidu

After the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh goes through a small period of depression over his death, mourning for days. After the burial of Enkidu he then ventures off into the wild wandering and still mourning Enkidu’s death. This is probably the first time Gilgamesh has ever been so alone. He is away from Uruk and without Enkidu at his side. Though interestingly enough it seems that Ur-shanabi fills part of the empty space left by Enkidu, partially assuming Enkidu’s role. The relationship between Gilgamesh and Ur-shanabi is similar to Gilgamesh’s relationship with Enkidu.

Gilgamesh’s first encounter with Ur-shanabi is very similar to his first encounter with Enkidu. At the sight of each other, then immediately follows a fight between the two, “Ur-shanabi saw the bright……, he took up the axe, and he… him… But he Gilgamesh, struck his head…” (79) And a moment later a more friendly relationship develops that is to a much lesser degree compared to Gilgamesh’s relationship with Enkidu. Ur-shanabi becomes like a sidekick for Gilgamesh helping him on his journey to see Uta-napishti. As Enkidu thought of how to fight the bull, it was Ur-shanabi who figured out how Gilgamesh can sail the boat with out the aid of the Stone Ones. Gilgamesh did do the work but this task would have been impossible if it weren’t for Ur-shanabi.

One thing that is striking is how Gilgamesh still has a mindset of that he can do anything on his own. Even after the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh still thinks he as a chance at immortality. Despite that there is signs of maturation in Gilgamesh such as when he tells the tavern-keeper, Ur-shanabi and Uta-napishti of his feats he includes Enkidu, stating that he helped him in his ventures where as before he did not acknowledge Enkidu’s efforts and vital part to his successes. When he talks to the tavern-keepers he says, “[My friend who I loved so dear, who with me went through every danger,][my friend Enkidu, whom I loved so dear,] [who with me went through every danger:].” (77) At this point it is clear that Gilgamesh knows the importance of Enkidu to his successes and there seems to be a genuine feelings for Enkidu, that their relationship was a true friendship and not a “friend with benefits” relationship”.

One thing that is in question is how does Gilgamesh see his relationship with Ur-shanabi. Gilgamesh sees himself as a hero but does he equally acknowledge the efforts of those that helped him like Ur-shanabi also Shamash. Through out the entire journey, Gilgamesh has never achieved his tasks on his own; he has always had someone at his side. Realizing this could also help him realize his own limitations as a human. There is still a part of Gilgamesh believing he has the same capabilities of a god, forgetting that there is still a third of him that is human. With this realizations Gilgamesh could potentially come to terms with is mortality and the basic fact that he is only human.