Different Viewpoints on Gilgamesh Essay

A Critical Comparison of the Readings on the Epic of Gilgamesh by Nortwick, Damrosch and Wolff

The reading of Gilgamesh by Nortwick, Damrosch and Wolff exhibit three different approaches to the text. While Damrosch and Wolff read Gilgamesh in a cultural and genre related context, Nortwick uses Jungs progressive psychological theory to foreword a novel idea to the epic. This paper is an attempt to compare these different approaches by underlining each readings positive and negative characteristics and by doing so arguing that for a comprehensive understanding of the text it is necessary to view all three approaches as complementary to each other.

Van Nortwicks Metaphors is a psychological study of Gilgamesh that builds on the idea of second-self. Borrowing from Keplers The Literature of the Second Self, Nortwick gives a list of key points that characterize the second-self and presents a detailed analysis of how the attributes fit the relationship of Gilgamesh with his second-self, Enkidu. For instance, The first and the second selves are not identical, but complementary; each possesses what other lacks fits the distinctive nature of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the former being an arrogant tyrant of the city and the latter being a humane brute of the wild. Similarly, The second self always appears when the first self is most vulnerable to its influence appropriates the prelude of Enkidu to Gilgamesh in a dream. In general, Nortwicks main emphasis is on Enkidu, which he reads as a metaphor for Gilgameshs second self and by doing so establishes Enkidus significance in the poem in a systematic fashion. The analysis also probes Gilgameshs consciousness to comprehend his actions and the ways they have been influenced by the life and death of his friend, Enkidu. It is easy to criticize Nortwicks literature reflects life analysis since it opens up a frontier accessible to no one, the psyche of the author, which leads to considerable issues. Even though the author clarifies his intention of not doing so, the analysis does breach from the standard cultural and genre interpretation methods of the text. However, that would be criticism in a comparative context, which Nortwick himself is aware of and gives his defense in the introduction. Nevertheless, reading within his method one can derive this problematic logical relation: If Enkidu is the second self of Gilgamesh then Gilgamesh must be the same for Enkidu. It is problematic because the attributes that characterize the second self as applied to Enkidu by Nortwick, do not hold for Gilgamesh. An apparent example would be the transforming potential of the second self. Enkidu has a therapeutic effect on Gilgamesh as second selves usually do, but Gilgameshs companionship seems to make Enkidu, the protector of animals, more brutal. He is presented as being more assertive in the journey to the cedar forest than Gilgamesh and also makes the fatal mistake of killing Humbaba as opposed to his mercy inclined companion. Similarly, the killing of The Bull of Heaven also manifests a rash and violent Enkidu. The protector of animals becomes an animal killer. This leads one to question the basis of Nortwicks analysis. Using psychological tools to analyze metaphors is a very modern technique and poses various inconsistencies within the narrative as well as with its cultural and historical readings. Nortwick struggles to come to terms with some important events in the poem such as Gilgameshs rejection of Ishtars proposal, wherein his analysis seems to be reductive. But this is not to say that Nortwicks analysis is completely devoid of merit. The highlight of Nortwicks analysis is to make the king of Uruk accessible to its modern readers in a way that poetry does, by using metaphors and by doing so allows the reader to relate to this ancient figure and his story in a didactic way, something to cherish and learn from. This becomes all the more prevalent when the themes are not culturally subjective but universal. Fame and its impending cost, futility and uncertainty of life and the acceptance of death are all themes that make Gilgamesh a text of timeless significance.

David Damroschs At the Limits of Culture and The Vanishing Point present a socio-political and historical reading of Gilgamesh. At the Limits of Culture links the socio-political culture to the narrative and inversely the narratives significance to the society by drawing on the existing knowledge of Mesopotamian culture. For example, Ishtars proposal to Gilgamesh is read in the light of cultural significance for the people of Uruk wherein marriage with the gods assured fertility and prosperity of the land. Moreover, the vehement rejection of the proposal by Gilgamesh is described in lieu of the growing division between the human and divine worlds during the course of the second millennium BCE. The importance and necessity of such analysis is apparent. It places the work in its cultural context and derives plausible links between the two, allowing further understanding of both, the culture as well as the text. Another important example comes from Damroschs The Vanishing Point, which among other things discusses the novelty of writing in Mesopotamian culture and its link to peoples perception of tales. The case in point is the story preceding the Flood, for which Gilgamesh is credited with at the beginning of the poem as the one who brought us the tale before the days of the Flood and which signify the importance of tales in the culture. Damrosch further illustrates this point in relating the significance of tales as an aid to help interpret the usual ambiguity characterizing the dreams sent by gods for kings and their priests. However, Damroschs analysis is not completely accurate of the narrative. Certain facts tend to motivate analysis that conflict with the plot in general and Damrosch does that in relation to linking the role of Enkidu as an advisor, based on earlier Sumerian poems, to Gilgamesh. Damrosch reads Enkidu more like an advisor rather than a friend to Gilgamesh and typifies him as showing ineptitude in regards to his role when he slaughters Humbaba and allows the killing of The Bull of Heaven. However, reversal of either of these events would have made the plot non-functional since the events are fundamental in leading to Gilgameshs second journey and his complete transformation. Instead, the events are all the more important when in the narrative, the killing would inflict Humbabas curse on Gilgamesh and Enkidu (May the pair of them not grow old together!) and would consequently lead to Enkidus death since he would breach the separation between the human and divine realms, something Gilgamesh being two thirds god and one third man, certainly cannot. In addition, one cannot agree with Damrosch when he casts blame on Enkidu for failing to offer moderating counsel to Gilgamesh during his rebuttal with Ishtar. In inflicting the curse, Enkidus fate is sealed and The Bull of Heaven can then be viewed as a device formulated to punish Enkidu alone, since the people are already insured and at the same time the event further redeems Gilgameshs image in Uruk. By slaughtering The Bull of Heaven, Gilgamesh is permanently ending the drought, an event certainly demanding praise and celebration. Therefore, Enkidus resulting death is aptly explained within the narrative context rather than by linking political overtones to Enkidus character derived from earlier Sumerian texts.

Nash Wolffs The Narrative Paradigm sets Gilgamesh in the genre of the epic poem by underlining the structural characteristics of the myth and the epic, the former being an indivisible part of the latter. According to Wolff, central to the epic is the life cycle of the hero - his development and education almost always marked by a journey, his accomplishment as a warrior and his return to home as a transformed man to affirm his responsibility. This life cycle of the hero is intricately linked with the symbolism of the city and also his initial detachment from it. The city within the epic is viewed as the dominion of common culture and security whereas anything outside the city i.e. nature is referred to as the anti-culture which due to its constant threat to the city needs to be defeated. Moreover, the heros indifference to the city is due to a tension between his initial conduct within the city and the responsibility attributed to his role. Together, they lead to the heros development into a warrior. The journey transforms the hero not much in his becoming a warrior but by living the divide between young and old as well as between life and death. Therefore, the hero that returns to the city is not an ignorant man, rather one who is willing to take the responsibility that he initially neglected. Wolffs structural analysis of an epic fits well with the story of Gilgamesh. The walls of Uruk symbolize a culture that is guarded from the elements of anti-culture or nature represented by Humbaba in the story. Gilgameshs impassiveness as a king is illustrated in his misuse of kingship that deters him from taking actual responsibility of Uruk. His journey with Enkidu to the cedar forest to take down Humbaba and his confrontation with Ishtar that results in his killing of the Bull of Heaven establish him as a warrior but his transformation comes when in his grief over Enkidus death, he charts out a quest to conquer death but fails, which makes him realize his own mortality. The returning Gilgamesh then reaffirms his status as the king of Uruk. Even though this structural analysis qualifies Gilgamesh into the epic genre, it is still seems inadequate to explain the significance of Enkidu in the story. Wolff links the tale of Enkidu to a Tsimshian myth belonging to a North American Indian tribe, which structurally resembles Enkidus tale of initiation, protection of society and quest for glory. Even though this resemblance might suggest a common origin, it nevertheless fails to address Enkidus primary role within the epic, which is to transform Gilgamesh. Reading Enkidu from Wolffs point of view seems to single out his story without giving relevance to the point as to why he is in the epic after all.

The three authors approach Gilgamesh from different viewpoints and in their reading overlap as well as oppose each other. If one were to imagine Nortwick, Damrosch and Wolff criticizing each others analysis this is probably what they would have argued. Wolff and Nortwick would have questioned Damroschs realistic yet one-dimensional analysis of the plot and would have argued that cultural analysis of poems are limiting since it avoids the fact that people, events and places in a tale can also be read as metaphors. Damrosch and Wolff attacking Nortwick would have probably asked if Nortwicks analysis is significant at all given his use of modern psychology to read an ancient text and finally Wolffs analysis would have been criticized for not being able to reconcile the significant element of Enkidu into the epic narrative. However, all three authors can be criticized for underestimating or completely ignoring the role of gods within the epic, which is psychologically, culturally, as well as in relation to the general epic narrative considerably significant in Gilgamesh. It is fair to say that among the three authors Nortwick seems to be the easiest and Wolff the most difficult to criticize, given the nature of their respective analysis and yet one can find points where both seem to agree with each other. In The Narrative Paradigm, Wolff states her idea of the resolution (Pg. 63) of the epic where the heros initial image and his ideals are in constant tension until at the end they merge to become the hero king. Nortwick seems to reach the same resolution but from the perspective of the second self, where Gilgamesh merges with his second self (Enkidu), which embodies opposite attributes, to become an entirely different self; the responsible king of Uruk. The tension between the two selves, according to Nortwick is played out when Enkidu dies and Gilgamesh imitates him in mourning, giving rise to a kind of identity crisis. However, one can argue that both Wolff and Nortwick seem unable to explain the reason behind Enkidus death. In this case, Damroschs At the Limits of Culture provides an apt answer to the mystery by explaining that Enkidus rashness with Ishtar made him vulnerable to punishment because he breached the divide between man and god. This is just one example in suggesting the need for viewing all three readings as complementary to each other. However, the knowledge reflected in one reading does not qualify as being exclusive, rather the pros and cons of each analysis necessitate that all three readings be taken as complementary to get a better understanding of the text.