We moved on quickly, unfortunately (demands of a one semester world lit survey), so I didn’t get a chance to think about this idea much further. It could fit nicely into Damrosch’s political reading.

Thanks for the pointer towards the Damrosch text–I’ll check it out.

Best,
Julie

Thanks for chiming in with a great question. (So great I’m interrupting my planning period at school to answer it!)

You make me want to go back and look at the section more closely, which I don’t have time to do right now. But it also prompts a few connections I can make off the cuff from my holiday reading of Damrosch’s The Buried Book about the epic.

He reads it with a much more political emphasis than I do, and his reading is surely valid. He sees, for example, Enkidu’s transformation into fanatical killer of Humbaba and insulter of Ishtar as representing bad royal counsel and its consequences to society. So the “back-handed criticism of the gods” if they do indeed grant Gil this right seems to fit in that line of interpretation.

At the same time, the gods themselves seem not to approve of it, since they intervene with Enkidu’s creation in response to the people’s complaints. But I guess this, too, could be read as another poetic attempt at delivering a political message about bad religious customs that need reforming.

I really want to read more closely into the evolution of the epic from its Sumerian origins into the Old Babylonian and the 12th Century “Standard” version. Lots of changes were made along the way, which offers food for thought on the (Babylonian) “Modern” versus (Sumerian and early Akkadian) “Ancient” beliefs and customs.

Anyway, back to the planning. Thoughts?

Take care.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Julie