Dreams as foreshadowing

Dreams play an important part in The Epic of Gilgamesh. Just as Gilgamesh's dreams in Tablet I predict the creation and arrival of Enkidu, Gilgamesh's dreams in the beginning of Tablet IV foreshadow future hardship. The conversations Gilgamesh has with Enkidu about his dreams sets an ominous mood for the next two tablets. In his first two dreams, Gilgamesh sees a mountain that crushes him, and each time Enkidu assures him that the mountain is not Humbaba. Enkidu's attempts to comfort Gilgamesh seem forced, however. Although he says the mountain is not Humbaba, Enkidu never says what it does symbolize. Instead, he simply says that they will be able to defeat Humbaba without backing it up. In his second dream, Gilgamesh tells of a man who helps him out from under the mountain and gives him water. This suggests that the mountain is indeed Humbaba. In Tablet V, when Gilgamesh and Enkidu face Humbaba, they are not able to face him on their own. They win only with the help of Shamash's winds. The second dream predicts this.
These dreams in Tablet IV also emphasize that what Enkidu and Gilgamesh are about to do is going against the natural order of things. Though Gilgamesh and Enkidu want to believe that they will be successful, the dreams always center around something or someone much more powerful than Gilgamesh. The dreams are filled with imagery of danger and helplessness: the mountain, fire, the Thunderbird, and being helped out of trouble every time. These dreams seem to say that Gilgamesh and Enkidu cannot face what lies ahead by themselves. Still, they claim victory and celebrate. It seems fitting that the gods make Enkidu fall ill, since the dreams foreshadowed that their good fortune could not last forever. Gilgamesh and Enkidu eventually get punished for doing something they should not have.

Cooper and the Sexual Relations in the Epic

Many scholars have debated over the true nature of the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Was it merely a very deeply rooted brotherly love or was did it contain the traits of a sexual affiliation? Historian J. S. Cooper claims that the evidence of the latter is undeniable. I believe that to truly answer this question we must take on a view of sexuality similar to that of the ancient Mesopotamians of the time. Homosexual tendencies were perceived differently in those days than modern day. Sexual relations between the same gender were not necessarily more common, but accepted with much less reservations. Men and women of power were more or less able to do what they pleased with those of lesser stature, and if that included having sexual relations, then so be it. In addition, sexual relations of all sorts were thought of as a way of linking body and soul. In the cases of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, this is taken to further level. The pair of friends share so many qualities in physical strength, appearance, power, and actions, and only proceed to become more and more alike as they share in experiences and battles. They are so inherently similar and share so many characteristics that it would be perfectly logical if they share bodies as well. As this would not have been viewed with surprise in the ancient culture, it stands to follow that this relationship would not necessarily have been emphasized in the Epic. However, if there was indeed a sexual link between the two equals, this sexual nature would not necessarily hold the same significance as a homosexual relationship has today. Instead of an emphasis on the physical love between two men, the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu is focused on their inherent connection. They are created as counterparts, and therefore have many similarities that naturally draw them together. One could even go as far as to literally say that they were “made to be together”. If being together also entails a sexual bonding, then so be it.

Interchanging characters

In our last discussion, we pointed out how the first three tablets of “The Epic of Gilgamesh” used repetition and imagery to make compare and contrast Enkidu and Gilgamesh. Tablets four and five however, introduce what appears to be an exchange of character between the hero and his companion.

We know from tablet one, the way in which Gilgamesh “harrie[d] without warrant”(67) the people of Uruk. Characterized as the “wild bull of Lugalb-anda”(35), he epitomizes what it means to be restless. Enkidu on the other hand is presented as an innocent being, who even after being “tam[ed]”(II. title), shows great tranquility and hesitance. These qualities switch completely in two tablets of their first venture together. After every nightmare, Gilgamesh’s confidence is shattered, and it is Enkidu who has to revitalize his spirits. Similarly, Humbaba’s grand appearance makes our hero hesitant, until Enkidu calls him a “weakling” (V 100) – a word Gilgamesh used in tablet 3 to taunt his new companion. Suddenly we see Enkidu behaving as the restless tyrant, while Gilgamesh acts reasonable.

This switching of traits might indicate that both these characters are not as different as we previously perceived. Whenever one of them is doubtful, the other is there to push them through their dilemma. In essence, one completes the other. It’s only after Inkidu befriends Gilgamesh, that he begins to act more as a king. Likewise, Inkidu needs Gilgamesh to convince him to try new things. They could very well be two pieces to the same puzzle.

Homosexuality in the Epic

In Jerrold Cooper's essay, Cooper rejects Thorkild Jacobson's once idea of Gilgamesh and Enkidu's possible sexual relationship in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I would also agree with Cooper on this topic. Although there maybe be a possibility that a homosexual relationship existed between Gilgamesh and Enkidu, chances are that there was none. One basis that I agree on for this claim is that Mesopotamians saw homosexual relation between equal citizens as taboo. I find it hard to believe that the epic would be so popular and well-respected if the an ancient Mesopotamians would allow such a strong man with vigor as Gilgamesh to have homosexual relations with his equal, Enkidu. If homosexuality were more accepted among equal citizens, not just citizen to slave, then there would may be less doubt about the possible sexual relationship between the 2 warriors.

Cooper also points out from Lambert that there should have been an overt evidence of their homosexuality, if Gilgamesh and Enkidu were in fact having a sexual relationship, because Babylonian texts tend to be explicit about all details. I find it hard to believe that the Epic of Gilgamesh would carry this idea because Gilgamesh is more about the story of man-to-man friendship and the fear of loss and death. Involving homosexual relationships between Enkidu and Gilgamesh seem to complicate the overall theme of the epic.

Surprise Ending

The ending to the Epic if Gilgamesh was definitely not what I had expected. Perhaps I have grown to accustomed to American literature and entertainment where the hero always wins. A place where happily ever after in one form or another has become a familiar status quo. The Epic of Gilgamesh was not either, but seemed to be much more real then I had expected. It was filled with success and tragedy, with life and death, and with both victory and defeat.
 I can see why some have said this is about Gilgamesh growing up. For as the story closes you get a feeling for his maturity. He seems less like the raging bull we saw at the beginning of the book. Perhaps I felt this way because of his lack of enthusiasm or eagerness in the final chapters, or perhaps it was because of the manner in which he accepts his own mortality at the conclusion.
Regardless the story was an intriguing one. It is amazing to consider that a book written so long ago can still have so much to offer us today. Indeed it is remarkable to consider that this piece of literature written thousands of years ago contains a greater depth of emotion and realism then many of our books and movies of today. 



 



 

Homosexuality in Mesopotamia

The point discussed in "Buddies" is indeed an intriguing one. Within the questions that surround the relationship of Gilgamesh and his friend also lies questions regarding Gilgamesh and the manner in which he oppressed the people. Ultimately however I can not completely agree with the theory that the relationship was a homosexual one.
I would say there is surely the possibility of a homosexual relationship and it is also very possible that certain versions of this story may have emphasized this more then others. There can be no doubt that homosexual activities occurred then just as they do now, but to state that such relationships were common and looked upon positively by the common person seems to be a very big leap. 
The mere fact that their relationship was not directly referred to as a homosexual relationship seems to show that such relationships were still frowned upon by enough people to not make it completely acceptable. Therefore I did not give much credence to the theory that the Mesopotamians  considered bisexuality a higher level of sexual prowess. The standard version and indeed those that followed seem to have left the relationship open to the reader's discretion. 

"Buddies in Babylonia"- Homosexuality Between Friends

The article "Buddies in Babylonia" by Jerrold S. Cooper takes the stance that the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu in The Epic of Gilgamesh is in fact, not one of sexual nature. I would argue that the friendship of Gilgamesh and Enkidu is platonic but that in ancient Mesopotamia that type of platonic friendship meant something different than it does in our modern world today. Perhaps, the somewhat sensual words used to describe their bond and the depiction os embrace and/or kissing are actions that were considered non-sexual by the surrounding community.

Cooper puts particular emphasis on describing the social attitude toward homosexuality in Babylonia and greece in ancient times. From what i gathered, homosexuality is not necessarily frowned upon but it is homosexual relations with an equal citizen, as opposed to a slave, that is condemned and illegal. Gilgamesh and Enkidu are portrayed as being equal in the literature. Therefore it would go against the social norms of the time for both parties to engage in homosexual activity.

The story of of Gilgamesh and Enkidu seems to be one of strong friendship and chemistry not a tale of romantic pursuits. Additionally, there is plenty of clear evidence to illustrate a sexual relationship between the males and the females in the story. Why then, would the author not make a sexual relationship between two males as clear? I think that assuming Gilgamesh and Enkidu were lovers is somewhat reading into the material. I would suggest that the sensual manner in which their relationship is occasionally described is either for artistic effect or it is part of the customs of the time.