Loyalty to the Oppressor

The beginning of the epic reveals a strong positive value associated with a homeland while casting a negative glance towards the foreign. George’s introduction states how the epic may provide a lesson for how a king should rule. Aside from fighting battles and maintaining law, the duty of a Babylonian King includes overseeing the temples’ stock of foodstuffs and treasure (xlii). With Liverani’s text in mind, sufficient stock of temple wealth is to be redistributed throughout the homeland territory. This brings a sense of the loyalty expected from Gilgamesh, since adequate sustenance for the city may depend on his presence as King.

The hunter that initially discovers Enkidu returns to his father with gloomy features. The hunter’s sorrowful disposition allows so that “his face resembled [one come from] afar” (I120). This may foreshadow the negative fate of anyone wandering too far from his or her homeland. Enkidu, born without a home, is depicted as a wild man that requires taming for civilization. Until he is lured with help of Shamhat, he is considered unapproachable and possibly dangerous. He is not of value to Gilgamesh and Uruk until officially being adopted by Ninsun. This adoption marks his acquiring of a homeland and final riddance of foreign association.

It is only after Enkidu’s adoption into Uruk that he may guide Gilgamesh to Humbaba. Thus Enkidu acts as a liaison between Uruk and the foreign. He would not have been granted such an honor had he still been a foreigner, as not only is he to guide Gilgamesh but also represent the homeland. Before sending the heroes off, the city mentions to Enkidu, ‘in our assembly we place the King in your care: you bring him back and replace him in ours’ (III 12). Although Gilgamesh is a tyrant to his city it seems Uruk is highly worried about the King’s foreign journey. They are hoping for his safe return, and seem to have forgotten their earlier complaints of his tyranny. The idea of homeland loyalty with foreign aversion and the important duties of a Babylonian king (including overseeing the temple’s stock of wealth), allow for me to understand why the city is so concerned about the wellbeing of their oppressor.