In “Images of Women in the Gilgamesh Epic”, Rivkah Harris comments on the portrayal of women as motherly and nurturing in the epic of Gilgamesh. Harris refers frequently to the element of symbolic inversion, defined as behavior which contradicts a character’s role, to advance his argument. I would like to point out several other instances of inversion not limited to female characters, and show how they contribute to the story.
Several instances of inversion abound when looking at the gods. Contrary to behaving in fairly and resolving disputes in justly, the gods often act like humans, the flawed species they gave rise to. For example, when Gilgamesh spurns the goddess Ishtar’s romantic proposals, she makes a rash decision driven by her emotions, in which she decides to release the Bull of Heaven on him and Enkidu, hoping to kill them both (George, 50). Perhaps this was meant to emphasize the close relationship between the gods and humans.
Another instance of inversion involves Gilgamesh. Though Gilgamesh is supposed to be a king, he rarely acts like one throughout the course of the story. At the beginning, he is portrayed as an unjust tyrant who steals other men’s wives. When he embarks on his journey to slay Humbaba, Gilgamesh temporarily abandons his duties as king. After Enkidu’s death, Gilgamesh refuses to confront the inevitability of his similar eventual fate. He tries to run away from his problems instead, which highlights his mortal flaws.
Perhaps the greatest inversion involves Gilgamesh’s existence after his death, in which he ends up becoming a god who presides over the Netherworld. Death not only finally claims Gilgamesh, but it also follows Gilgamesh into his afterlife. To have the one thing Gilgamesh feared most in life become the central item in his afterlife ironically drills in the epic’s message regarding the inevitability of death.
No comments:
Post a Comment