Critical Introduction

By far the oldest text included in this volume, The Epic of Gilgamesh retains its ability to delight. Though its literary history dates back to the third millennium BCE, the “standard” version is written in Babylonian and dates from the latter end of the second millennium BCE (1200–1000 BCE). As such, it existed in the form of clay tablets instead of scrolls or codices—what we usually think of as books—and that tablet organization is retained in almost all modern translations.

Gilgamesh is perhaps most famous for its depiction of a worldwide flood, a depiction that predates that of the Judeo-Christian Genesis flood story. (The story, possibly apocryphal, goes that George Smith removed his waistcoat and excitedly ran through the British Museum when he translated the lines in 1872.) But what interests us here is the battle between the monster Humbaba, and Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Gilgamesh, the semi-divine ruler of Uruk, is generally thought to represent civilization. Enkidu, who grew up in the wild and in communion with nature until sleeping with a priestess of Ishtar, is generally thought to represent nature. Once Gilgamesh defeats Enkidu in battle, they become fast friends, perhaps representing a complete human being with the wild remaining an important aspect of humanity as long as it is controlled by the socialized, civilized side. Soon after their friendship begins, they set out to confront and kill Humbaba. Unlike most heroes Western readers are familiar with, both Gilgamesh and Enkidu are at times frozen in fear and express regret at undertaking their quest. This, combined with Humbaba's emotional range (surprise, anger, panic, submission), makes for much more well-drawn characters than readers initially expect.

Reading Questions

Typically, monsters threaten either a civilization or individual, but that does not seem to be the case here. Why, then, do you think Gilgamesh insists on venturing forth to confront Humbaba? Does this affect your interpretation of Gilgamesh and Humbaba? Does it make you more sympathetic with one and less with another? Why?

Humbaba seems to have some sort of previous relationship with (or at least knowledge of) Enkidu, but has clearly never met Gilgamesh. If Gilgamesh represents civilization and Enkidu represents nature, what might we be able to conclude about Humbaba? Does your answer to this question affect your answer to the previous question? Why or why not?