The following is a paper I submitted at Purdue University for SCLA 101: Transformative Texts
“Gods” in 21st century understandings of Christian, Muslim or other religions depict this otherworldly entity as an all-merciful being, whereas the depiction in Gilgamesh and in turn, Mesopotamian culture, is far more “human”. They are not omnipotent, they have their own faults and even have human desires, which is very different from more “mainstream” depictions of Gods. They are petty, flawed, and impulsive beings who can be equally if not more flawed than mere mortals, from interpersonal relationships to recklessness and impulsivity on a cataclysmic scale. Divinity in Gilgamesh is explored right off the bat within the first few lines of the first chapter and the gap between divinity and humanity is closed through the titular character: Gilgamesh.
“Two-thirds divine and one-third human, son of King Lugalbanda, who became a god, and of the Goddess Ninsun—” (Mitchell, 2006, p. 71). Immediately, we are exposed to the prospect of demi-Gods, and, in turn, Gods treating humans as relative equals. This immediately diverts from the depiction of God in Christian, Muslim, or other religions which believe there is one God who is above mortal relations. Demi-Gods and this flawed, “human” representation of the divine is reminiscent of Norse, Greek or Roman depictions of divinity likely derived from the idea that “we are made in the image of our creator” and of course, we are flawed.
The Gods and Gilgamesh himself can be paralleled in terms of their subjugation of the people. The Gods clearly consider themselves above the “law”, answering to no one but themselves and Gilgamesh, as we see very clearly at the start, considers himself to be far above it: “The city is his possession, he struts through it, arrogant, his head held high, trampling its citizens like a wild bull, He is a king, he does what he wants, takes the son from his father and crushes him, takes the girl from her mother and uses her, the warrior’s daughter, the young man’s bride, he uses her, no one dares to oppose him—” (Mitchel, 2006, p. 71). It wouldn’t be too far off to say that Gilgamesh has a god complex. He feels superior and does what he wishes, and the Gods do as well as they are always meddling with the world in some way or the other.
The Gods in this pantheon are not opposed to fraternizing with humans and/or interfering with mortal affairs. The Gods are present in almost every pivotal moment in the story e.g., Aruru is the sole reason the events of the story unfold the way they do, being the one who created Enkidu (Mitchel, 2006, p. 74). Other examples include when Ishtar nonchalantly comes down to ask Gilgamesh to be her husband (Mitchell, 2006, p. 130-131). This, evidently, is not the first time Ishtar has done something like this as we can see when Gilgamesh goes on to list all her other husbands to whom she had promised she would love forever but all of whom she killed or who died after being with her (Mitchell, 2006, p. 132-135). Ishtar retaliates with the Bull of Heaven; this shows us that the Gods have a general disregard for human life. Ishtar does not consider the loss of human life when doing this, she is caught up in her rage from being rejected by Gilgamesh. This action results in even more meddling by the Gods in the form of Enkidu’s sickness (Mitchel, 2006, p. 137-138).
Enkidu’s death is not the first time the Gods decide to smite their own creation. The Gods, namely Enlil, sent a great flood to wipe out humanity once, but through the efforts of Utnapishtim, and the meddling of Ea, humanity survived (Mitchell, 2006, p. 180-191). The reason for doing so is not outright stated either, but from Ea we can understand that is was likely due to the sins of man as is often seen in other tales, an example of which is Noah and his Arc, which bears striking similarity to Utnapishtim’s quest: “tear down your house and build a great ship, leave your possessions, save your life— Then gather and take aboard the ship examples of every living creature” (Mitchel, 2006, p. 181). From this, we can see the Gods aren’t above what in, simple, blunt terms, would be considered a species-wide genocide. The rules clearly don’t apply to them which, as discussed, is the same with Gilgamesh especially in the introduction of the text.
Ea who is “the cleverest of [them]” is not the only God to skirt the authority of the others (Mitchel, 2006, p. 189). When Gilgamesh and Enkidu decide to face off against Humbaba. Ninsun prays to Shamash to aid Gilgamesh in battle (Mitchel, 2006, p. 99). Following this, Shamash ends up being the primary reason they can best the guardian (Mitchell, 2006, p. 124). Shamash must have known that Enlil placed Humbaba there as a protector of the forest, therefore assisting Gilgamesh in his conquest was crossing Enlil but it did not stop him from doing so. While there is authority among the gods, some treat it as more of a guideline, a prime example is Ea, who whispered to the fences to warn Utnapishtim of the coming flood (Mitchel, 2006, p. 181). As with the flood and Enkidu’s sickness, the Gods are very prone to punishing mankind for anything they deem to be faults. We are also told that Enlil sent the flood recklessly, showing us further that the Gods are not all-knowing or incredibly wise (Mitchel, 2006, p. 189).
The Gods are central characters despite not being in the limelight as much as Gilgamesh and Enkidu are. Without one of them the entire story would have played out very differently. The Gods are not all that different from the humans in the story, especially when considering Gilgamesh’s god complex. They are deeply flawed characters, each with a very distinct personality and their own unique flaws that make them very interesting characters to read about. It’s fascinating to see the way the characters interact with each other and how Gods casually interact and interfere with human affairs. The Gods are very static characters and have their role in the story set out from the get-go and they all play the part well.
Saye Kamal 