Confessions

Before reading this, I thought you should know that this reading prompted me to include more comparisons with myself than I have written in previous blogs.

In the first few chapters of Book 1, Augustine is writing his thoughts down on what he perceives God might be, who He is, and what He encompasses.  It is interesting that he mentions that God is all-encompassing, and perhaps exists outside of our universe and the heavens because his omnipresence is too large to cage.  Some people might have looked at this and extended it into the theory that our universe exists in the mind of God, or the being of God that is attempting to become self-aware.  I know this stretches far from the material, but it has a slight connection, and it’s what I thought about as I read through this part.

Chapter  7 in Book 1 annoys me.  I suppose it has always annoyed me when people believe that we are inherently evil, and don’t have a clean slate when we’re born (this isn’t just stemming from present circumstance, but I suppose that has something to do with it).  I suppose that means all the miscarriages, the stillborn, and babies that died in the course of history never had a chance?  I never thought I’d be blogging about my problems with Augustine’s theology, but I thought I should just share those select few thoughts, as it was the first thing I came across that I really disagreed with.

I like how this autobiography (of sorts) reads more like a prayer.  He keeps referring back to God, praising him consistently, and he even sounds nervous at times, like he’s going to say the wrong thing (God being the arbiter, not the creator, of sin on page 31).  He also continually apologizes for different aspects of his life over the course of his prayer/biography.  Perhaps he seems quite unsure of things in regard to God because his household was somewhat divided in faith and growing up.  Still, Christianity was prominent, and he overcame certain ideals normally provoked by traditional, pagan-infused education.

“This clearly shows that we learn better in a free spirit of curiosity than under fear and compulsion” (pg 35).  Both John Dewey and I would agree.  I’ve never had a better education than when I was in a class that I strongly desired to be in, which all stemmed back to my curiosity and respect for the study.  What’s ridiculous, sad, and funny is, I’ve practically memorized most of the rules for my favorite table-top RPG games by mentally devouring the guides from cover to cover, out of fascination and interest.  I just wish I could do that with some of my class textbooks.

Concerning the pear tree, I believe he was doing one of two things.  Yes, he could have very well been exaggerating, and it was just one of those “boys will be boys” moments.  Obviously, because he was bringing it up after all this time, perhaps it wasn’t so much of an exaggeration in his attempts to make amends with God.  It may be that he is actually accepting that he stole for the sake of stealing, and not out of necessity, but perhaps he gave this quite a bit of thought.  This story, as well as many others in the book, actually serves a purpose.  They are an expression of what Augustine deems as Christian behavior, and also how evil and ungodliness can/will operate in the world.  Here he is showing us that sometimes humanity does just have a natural tendency towards sin, because there was no good reason for him and his friends to strip the fruit from the tree.

Questions

Did you find yourself in agreement with a lot of what Augustine was writing about, or did you find some things you disagreed with?  What were they?

In writing your blog, did you find the Confessions to lead you to compare more with your life than in your usual writings?

Do the stories that Augustine includes serve a moral purpose beyond just telling us about his life?

Aeneid I

I’m part way through the selected reading for the week, and I’m already impressed.  Virgil definitely has his own language, but I can probably thank Robert Fagles for much of that.  Still, I am enjoying this slightly more than reading about Odysseus (Ulysses).  Perhaps my favorite step up from Odysseus is that I notice less lamenting.  Sure both have much to complain about, but Aeneas keeps much of his inside him.  On page 54, we have insight as to how he keeps “his anguish buried in his heart.”  Even when he’s telling part of his sad tale to his mother, Venus, he doesn’t sound nearly as pathetic (page 60).

I will lighten up on my criticism of Odysseus’ behavior.  His only real mission was to get back home to Ithaca, whereas Aeneas had a mission set by Fate to bring his people to Italy and found a home there.  Plus more gods seemed to be against him.

Some things I found interesting stem from Virgil’s desire to use this text to etiological effect.  Rome has already been established, but he is trying to redefine the origin story, and also explain why some things were the way they were in his time.  It’s fascinating to find that the gods are constantly talking about Aeneas’ duty to Rome, and its foundation.  He has the opportunity to make it seem like Rome was always destined for greatness, and even goes so far as saying it will last eternally (56, “empire without end”).  In a way, he was correct.  Rome has gone down in history offering successive civilization ideals and definition.

As a side note, I also find it interesting that on page 62, Virgil writes that the Carthaginians are working on building a temple to Juno.  This is definitely through their Peace of the Gods, and how Romans are always trying to work their pantheon around others.  Carthage was part of the Semitic Phoenician peoples.  They had their own distinct pantheon, and would likely have been worshipping Astarte/Ishtar.

Moving back to Virgil’s attempts in explaining things, it also allows him to foreshadow.  Not only did the gods know of the coming of Roman rule, but they also seemed biased toward them.  As we know, Carthage was basically an antithesis to Rome.  One was founded and led by a woman (Dido), and the other by Aeneas.  Based off of the curse on page 149, she sets in motion the endless strife that existed between her people and theirs.  This was an interesting way to establish the foundation of animosity between the two nations.  We can go even earlier in the story, however, to page 69.  Here we see Venus scheming to get Cupid involved in deceiving the Carthaginians.  She indicates that these Tyrians are treacherous and fork-tongued, but before this, we have no context as to what she is talking about, and why she would think of them in such a way.

There are some things I notice that parallel Homer.  He uses backstory to draw us in.  What I mean is, he sets the story up after tragedy has already befallen our protagonist and his men.  A short ways into the books we get to see what actually happened, and it is our desire to fill in the blanks that keeps us interested.  A small difference one might mention is the fact that Poseidon essentially hates Odysseus, but he has admiration and pity on his Trojans.

I believe I’ve made it clear where I stand so far in the reading.  Aeneas is more steadfast than Odysseus.  He maintains his strong demeanor more, in my opinion.  Plus, this whole story revolves around his virtue (manliness) and his dedication to Rome.

Questions

Were there parts of the reading where you lost track of who was in charge of the dialogue?

In what ways does Dido represent Carthage and being the opposite of Aeneas/Rome?

Do you like the personality of Odysseus or Aeneas more?  Why?

Metamorphoses III

In the story of Scylla and King Minos, I think Scylla was portrayed as rather psychotic in my opinion.  Granted, she did have time to develop her feelings over the course of the war, she should have expected that Minos wouldn’t have easily reciprocated those feelings, after all.  She adores this man as a god, and basically scalps her father and tries to betray her realm in order to win him over.  She got the heartache she deserves for being so treacherous?  What would stop her from turning on Minos if someone more legendary came by one day?

The story of Daedalus and Icarus has the classic lesson of quitting while you’re ahead.  Just because he had the ability of flight at the time, didn’t mean that he was like a god, and I think the incidence put him in his place…rather permanently.  He should have followed his father’s instructions.  After reading the classic stories of Icarus and Theseus vs the Minotaur in the labyrinth, I honestly thought they were based on longer poems.  I suppose they may have been short, but they were sweet and to the point.

In Meleager and the Calydonian Boar, the goddess Diana throws a tantrum because she is the only deity that doesn’t get their due honor/tribute.  She sends out this massive boar to lay waste through the land, and I was immediately reminded of Ishtar and the Bull of Heaven.  This seems more epic in ways, and less in others.  It’s more epic in that the story includes a multitude of different heroes.  I’m only assuming that most of the names I don’t recognize (or had a hard time keeping up with) are also heroes of renown.  It’s only less epic in that the boar is restricted.  The Bull of Heaven was killing thousands, but each were devastating in their own ways.  I enjoyed the fact that Atalanta (a woman) was the first to draw blood.  Meleager was the first to notice, and gave her the highest of honors at the end of the battle.  Unfortunately, this would be his ultimate undoing, which leads me to my second favorite part of Book 8.

I was fascinated by Meleager’s background story.  After he kills his uncles in a skirmish over who deserved honor for killing the boar, his mother has mixed feelings and goes back to an old prophesy spoken over Meleager.  Apparently, When Meleager was a babe, the Sisters Fate cast a curse (albeit, it could be a blessing in some ways) that his lifeline would be tied to the integrity of a log.  Interesting that his mother had been tempted to burn it several times over the course of his life to extinguish him, but I guess killing her kin was the last straw, and she finally did it.  She did have a lot of inner turmoil before she finally did it, but I don’t condone her past and present behavior in the least.

The story of Erysichthon (that’s a mouthful) is, perhaps, my favorite story in Book 8.  He is one of the most impious of men I’ve read thus far in Ovid’s collection, and he gets his just desserts (a little food is hidden in there somewhere).  He hacks away at this sacred oak tree that houses a wood nymph, begging for compassion.  He even beheads one of his own men for showing respect to the divine realm.  Erysichthon fells the tree, but the spiritual world won’t let him get away with it.  A wonderful game of telephone ensues (dryads to Ceres, Ceres to mountain spirit, mountain spirit to Hunger), and the punishment is afoot.  The description of Hunger incarnate on page 332 is both fascinating and grotesque.  If Hunger were to be given form, I imagine this would be it!  And what a punishment Erysichthon suffers.  Nothing satiates his appetite…not even his own flesh.

To conclude my blog for now, I will lastly mention the sad/happy tale of Orpheus and Eurydice.  It may be a better known story, but this was my first time reading it.  I wasn’t sure what to think at first, but it definitely makes me think back to Lot’s wife turning to a pillar of salt in Genesis.  It was stressful enough that Orpheus should go through all that trouble to win the hearts of the denizens of the underworld, and Pluto/Hades himself.  Now that he had Eurydice back, he was just supposed to guide her up without glancing back.  If a god gave me his word, I would do my best to stick with the plan, especially after going through all that trouble.  It was sad that he lost her prematurely a second time, but as the story goes, she could rest easy knowing that he looked back out of love and concern.

Questions

Was giving honor to Atalanta for wounding the boar such a bad thing?  Do you think extinguishing Meleager’s life was acceptable?

What are some similarities and differences between the Calydonian Boar and the Bull of Heaven?

Do you think Hades/Pluto’s stipulations on removing Eurydice from the underworld were more than accommodating (being so moved by the song), or do you think he knew Orpheus would turn around?

Metamorphoses II

            In the beginning of Book 4, we have the three daughters of Minyas exchanging stories of unfulfilled love.  The story of Pyramus and Thisbe piqued my interest the most.  Anyone who knows the story of Romeo and Juliet ought to be familiar with most of the elements in this story.  I don’t know much about Shakespeare beyond several works that I have gleaned over in my high school years, but I honestly wouldn’t have guessed the inspiration for one of his more renowned works was pulled heavily from someone else.  I shouldn’t have to detail too many similarities.  Two lovers long to be together, but their respective families won’t allow it.  They steal away to be together, and one commits suicide under the impression that the other has died.  The surviving member kills themselves upon this actual realization, united them in death.  Ovid’s story gives us a much shorter and precise tale, but in a way, the ending gives me a happier sort of feeling.  Pyramus and Thisbe apparently never happened to embrace in love.  I think their first kiss was when Pyramus lay dying.  Truly the inclusion of the gods offers more promise and fulfillment at the end that they will finally be united in death.  I also liked the etiology of the ripening color of mulberries woven in as well.  If that wasn’t originally part of their story, it certainly fits in wonderfully.

            I knew going into the tale of Arachne that it would end up serving as an origin story to spiders.  The name Arachne is obviously a play on arachnid.  I doubt that they came up with her name beforehand, but it would be interesting.  Going through the story, I’m not sure which side to take, but I am leaning toward the gods.  This is one of the few stories where I can slightly agree with the gods’ resolutions.  This woman was personally taught by Minerva to spill wool and tapestries, but denies such divine training.  She basically scoffs at the gods, claims her abilities as her own, and even goes so far as to say her talents exceed those of Minerva.  Minerva accepts this unofficial challenge, and granted Arachne handles herself well at first, she definitely chooses the low road.  Minerva honors her family, and Arachne decides to shed light on many misdeeds the gods are guilty of.  Yes, everyone agrees that her art is magnificent, but she is such a poor sport, she was practically asking for some sort of punishment, and I think she deserved it.  As aforementioned, this is one of the few stories I think the mortal receives their just desserts.

            The story of Cephalus and Procris was mildly depressing.  The earlier tales that the daughters of Minyas spun were slightly familiar to me, which is why they probably didn’t have as much of an impact.  In the beginning, Cephalus was definitely an idiot, going to great lengths to catch his wife with infidelity, and she had been so faithful all this time.  The part that moved me was her loss.  Granted, the circumstances were slightly ridiculous (him practically whispering sweet nothings to the breeze and the boy relaying false ideas of an affair to Procris), it was still a sad ending.  I’m glad she died in peace, but it was tragic that it all happened for practically no reason.  I wonder if readers of the ancient world may have thought that all of it was ultimately his fault, and placed little to no blame on the boy that gave Procris false information.  What I think is great about the ending is that he’s able to finish his story, put his men to tears, and then take charge of the troops.

Questions:

Even though many transformations do their part in explaining the natural world, does the overall theme still unify these stories well enough if these transformations forfeit center stage in the story?

Do you think Arachne deserved her fate? Why or why not?

What is the most moving tale of loss that you have read about so far in Ovid’s stories?  Why?

Metamorphoses 1

                As I may have mentioned in previous blogs, I love to read about any type of creation myth and compare it to those I’m familiar with.  The stories told in Ovid’s Metamorphoses are no exception.

With the start of the creation on page 5, Ovid gives some colorful imagery to work with.  I can almost see a painting composed of colorful torrents of energy amassed.  It’s interesting to see that an unnamed god starts creating order after Chaos, disentangling the energies and giving “them their separate places” (6).  I get an image of a powerful being actually shaping the universe with their hands, separating the elements into their respective domains, and even creating separate climate zones on page 7, which is something I haven’t really seen discussed in an origin myth before.

                On page 8, we see something comparable to elements in Judeo-Christian creation.  Man is created to take dominion over the beasts of the earth.  We have higher cognitive function, and from the start we were children of philosophy, with our faces “uplifted to gaze at the stars of heaven” (9).  This is what I think it suggests, as we may have retained some divine element of the heavens in our being, and this is what separates us, making us almost in a godlike image.

                The depiction of the Four Ages (9-12) is not unlike accounts in Genesis.  In the Golden Age, it is always spring, and the lands are lush and self-sustaining in foods of all varieties.  There is no need to work the land, and everyone seems to be living harmoniously.  This could be what the world was like before Adam and Eve sinned, because afterward, they were required to work the land.  Murder and depravity began to stain the earth, which led to God flooding the world.  As the ages pass, from Gold to Silver to Bronze and finally Iron, mankind has taken a similar path, and this horrible behavior warrants retaliation by Jupiter.  He was not alone in this task to wipe out and reshape humanity, as Neptune helps on page 18.  This is somewhat similar to the Sumerian pantheon deciding to rid the world of man.

There are two things I find most interesting about this version of the flood story.  First, Jupiter initially chose to destroy the earth by fire and lightning, but realized that this fate would befall the earth at a later time (17-18).  This is partially in concordance with scripture throughout the Bible.  The other interesting thing is that there were numerous survivors at first, but they had died off from starvation.  The only two that made it were Deucalion and Pyrrha, but there was little indication that they were favored by the gods, as Jupiter noticed them, their little boat, and their prayers after the floodwaters had destroyed all else.  It was more like he felt bad for them, as they were devout, and called off the destruction early (21).

Reading the transformation stories gives new insight as to how the ancient Romans saw their deities.  Even the gods couldn’t help to keep themselves from the beauties of mortals.  This was explained in both the stories of Daphne and Apollo, Jupiter and Io, and Pan and Syrinx.  Apollo fell under the charms of Cupid’s arrow, chasing after Daphne, a human repulsed by any man.  It ended similarly to Syrinx’s story, with both of them being transformed into natural objects by nymphs.  Unfortunately for Io, it wasn’t by choice.  Jupiter couldn’t man up to his infidelities and instead decided to let Io suffer for it.  It is interesting to see that even the most revered of gods in the pantheon would resort to molestation and injustice.  These human-like qualities have been quite prevalent in past readings, such as in the Odyssey and the Epic of Gilgamesh.  I almost wonder if these stories are promoting chastity, as the women refused these gods, despite the situation.  It is a bizarre turn from the etiology I am familiar with in his works.

Questions:

Do the stories that Ovid attempts to patch together seem rather streamlined, or do the events that don’t necessarily occur in chronological order create some confusion?

What do you think the purpose was with having gods so enraptured by mortals?

What are some of the ideas of ancient philosophical science bleeding through the creation myths in the beginning of Book 1?

The Odyssey

One big difference that I noticed in the first few pages is the conciseness between Homer’s text and the previous two.  It was easy to get through the Epic of Gilgamesh if only for the art of repetition.  The missing pieces were hard to get through.  Genesis was much easier to get through, albeit I wasn't used to such a literal translation.  The author was trying to retain much of the original meaning, as well as the poetry, but the new language was honestly too different to easily get through.  This conciseness I attribute to Fagles’ translation makes it easy and enjoyable to read.  Not to mention, the words paint a fantastic picture of beauty and mysticism in my head.  “That wand in his grip, the powerful giant-killer, swooping down from Pieria, down the high clear air, plunged to the sea and skimmed the waves like a tern that down the deadly gulfs of the barren salt swells glides and dives for fish, dipping its beating wings in bursts of spray…” (154). In addition, Poseidon’s wrath starting on line 321 (page 161) has great imagery.

Even though this text is “western,” it still has a similar feel to Gilgamesh.  I see a lot of similarities by way of the pantheons.  In both stories, the gods and goddesses are portrayed as having many human qualities in demeanor.  There are many times where they seem inconsiderate, selfish, and fickle.  It’s humorous to see that Calypso even calls them out on their conduct in her rant on page 156.  These stories differ from God in the Bible, in that He represents all that is good, and only punishes those who deserve it.  The gods tend to associate themselves with kings, heroes, and others of renown, but perhaps that was only a product of the design of these stories.

Human and divine interaction is integral to the story, as with the other two texts.  Interestingly, after thinking about it, I can actually make a better comparison with God in the Bible and the Greek pantheon, than with both polytheistic stories.  Granted, I’m not entirely through the assigned reading at this point, Homer has an abundance of godly intervention with the story, and it is their direct actions and inspiration that steer the course of Odysseus’ success and torture more often than not.  In the Bible, God directly and indirectly interacts with the characters, whether it be for their benefit or detriment (and by detriment, I mean punishment).  In Gilgamesh, however, the protagonists largely depend on their own abilities to succeed, and rarely do the gods successfully thwart them.  In fact, their gods are more often scoffed at than revered.  Homer made it so the gods were practically behind any type of victory, and this reminds me more of God.

I've noticed that the main male lead characters in the Odyssey and Gilgamesh are strong and brilliant men, but are often shown to have a “woe is me” type personality when things don’t go accordingly (if that makes sense).  This, at first, might seem like a contradiction to what we look for in an ideal tough guy/hero, but it definitely adds depth to the characters, and it serves to deliver drama to the audience/readers.  I suppose it could partially be there to stress their mortality, as it often happens when the works of the divine are beyond their control.

Questions I would like to see answered by others include:

Why do you think these powerful characters (Odysseus, Gilgamesh, Enkidu) are sometimes portrayed with hopelessness when something goes south?  What does it add to the characters and/or the story?

Which of our three readings so far have the most comparable human/divine interaction?  Why?  Is your choice surprising?

Of the three texts so far, which was easiest and/or most enjoyable to read? Why?

Genesis

I am enjoying the reading thus far.  Though the assignment doesn’t really call to examine the footnotes, I’m finding the process slow going, because I can’t look away.  Robert Alter’s notes are interesting to say the least, and they really serve to complement the familiar, yet foreign, text.  I am having a difficult time approaching the text as literature, and I’m sure it is something I will struggle with throughout the class.  Go figure, a history major can’t stop looking at ancient texts through a historical context looking glass.

Starting out, I wasn’t sure if the reading of this text was more or less difficult than other versions of Genesis that I’m familiar with.   Many of them are based off of the King James Version, and I always found some sort of poetic, yet archaic, language in it.  This brings that to a new level.  In the To the Reader section, Alter mentions that he is attempting to stay truer to the original Hebrew.  Granted, it is still an interpretation, by staying truer, he is trying to convey an idea of the original poetry while paying attention to the nuances of the original language.  Throughout the text, his footnotes contain his best idea at what subtle differences in words mean, thereby creating a different language than what we’re used to; different words than what we’re used to.  To give just one example, look no further than the first page (page 3).  He chose the words “welter and waste” to describe the world because he believes the original Hebrew literature was meant to rhyme, so he did his best to show us with alliteration.

As I began reading through, I kept an eye out for similarities with Gilgamesh.  In Gilgamesh, the character Enkidu was torn from nature and purity when he was seduced by the prostitute, Shamhat.  Though he may have been civilized through that act, he lost his connection to nature and even some of his power.  In Genesis, it is well known that Adam and Eve lost their innocence and home in the garden when they tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  The footnote of line 15 in chapter 3 helped me make a stronger connection than I originally knew existed.  Yes, I made a comparison of the fruit and Shamhat both leading to a loss of purity, but there is also that relationship with the wild that we lost, not unlike Enkidu.  “It is the first moment in which a split between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is recorded” (13).

Something that has always interested me is the Nephilim, which are first mentioned on page 27.  These are the offspring of celestial beings (angels) and humans, and are “heroes of yore, the men of renown”.  They are often described as giants, and I can’t help but make comparisons to other stories and discoveries.  Gilgamesh was two-thirds god, and a giant of a man.  This could actually be extended to Greek myth as well, what with Achilles having a deified bloodline and towering above his comrades.  Both are men of renown.  What’s more, the book of Enoch and Giants (not included in our typical canon, but found with the Dead Sea Scrolls) include what appears to be the name Gilgamesh, which raises more questions.  For now, this will just serve as a side note of something I find interesting.  There are, however, writings by Herodotus that suggest Orestes and Ajax (relevant to Homer’s works) may have been something of giants themselves.  I digress.

It is easy to see many of the similarities of Genesis and Gilgamesh: the ark, the flood, the offering at the end.  There are many dissimilarities in these as well.  One of the main ideas in Gilgamesh was that civilization and structures were things of beauty.  Every time something like this happens in the Bible, God knocks us down a peg.  Something like the tower of Babel would have been an amazing feat, but the narrator seems to push against urbanization.  Alter briefly goes over this in a note at the top of page 47.

This has been a great read thus far, but it seems much of my efforts have been in reporting, so for now I will finish the reading and return to put more of my thoughts here later.

My first question revolves around importance and consistency.  After reading some notes, it seems there is no etymology given for the name Abel.  Does this mean that the greatest purpose of including him in the Bible was that Cain ended him?  Aside from that, there is the inconsistency of Cain, worrying about running into others.  Is it acceptable that we just glean over the fact that knowledge of other humans beyond the “founding family” basically ruins the idea of a founding family?  It seems rather important.

Assuming that many have read this text before, based off of your previous readings, was this more difficult to get through, or easier? Why?  Did you find this translation more interesting, and how much time did you actually take to read Alter’s notes?

What do you think the importance is with all the deception in stories involving children and siblings?  Look for examples in Cain/Abel, Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau, Joseph/other Brothers

Epic of Gilgamesh

These posts may often times represent my thinking out loud, noting interests, and there may be thoughts incomplete that I may yet return to.

It may have occurred earlier in the reading, but it wasn’t until page 38 that I noticed dialogue was initiated by “so-and-so opened their mouths to speak.”  It threw me off at first, but it was nice to know who was talking to who, because there were plenty of times where I had to back-track to figure out who was actually speaking at the time.

I like how Enkidu started off thinking that Gilgamesh was crazy for wanting to hunt down and slay Humbaba and it was Gilgamesh doing the reassuring, but then when it came time to battle, Enkidu was ordering Humbaba’s death (page 41).

Pg 49 basically gives tall tale sources for certain things that seem to happen naturally, all of which are a result of the failed exploits of Ishtar, such as the shepherd being cursed and turned to a wolf.  She seems to take to cursing things when events don’t transpire as she wishes them to.  This reminds me of certain stories in metamorphoses, definitely of Picus and Circe, the witch who turned people into beasts for rejecting her.

Ishtar is a brat.  She threatens her dad to muddy the waters between the world of the living and the dead.  Gilgamesh must stand to be a threat if she has to resort to use a heavenly weapon against him, but perhaps this is just to lay waste.  I have noticed that godly power seems to be underplayed if you aren’t the protagonist.  They aren’t even wholly deified, and yet, they are formidable.

The gods are much like any other deity portrayed in polytheistic societies that I know of.  They always exhibit human characteristics and behaviors, and it almost always leads to trouble.  This, I’m sure, was one of the ways for people (storytellers and their like) to make sense of nature, and why things behave as they do, often giving these gods their own personality quirks based off their respective domains.

On page 57, we see that Enkidu was holding in his anger towards those (Shamhat and the hunter) that took him from purity and nature, and started cursing them as he was dying. "You weakened me” (58).

Shamhat was originally entrusted and seemed to be someone of standing and proper, and he cursed her to shambles and a life of depravity, around scoundrels and brigands and drunks.  I found it both humorous and sad that he tried to make up for his scorn by blessing her in his curse.  I’ve heard that prostitution is the oldest profession, and it makes some sense that many things Enkidu spoke over her seem to pass.  Though I don’t personally know the lives of harlots, it seems to be the impoverished life. Interestingly enough, he seems to say that men won’t be able to control themselves around her, what with officials of state and such leaving wives…

Gilgamesh changes after Enkidu’s death.  He knows he can die, and there are some episodes (page 70) in which he is afraid of lions and other things he would scoff at toward the beginning of the story.  He is aware of his mortality, and it hampers his resolve.

My favorite part of the story is the final stretch.  For fear of death Gilgamesh seeks out Uta-napishti and the secret to immortality.  The first time I read this, I wasn’t expecting the story would go in this direction, and I thoroughly enjoyed comparing it to the all-too –familiar story of my childhood: Noah’s Ark.  As a history major, and one who constantly looks to ancient mythology for clues, I enjoy when different civilizations have some overlap.  Granted, the Hebrews and Babylonians were practically neighbors, I know that this was common throughout the world.  Even the last age in Mayan history ended with a great flood.

I noticed more commonalities this time around than last.  I’m not exactly sure of the significance of the number seven, but it comes up plenty of times in the Bible, and it’s recurring in the Epic of Gilgamesh.  This may warrant more attention.

The ending seems to mirror that of the beginning, with Gilgamesh placing emphasis on his works.  Perhaps a message that could be gleaned from this is that even though he lost his chance at gaining immortality, the legacy and stories he leaves behind will immortalize him in legend.  In a way, this comes to pass.  Certainly these stories didn't transpire the way the Epic says, but the fact that these stories have been preserved means something.