Thursday, September 06, 2007
Maybe Utnapishtim DID give Gilgamesh the means to immortality
Prof. Nussdorfer’s first question in our discussion of Gilgamesh had to do with why the story has had such incredible longevity. One possible factor that we did not address fully in class is that, in the end (or rather in the beginning, again as Prof. Nussdorfer pointed out), Gilgamesh is remembered as a good king. “[He] brought back the ancient, forgotten rights, / restoring the temples that the Flood had destroyed, / renewing the statues and sacraments / for the welfare of the people and the sacred land… What other king / has inspired such awe?” (p. 72)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a good observation, Ben.
Keep your eyes open for this theme in other readings: i.e., what notions are there of "immortality" other than, say, going to Heaven/Hell/Elysium/Tartarus/Sheol or being reincarnated?
Note that even today we sometimes speak of famous people of the past as "immortal", meaning just what Ben is pointing to -- i.e., they live on in memory because of their deeds. (I.e., because of lasting fame.)
In Genesis, we'll see yet another notion of people "living on" after they die: in their descendents.
In the Symposium, Plato points out that people who create works of music, poetry, prose, and other intellectual achievements also "live on" through them, and suggests that these are a form of "offspring" of the soul.
(All of which invites the question: should I really be all that heartened by the prospect of these types of "immortality" if *I* cease to exist as a person when I die? If I won't be around to enjoy my fame, what good will it do me?)
Post a Comment