Gilgamesh was called a god and a man; Enkidu was an animal and a man. It is the story Of their becoming human together (Mason, 15).
This passage captures both the common ground and differences between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. It is made clear that they each allow the other to become human. It’s interesting that Enkidu was an animal and a man while Gilgamesh was only called a god and a man. A possible explanation for this could be that Gilgamesh was king of Uruk and in many cultures kings are considered gods. Additionally, the passage relates the main idea of the entire epic. It is rare when a story of any kind has a central idea as a means of introduction. It is made obvious that Gilgamesh and Enkidu share a deep bond, as only close friends are capable of changing each other for the better. …show more content…
I found the simplicity of the language refreshing because of the complex nature of what Gilgamesh and Enkidu were trying to do. I wonder if Enkidu and Gilgamesh were ever entirely human or if they were still somewhat their respective past selves. While there is not a way to be sure, I feel that Gilgamesh still has some god in him and Enkidu has some animal in him because, speaking from personal experience, it is virtually impossible to eradicate all signs of one’s past.
You are crying. You have never cried before. It’s not like
This passage captures both the common ground and differences between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. It is made clear that they each allow the other to become human. It’s interesting that Enkidu was an animal and a man while Gilgamesh was only called a god and a man. A possible explanation for this could be that Gilgamesh was king of Uruk and in many cultures kings are considered gods. Additionally, the passage relates the main idea of the entire epic. It is rare when a story of any kind has a central idea as a means of introduction. It is made obvious that Gilgamesh and Enkidu share a deep bond, as only close friends are capable of changing each other for the better. …show more content…
I found the simplicity of the language refreshing because of the complex nature of what Gilgamesh and Enkidu were trying to do. I wonder if Enkidu and Gilgamesh were ever entirely human or if they were still somewhat their respective past selves. While there is not a way to be sure, I feel that Gilgamesh still has some god in him and Enkidu has some animal in him because, speaking from personal experience, it is virtually impossible to eradicate all signs of one’s past.
You are crying. You have never cried before. It’s not like