Comparison Of Humbaba And Gilgamesh

The term evil is one of Germanic origin and can be defined differently as a result of individual interpretation. In the Merriam-Webster dictionary the full definition of evil is -morally reprehensible: sinful, wicked , arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct , archaic: inferior, causing discomfort or repulsion: offensive , disagreeable , causing harm: pernicious , marked by misfortune: unlucky. Humbaba and Gilgamesh are both evil beings but are regarded differently because of god ordained dissimilarities and social constructs that subsist in our modern day. Evil is a significant term when attempting to understand the text because its definitions vary. The readers and characters may have different interpretations of the meaning

of evil. Gilgamesh and Humbaba are unlike anything we consider evil today yet many readers conclude Humbaba is evil because of his description and the fact that he is defeated.
Humbaba is described in many ways in tablet three “we are told that Humbaba is strange to see and terrifying” and “Fierce Humbaba”.

The term evil is actually used; But Humbaba is not evil because he is morally wrong. Humbaba is not causing harm or injury to Gilgamesh or Enkidu. Humbaba is actually doing what he was appointed to do by the Gods. The text tells us he was the guardian of the Forest of Cedar (p21). The God Enlil assigned Humbaba to protect where the gods lived, by frightening humans. “[S]o to keep safe the cedars, / Enlil made it his lot to terrify men (p19). This terrifying of men may have created an evil reputation but he did not arise from actual or imputed bad character or conduct. Humbaba is an Ogre, He has tusks like an animal (pg46, 44). He is able to speak like men he could devour. These features are disturbing to consider. Humbaba’s appearance may be marked by misfortune or unlucky. He may have given off an offensive odor. He is capable of causing harm and causes discomfort or repulsion. By Webster’s definition of evil Humbaba partially corresponds. The reader never ascertains whether or not Humbaba is sinful or wicked. However Gilgamesh is proven morally wrong and wicked from the very beginning of the

text.
Gilgamesh the main character in the Epic, is the ruler of the city of Uruk.

Naturally portrayed as the hero on account of his being half divine. In tablet 1 we learn that Gilgamesh was a tyrant ruler by divine consent. On the contrary “fair in manhood, dignified in bearing/graced with charm in his whole person” (p 9). He was wise, he was handsome, and he was firm as a rock. The people lamented over him despite his conquering what he wanted, he slept with brides before their husbands. No one could contest his dominance. The acts Gilgamesh performed were morally reprehensible, and could be considered sinful and wicked. He caused harm, discomfort and was offensive. Gilgamesh corresponds with the definition of evil more than Humbaba. There are similarities and differences between Gilgamesh and

Humbaba.
Humbaba and Gilgamesh are both liminal or “in-between” figures “Gilgamesh was his name from the day he was born/two thirds of him god and one third human” (pg2, 44). Gilgamesh was a giant, but more like a man than Humbaba. Humbaba was ugly and misunderstood. Gilgamesh was handsome and misunderstood. Gilgamesh sought out Humbaba and this is where ones interpretation of good and evil can change. Had Gilgamesh not gone after Humbabas cedars, Humbaba would not have attempted to cause Gilgamesh harm. Humbabas would not have become Gilgamesh’s adversary.
Gilgamesh and his mother refer to Humbaba as “that evil thing Shamash abhors” (pg28). Gilgamesh speaks of Humbaba to Enkidu in Tablet 3 literally using the term “evil”. Gilgamesh says “In the forest terrible Humbaba lives …And banish all that is evil from the land!” “His mouth is fire, His breath is death… We are no match to fight fierce Humbaba!'”. Terrible in the forest but that is what the Gods appointed him to do so he was being obedient to the Gods. Gilgamesh acted against the Gods. Humbaba is considered evil because he is Gilgamesh’s adversary. If Gilgamesh is a great King and part God whether he provoked Humbaba or not good prevails and evil is defeated. Because he prevailed could be reason enough for some to consider Gilgamesh to be good and Humbaba to be evil.
In modern day in age handsome is always chosen over ugliness. Societal constructs that seem to stem back to mythical times have created this phosode where appearance matters more than actions. Humbaba did not act against anyone but did his duty and was feared and different. The difference between the two none humans were outward differences with inner misunderstanding. Humbaba and Gilgamesh are both evil beings Gilgamesh more so than Humbaba. Neither being is the epitome of evil. The gods ordained them dissimilar so evil is now in the eye of the beholder. What the reader determines to be evil is the substance that impact the understanding of Gilgamesh’s entire journey.