How ancient literature can still help guide us today

[ProfessorPeter]

Hi Peter,
I love that you brought up the Gilgamesh Epic. Welcome to the forum, I hope you stick around.

Siduri is thought by some to be the model of Circe in Homer's Odyssey. Both are divine and help direct the hero. Like Circe, Siduri lives by the sea away from civilisation, and there are some other similarities, too.
The goddesses Ishtar and Ninsun are also echoed by Homer, among others.

A good study on this is Martin West's The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. (Oxford 1997)

As far as Shamhat. The noble prostitute, portrayed as a maternal and wise woman, has almost become cliche. You can see models of this character everywhere, from Homer and Virgil to Dostoevsky.

Thank you so much for this information. I will look into these references once I have some free time.

Best wishes,
Peter

[ProfessorPeter]

Wow! Many, many thanks, Professor!

You're very welcome.

Best wishes,
Peter

[ProfessorPeter]

I like the Norton Critical Edition. It has all the different versions, and also anaylasis, side notes, and essays.

Yes, I agree, this is the more accurate and informative version. My version is more of an "easy reading" version for the layman.

Best wishes,
Peter

[ProfessorPeter]

I don't know much about Dale Carnegie nor Aristippus of Cyrene. Perhaps they are now so un-read that few know who they are. I doubt they are major influences anymore today. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is at the center of controversy over atheism and theism. Using him as a reference implies you support his position in the controversy and this will alienate those readers from you who disagree with him.

Instead of Dawkins, suppose you cited Jesus and something about "letting the little children come to him" to link him to the idea of "family". This certainly is known in our culture independently of Siduri. Jesus has been an inspiration to millions, perhaps billions. However, if you did that you would alienate readers who are hostile to Christianity.

If you want to use Dawkins, you would also need to reference some well known religious authority to blunt any sense that you are siding with him.

Ultimately, do you see what's happening? Because of your reference to Dawkins, we (you and I) are no longer discussing Siduri. If I were you, I would stick to citing people who have actually studied Gilgamesh. Give these people some credit, some visibility. Forget Dawkins, and for that matter, Carnegie and Aristippus as well. They don't need to be referenced, or shall we say marketed, in this context.

Actually, part of the reason I mention Dawkins is indeed because I support his positions, especially on genetic inheritance, family and the purpose of life (being procreative). No other inspirational person has so explicitly stated this concept. To my knowledge no Gilgamesh scholar has analyzed and discussed these concepts in depth.

Best wishes,
Peter

[osho]

I have started a similar thread. In fact if we preclude ancient literature we are nowhere. Even today we are not stopping quoting, making inferences to Plato, Aristotle. Shakespeare has not been obsolete. In fact what we are today has their roots in the ancients and imagine where will we stand if we have not read Shakespeare, Milton, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Dickens and the like. We are writing, reading jumbles of books today but all we tirelessly praising are those few ancient writers.

[YesNo]

Actually, part of the reason I mention Dawkins is indeed because I support his positions, especially on genetic inheritance, family and the purpose of life (being procreative). No other inspirational person has so explicitly stated this concept. To my knowledge no Gilgamesh scholar has analyzed and discussed these concepts in depth.

I'm reading Stephen Mitchell's translation now because your thread got me interested.

I assumed you did support Dawkins views. For what it's worth, I don't support his views nor do I consider him "inspirational" in the least.

Let's get back to Gilgamesh. What Gilgamesh scholars do you rely on? I would be more interested in knowing about them.

[Eiseabhal]

I agree in a general rather than specific way that ancient literature is interesting but some is for me more interesting than others. Dawkins does not interest or inspire me. I do not agree that we are ruled by biological imperatives - very very important and not fully rational though these are. I find The Book of Job very inspirational and it creates an argument in me whenever I read it. I find certain other old texts (what we have of them) fascinating and barbarous in equal measure and while I generally believe that human beings have always been human beings, human societies have not always remained the same (pretty obviously!) so there is a limit to the guidance to be had from the live for today and ones family philosophy. It's not wrong just not enough. Good enough for the cave and the tavern not good enough for the village and the modern state.