One could argue that the epic could never have happened if the harlot
had not met Enkidu. That makes her an important character. I disagree-
that makes her important to the plot, but she is not an significant
character beyond that.
Women in the epic are flat characters that do not go through the
changes that the male characters do. Even Utnapishtim reveals
characteristics about himself during his story of the flood. The
harlot remains a harlot for the entire epic, and the wife just a
wife.
With all the detail that surrounds many of the events in the epic, I
have to wonder if the missing details pertaining just to the female
characters is a reflection of how women were viewed in ancient
Mesopotamia. I should point out that the female gods are more dynamic
characters and are described accordingly, but this is to be expected
since gods, even if they are women, are above mere humans.
Women in the Epic of Gilgamesh provide significant details to the
overall plot. However, they only contribute to the story what the men
tell them to. The harlot was acting on orders from the trapper and
Utnapishtim's wife was acting for her husband.
> > Utnapishtim's wife was acting for her husband.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The flatness of character we find in the harlot and other regular
women may
just be a result of the unimportance of individualization to the roles
themselves. For example, there are plenty of regular men in the story
that don't get names. They don't have quite as large of roles as the
harlot. But, in fact, no 'normal' people get names. You have to be a
god, 2/3 god, goddess, immortal, or created by the gods to get
mentioned at all regardless of gender.