Since the beginning of recorded history up to modern times, humans have told stories of heroes that symbolize the values and characteristics of their society. Heroes in many ways personify the society that creates them – their attributes reflect societal values; the challenges they face represent the fears and uncertainties that the society was feeling at that point in time. Besides looking at archeological evidence, studying an ancient civilization’s heroes can give us great insight into a people’s worldview. In this paper, the heroes of The Epic of Gilgamesh and Beowulf will be analyzed to gain insight into the values and fears of the Mesopotamians and Medieval European Anglo-Saxons, respectively. Namely, this paper will explore how the civilization and world events occurring at the time in which these two groups lived had a significant effect on the heroes about which they created stories. Lastly, it will also compare and contrast the two heroes to elucidate what it meant to be a hero in these two societies.
Mesopotamia saw the development of the world’s first cities, and its geographical location had a major impact on its inhabitants’ way of life and the heroes about which they told tales. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, the demigod Gilgamesh, ruler of Uruk, is initially portrayed as having many of the qualities of a hero but does not act in a heroic way. As described in the first tablet, “…his arrogance has no bounds by day or night. No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all, even the children; yet the king should be a shepherd of this people. His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior’s daughter not the wife of the noble; yet this is the shepherd of the city, wise, comely, and resolute (Tablet 1 p1).” Gilgamesh’s initial depiction as being all-powerful and fickle is based on the Mesopotamian’s relationship with their surrounding geography. Uruk emerged in the alluvium between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The fertile soil of this region allowed for the higher agricultural yields required to support a growing population. However, the floods of these rivers were severe and occurred at the wrong times in the growing cycle for wheat, millet, sesame, and barley. Gilgamesh’s personality fits the unpredictable nature of the elements to which the Mesopotamian’s are exposed – the Tigris and Euphrates sustain life by allowing for agriculture but their floodwaters were unpredictable and could also cause major destruction.
Although Gilgamesh does not start out as a hero, he quickly embarks on a journey with Enlil to become a hero and, “… set up my name in the place where the names of famous men are written, and where- no man’s name is written yet I will rise a monument to the gods. (Tablet 2 p7)” They plan to become heroes by defeating the monster Humbaba, guardian of the cedar forest. Again, the context for Gilgamesh’s story is based on the physical reality that Mesopotamian’s experienced. The city of Uruk did not have a local source of timber and was therefore reliant on trade from people of the Mediterranean or the Iranian plateau to acquire building materials. Furthermore, Mesopotamia’s cities lacked natural geographic barriers which left them open to attacks from outside people, further indicating why Humbaba was portrayed as a terrible monster. By killing Humbaba and cutting down cedar trees to return to Uruk, Gilgamesh is a true hero because he not only provided a scarce and necessary resource for his people, but also because he exceeded the expectations of gods and men by killing an immortal beast and returning victorious.
Like Gilgamesh, Beowulf is a courageous and formidable warrior; however, he is different in that he is a mere mortal and doesn’t begin his story as a demigod or king. Unlike Gilgamesh, Beowulf establishes that he is a hero from the beginning of his story, showcasing his achievements to Hrothgar upon arrival to Herot: “They have seen my strength for themselves/…. / Dripping with my enemies’ blood. I drove/ Five great giants into chains, chased/ All of that race from the earth… (Lines 151-155)” The pride Beowulf exhibits for his success in battle is characteristic of the warrior ethos that prevailed during the Medieval era. Through battle Beowulf hoped to acquire glory and spoils of war, like many warriors who lived in post-Roman western and northern Europe. Beowulf’s battles with Grendel and Grendel’s mother are similar to Gilgamesh’s battles with Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven in that they are both against seemingly invincible foes, but the main difference is that for Beowulf, these battles establish a heroic reputation of loyal and courageous service as a warrior, whereas Gilgamesh’s expedition gains glory for himself and makes him a hero in the eyes of his people as a king: “Then if I fall I leave behind me a name that endures; men- will say of me, ‘Gilgamesh has fallen in fight with ferocious Humbaba. Long after the child have been born in my house, they will say it, and remember’. (Tablet 2, p7)”
This distinction is important because once Beowulf becomes a king after the death of Hygelac’s son, Beowulf’s heroism reflects that of a courageous king who acts in the best interests of his people, whereas Gilgamesh primarily acts in a selfish manner to obtain glory for himself. As a king, Beowulf sacrifices himself to save his people from the rampage of the dragon. He experiences a premonition of his own demise but still decides to face the dragon because he knows that, “What I mean to do, here, no man but me could hope to defeat this monster. No one could try… (Lines 628-630)” His willingness to sacrifice his life for his people immortalize Beowulf as a hero. This also gives further insight into the warrior ethos of northern European pagans who saw great deeds as a means of being remembered after death. Gilgamesh on the other hand went on his journey to the land of the afterlife to become immortal after the death of Enkidu. Even when Gilgamesh finds the plant that restores youth, he says, “I will take it to Uruk of the strong walls; there I will give it to the old men to eat. Its name shall be ‘The Old Men Are Young Again’; and at last I shall eat it myself and have back all my lost youth. (Tablet 6 p.22)” He mentions that he will give it to the old men of Uruk but based on his prior actions throughout the story, it can be inferred that he is acting primarily in his own self-interest. Lastly, when Gilgamesh returns to Uruk, he only returns with the story of his adventure and this does not improve the plight of Uruk’s citizens in any way close to that of Beowulf’s sacrifice.
From analyzing both stories, both Mesopotamian and Anglo-Saxon cultures defined heroes as individuals with great physical ability who overcame impossible enemies to emerge victorious. However, Beowulf is more heroic that Gilgamesh because Beowulf acts selflessly as both a warrior and as a king, while Gilgamesh acts selfishly to establish himself as a hero. In both cases, the heroes presented are representative of the cultures that created them. Beowulf embodied the warrior ethos of the Germanic tribes of post-Roman northern Europe, and Gilgamesh embodied the fickle nature of the elements that controlled Mesopotamian’s lives. Both were considered heroes to their respective cultures and their influence continues to shape our perceptions of heroes to this day.