Evolution of the Hero, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The idea of the tragic hero has played a vital, but changing role in the history of Western literature. From the earliest recorded epics of classical literature, to contemporary times, the conception of narrative the literary arts have been involved with the evolution of the tragic hero. The following discussion will show that the portrayal of the tragic hero in classical myth and literature evidences an evolution in the human ideal of heroism. The change is important because the conception of the tragic hero mirrored a social and cultural emphasis from religious ideas to ideas of secular humanism. In order to demonstrate this dual evolution in literary and philosophical thought, three classical works will be examined. These three works are: The Epic of Gilgamesh by anonymous, Oedipus the King by Sophocles, and William Shakespeare’s: Hamlet: the Prince of Denmark. The three literary documents will be compared with supporting materials that will show the concurrent historical and literary shift in the conception of the tragic hero.

Before approaching each of the individual works, it’s helpful to remember that the origin of the tragic hero lies beyond recorded literature. The tragic hero emerges from an oral tradition in Western civilization. This oral tradition is a direct influence on the earliest known recorded works of Western literature. That said, the most ancient ideas of the tragic hero in the oral tradition are unknown to modern critics. As far back as recorded history cab be traced, religious ideas combined with notions of objective history. That is to say: ancient cultures tended to combine historical events with religious myths and vice-versa. This is a highly significant fact to keep in mind as we begin to examine the epic of Gilgamesh, where the conception of the tragic-hero is closely aligned with religious and metaphysical ideas. At the same time, historical roots exist for the characters and events of the epic.

Jeffrey H. Tigay points out in his study, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (2002) that the historical origins of the characters of the story have been traced, leading back to a pair of historical conquerors who lived in ancient Babylonia. Tigay writes that “Gilgamesh and Enkidu were both fabled conquerors […] Once-independent tales about each of them had been combined into a single epic, with Gilgamesh made the main character” (Tigay 18). Added to this fact, is Tigay’s idea that independent nature myths” and fables were added right alongside the historical roots of the emerging epic we now know as Gilgamesh.

What is important about Tigay’s ideas in relation to the present examination is that a line of inspiration can be traced from history to myth in the formation of the Gilgamesh epic. In other words, the ancients conceived of “epic” stories as those which had less to do with actual history and more to do with myth. the emphasis the ancients placed on myth was due to the fact that there was a religious connotation to epic stories. This connotation was almost certainly part of most ancient oral traditions in Western culture. This means, obviously, that Gilgamesh represents an ancient understanding of the form and function of the epic story. It also means that the ancients had a particular conception of what made a suitable hero for an epic tragedy. By examining the character of Gilgamesh a general set of characteristics can be discovered which indicate how the ancients viewed the tragic hero.

Like many other hero’s of ancient literature, Gilgamesh is descended from the Gods. One of the opening lines of the epic shows his stature: “Supreme over other kings, lordly in appearance, / he is the hero, born of Uruk, the goring wild bull.” (Gilgamesh, 4) His parents are Divine. This fact made Gilgamesh a demigod. His stature as a demigod allowed him to function as a tragic hero in the minds of the ancients because he was identified with the Gods as well as with humanity. So it seems reasonable to assert that the ancients viewed the epic hero almost as a bridge between the mortal and immortal realms. Right away, a connection between religion and metaphysics and the idea of what constitutes a tragic hero is evident. Similarly, the ancients viewed a tragic hero as being often set against nature itself as an antagonist. Gilgamesh wants to destroy Humbaba the Terrible in order top place rationality and human society over the chaos of untamed nature. Obviously, along with Divine origin, physical power and bravery were also prized qualities of a tragic hero for the ancients.

Another quality that Gilgamesh embodies is a sense of loyalty. this is shown when he makes a vow to rescue Enkidu from death. He promises that he will “reinvigorate Enkidu’s spirit and limbs” (Gilgamesh, 14). The mention of spirit shows that the epic stressed metaphysical ideas right alongside those that were tied to dramatic ideas. Little or no separation existed in the ancient idea of the tragic hero between the hero and the cosmic forces that controlled life, death, fate, and the universe itself. Therefore, the best way to understand the ancient idea of the tragic hero is to understand the tragic hero as the embodiment of the mythic and religious ideas of ancient religions and cultures.

Thomas VanNortwick suggests in his book Somewhere I Have Never Traveled: The Hero’s Journey (1996) that the story of Gilgamesh and the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu symbolizes an emerging culture that is beginning to displace traditional nature-worship with more human-centered ideas. He writes that “The Epic of Gilgamesh is driven by two interconnected polarities, nature/culture and mortal/immortal, and the pivot for the entire structure is the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu” (Van Nortwick 8). This is a very complicated way of understanding the epic and the two characters. However, it is useful for seeing that the ancients were moving, however slowly, from a purely animistic and mythical conception of the universe and of human experience.

That said, Gilgamesh, as a tragic hero remains a prime example of the ancient connection between tragedy and religion and metaphysics. Van Nortwick stresses that, as a tragic hero, the chief quality of Gilgamesh is that he typifies the ancient ideal. According to Van Nortwick, “Gilgamesh is the first in a long line of western heroes who straddle the boundary between human and divine.” This means, of course, that the ancient tragic hero’s were able to “sometimes transcend the reach of human morality, because they are simply too powerful” (Van Nortwick 12). This shows how the ancients viewed the tragic hero as something more than human.

As previously mentioned, a slight drift toward what might be considered a more humanist direction is evident in the epic. Fort example, the connection between Gilgamesh and the Gods is not a connection that can be understood in any rational way. It thrives on ambiguity to some extent. VanNortwick mentions that “though Gilgamesh has his divine protectors, principally his mother, as a group the gods are indifferent to his spiritual state, except as it forwards or impedes their personal aims” (Van Nortwick 13). So there is a sense of opposition between the Divine forces and the tragic hero in ancient literature that may or may not be rightly considered as a signal of the eventual evolution of the tragic hero as an embodiment of human, rather than demi-human, ideals.

Even if such an early indication is missing altogether from the epic of Gilgamesh the evolution in Western culture from a religious and metaphysical emphasis to a secular and humanist emphasis is still seen in the next two works of literature. The fact that the embodiment of the tragic hero in ancient times rested in no small part on the semi-Divine origins of the hero is the first idea that is lost in the transition from Gilgamesh to Oedipus the King by Sophocles. Although, as will be shown, the influence of the Gods on the fate of the tragic hero is till important, the tragic hero bears a deeper responsibility for his own fate. The movement from a primarily religious to a primarily ethical or moral vision is evident in a comparison of the two works. Obviously, since Gilgamesh is a poem descended from the oral tradition and Oedipus is a play written solely by Sophocles, an immediate distinction between the two works is evident. This distinction is important in that it allows for a deeper immersion in character that existed in Greek tragedy. by contrast, in the ancient epic, events were more important.

Where the tragic hero in ancient literature functioned as a mythical connection between the mortal and immortal worlds, the tragic hero in Greek theater was a form of exploration of individuality. Greek tragedy looked into the nature of what it meant to be human and what kind of forces were at work in shaping human reality. Although the Divine forces are still active and present, the primary concentration of theme is on the meaning of human life. As Segal suggests in Oedipus Tyrannus: Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge (2001), “The play is a tragedy not only of destiny but also of personal identity: the search for the origins and meaning of our life” (Segal 4). This suggestion marks a very strong contrast between the way the tragic hero operated in Gilgamesh and the way the idea of the tragic hero was represented in Greek tragedy. The contrast is rooted in the evolution away from metaphysical or religious themes, to themes or human morality.

Segal goes on to emphasize that the play examines human nature as its primary theme. For all intents and purposes, the Divine influence of the play can be seen as being a background or framing device. the real agent of the tragedy in Oedipus is the character of Oedipus himself. This alone means that, rather than exploring ideas of religious or mythical consequence, the play, as Segal insists is actually an attempt to “explore the essential mystery of our selfhood” (Segal 4). As previously shown, the character of Gilgamesh had no “self” but was instead simply an embodiment of the heroic ideals that were predominant in ancient Western cultural traditions.

In direct contrast to this function, the Greek idea of the tragic hero expanded to include not only cultural ideals, but ideals of individuality and selfhood. This brings an entirely new dimension to the tragic hero that fundamentally alters the function that is performed by the tragic hero in Western literature. Segal argues that the inclusion of issues of selfhood and individuality coexisted with the projection of cultural and religious qualities into the Greek definition of tragic hero. In this regard Segal’s suggestion that “Oedipus’ story serves as the myth not only of Western personal identity but also of Western cultural identity” (Segal 4) is the most succinct way of stating the evolution of the tragic hero from Gilgamesh to Oedipus.

Interestingly, many traditions of the tragic hero are preserved in Greek tragedy from ancient times. Debra A. Moddelmog in her study, Readers and Mythic Signs: The Oedipus Myth in Twentieth-Century Fiction (1993) lists a series of heroic qualities that she believes underlay the Oedipus myth. According to Moddelmog: “the Oedipus myth comprises six parts, each of which is a common element in other hero myths: the exposed infant, the father murderer, the victor over the monster, the riddle, the marriage to the princess, and the mother union” (Moddelmog 125). Moddelmog’s connecting of Oedipus to “other hero myths” is significant because it supports the notion that the play represents the way in which the evolution of the tragic hero emerged out of the ancient oral traditions and into a progressively more human centered vision.

In fact, Moddelmog goes so far as to suggest that the changing conception of the tragic hero that is evident in the contrast between the time of Gilgamesh and Oedipus is evident specifically in Sophocles’ innovative use of the form of Greek tragedy. She writes that the modern reader is “attracted to Oedipus because his suffering is personal–unusual for a Greek hero–and he thus attains an individuality that makes him truly human” (Moddelmog 120). So, while the evolution of the conception of the tragic hero that took place from the creation of the character of Gilgamesh to the creation of the character of Oedipus was subtle, it was also a truly distinctive divergence. Although Oedipus cries out to the Gods in his final scenes: “”No, no, you holy powers above! Let me / Not see that day!” (Hall 76) what he is truly realizing is the irony of his own self-created downfall. The primary nature of the shift was from Gilgamesh who had no individuality to speak of, but who embodied the cultural principles that were associated with heroism to Oedipus who showed both a cultural and personal function as hero.

The important thing to take away from the preceding description of the transition from the era of Gilgamesh to the time of the ancient Greeks is that the ideal hero was becoming more human. Where Gilgamesh began as a demigod, Oedipus was the agent of his own tragedy, despite the fact that he was a noble. In fact, it was his exalted position (and lack of it) that fueled the irony and tragedy of the play. In terms of bringing forth the specific qualities that were associated with the hero, the hero in Greek tragedy was dynamic where the hero in ancient epic poetry was static. Gilgamesh is acted on by fate, by contrast, Oedipus brings about his own downfall in trying to control his fate.

This evidenced by Tiresius’ statement to Oedipus: “Creon’s no enemy of yours; you are your own.” (Hall 61). The traditional vision of the epic hero as an agent of Divine power was beginning to weaken and a new vision of the hero was beginning to emerge. This vision showed that human moral decisions were of extreme consequences whether or not the Gods were watching and whether or not the individual was prepared to take responsibility for their actions. The idea of personal responsibility can be viewed as one of the primary modes that changed the conception of the hero. Rather than viewing the hero as a pawn of the Gods, the tradition of the hero in Western literature was starting to embrace the idea of personal actions and moral and ethical consequences. This transition showed a moving away from religious and metaphysical ideas to secular ideas. The full impact of the evolution away from the Gilgamesh-era tragic hero who has little or no reflective capacity and who is all action, to an introspective individualistic hero is shown to be complete when Shakespeare’s famous play Hamlet: Prince of Denmark is studied in regard to the topic of the tragic hero.

The first significant thing about Hamlet as a tragic hero is that he is the first hero in Western literature who is more notable for what he doesn’t do than what he does. Hamlet’s famous “hesitation” in avenging his father’s death has been the inspiration for many critical studies. The idea of a hero who is hesitant, ambivalent, and perhaps even crazy is something entirely new in Western literature. One famous scene in Act 4 shows Hamlet standing among dead bodies ruminating on the essentially impersonal nature of death: “Why, might not that be the skull of a lawyer?/ Where be his quiddity now, his quillers, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks?” (Hibbard 325). The idea that there is no special fate that is part of individual stature marks Hamlet as the opposite of the traditional hero.

We can see from the very outset that Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a radical departure from the traditions of the tragic hero that had come in the centuries prior to his Hamlet. Even more significant is the fact that Shakespeare’s changing of the characteristics of the hero were very much deliberate. Thomas MacCary shows in his study: Hamlet A Guide to the Play (1998) that Shakespeare’s entire them in the play was, in many ways, based on reinventing the idea of the tragic hero. This is important because it reclaims responsibility for mankind by mankind itself, rather than believing in the influence of Gods.

MacCary indicates that “Shakespeare can be seen, in composing this first of his great tragedies, to meditate here on the nature of the genre, on the qualities of the hero” (MacCary 5). In probing the qualities of heroism as expressed in the past, Shakespeare chose to break with tradition and create Western literature’s first truly unique hero. The reason that Hamlet is unique is due to his introspective capacity. Before Hamlet, tragic hero’s were almost incapable of looking into their own minds. they were unable to question their motivations or challenge the expectations that were placed on them by their cultures and societies. Hamlet in his feigned insanity and in his inability to act to take revenge against his mother and uncle, represents a character who, by the standards of the age of would have been viewed as anything other than heroic. The transition from the ancient to modern hero is significant and important because it shows the evolution of the social and cultural ideas of myth and religion into more practical to ideas of humanism.

The key to understanding how Hamlet, who seemingly avoids having any of the traditional qualities of a hero can remain heroic to audiences is in understanding the appeal and power of his self-knowledge and humanity. As MacCary claims, the character of Hamlet “shows Shakespeare’s consistent concern with the nature of the tragic hero: to what extent does he accept responsibility for his actions and their significance?” (MacCary 9). The key attribute of the hero in Shakespeare’s conception is how he accepts responsibility for his own fate. Just as the character of Oedipus expanded the conception of the hero to include a degree of self-responsibility, Hamlet expands the conception of the hero to include personal crisis and psychology.

The previous hero’s discussed, Gilgamesh and Oedipus were meant to embody the cultural ideals of their ages. They were each characters who could be viewed as speaking to the cultural experiences of a society. By comparison, Hamlet is fixated on the opposite characteristics. Hamlet’s heroism comes from the ways in which he is not like the rest of the people around him. Part of his strength is in not accepting the social norms of Denmark. This brings a radically new aspect to the tragic hero. Hamlet, rather than being a warrior like Gilgamesh or a King like Oedipus, becomes a thinker, and is unable to act decisively.

For this reason McCary sees Hamlet as “the hero who suffers because he thinks rather than acts, and because he thinks, he feels superior to those around him” (MacCary 104). Rising above the masses or being “superhuman” is a traditional aspect of the hero but not, in previous history, due to the self-reflective capability of the hero to think. In traditional heroes it is the power to act that matters. In fact, Shakespeare’s clever inversion of this most basic of heroic principles is the main way that dramatic tension is created in Hamlet. Even more wise was Shakespeare’s decision to create a radically new kind of hero, but to place him in a traditional dramatic crisis the idea of revenge was a quite common plot in heroic literature.

Despite the fact that revenge is an idea that is associated with the traditional hero, Shakespeare’s use of this plot device was also innovative. Welsh writes that “it is not clear that […] Shakespeare’s use of revenge can fully be assimilated to the religious, moral, legal, or honor codes of the sixteenth century” (Welsh 29). Instead, Shakespeare uses the idea of revenge to bring about the tragedy of self-knowledge. This is the meaning of Hamlet as a new kind of tragic hero. The transformation from the idea of the tragic hero in ancient epic poetry to Shakespeare’s Hamlet is radical, but it is also logical, as the preceding ideas have shown.

Even though Hamlet represents a purely secular hero, one who is apparently free of all connection to Divine of metaphysical influences, a remnant of the ancient idea that the hero should rise above all other men in birth and stature is still preserved in the play. Hamlet is, after all, a prince and the whole reason that the lay is of consequence is because the fate of the country of Denmark is attached to Hamlet’s personal fate. MacCary notes that the “tragedy shows even the hero, who, though superior to those around him, is nevertheless flawed like them and succumbs to the same fate as all others” (MacCary 109). This completes Hamlet’s connection to the “common” man.

Simultaneously, Hamlet retains a veneer of elitism. Welsh comments that “Expectations that matter most and absorb the interest of all ranks are those of princes for the ensuing kingship” (Welsh 102) and this holds true for the play of Hamlet. Although the play more than adequately demonstrates the evolution from a religious and mythical conception of the tragic hero to a secular and psychological conception of the tragic hero, remnants of the traditional mythic and religious underpinnings remain. The preceding discussion of the evolution of the tragic hero indicates that, in general terms, the movement in Western literature has been away from myth and toward introspection and psychology.

The significance of this evolution is that it shows an increasing level of self-awareness and an increasing level of responsibility reflected in literary myth in Western culture. The change is important because the idea of the tragic hero symbolizes a cultural ideal of human experience. The shift from a Divine to a secular emphasis indicates a general manifestation of a pragmatic psychological and philosophical understanding of human nature. Simultaneously, in Western history there has been a shift from mysticism to science and psychology. Therefore, the evolution of the conception of the tragic hero must be regarded as one of the most significant aspects of Western literature because it parallels the evolution of Western civilization as a whole.

Works Cited

The Epic of Gilgamesh. Trans. Maureen Gallery Kovacs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989.

Hall, Edith, ed. Antigone; Oedipus the King; Electra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Hibbard, G. R., ed. Hamlet. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

MacCary, W. Thomas. Hamlet A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998.

Moddelmog, Debra A. Readers and Mythic Signs: The Oedipus Myth in Twentieth-Century Fiction. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993.

Segal, Charles. Oedipus Tyrannus: Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 2002.

Van Nortwick, Thomas. Somewhere I Have Never Traveled: The Hero’s Journey. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Welsh, Alexander. Hamlet in His Modern Guises. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.