Gilgamesh is known as the world’s first hero. As the strong and handsome king of the Mesopotamian city-state Uruk, he is partially divine and is defined by physical strength, courage and authority. Gilgamesh goes through various perils during his journey and is remembered as a hero. I have read the Epic of Gilgamesh a few months ago in a course and upon re-reading it, I again realized the importance of “reading in context” as in my modern Avengers hero standards, Gilgamesh did not in any way come across as a hero.
His character itself is quite questionable. He rapes virgins the night before they get married, kills without any hesitation and is violent and harsh to the point that the gods found the need to create his counterpart, Enkidu. His actions show that he does not feel very compassionate towards his people, as he often neglects the gods and brings upon catastrophe in his city-state. For example, when he declines the goddess Ishtar’s proposal and causes her to send the giant bull to Uruk, almost a third of the population of Uruk dies. But the only thing that concerns Gilgamesh is the fact that he had heroically killed the bull. However, looking at this objectively, Gilgamesh is not saving his people from harm, but rather cleaning up the mess that he himself had created. Gilgamesh is a tyrant that seems to bring upon more harm than good to his people.
Moreover, like all heroes, Gilgamesh also goes through a journey. Physically or mentally, heroes embark on a journey to find some gift for his/her community. Hence, Harry Potter leaves Hogwarts to kill Voldemort for the wizarding world and Odysseus leaves Ithaca, his home, for twenty years to fight the Trojans for the Greeks. However, what about Gilgamesh? In his first journey, in which he combats Humbaba in the sacred garden, his primary motivation for the journey is to show off. Gilgamesh ignores all advice given to him that killing Humbaba is dangerous and unnecessary and justifies his killing by labeling Humbaba as evil. What is worse, he massacres Humbaba without the gods knowing, even though as the king and half-god, he would have known the consequences. In other words, Gilgamesh is not the best at teamwork, as he does not care about what others say and is imprudent enough to fail at considering the consequences of his actions.
His second journey is somewhat worse in this sense. After his friend Enkidu’s death, he leaves Uruk to find Utanapishi, whom he believes will teach him immortality. His motive here is to find eternal life for himself, because he is suddenly scared of death. And for this, he abandons his duties as king and returns to nature, walking endlessly to find immortality. If he had succeeded in being immortal, then maybe it might have benefited Uruk somehow. However, he fails to acquire eternal life and is despaired. Hence, his temporary abandonment of his kingly duties led to no avail except for hopelessness.
After completing his journey, Gilgamesh does not restore peace in Uruk or return as a proud king. He loses his friend Enkidu and realizes too well his mortal limitations. In the modern sense, Gilgamesh is selfish, irresponsible and somewhat incapable to be called an absolute hero. However, Gilgamesh is a hero from ancient Mesopotamia, long before Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, the Avengers, or any of the heroes that you can think of existed. Hence, he lived under a completely different social system with different standards. With the demonstration of physical strength and the ability to rule with fear, he is a good king and leader in the sense that he presents himself as one. Also, perhaps after his journey in which he realizes his limitations as a human, he recognizes once again the importance of Uruk and civilization to him. I personally was quite confused and befuddled to see such flaws in a widely known heroic figure like Gilgamesh, but the epic was an opportunity for me to realize the importance of adapting a different lens for different literature.