What makes someone a hero? Does one need to have a divine parent? Does one need superhuman strength or special powers? What constitutes heroic behavior? Is heroism synonymous with altruism? How has the connotation of heroism changed since Homeric times? Why has it changed? In what capacity does culture play a part in defining the interpretation of the hero? Is one definition of heroism correct while the rest are distortions? Has or will the connotation of heroism come full circle?

While the perspectives of heroism develop, evolve, and change throughout history, there are tenets which are inseparable from the concept of heroism. Plato spoke of ideal forms; there is an ideal form for the concept of heroism as well.

Today there seems to be some confusion as to what makes a hero. One simply needs to watch any random movie, whether a children’s animated movie or an action movie or even a drama, to see that the question of what constitutes a hero remains ever unsettled.

For instance, the new Jack Black animated movie Kung Fu Panda tells the story of Po, an overweight Panda whose dream of becoming a Kung Fu hero seems unattainable because he has been fated to his family business of cooking noodles. Ever the Kung Fu enthusiast, however, he somehow manages to strap firecrackers to a chair which he rides into the air over the wall of the arena where the wise old sage will appoint the new Dragon Warrior hero; as the sage extends his hand to point his finger, Po lands in a blaze of glory in front his finger. Thus Po is named the new Dragon Warrior. Po is troubled because he has no innate ability and no previous training. He feels unprepared to be a hero. When the mysterious Dragon Scroll is handed to him, he opens it to reveal a blank canvas. Discouraged, he returns home to follow in his father’s footsteps as a noodle chef. His father then reveals to him the secret ingredient to the family noodle recipe—nothing! There is no special requirement to make a soup magical; one only needs to believe. Po has an epiphany and returns to battle the evil villain and save the day. The moral of the movie is that the only requirement to be a hero is self-confidence. Po’s society believes that heroism is universally attainable, and Po’s realization of this societal norm through his father’s revelation allows him to reach the heights to which he aspires.

Another definition of hero is given in Spiderman 2. Throughout the movie, Peter Parker is torn between desires for his own happiness with Mary Jane and his responsibility to society as a hero. Experience has proven that he cannot have both. He quits, but after his aunt gives a speech he decides to resume life as Spiderman. His aunt’s life-changing speech is:

…kids like Henry need a hero. Courageous, self-sacrificing people, setting examples for all of us. Everyone loves a hero. People line up for them, cheer them, scream their names, stand in the rain for hours just to get a glimpse of the one who taught them to hold on one second longer. I believe that there is a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble, and finally gives us the ability to die with pride. Although it is hard to give up the things we want the most. The things we love.

Where did these ideas originate? Heroism is a concept so innate to humanity as a whole that it could be called an archetype. Everyone recognizes a hero. But what are the qualities that help one to identify a hero? In these two contemporary movies one sees the qualities of confidence, courage, and self-sacrifice. The broad range of qualities described today in reference to heroism reflects a long history of an ever-evolving concept.

Even as far back as Homer’s day there was a discrepancy in the portrayal of heroes. Homer describes his heroes with having the qualities of strength, a connection with the divine, fame or reputation, honor, killing many people, leadership, and ruling strongly. Homeric heroism is very individualistic. According to a critical essay found on pages 55—58 of the Cliffs Notes on Homer’s The Iliad, entitled “The Hero and Homeric Culture,” the Homeric hero must above all obey social and cultural norms and mores. The hero feared disgrace within his community, and communal honor was vital. The hero had to defend his community’s social and religious rites, and he must do this through combat. His personal honor was his most important concern. The Homeric hero takes no personal responsibility, however, for his actions or emotions. He believed that all of his emotions and actions were controlled by external forces, either a god or his society.

In the Iliad Achilles is portrayed as angry and prideful. He is contrasted with Paris, who is an anti-hero. He is compared to Hektor and to Diomedes. Each of these heroes has a distinct brand of heroism. Yet despite their differences all three heroes are recognizable as such.

Achilles is the proud hero. His anger is the major theme and motivator of the story. The story itself seems to be showing how Achilles develops as a hero. He begins the epic angry and hubristic. He usurps Agamemnon’s authority by calling a council, which of course discovers that the cause of the army’s ails is Agamemnon himself, thus usurping Agamemnon’s authority even further. He almost kills Agamemnon; this would have been the ultimate hubristic action. A proper hero should respect his leaders, not manipulate around their authority and even consider assassinating them. Athena saves Achilles from falling entirely victim of his own hubristic nature. When Achilles abandons the Achaean army, causing them much hardship and numerous deaths, Achilles is choosing to defend his personal honor rather than obey his societal duties. Again, an external force, in this case the death of Patroklos, drives him back onto the path of the hero. But following his return to battle, his treatment of Hektor’s body is the most hubristic action he has committed so far. Zeus himself disapproves of Achilles’ mutilation and disrespect for Hektor’s corpse. The turning point in the development of the heroic character of Achilles is his confrontation with Priam. When he makes a connection with Priam on a personal level, comparing Priam’s love for Hektor to his love for his own father, his attitude changes. He returns Hektor’s body to allow for a proper burial. This is Achilles’ return to obedience of cultural norms and mores. The moral to this story is that obedience of societal norms is more important than the individualistic defense of one’s personal desires and whims. Only when in compliance with societal values can a hero truly obtain honor.

Hektor is the honorable hero. According to the Cliffs Notes on Homer’s The Iliad, the character analysis of Hektor on pages 49—53, “Hektor’s acceptance of social responsibilities marks him as the ideal Homeric man.” (page 50) Hektor is very concerned with his duty to his community and to his family. However, he also wants glory and honor on the battlefield. This duality of purpose traps him and leads to his downfall. He is trapped in the heroic code, and he must fight Achilles even though Achilles will surely kill him. It is his own fault, though, that his body is desecrated, because he provoked Achilles by threatening to throw Patroklos’ body to the dogs. Of course, his pietas prevented him to follow through with his threat. Hektor had an enormous sense of what was right according to his societal norms. His sense of duty to his community and his preoccupation and concern for the futures of his wife and son show that he is the honorable hero. Hektor in this way acts as a foil to the character of Achilles. Furthermore, Homer may have been making a statement by showing how Achilles’ greatest fault, excessive pride, also is the cause of Hektor’s death. When Hektor refused to retreat back within the walls of Troy, he was more concerned with his own personal honor than with the outcome of the impending battle. Yet with Hektor, his societal expectations require that he fight, even when it means his death. If Homer indeed subscribed to this value system, he may be glorifying Hektor; although, my personal interpretation of Hektor’s plight is that it is Homer’s criticism and rejection of this extreme martyrdom requirement of heroism. Homer may have been exploring the same questions that Peter Parker asks himself: must a hero sacrifice his own life and happiness for the greater good? Hektor’s is a particularly tragic case since the reader knows the outcome of the war, and that Hektor’s sacrifice did not serve for a higher purpose since the Trojans were ultimately defeated. Perhaps his death would have meant more if Troy had later won, but perhaps then Homer’s point would have been lost.

Diomedes is the perfect hero. Naturally, he cannot take full credit for his own deeds, because Athena is responsible for endowing him with skill and courage. Diomedes is a mighty warrior, and he always behaves in a way becoming to a hero. According to page 24 of the Cliffs Notes on Homer’s The Iliad, “Diomedes is a heroic Achaean figure, comparable to Achilles in prowess, gallantry, courage, and divine favor, but with the significant difference that he is always courteous, self-controlled, and respectful, even when in dispute with his king, Agamemnon.”

Paris is the non-hero who is offered as a contrast to the true heroes. In Book III, the reader sees Paris flee from battle with Menelaus. He is a coward, and he is severely reprimanded by his brother Hektor. If Paris had lived today, he may have been applauded for “choosing to live to fight another day.” Today’s values have changed from Homeric time, and society is now more accepting of a commander who pulls back his troops in order to preserve them rather than sacrificing them in a gloriously lost battle. The conflict of this idea can be seen in the movie “Forest Gump,” where Lieutenant Dan wishes to die gloriously on the battlefield just as his ancestors have done for generations. Yet it is Forest who runs who is glorified, because he helps his fellow soldiers to escape with their lives rather than die a hero’s death. Even Virgil would have glorified Paris’ running away as a ‘strategy’ for preserving his own life and the lives of his future progeny.

In Homer’s Odyssey the hero is rather different than the previous ones. Heroism has been redefined. Now lying and disguise are good things which are considered discretion and thoughtfulness. Odysseus is a witty hero. Despite the differences to his heroic predecessors, Odysseus is unquestionably recognized as a hero.

Apollonius departed even further from the traditional portrayal of hero. Jason seems like an ordinary guy. He leads through common assent rather than by strong rule. He is given the gift of Promethian charm rather than having natural strength. Here Apollonius takes the anti-hero character of Paris and in Jason portrays this as the new heroism. When Peter Parker receives his superhuman abilities by being bitten by a spider, it is an allusion, whether intentional or not, to Jason becoming a hero from a flower sap.

Virgil brings to the world the values of Roman heroism. This was a value system which Augustus strove to instill in his people. It entails overcoming obstacles in oneself. Virtue was understood as the quality of being a man, which in turn made heroism available to all men. Peter Parker’s aunt is in this way indebted to Virgil when she says “I believe that there is a hero in all of us.” Pietas was important to a hero. But rather than merely having to honor the gods, pietas now encompassed a broader perspective. A hero had to honor the gods, his family, and his society. Fata and fortuna, fate and fortune, now played a greater role in a hero’s life. A hero had to follow his destiny regardless of the human cost. In the Aeneid, destiny is harsh and often counters the desires of an individual. Aeneas would like to stay with Dido, but he must follow his destiny. Leadership was becoming more important in the definition of a hero.

In the Aeneid, several heroes are portrayed, each somewhat differently, but all recognizable as heroes. According to page 17 of the Cliffs Notes on Virgil’s The Aeneid,

Aeneas became the object of exceptional veneration by the Romans, the embodiment of all of the virtues that they prized most: steadfastness, courage, patience, obedience to the will of the gods, and reverence for ancestors. As such, he was not only the ancestor of Rome’s first emperor but also Augustus’ moral prototype, or model, exemplifying in his heroic person all the qualities that loyal Romans attributed to their first emperor.

Dido is a female hero who has founded the city of Carthage and whose story is told in Book IV. While perhaps Medeia or Penelope portray strong women, Dido is the first actual female hero that we see. She is held as a foil for Aeneas. Just as Aeneas has fled Troy, she has also fled her homeland. Just as Aeneas will someday found the city of Rome, Dido has founded the city of Carthage. Just as Aeneas is described as having a god-like head and shoulders, Dido is compared to Diana the goddess of the hunt. Just as Aeneas finds himself in the epic garden/island scene in Book IV, delayed in the fulfillment of his destiny; Dido is also in an epic garden/island situation with Aeneas’ presence in her city. She is unable to continue construction of her city while she is distracted by Aeneas. The unfortunate difference is that Aeneas is pushed onward towards his destiny by Mercury, while no messenger god comes to push Dido along towards her destiny. Thus, fatally distracted from her destiny of building her city, she has ruined her own reputation with her people and is forced into suicide by her belief that in doing so she can restore her honor. She builds her own funeral pyre with Aeneas’ furniture and other items, places his sword on top and impales herself on his sword. Though a tragic ending for a heroine, it is an ending which will bring her honor—it was considered the honorable fashion at the time.

Nisus and Euryalus are two young warrior heroes who go on a suicide mission and meet their gory ends with their heads on the ends of swords. They are reminiscent of Achilles and Patroklos, and foreshadowing of Clorinda and Argantes. The inseparable hero duo seems to be a sort of epic convention of its own. With Nisus and Euryalus one sees the honor and glory (time and kleos) system as it interrelates with fellow heroes. One may avenge the other’s death, and in doing so restore his partner’s honor as well as winning glory for oneself. Unfortunately it seems that all epic hero duos meet violent ends. It seems that where epic conventions are concerned, there is no safety in numbers.

When one is a hero in an epic, it helps to be on the ‘right’ side. Turnus is a brave angry hero echoing Achilles in nature. Rather than acting in the best interest of his own people, Turnus is more concerned with his own personal honor and pride. This is his fatal flaw, since he appears in a Roman epic. The Roman virtues of civic duty over personal glory require that Turnus must fall. Also, Turnus was fighting against the Romans, so as opposed to the Homeric epic where both sides are portrayed equally, Virgil portrays Aeneas as the good guy and Turnus as the bad guy. Turnus may be the first real villain in epic.

Turnus is aided by the heroine/villainess Camilla. One may recognize Camilla as a hero because besides the description of her deeds, she has a connection to the divine. The goddess Diana avenges her death, sending the nymph Opis to kill Arruns, Camilla’s killer. I hate that every female hero in the epics we have read in class has to get killed off. Dido kills herself, Camilla is killed in battle, and Clorinda is killed in battle by her own pseudo-lover. Even in Ayn Rand’s books, the female heroes get killed. What is it with the female hero mortality rate?!

My personal favorite hero of the Aeneid was Mezentius. His story does not cover a great number of pages, but he is the most individualistic hero that one can come across up until this point. His extreme individualism makes him a villain even more so than does the side on which he is fighting. Mezentius is rather staunchly hubristic. Rather than invoking the aid of a god before battle, Mezentius calls his own biceps his gods. He says that he needs no strength other than his own. I love this character because he is so deliciously self-sufficient. He valiantly fights Aeneas even though he has already been gravely wounded. He tries to avenge the death of his son Lausus. But since Roman values require that a good hero have respect for the gods, Mezentius is doomed. In Book X Aeneas is described as ‘god-fearing,’ and Mezentius acts as a foil for this Roman virtue that Aeneas shows. I like Mezentius’ individualism and I find that it will compare quite nicely with the modern hero described by Ayn Rand.

Tasso brought the Christian aspect into the definition of hero. Here heroes become Christ-like, altruistic, supporting good, sometimes to the point of martyrdom. Milton believed that the purpose of poetry is to teach virtue and religion. Christian heroes must then be virtuous and religious. When Spiderman asks himself whether and why he must sacrifice his own happiness for the greater good, his final decision reflects the values of the Christian hero. Paris would have run from Spiderman’s situation. Achilles would have found happiness in the glory of Spiderman’s abilities. Aeneas would have used Spiderman’s powers for the good of his own people. Godfrey would have rejoiced in the blessing of the opportunity to serve God through helping people with his Spider Powers.

If the classical hero is the thesis and the Christian hero is the antithesis, then Ayn Rand’s hero is the synthesis. Ayn Rand was a great Russian philosopher and author of such titles as We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. She is the founder of the philosophy of Objectivism. Rand promotes the idea of rational self-interest. The heroes in her novel do what is best for themselves. They believe that altruism is morally wrong, since by believing that one must dedicate his life to others, one by definition must believe that others must prioritize him above themselves. Altruism is thus the ultimate selfishness—worse still, it is an irrational selfishness. Rand’s heroes must not allow the pursuit of their own happiness trod atop another person’s rights, but a hero’s rational self-interest is also in the best interest of all those who surround him. In this way one may observe not only a regression to Achilles’ type of heroism, but a perfection of heroism itself. When Spiderman asks himself why he must sacrifice his own happiness for the greater good, the fact that he asks the question at all indicates a movement toward a Rand-ian view of heroism. Of course, Spiderman then is sucked back into the norms of the Christian hero.

Is the Christian hero better than the classical hero? I think not. I think that each interpretation of heroism is not so much an interpretation of heroism itself, but rather is a reflection of the poet’s time and cultural surroundings. If one compares the classical hero to the Christian hero to the modern hero as portrayed by Rand, one may find certain key elements that never change. In comparing then these elements, one may glimpse Plato’s ideal form of heroism.

The elements common to each portrayal of heroism are confidence and determination in purpose and strength (however attained). The ideal form of heroism, regardless of its surroundings, must then consist of strength and determination. Above all, a hero must conform to his society’s expectations. Although my personal favorite heroes are Achilles, Mezentius, and Clorinda, their individualism is portrayed as a flaw to heroism rather than a virtue (although Rand does portray individualism as a virtue), and this flaw is in contrast to the norms of their respective societies. In order for a hero to be closest to the Platonic ‘ideal form’ of hero, he must conform to his society’s rules. Therefore, as much as it pains me to conclude it, Diomedes is a better hero than Achilles, Aeneas is a better hero than Mezentius, and Godfrey is a better hero than Clorinda.

I began this project hoping and planning to prove that Achilles and Mezentius were the “real” heroes, since their value systems more closely reflect my own. Unfortunately, after much diligent thought about each hero, and much reflection on the purpose of each author, I have concluded that my original views on heroism were mistaken in that societal values must play a far greater role in the course of a hero’s actions than what I had originally calculated. Whereas I want Peter Parker to use his spider powers to his own advantage, and I want to see Mezentius decapitate his opponents in a gloriously gory display of personal strength, and I want to see Clorinda live a long glorious life and be venerated by all like Nestor, and have entire epics written about her alone, like a Xena:Warrior Princess; nevertheless I must resign myself to the fact that Mezentius’ and Clorinda’s time has not yet come, and very well may never come. I had hoped to prove that the concept of heroism was evolving toward a more individualistic, capitalist type of heroism. Sure there is no “I” in “team,” but there is an “m” and there is an “e.” I like the selfish heroes/villains best. They seem the most realistic and the most logical. Instead, I proved my own theories wrong. Perhaps I too am really a villain.