These two different endings point to the essential differences of the texts. Gilgamesh, with its two part structure and its graphically drawn, clearly delineated archetypal characters can really only be read as a myth tale, according to the prevailing definition of the myth.
Further, it tells the story of how this king learned compassion and humanity through his brotherhood with Enkidu, and demonstrated the qualities of a hero by defeating Humbaba and attaining wisdom in the form of a secret underwater plant that grants eternal life.
It is the sociological function of myth that has taken over in our world — and it is out of date The Iliad tells the tale of how a host of disparate armies came together to fight under one banner more or lessthe banner of the king, Agamemnon. We are invited to read its characters and its actions symbolically.
On our way to discussing these tales in the light of mythology, we can connect and contrast these works in a variety of ways. The second is a cosmological dimension, the dimension with which science is concerned — showing you what shape the universe is, but showing it in such a way that the mystery again comes through This metaphorical clarity continues as the hero overcomes obstacles to attain the wisdom of compassion, even as that compassion is bolstered by determination and courage.
Yet one is more fully "mythological" than the other. First, one of the most notable connections is the similar social function that these works may have played for their respective audiences. While both are epic poems, one is primarily a myth tale and the other is an epic adventure less open to direct metaphorical readings.
This binary pairing is starkly metaphorical in its depiction of the process of coming of age, by realizing humility through human connection. A league of armies was formed and, from there, history tells the tale of the rise of Greece. The Epic of Gilgamesh does similar cultural work, as it offers a narrative of how the city-state of Uruk came to be ruled by a great king.
First, one of the most notable connections is the similar social function that these works may have The first is the mystical function The Iliad and The Epic of Gilgamesh both belong to a conversation on ancient literature and, to varying degrees, to a conversation on myth narratives.
The Iliad may offer similar lessons but we have to dig much deeper and ignore quite a bit of the narrative material in order to resolve the complexities of Achilles, Paris, Menelaus and others into legible metaphors.
Myth tales, according to scholars like Joseph Campbell, are intended to be read metaphorically. With this definition of myth in mind, we can argue that one of our texts checks all of the boxes and the other does not.
It is also a story that defines what it means to be heroic as the narrative offers numerous examples of heroic figures from Achilles and Hector, to Odysseus and Patroclus. This is not a tale intended centrally to convey a social lesson or to reify the rules of social coherence, which is generally understood to be a main function of pure myth tales.
Myth basically serves four functions. Instead, we have an uncertain set of heroes existing in a world that is unstable, as the gods repeatedly disturb any integrity the human plane might build for itself.
The Iliad, on the other hand, ends with an appropriately obscure episode where Achilles has risen again in his might but agrees to hold off his troops so that Hector can be properly buried and mourned.
While these texts differ in a variety of ways including the sheer scope of each story in terms of the number of characters, the length of the narrative, the complexity of the plot, etc.
The Iliad can be read as a myth and as an epic piece of narrative entertainment, but it leans heavily toward the latter. The Epic of Gilgamesh presents us with a figurative scenario regarding human morality.
In some ways, these are both works about national origins. In short, the figures in the story are vehicles for the social lessons embedded in the tale.
The third function is the sociological one — supporting and validating a certain social order The king is unsympathetic and abusive, but is then challenged by a figure who is his brother and his equal.
This is the story of what it means to be Greek.
Seen in this light, both of these stories function in the same general vein in terms of how they communicate a civic identity and also communicate the traits held in esteem by the community. But there is a fourth function of myth, and this is the one that I think everyone must try today to relate to — and that is the pedagogical function, of how to live a human lifetime under any circumstances.Nov 09, · Gilgamesh was a demi-god and king: his mother was the goddess Ninsun, his father the mortal king Lugalbanda.
Achilles was a hero who was consumed by fury and doomed to a heroic death at a young age. Gilgamesh was a brute who became a hero, seeking to avoid mint-body.com: Resolved.
A Comparison of Achilles and Hector Words | 4 Pages (Iliad, pp 87). The Trojan War revolves around the fight between the Trojan and the Myrmidons.
The first contrast between Achilles and Hector is that they have different personalities and how they live their life. Hector is a man of family who loves his child and wife and he believed that Confidence, communication is important to build a good relationship with respect and love to keep the family.
Achilles and Gilgamesh have many similarities and differences as epic heroes; for example, their obsession with death and immortality and their reactions to the deaths of others.
Both Achilles and Gilgamesh lose close friends, but the difference is how this loss affects them. According to the Center.
Achilles Vs. Gilgamesh essaysAchilles and Gilgamesh are two epic heroes who share many similarities. Both men are kings of their respective places, their subjects look up to them and expect a proper relationship between them and society.
Both Achilles and Gilgamesh possess superhuman strength and ar. Achilles and Gilgamesh were extremely different with regards to who they were and how they responded to death.
Achilles was a warrior and Gilgamesh was a king, each well-respected and feared in his role. They both showed toughness and fearlessness in their roles, but their reactions to the death of.Download