A Review of the Story Teller in the Odyssey and the Epic of Gilgamesh

By definition, a storyteller is a man “who has counsel for his readers” (Benjamin 3). In relation to an epic, or the recount of an honorable journey, it should give insight into what an ideal hero should possess. With regards to Walter Benjamin’s “The Storyteller,” what is important of a narrator is that he “takes what he tells from experience—his own or reported by others (Benjamin p.3). This is certainly the case for both narratives: Homer depicts Odysseus’s ability to recount his journeys himself with verbal conviction to captivate readers. For Gilgamesh, an external narrator tells his experiences, essentially heightening the hero’s exceptionality and superiority over others. But ideally, the story of the hero is exemplified to be somewhat a comforting impression that heroes would be remembered during life and death.

In the Odyssey the storyteller vastly acclaims Odysseus for his intelligence and wit. Polytropos is used to exemplify Odysseus as a verbal enchanter. As a “man of twists and turns” (1.1), he is able to change and adapt his stories in order to captivate his audience. Epithets, such as “raider of cities” (9.561) exude a stimulating power, almost giving the narrative a majestic enchantment that entices readers. As there are many instances where he tells his own journeys, this underlies his awareness of his own importance, and hos his voyages differ from everyone else.

In contrast, storytelling in The Epic of Gilgamesh contains a narrator that is completely an outsider to the epic. Written mainly in third person, the goal of the narrator is to emphasize the hero’s exemplary journey. The phrase “I will make known” (1.1) shows direct intrusion into the epic, as if to explicitly focus on Gilgamesh’s uniqueness from the rest. Continuing on with praises for the man, the omniscient perspective humbles Gilgamesh but at the same time heightens how his existence is greater.

Homer suggests of human’s limitations to free will and individuality. In the narrative, the gods control the fate of humanity through the theme of hospitality. Associate with acts of generous treatment of guests, all hosts are required to “treat your guests and suppliant like a brother” (8.614). Hospitality forges and reinforces bonds of friendship and goodwill between guests and their hosts. However, it also sets up a set of expectations and obligations that control how the gods should be repaid for giving merciful fortune. Guests are to entertain their hosts with stories, whilst the hosts likewise entertain guests by providing the basic necessities of food, drink and at times, shelter. If these guidelines were to be broken, it is the “gods’ work, spinning threads of death” (8.649). The lexis “work” enables the gods to essentially determine a man’s outcome in life as part of their routine, as well as interfere to make any events happen that would not have happened otherwise. In this case, negative consequences of hospitality, shown through Odysseus blinding the Cyclops, and the suitors taking advantage of the food in the palace, is a representation of submission to temptations, and a lack of control.

Therefore, the grave punishments disobedience would cause creates a sense of forced hospitality from the hosts in order to appease the gods. Somewhat like a test, hosts treat their guests like a god to ensure that there is no mistake of accidentally abusing an actual one. The gods would “find it welcome” (14.68) since hosts such as Eumaeus “always cowed by our high and mighty masters” (14.69). It is fear that effectively manipulates individuals to continuously show generous dispositions to “every stranger and beggar” (14.66).

Similar to the Odyssey, the gods in Gilgamesh are depicted to interfere with the lives of humans as they choose. One example includes an instance where Gilgamesh takes advantage of his superiority over the rest. When the gods kept hearing of their complaints” (1.64), it resulted in the creation of Enkidu to balance Gilgamesh’s unruly behavior. However, a focal difference between the two narratives is the importance of the hero amongst other people. Here, hospitality is not as much an important factor for the hero, but rather the appeasing of the majority in order to maintain order. The gods react to unwelcoming situations by alternate measures. There are essentially no punishments for the hero himself as the gods created him to represent the entirety of man. It is more of a justice order that the gods uphold in lieu of individuals treating on another reverentially to appease the gods.

Nonetheless, this does not mean that the gods control the free will of humanity. Though the gods in the Odyssey do impede at times, characters are still given choice. Zeus criticizes humanity on how they “compound their pains beyond their proper share” (1.40). Introducing the concept of justice, an individual should place blame as their primary justification, but being able to see past the illusion that encumbers truth. Men are responsible for their outcomes. The gods are just present to punish whoever disobeys conduct through curses that ultimately lead to death. An example is the wrath Poseidon unleashed on Odysseus after blinding the Cyclops, though in that case Odysseus did not face death as his curse only a huge delay from his return home. Thus, the actions of hosts are primarily what aid into the storytelling process that adventurers would tell others during the next encounter. By adhering to the code functions, it presents them as selfless hosts and sets up a noble reputation for them in the future.

The gods shown in Gilgamesh show no such mercy when exerting wrath upon individuals. When Enkidu is aware of his harsh manner to Humbaba, he insists to kill him “before the preeminent god Enlil hears” (5.178). Enkidu is aware of the punishments but is willing to take the risks of dishonoring the gods. In this case, respect is fragmented depending on the individuals. Enkidu respects the gods, but not those who he feels as though should be killed. His recklessness ultimately unleashes two curses and his imminent death. This is reiterated when Gilgamesh rejected Ishtar’s advances, and she reacts in rage and demands that the Bull of Heaven be sent or else “the dead will outnumber the living” (6.96). Even after further humiliation when the Bull of Heaven is defeated, a curse of death is set upon Enkidu. Curses are absolute in the narrative, unavoidable in any way. The gods cannot control the destiny of the people, but they can only impose harsh punishments that lead to death.

Storytelling as a means to keep memory alive is not always shown to be what all individuals desire for. Odysseus’s reaction to death is bewildering at first glance as it juxtaposes drastically with that of previous heroes such as Achilles. Yet this is justified when Achilles, honored “as a god” (11.551) regrets his decision to have his heroic conquests are forever retold whilst he dies hastily with only the company of “the breathless dead” (11.558). By having Achilles admit he would rather swap his immortalized fame to be a slave, Odysseus now embraces the importance of life and experiences, even to the extent of rejecting the temptations of immortality twice throughout the narration. Homer emphasizes how immortality should not be the ultimate goal in life, but instead how taking advantage of human experiences should be of the highest priority. Stories of past life experiences only keep a memory of an individual alive and prevent total dissolution. But by actually being alive and acting as the primary narrator, it constitutes its own identity and an alternate method to avoiding oblivion.

This differs drastically with Gilgamesh’s view of immortality in Gilgamesh. For the hero, the narration of this story would only be depicted as a form of monumentalism. As Gilgamesh himself is not telling his own story, it is ironic how only his experiences are left in memory. Though he built immense structures, such as the Wall of Uruk-Haven and the “wall of the sacred Eanna temple (1.11). Those substantial foundations and having his story told by other people are what immortalize him. He is expected to know everything, yet he himself will not be known after he passes. Because of this, he desperately seeks for physical immortality. But there is a sudden shift to first person as Utanapishtim recollects his life experiences. Here, the use of primary perspective highlights death’s omnipresence. The anaphora “For how long . . .” (10.294-98) exemplifies how death itself is metaphysical, its own power makes it unpredictable as there is nothing that compares to death. Here, the storytelling emphasizes man’s vulnerability to the inevitability of mortality. Unlike the Odyssey, where the gods are the most feared, death is what provokes dread the most, as the power of man, no matter how heroic they are, is principally pointless.

Immortality, though unattainable in the physical sense, is embodied through the stores that storytellers orally project to other people. Heroes would be commemorated verbally, though their mortality is imminent whether embraced or not. But having a sense of justice, such as the rules of hospitality and the placation of the gods, reiterates the fragility of the heroes. It is only by storytelling that the heroes can explain their heroic struggle against the overwhelming odds in order to identify their purposes and definitive objectives in life.