| Evil Deeds of Herakles | Herakles’ Relationship with Other Greek Gods |
| Reinterpretation of Myths | Modern Interpretation of Herakles – Herakles and the Old Testament |
To the ancient Greeks Herakles was the best of men. There is no other figure in Greek mythology that can be compared to him. The vast amount of art and literature relating to Herakles shows that he was an extremely popular character in Greek mythology.
The Greeks saw Herakles as a role model. He accomplished many great deeds throughout his lifetime, the best known of which are the twelve labors. In addition to the twelve labors, Herakles fought other deadly monsters. His traditional role was that of civilizing barbarians and liberating the oppressed. He traveled through foreign lands, subduing primitive tribes (for example, he stopped human sacrifice in Egypt, Apollodorus 2.5.11). Herakles overthrew kings who showed themselves to be ruthless tyrants (for example, the Minyan Eriginus; see also the Rulers link). He fought the monsters that roamed around in the remote regions of the known world, thus making the world a safer place for people. The Greeks admired Herakles for his deeds and virtuous character. The deeds of Herakles demonstrated his courage, wisdom, ambition, and strength.
Why was Herakles such a popular mythological figure in Greek culture? Unlike most mythological heroes, Herakles was not associated with one particular province of the Greek world. Throughout his lifetime, Herakles traveled in every part of the known world, performing various deeds. Therefore, every Greek city had some connection to the myths of Herakles. Herakles represented the entire Greek population rather than a particular region or sect. Herakles was unique from other mythological characters. He was mortal, yet he had the strength of a god. Herakles had attributes of the gods, but had the interests of man in mind. He used his strength in the best interest of humans.
Herakles behavior was not always appropriate for a hero/role model. He was often portrayed as a dull-witted, ill-tempered brute who performed evil deeds. He killed people without justification or for some personal gain. Herakles does not exert emotional restraint. He seems to be emotionally unstable. The slightest incident can send Herakles into a fit of madness, ultimately leading to the death and destruction of those around him. He used his super strength to bully others. Herakles’ relationship with Deianiera shows that he was not a good husband since he could not remain faithful to her.
1) Alcestis - In Euripidies’ Alcestis Herakles visits Admetus after completing the twelve labors. Unbeknownst to Herakles, Alcestis, Admetus’ wife, is about to be taken to the Underworld. Herakles eventually finds out about the situation from one of Admetus’ servants and decides to try to save Alcestis from death. Herakles defeats death and saves Alcestis’ life.
-What does this story tell us about Herakles?
This story shows us that Herakles has the power to overcome death. Herakles uses his superhuman strength to help his friends.
2) Iphitus – There are at least three different versions to the story of Herakles’ killing Iphitus. The stories differ in explaining how and why Herakles kills Iphitus but none of the three versions of the story offers a justification for Herakles’ actions. In Homer’s Odyssey Herakles steals Iphitus’ horses and then later kills Iphitus when he comes looking for them. According to Apollodorus, some cattle are stolen from Eurytus. Eurytus believes that Herakles had stolen the cattle. Iphitus, Eurytus’ son, attempts to clear Herakles’ name by searching for the missing cattle. Iphitus asks Herakles to help him find the cattle and Herakles agrees to join in the search. While searching for the cattle Herakles goes mad and throws Iphitus from the walls of Tiryns. In Sophocles’ version of the story, Herakles kills Iphitus to get revenge on Eurytus. While being a guest at Eurytus’ house, Herakles gets drunk and has a dispute with Eurytus. Eurytus kicks Herakles out of his house. Herakles sees an opportunity to get revenge when Iphitus goes out looking for some stray mares. Herakles sneaks up behind Iphitus and throws him from a towering summit.
These stories show Herakles can turn into conniving murderer when others make him upset. In Homer’s version of the story no explanation is given as to why Herakles steals Iphitus’ horses. Rather than admit to the theft, Herakles chooses to take the life of Iphitus. Homer seems to disapprove of Herakles’ actions.
And Iphitus, on his part, had come in search of twelve brood mares, which he had lost, with sturdy mules at the teat; but to him thereafter did they bring death and doom, [25] when he came to the stout-hearted son of Zeus, the man Heracles, who well knew deeds of daring; for Heracles slew him, his guest though he was, in his own house, ruthlessly, and had regard neither for the wrath of the gods nor for the table which he had set before him, but slew the man thereafter, [30] and himself kept the stout-hoofed mares in his halls.
In Apollodorus’ story, Herakles kills Iphitus after going mad. This might be interpreted as a case of temporary insanity since there seems to be no cause to Herakles’ actions. Greek justice is different from that of our society in that the Greeks believed that people were responsible for their actions regardless of the circumstances. Herakles would therefore have to be purified for killing Iphitus. Sophocles writes that Zeus punishes Herakles for his behavior by being sold into slavery. The act of murder, by itself, was not reproachable. It was the fact that Herakles killed Iphitus by sneaking up on him that angered Zeus.
3) Herakles’ 12th Labor- There are also several different versions to this story but they only differ in detail. Herakles is told that he must travel to the Underworld and retrieve the three-headed watchdog, Cerberus. Hades, god of the Underworld, allows Herakles to take Cerberus to the upper world on the condition that Herakles subdues the dog without using any weapons.
I think that this particular deed of Herakles is neither good nor bad. Nobody will benefit from this labor if Herakles succeeds (except, of course, Herakles). However, the deed can be seen as good in so far as that it shows Herakles as an exceptionally strong and fearless person.
Herakles was both a friend and a foe to the gods. Some stories depict Herakles fighting against the gods while other stories show Herakles and the gods helping one another. The gods relied on Herakles’ strength and courage in times of need (e.g. war between the gods and the giants). The gods often asked (or told) Herakles to do favors for them. In other instances, Herakles interferes with the gods’ plans. Herakles is inclined to do the exact opposite of what the gods want him to do (for example, when he captures/kills the Ceryneian Hind of Artemis). The gods have to threaten Herakles in order to keep him in line. The fact that Herakles was responsible for killing the offspring of the gods does not help improve his relationship with the gods (e.g. Cycnus, son of Ares, Eurypylus and Eryx, sons of Poseidon). Some of the gods, like Athena and Hermes, consistently support Herakles. Other gods, like Ares and Hera, violently oppose Herakles. There seems to be no consensus on what the gods thought of Herakles.
Perhaps even more ambiguous is how the Greeks regarded Herakles’ relationship with the gods. Undoubtedly, the Greeks had much respect for Herakles, regardless of the fact that he was not always on good terms with the gods. One thing to keep in mind is that the gods were not always kind and beneficent towards people. The Greeks worshipped the gods partly because people feared making the gods upset. In this respect people may have admired Herakles for his disobedience to the gods. Herakles was a human who could anger the gods without losing his life. On the other hand, many of the things Herakles did were disrespectful to the gods. In Greek culture, impiety was a serious offence. Impious behavior could get one into serious trouble.
As the Greek world underwent changes so did their understanding of abstract concepts such as piety, virtue, and wisdom. As a result of these changes the older mythological stories had to be either discarded or reinterpreted. Otherwise, the hero would cease to be regarded as a hero. The Greeks found several ways in which they could retain the mythological hero, Herakles, without altering his status.
Some authors dealt with these problems by discrediting the earlier writers. If they found that a particular story was inconsistent with their understanding of Herakles then they could argue that the story was inaccurate (e.g. “such and such story cannot be true because it takes place before/after Herakles’ lifetime” or “this story is about a different person with the name Herakles”; Pausanias 9.27.6).
Another way of keeping the Herakles tradition alive was for writers to reinterpret myths. When writing about Herakles, they would keep only the essential parts of Herakles character (e.g. strength, son of Zeus) while giving him additional attributes (e.g. wisdom, asceticism). Rather than rely solely on brute strength, writers would show a Herakles who used his intellectual and diplomatic skills to overcome opposition. Writers would also give Herakles a different purpose in performing his deeds. For example, some 4th and 5th century writers, such as Antisthenes abd Demosthenes, argued that the twelve labors of Herakles could not be giving any credit to Herakles’ moral character if he performed the labors out of necessity and/or personal gain (immortality) (Galinsky 1972, 107). They changed the myth around by having Herakles choose to perform the twelve labors for the benefit of mankind.
New genres of literature also provided writers with an opportunity to give a different portrayal of Herakles’ character. In regards to the evil deeds of Herakles, writers found ways in which to justify Herakles’ actions.
Authors such as Prodicus also wrote new myths about Herakles. New myths allowed authors complete freedom. Writers could portray Herakles the way they thought he should be portrayed. They were not constrained to having to put Herakles into a particular context.
Herakles and the Old Testament
It is difficult for people today to understand why the Greeks saw Herakles as a hero when Herakles was capable of committing terrible deeds. We tend to think of heroes as people who always do that which is right. Modern day heroes do not perform evil deeds. Greek myths show that Herakles has some serious shortcomings in comparison to modern day heroes. Herakles puts his interests before that of others and does not always choose to do good.
Some of the confusion over the contradiction between Herakles’ status in Greek society and his evil deeds may stem from the fact that the Greek conception of hero is different from the modern day conception of hero. To understand why the Greeks regarded Herakles as the best of men, it is important to avoid applying modern day standards to ancient myths. To avoid this, it might help to compare Herakles to some of the characters found in the Old Testament. Many of the popular characters in the Bible committed serious sins. Characters such as David, Jonah, and Jacob did not always make the right decisions. David sent one of his officers out to fight a battle knowing that he would die in battle so that he could take the officer’s wife. Jacob deceived his father so that he could take his brother’s blessing. Jonah was called upon by God to preach to the citizens of Nineveh and Jonah refused to do so. Even though the important characters in the Old Testament did not always obey God, they are still regarded as religious role models. This is because people generally do not apply present day standards to Old Testament scripture. Rather than focus on the sins committed by religious figures, people downplay their sinfulness by emphasizing their good deeds. Things such as faith and love for God take precedence over the sins committed by characters in the Bible. I think that the Greeks did something similar to what is done today with popular Biblical figures. (CMD)