Well, it is obviously a classic subject ( the Greeks were prone to make hairsbreadth decisions about who was a hero and who wasn't, but that was because it was a central issue for them). Plutarch and Montaigne (later) assess the qualities of the hero (and the heroine). I think it is obvious that some of the firefighters on 9/11 were heroic, well beyond the call of duty, as were some of the civilians. You can read about them, or see them, and what they do gives you that awestruck feeling that the Greeks always used as their touchstone of the true hero. But as my father used to say (who would never have considered himself a hero, though he had a chestful of medals included DSO and DFC), being shot at does not make you a hero. There is a difference between a true hero and a role model, or someone you admire, even tremendously (part of the assimilation is that we admire heroes as well). I revere a number of people, but I would not consider them heroes. One of the most admirable people I ever knew had his plane shot down in 1942 and walked, crippled, from Switzerland to Spain. I once called him a hero, and he said, no, I never saved anyone, I just walked through my pain, I endured to save my own skin. He knew a hero or two, and he just shook his head when speaking of them. It is sometimes a matter of grace under fire, or being called upon to do something beyond your known capacity. For the Greeks, a hero was touched by divinity. Of course for the Greeks it had to be something public, because the hero embodied the whole society's aspirations. We now talk about unsung heroes, which is another way in which heroism is so easily attached, as a way of making a point about how hard it is to grind through every day, to people just getting through the day, nurses, doctors, janitors, etc.

yours, Peter T.