Achilles' Return to Humanity

I find the idea, brought up several times in class, of Achilles' metaphorical death in Book 18 to be very interesting. I had not considered in previous readings that the lamentations of Thetis and the other Nereids constitute a sort of funerary mourning for Achilles, and hadn't understood his characterization in subsequent books as representing a character disconnected from human identity, emotion, and social life. In Books 18-22 Achilles is an ambiguous figure; his refusal to eat and sleep (the telltale signs of human mortality) demarcates him as non-human, which leaves the alternatives of his being a god (the type of living being that does not require food/sleep) or being dead (the dead, as well, do not require food/sleep). Since we know that he is not an immortal, we interpret this refusal to partake in the essential activities of humanity (along with his social disconnectedness) as the result of his metaphorical death. After today's discussion pointed to the fact that Achilles' anger and wrath remain after his killing of Hector, I didn't expect him to begin his return to the status of a human being until his release of Hector's body (and by extension, his rage) in Book 24. 

I was surprised to discover, therefore, that we actually find the beginning of Achilles' reintegration into humanity in the events of Book 23. He finally allows himself to eat and sleep (23.53, 67), he addresses his fellow soldiers - even Agamemnon - with respect (23.170), and he demonstrates a return human social life with his running of the funeral games. There are still some elements of disconnectedness (his refusal to actually participate in the games) and disturbing violence (i.e. his murder of the twelve Trojan princes), but overall this book displays the beginning of a marked transition of Achilles back to the status of a human being. The thread of transition begun here is then carried into Book 24, and is brought to completion when Achilles relents to Priam's supplication.

Does Hector's Death Devalue His Heroism?

Hector's death at the hands of Achilles is a peculiar episode. He is figured throughout the Iliad as an immensely courageous, powerful, and heroic man, yet he "[loses] his nerve, / [Panics], and [runs]" away when he is approached by the son of Peleus outside Troy's walls (23.155-156). It is easy to interpret this loss of nerve as an act of cowardice - a display of weakness and fear that devalues Hector's heretofore characterized heroism. This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that Hector decides to stand and fight only when he is tricked by Athena into believing that Deiphobus has arrived to assist him. His final stand, it might be argued, is therefore not internally motivated and as a result does not reflect the steadfast courage we expect of a truly heroic character. 

I would like to argue, however, that this way of understanding Hector's death fails for two reasons. First, I believe that Hector's loss of nerve is meant to reflect how terrifying Achilles has become at this point in the poem, rather than a weakness in Hector's character. Keep in mind that by Book 23 Achilles has become a personification of war: he has slaughtered half of the Trojan army single-handedly, forced a large scale retreat, and is said to look like "the helmeted God of War himself" (23.151). He is also compared to a celestial entities (such as the star Sirius) several times, and is described as "fury incarnate" (23.342-343). Thus, Hector is, in a very strong sense, not facing down a man when he decides to flee, but rather a veritable cosmic force of death and destruction - a reflection of the totality of horrors in war. It would be highly unfair, therefore, to hold that his loss of nerve somehow calls into question his heroic bravery and tenacity. Nobody could be expected to remain composed in the face of such a terrifying opponent. 

Secondly, it is not entirely accurate to claim that Hector's last stand is not internally motivated. While it is true that his decision to stop running is a result of Athena's intervention, he realizes before his death that Deiphobus isn't present and that he has been tricked by the goddess. Rather than losing his nerve again at this realization, however, Hector exclaims that "I will not perish without doing some great deed / That future generations will remember" before drawing his sword and charging full-force at Achilles (23.332-333). This final charge reinforces Hector's courage and tenacious fighting spirit, and thus invalidates the notion that the episode of his death serves to devalue his heroic character. 

The True Tragedy of the Iliad

 

Many think that the Iliad is the story about the Trojan War. Indeed, this conception is not entirely incorrect as the Iliad get its name from the Greek word Ilias meaning “the story of Troy” (Lombardo xix). However, as the opening lines of the text suggests, the Iliad is more so a story about “rage” (1.1) than it is a story of war. More specifically, the Iliad is the story about “Achilles’ rage” (1.2). Achilles’ rage is present throughout the majority of the poem and leads to his withdrawal from battle which costs a great many Greeks their lives. In the start of the book one, Achilles swears that he will not rejoin the fighting even “when Hector the, man-killer, swats [the Greeks] down like flies” (1.257). As sworn, Achilles withdraws from the war in book one and does not even consider rejoining the war until book eighteen. Agamemnon, the chief warlord of the Greeks at Troy caused this immense rage when he took Achilles’ war prize, a girl named Briseis. A modern audience would be able to somewhat relate to Achilles’ rage if Achilles was in love Briseis. But, Achilles himself quickly points out that this is not a matter of love but of honor; he himself states he is withdrawing from the war “because [Agamemnon] you failed to honor the best Greek of all” (1.259). Lombardo, as several other classicists have agreed, further supports the fact that Agamemnon’s taking of Briseis has nothing to do with love, but with humiliation, “For Achilles, Agamemnon’s decision means public humiliation” (xviii). The magnitude of this public humiliation is so great that Achilles becomes so wrathful that he refuses to fight for more than half of the Iliad. Such public humiliation and the rage it induces in Achilles is difficult for the modern westerner to grasp. This is because our western values are based off of a ‘guilt culture’ while the Ancient Greek principles were based off of a ‘shame culture’ (Class Notes Sept. 18). According to the Oxford Dictionary, a guilt culture “internalizes a moral code” (qtd. in Bellitti) and therefore, “the conformity to a moral code occurs through an individual’s own will and has less to do with the public approval of society” (Bellitti). Thus, our western culture is based on the way in which we perceive ourselves, and, hence, makes it difficult for us to relate Achilles extreme anger due to public humiliation. But, a shame culture puts a “high emphasis on preserving honor” and on “not being publicly disgraced” (Oxford Dictionary qtd. in Bellitti). Thus, to Achilles the cultural value that matters the most is amassing public honor. If we were to imagine how angry we would be if we broke our own most cardinal moral code, we can relate to Achilles anger after being humiliated in front of the entire army. In the end, Achilles’s extreme rage highlights the fact that for the heroes of the Iliad that which matters the most was the way in which they were viewed by society. Little else mattered, and that is the greatest tragedy of the Iliad.

 

 

Bellitti, Anthony. “Greek Civilization: From Shame to Guilt.” Helicon. Yale University. Fall   

2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2014.

The Unjust Death of Patroclus

The death of Patroclus is a catalyst for ending the Trojan War because it brings Achilles out of his league of absence from fighting in his quest to avenge the unjust death of Patroclus by Hector. Patroclus was the one closet to Achilles, the one who could reason with him, and when he came to Achilles and begged him to return to the battlefield, Achilles still refused. Achilles' closet companion was not able to convince Achilles to return to battle, but Patroclus was still able to convince Achilles to let him borrow his armor to lead the Myrmidons into battle. Patroclus, wearing Achilles' armor, lifts the moral of the currently loosing Greeks and sends the Trojans running at the sight of Achilles. Even though Hector knows that he is not truly facing Achilles, he still faces Patroclus in battle even after Patroclus' armor is blown off by Apollo and he is wounded by Euphorbus.
Hector goes through a transition throughout the Iliad in that he becomes more and more overconfident the longer Achilles is off the battlefield. Hector starts the Iliad as a sympathetic character, as a loving father, husband, and prince who is just trying to protect his family and city from the onslaught of the Greeks. Hector is overcome with arrogance on the battlefield because he does not have as great of a threat with Achilles no longer fighting and with each Greek Hector kills, he believes he is that much closer to being able to defeat Achilles. Hector is blinded by his victories and truly begins to believe that he could face Achilles and win, with the death of Patroclus being the key moment in which Hector actually believes he could defeat Achilles.
Patroclus and Achilles are not even close to being equal fighters, but Hector still uses the symbolism of defeating "Achilles" as a testament that it would be a fair fight between him and Achilles. Hector decided he defeated "Achilles" fairly and took Achilles' armor as tribute. Even the gods did not approve of Hector's behavior when Zeus says, "[Hector] violated the order of things when [he] took the armor from [Patroclus'] shoulders and head" (17.203-204). Hector had no right to Achilles' armor because he did not even face the true owner of that armor nor did he fight fairly in his battle with Patroclus. Patroclus achieved many victories on the battlefield, including driving the Trojans from the wall and defeating Sarpedon, and Hector only faced him after Apollo blew Patroclus' armor off and Patroclus was wounded. Hector did not deserve Achilles' armor because it was a cowardly and unfair defeat. Hector is sealing his fate with his unjust killing of Patroclus because he is deluded into believing he can face Achilles on the battlefield.

The Color Black

An interesting observation that I made while reading Book 21 involves the repetition of a particular color. Homer uses the color black in many descriptions during this book. The first two times that I noticed it were rather surprising. Homer uses the color black to describe the blood of the two mortals. On page 406, for example, Achilles kills Lycaon by stabbing him near the collarbone and Homer describes the “black blood trickling out and wetting the dirt” rather vividly (126). This, however, is not the only time that mortal blood is described as black. Not too much later, on page 408, a spear slices Achilles’ forearm “drawing a welt of black blood” (175). Perhaps the point of describing Lycaon and Achilles’ blood as black instead of red is because they are already slated for death. Lycaon says himself that his “mother bore [him] for a shortened life” and Achilles we already know will die at Troy (90). There is also the possibility that the use of the color black in this book is part of a theme of darkness and despair that we see throughout this section. Not only does Homer use black specifically but he also talks about ash, parched land, darkness, smoke, “black granite”, silt, and “The Dark Cloud” (414, 535). All of these images or adjectives give the book an overall tone of despair, death, and gloom. Tones which fit what is happening to the Trojans as they are completely annihilated by Achilles.

The Effect of War

The Iliad begins with the rage of Achilles and his refusal to aid the Greeks in the Trojan War, while on the Trojan side, Hector bids farewell to his father, wife, and son as he goes off to protect Troy's walls. Both Hector and Achilles experience a transition in character as the war rages on, with their prides eventually leading to their downfall. Both are great warriors who fight for glory on the battlefield and when Achilles' pride overcomes him after Agamemnon insults his honor, he stops fighting for the Greeks and wishes death upon both sides. With Achilles off the battlefield, Hector's pride overcomes him and he believes he can truly face Achilles in combat. The Iliad depicts Hector as a sympathetic character, risking his life for his city and family, while Achilles is pictured as a selfish soldier wounded by his pride, but both heroes change as Achilles continues to not take part in combat.
At the beginning of the Iliad, Achilles is viewed as a selfish warrior who prays to Zeus to bring death upon both Greeks and Trojans alike all because Agamemnon insulted his honor. During Achilles' absence, many Greeks beseeched Achilles to return to the battlefield, with him refusing them every time. While Achilles is sulking in his tent, he has time to reflect on exactly why he is fighting in the first place, beginning his transition from glorified youth into mature warrior. Achilles becomes a more sympathetic character as he reflects on why he's risking his life for reasons that do not matter to his life. His retaliations to Odysseus, Phoenix, and Ajax become more and more rationalized as he disputes the consequences of war and the value of human life. Achilles matures in his absence from war, that is, until Patroclus is killed during battle by Hector.
Hector goes in an opposite direction of Achilles in that Achilles matures throughout his absence from the war, while Hector becomes overconfident in battle because he is now one of the greater warriors on the field. Hector transitions from a loving prince and husband into an presumptuous and reckless leader and warrior. Achilles' absence has clouded Hector's judgment into making him believe that he can actually face Achilles in combat. After Patroclus enters the battle as Achilles in disguise, he only faces "Achilles" after Apollo knocked off his armor and Euphorbus cowardly wounded him. Hector knew he wasn't facing Achilles, but his so-called victory over Patroclus made him believe that he is ready to face the real Achilles and even deserves the armor off Patroclus' back.
In his absence from war, Achilles allows himself to reflect on the nature of war, but his honor keeps him from helping the Greeks as Hector sets fire to the ships and allowing Patroclus to take his place on the battlefield. Achilles' honor leads to Patroclus' death and he reflects on how his decisions have lead him to this point. Hector's mind is clouded into thinking he can face Achilles on the battlefield because he was able to defeat Achilles' look alike. Hector starts off as a more sympathetic character, but becomes overconfident in Achilles' absence, while Achilles starts off as an immature warrior who becomes a man that reflects on the cost of a human life.

A Hero's Tears

There is a theme throughout The Iliad of the major participants shedding tears. It happens more frequently than one would imagine while reading a story about rage, war, and killing. For example, Achilles cries when Agamemnon takes Briseis from him. Patroclus comes to Achilles with tears pouring down his face after watching his fellow Greeks dying at the hands of the Trojans. Achilles weeps uncontrollably for Patroclus after he learns of his death. There are many more examples as well of other heroes crying when they thought all was lost or their friend perished. The amount of crying that goes on amongst the heroes of The Iliad seems to suggest that this was a common occurrence and that a hero crying was not something that lowered their worth. Our modern society depicts heroes as people who cannot be broken. They are people who are strong, courageous, and resilient. Our idea of a hero tends to insinuate that they never show any weakness. Perhaps that is the difference between our society and that of Homer. Perhaps to the Greeks crying did not necessarily signify weakness the way we tend to see it. Maybe instead, crying was just another way to demonstrate a hero’s mortality. Crying could have been seen simply as a human trait rather than a weakness. Therefore, every demonstration of humanity in The Iliad could remind the audience that all heroes are mortal, they will all die, and they are all human in the end.

Fate and the Gods

It’s not entirely clear how we are to understand fate as it is figured in the Homeric mythos, particular regarding the relationship between fate and the gods. There are several alternatives to consider: perhaps “fate” is simply shorthand for the will of Zeus and the other Olympians. Alternatively, fate might be a personified deity in its own right, or some primordial force that possesses equal sovereignty over the actions of both mortals and immortals. The Iliad seems to suggest different answers at different times, but Zeus’ conversation with Hera concerning the fate of Sarpedon gives us something relatively concrete and specific to serve as an interpretive foundation.

Zeus says “Fate has it that Sarpedon… / … is to be killed by Patroclus. / Shall I take him out of battle while he still lives… /…Or shall I let him die under Patroclus’ hands?” (16.471-5). The fact that he can even ask such a question tells us two things. One, fate is something external to the will of the gods. Two, the gods have (or at least believe they have) the power to counteract fate. This capacity of the gods to supersede fate is reaffirmed in Hera’s answer: “Do it. But don’t expect all of us to approve” (16.480-81). Note that she doesn’t argue against Zeus’ proposal on the grounds that what he suggests is impossible, but rather that doing so would open the door for the other gods to follow his lead in disrupting the proper course of fate. Thus, this passage establishes for us that in Homer’s world fate is a force that lies outside the will of the gods but is nonetheless respected by them – not out of necessity, but out of convention. 

Horrors of War

            The Iliad illustrates man’s desire for kleos, for war spoils, and for honor. All of these come from battle. Homer gives many heroes an aristeia, eternalizing their glory in war in his poem. Cowards are depicted within the poem as those who run from battle, or do not fight bravely (example: Paris at the beginning of the epic). It is easy to take all of these angles into account and believe that the Iliad is propaganda for war, and the violence and carnage that comes with it is just part of the process. 

            But then we have the so called “battle books”. These books in the Iliad are doused in brutality and gore. We receive detailed and disturbing accounts of death. It is possible to assume that these books are describing the horrors of war, not the glories.          

            "And all their blind desire was the shred flesh with stropped bronze, eyes squinting against the glare of helmets and corselets-just polished that morning-and the confusion of shields, like so many suns shining through a bristling forest of spears. It was glorious to see-if your heart were iron, and you could keep from grieving at all the pain" (13.350-6).

            In this quote from Book 13, the audience, those who originally saw these horrors as glorified, is called out as having iron hearts. This quote emphasizes that the horrors of war are not beautiful, but horrible. The grief that war causes cannot be easily justified by pretty words and bloody spoils. The pain that war brings is real.

            Homer may emphasize man’s desire for kleos, but he also greatly emphasizes the brutality of war. Therefore should we read the Iliad as propaganda for war, or for propaganda of the horrors that come with it?

Pledge: Michaela Knipp

Homer's Trojan Theater

http://www.homerstrojantheater.org

Mid-supplication Murderers (Menelaus/Diomedes)

The situation in book 10 with Odysseus and Diomedes taking Dolon as a captive is reminiscent of an earlier incident involving Agamemnon, Menelaus and Adrastus. In book 6, Menelaus has a momentary lapse of judgment when he accepts the supplication of Adrastus and intends on sparing his life and collecting a ransom for him. His mind is abruptly changed after a chiding from his brother, Agamemnon, and he slaughters the captive instead. Agamemnon insinuates that his brother has “gone soft”, thus insulting his masculinity. To remedy this insinuation and to reassert his manliness, Menelaus is persuaded to take a more vicious and less logical action. Apparently, bie conquers metis in this situation. 

Similarly, after Diomedes and Odysseus capture the Trojan spy, Dolon, they tell him they have no intention of killing him and that they only want information. After telling the two Greek spies vital military information regarding the current positions of the resting Trojan allies, Diomedes slays him. The description of Dolon’s death is more than cringe-worthy. As he reaches up to touch Diomedes’ chin in supplication, Diomedes suddenly reaches behind his head with sword in hand, and severs the back of his neck. This same kind of sudden and extreme brutality is exhibited by Menelaus in book 6. The situation is almost a mirror of the first occurrence; the reader is tempted to equate Diomedes to Agamemnon, and Odysseus to Menelaus. If such a comparison can be made, does that mean the epic is trying to tell the reader/listener to align Menelaus with wily Odysseus, the embodiment of metis? What does this say about the violent tendencies of Diomedes and Agamemnon as the ‘poster boys’ for bie?