Is Achilles right when, in the Iliad XVIII and subsequently, he Essay

Is Achilles right when, in the Iliad XVIII and subsequently, he bitterly blames himself for the death of Patroklos? The main theme of the poem, which is declared at the very beginning is the ‘wrath’ of Achilles. From this we are taken on a journey of human and divine responses. This central theme empowers a magnificently ‘articulated composition out of confusion of battle’.[1] Events that take place during this journey allow Homer to display and develop, within the social framework of heroic honour, the ideas of conflict, isolation, and reconciliation. Within this essay I will try to address one such consequence, the death of Patroklos, and see who, what or why this death occurred. Several factors need to be addressed in doing this, divine and human intervention and re-evaluations of positions. The question of influence from the ‘divine machinery’ is a very interesting one, it could be argued that they are there to dramatise a view of the human condition in which man is a prey to conflicting amoral forces. The ‘will of Zeus’ was not the catalyst that brought about the downfall of Patroklos, the request from Achilles came prior to this. The poem from that request unfolds to provide a balanced, symmetrical prose, one that provides necessary casualties along the way. It is with certainty though that their ‘influence’ is felt and witnessed throughout this journey, one that Albin Lesky raises with much success. He suggests that that divine and human causation is felt throughout, ‘a warrior feeling an irresistible courage’, this courage is explained away with the gods. What Lesky then goes onto say is that the human and divine work along side each other, one strengthens the other and that ‘the whole world is full of their influence’. A great warrior could attribute his ‘gift’ to the gods, and when his greatness escapes him ‘they’ are to blame. But this does not clear man of his responsibility, what he does with these divine gifts are solely down to him. This brings me back to the question of who was to blame? It could be suggested that Apollo had a hand in this down fall, he is responsible in setting actions in motion (1.43-52) and then again (24.33-54). But again it can be said that this too was a reaction to earlier requests. What it does show however is the balance which Homer provides throughout the poem. Apollo’s ... ...eresting one, not until book twenty four does Achilles finally eat and when he does, with Priam it symbolises his outwardly change, ‘he is urging a mutual activity, a token of common humanity’[4] The conversation between Achilles and Priam is one of understanding and remorse. In Achilles’ treatment of Priam there is real magnanimity, his anger cools and he looks beyond it to a serene and steady acknowledgment that man can do no more than bear the random fusion of good and bad, and with food, eating means living, and even grief must yield to necessity. Amid the human hope and in the knowledge of imminent death, Achilles for the first time sees life steadily and sees it whole. Together the divine and human influence reveal in the poem a linear impetus that supplement the equilibrium and the symmetry. The result is a twofold construction that is together cruel and cordial, but work beautifully in taking us to a roller-coaster conclusion. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Lesky, Divine and Human Causation in Homeric Epic [2] Taplin, Homeric Soundings [3] Rutherford, Homer (1996) [4] Taplin, Homeric Soundings (1992)