-
Essay / Achilles as a powerful protagonist in The Iliad
Achilles, the swift and divine warrior of Greek tradition, is among Homer's most complex epic characters. Achilles and his unfortunate tendon occupy an important place in the Western archetypal notion of the tragic hero; however, the application of the term "hero" to the Achaean fighter is questionable. Homer creates a character in Achilles who challenges the audience to confront both the positive and negative aspects of his personality. From the very first to the very last book of The Iliad, Achilles says and does things that can be interpreted in different ways depending on the overall vision we have of his character. This ambiguity, while frustrating, appears to have been intentionally included by Homer in order to more forcefully engage the audience's thoughts on themes such as honor, righteousness, and mortality that are at the heart of the poem. Achilles, because he is open to many interpretations, appears as a character representative of a wide range of human experiences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The Iliad begins, in truly Homeric fashion, in medias res: more precisely, in the midst of Achilles' rage. Thanks to this quick introduction, the reader or viewer forms an immediate opinion of Achilles. These first reactions are crucial; the resulting attitude colors the reader's perception of Achilles' actions for the rest of the story. In the case of the opening scenes of The Iliad, the text contains the basis for several different reader reactions. A favorable reaction might see Achilles as a challenger to tyrannical rulers, a voice for the little guy. After all, Achilles partly opposes Agamemnon's concern for his own glory and personal satisfaction over concern for the lives of his troops. Furthermore, if Achilles were to forfeit his own hard-earned trophy, it would only exacerbate the injustice of the prize distribution. Achilles protests against Agamemnon: “Astonishing drunkard, with your dog's eyes and your fawn's heart! You have never armed troops and gone into battle... You will find it far safer to raid the entire camp, commandeering anyone's prize. man who speaks against you, King who devours his people (85, 264-270)!" Achilles fights not only for himself, but for the entire Achaean army, all the people of the king. Thus, his rage and his withdrawal from combat can be seen as a kind of non-violent resistance against despotism. Achilles' first confrontation with Agamemnon, if looked at from a different perspective, can also give rise to a negative attitude in the mind. of the reader It can be argued that Agamemnon and Achilles, in this situation, act incredibly selfishly. They both unnecessarily risk the lives of others to defend their own honor and compete for the property of women. from simple sulking and refusal to fight, Achilles asks his mother Thetis to call on Zeus to help the Trojans. In his rage against Agamemnon, Achilles now actively seeks to put his fellow Achaeans to death – a damnable act that does not. hardly inspires sympathy. Based on this evidence, one might assume that he is a self-centered rageaholic. Indeed, the opening pages of The Iliad provide sufficient evidence for Achilles' negative view. After the introduction of Achilles in the first book, the warrior's appearances in the plot become rare. It is not until the ninth volume that he reappears in any significant form, after much blood has already been shed on the battlefield. The sequence of battle scenes leavesgives the reader enough time to reflect on his initial attitude towards Achilles. Likewise, this leaves Achilles simmering in his rage towards Agamemnon. When Achilles re-enters the action in volume nine, the roles are slightly reversed; he now receives gifts in exchange for his return. By changing the circumstances in this way, Homer shows the personality of Achilles from a different point of view. People's actions are often judged differently depending on whether they have the upper hand or not, and this situation indicates how Achilles acts when he, for the most part, has the upper hand. Again, Achilles' response to Agamemnon's embassy can be seen as supporting both positive and negative attitudes toward Achilles. On the positive side, the idea of asserting the rights of the common man appears again. This time, on a fundamental level, Achilles questions why the troops are fighting for Agamemnon. Their lives and homes had not been threatened by the Trojans. They are simply fighting to settle the personal scores of the leaders. Achilles asks: “Why must we fight the Trojans, men of Argos?...Are they the only men alive who love their wives, these sons of Atreus (262, 409-414)? We see that Achilles feels that an injustice is being committed, an injustice in which he will no longer participate. His family feelings can be considered touching; he regards Briseis with marital tenderness, even if she is his prize. Achilles' moral position is one that has been adopted by soldiers throughout the ages and can therefore inspire sympathy from the audience. To take a negative view, one can return to the fact that Achilles now has the advantage and, as such, his actions must be judged against a higher standard. Agamemnon now grants Achilles' initial wish and much more. Achilles could accept the embassy with grace and honor, but he remains stubborn in his refusal. Not only is this obstinacy childish, but it is also detrimental to the ranks of the Achaean soldiers, who cannot face the Trojans without Achilles. Achilles' anger at Agamemnon, which was once quite specific in nature, has now become a thoughtless, all-encompassing emotion. His selfish pride costs the lives of thousands of fellow soldiers. These attitudes of sympathy or disgust seem simple enough. Yet both the argument for the positive view of Achilles and that for the negative view cannot be considered complete without taking into account certain themes in ancient Greek culture. One of these themes is that of honor. Honor is constantly mentioned throughout The Iliad; this was obviously of paramount importance to ancient Greek men. The original argument between Agamemnon and Achilles was about honor: whoever lost his feminine trophy would also lose part of his honor and his manhood. With this in mind, Achilles' initial refusal to cooperate with Agamemnon seems a little more understandable. Achilles' later refusal to fight also seems more daring when we consider that he loses his honor by not fighting. Honor is linked to another Homeric theme, mortality, in Achilles' speech explaining why he refuses the embassy. In most cases, and especially for Achilles, honor and death go hand in hand. Achilles specifically knows that if he fights he will die and if he returns home he will live a long time. Choosing to sail seems a cowardly course, but given the historical context, this action would have been bravely revolutionary. Thus, these social ideas of honor and mortality can be used to further blur the line between positive and negative views of Achilles. The circumstances in which Achilles.