The Great Shield of Achilless Identity - Term Paper Example

The Great Shield of Achilles’s Identity Introduction Achilles is the very essence and personification of a man of Iliad. The objects which are exclusively his are the spear of Peleus and the shield of Hephaistos; these two objects embody the core identity of Achilles. However, Homer establishes Achilles’s worldwide importance by linking him with almost all other types of object in the Iliadic realm. This essay analyzes Achilles’s identity in relation to his great armor or shield. Similar to Hekabe and Priam, Achilles keeps his valuable belongings in a fine box; similar to Nestor, he has an extraordinary wineglass. These priceless objects are depicted when Patroklos readies himself to go into war with the Myrmidons (Lawall & Mack 182): But meanwhile Achilleus/ went off into his shelter, and lifted the lid from a lovely/ elaborately wrought chest, which Thetis the silver-footed/ had put in his ship to carry, and filled it fairly with tunics/ and mantles to hold the wind from a man, and with fleecy blankets./ Inside this lay a wrought goblet, nor did any other/ man drink the shining wine from it nor did Achilleus pour from it to any other god, but only Zeus father. The box, a keepsake of his godlike mother, is a deserving repository for the wardrobes which sheltered her son from the havocs of the mortal forces, and for the goblet with which he hails holiness and deities. Homer stresses that the wineglass is to be associated with Achilles because he is in harmony with Zeus’s mandate—which makes it especially important for him to use it in prayers for his second self, Patroklos. The wineglass remarkably matches the goblet used in the ceremonial unity with which Nestor persuades Patroklos of the importance of social obligation. Nestor was mistaken in believing that Patroklos may fulfill the part of Achilles; at this point, it becomes apparent that Achilles also has the same misbelief (Cairns 344). His orientation toward the concept of order is hence imperfect. Because Zeus has the knowledge that if the army is to be spared and order restored among the Argives, Achilles himself should take arms and engage in combat. The wineglass of Achilles also contrasts the goblet used remarkably in Book 1 by Hephaistos. The plea of Achilles is awarded, but only partially—the Achaians will be spared, but Patroklos will die in return (Cairns 344-345). The power of the wineglass will be orderly or balanced once, after the demise of Patroklos, Achilles himself reentered the army. Afterward he will use the wineglass once more, but now with faultless symbolic harmony, in his ceremonial launching of the funeral games. However, Achilles’s shield surpasses all other objects through its intricate and wide-ranging interrelatedness with the harmonious subject matter of Homer’s poem. In order to understand the relationship of the shield with Achilles’s identity, one should understand the intense impact of its presence in Homer’s poem. Samuel Bassett interprets the shield “an epic hyporcheme, intervening between two of the most poignant moments of emotion in [the] poem” (Cairns 491). Homer has described the pain of Achilles at receiving the news about the death of Patroklos. Afterward, when Thetis carries the godly shield to her son in Book 19, she sees him hugging his companion’s body. In general, the Achilles’s shield is an interruption of the narrative motion, a break or relief from the cruel truth of the war—between Patroklos’s death in the hands of Hektor and Hektor’s death in Achilles’s. The presence of the shield resembles the loom of Helen—both are a form of relief, a moment of restorative disconnection, from the demands and complexities of reality. Moreover, because the images in the shield contained war and peace, the pictures fulfill a part, telling the audience that battle or violence is a particular feature of human experience (Atchity 62). The picture of the shield broadens the point of view of the poem, globalizing its idealistic range. The direct setting in which Homer introduces the shield is, obviously, Book 18; however, the picture of the shield is preceded by the occurrences which make the creation of new armors and weapons for Achilles important. The broader setting, then, arises when Achilles makes the first stride toward the demise of Patroklos, dispatching his comrade Nestor for information about the injured Machaon. In his advice to Patroklos about the importance of recruiting the Myrmidons, Nestor particularly proposes that Patroklos use the shield of Achilles; certain of the correctness of Nestor’s counsel, Patroklos borrows the divine armor of Achilles. Patroklos’s wish to use Achilles’s shield is somewhat ironic. Even though he knows the crucial role of Achilles as the protector of the Argives, his wish that the Trojans will be tricked into believing that he is Achilles virtually opposes the knowledge. Achilles is deceived as well. His incredible affection for Patroklos pushes him to believe that his comrade is able to victoriously use his shield. The inadequacy of Patroklos as a replacement for Achilles is suggested in Homer’s portrayal of his way of preparing himself for battle. Patroklos puts on, in common standard order the armors—greaves, corselet, sword, shield, and helmet (Lawall & Mack 185): Only he did not take the spear of blameless Aiakides,/ huge, heavy, thick, which no one else of all the Achaians/ could handle, but Achilleus alone knew how to wield it; / the Pelianash spear which Cheiron had brought to his father/ from high on Pelion to be death for fighters. The exceptionality of Achilles which the spear embodies is that related to his father, the human part of his ancestry; hence it could be contrasted with his indestructible shield, offered to him by his godly mother, the spear is rescued from Hektor’s destruction of the timeworn shield of Achilles. When Patroklos misplaces the corselet, shield, and helmet of Achilles, and his personal spear, he is deprived of the shield of his true and temporary identity. Not capable of moving or performing efficiently anymore, Patroklos is killed by Hektor. The major personal outcome of Achilles’s rage, the demise of his most cherished comrade, has now happened. As the contest over the body of Patroklos keeps on, Antilochos meets Achilles with information about the death of Patroklos. Antilochos is suitable for this task for he is Nestor’s child, at whose command Patroklos requested the disastrous replacement (Cairns 348). Homer’s focus shifts to Achilles’s feelings prior to getting the news. Achilles’s monologue indicates that by this time the misbelief which encouraged him to agree to Patroklos’s request of taking his place is starting to weaken. He realizes that if Patroklos is gone it is because he refused to comply with his general’s instruction to stay in defense. The flaw of Patroklos’s personality is described—he has violated decency in diverting combat away from the vessels. Antilochos declares the important event by associating Hektor’s killing of Patroklos with the seizure of Achilles’s shield. With the death of comrade and loss of shield, the personal value of Achilles has been threatened. Achilles’s manner of grieving intensifies the consequence of his misplaced identity; the unexpected obscurity of Achilles is manifested in the tarnishing of his face, embodying his mortal side, and afterward of his eternal robe. The entire identity of Achilles has been disturbed. The portrayal of Homer of Thetis’ response to the tragic news resembles Achilles’s reaction to Antilochos’s news. Her sorrow, as well, is sweeping, when all Nereus’s daughters begin to lament; the divine clan is unified in mourning. As Thetis communicates her grief orally, she talks first about her own hardship as a mother. Even though this was the finest of pregnancy or motherhood, and Achilles was flawless in his growth to manhood, everything has been for nothing for she will not ever witness his safe return to his father’s abode. His ancestral side, in its human facet, will be disturbed. Believing that she is not capable of helping him, Thetis still decides to go along with his bereavement in person. She is still unaware that Achilles is willing to give up his mortality for his immortal self, a procedure which she can in fact affect. Granting him opportunity to describe his sorrow more particularly, Thetis questions Achilles of the reason he is grieving. Achilles answers that Zeus gave him more than he asked for, that the pleasure of vengeance against Agamemnon has been lessened. Love is described again with regard to love of self. Achilles proclaims, “I loved Patroklos as well as my own life” (Lawall & Mack 188). And once more the loss of the shield is connected to Patroklos, as well as Achilles. His previous identity ruined, Achilles should seek a new identity, or die namelessly. The importance of the old shield, besides its patriarchal association, is that it symbolized the disorganized prospect of Achilles’s life. The gods give Peleus arms, “on that day they drove you to the marriage bed of a mortal./ I wish you had gone on living then with the other goddesses/ of the sea, and that Peleus had married some mortal woman” (Cairns 398). Achilles understands that natural chaos of the odd combination of the two domains of being—immortal or divine and mortal or human. The own nature of Achilles is conflicted by its contradictory roots. The brutality of his rage, he now realizes, was godlike, hence in human, too much—foreseeable outcomes in a nature created by the coming together of two totally different characters. For he pampered himself in that heavy-handedness, due to its outcomes, Achilles no longer desires to be mortal or to be in the company of human beings—“except as the slayer of Hektor” (Atchity 59), or, as Patroklos’s vindicator. Lamenting, Thetis tells her son of the importance of that exclusion (Cairns 352): “Then I must lose you soon, my child, by what you are saying,/ since it is decreed your death must come soon after Hektor’s.” Achilles knows that his blameworthiness, even though justifiable in divine ways, warrants human retribution for it led to the pointless demise of the person whom above all he should have looked after and defended. It is unbelievably heartless to cherish Patroklos only, a coldhearted rejection of the importance of others that he would award to Patroklos. Patroklos is not the only noble comrade who died in the hands of Hektor. The absolute love Achilles has tried to show has no legitimate place in the human domain; he has been really impractical. This becomes especially unacceptable due to the outstanding role, as the greatest fighter, that has been divinely bequeathed to him. At this time Achilles stresses his remarkable uniqueness so as to confess that his disregard for its harmonious capability is the more profoundly responsible—since he is the key person in the war of the Argive his hostility and detachment was most unusual. Similar to Hektor’s loyalty to Troy, the dedication of Achilles to Argos is the decisive force in social endurance. In any case, only a person can put down a weak, chaotic society; because societies collapse person by person. Moreover, it is important that Achilles at this point acknowledges the weakness of his major role; for the time being, he is the fighter but not the adviser. Until the problem of the battle is solved by his decision, Achilles should focus his social participation on fulfilling the part directly needed of him—the impulsive, desirable warrior. Nevertheless, Achilles will have to create an established social condition wherein he could then live up to the corresponding ability of his uniqueness. He is the representative of a peaceful, healthy society in Book 23 (Atchity 62). However, he should be the deed-doer in order to be the spokesperson. The tone of the words of Achilles concerning conflict is emotional. He hopes that the world is peaceful, resistant from the wickedness which quite frequently establishes its reality. Sadly it is not; and Achilles himself has been influenced by wickedness. Denouncing the malevolent conflict that provoked his extreme resentment toward Agamemnon, Achilles also acknowledges that he, ironically, should at the moment go with the flow of conflict in a different, more harmonious, way. The crushing force that triggered his socially vicious resentment against Agamemnon will drive him at this time, in a determined control, to fight Hektor. As the embodiment of the fighter, he is completely aware how to behave under its pressure. Yet the situation is now different. He is not unaware anymore of the true characteristic of that dangerous force, not personally contained anymore under its control to deny a person of his willpower. His anger toward Hektor may seem to be a sort of malady; but now he follows forces willingly and in control of his willpower, so that he could take advantage of it to rebuild the order initially dislocated by his blind fury. Achilles will reunify Argos’s military, damaged by his fury, and hence will enable that military to annihilate the root of Argos’s overall disorder—Troy—and also that Hektor, the cause of the personal sorrow of Achilles, are killed. The decision between his two destinies has been reached, and reached in a manner which re-creates honor and glory. In shielding friendship, and his own society as an expansion of that personal connection, Achilles is willing to give up his own life. The perfect glory Achilles this time aims for is no longer a personal quality alone, inasmuch as the human being is temporary and destined to die; it is instead a shared quality. Since he can recognize his earlier mistake, Achilles is accustomed once more to harmony, certain that he is correct. Although her motherly nature may waver, Thetis acknowledges the natural order of Achilles’s resolve (Lawall & Mack 186): “Yes, it is true, my child, this is no cowardly action,/ to beat aside sudden death from your afflicted companions”. Achilles’s mother vows to clothe him for a battle which she realizes is the initial stage toward the demolition of his mortal identity. However, through this, she carries him to a closer, more direct connection to herself; the honor he will gain, the identity he will this time determine for himself, will be, similar to her, immortal: an eternal, godly humanity. For Achilles, Patroklos has the same value as Troy; and that idea is the principle which protects the dominance, the continued existence, of Argos. Conclusions The dominant presence of the great armor glows visibly in a symbolical manner, to concentrate in Achilles and in itself the major subject matter of Homer’s narrative. If one is to completely appreciate the symbolic or thematic value of Homer’s epitome one should examine thoroughly the gradual growth of Achilles, for whom the shield is created. The different approaches and outlooks Achilles expresses create a pattern which is circular and evolving—at the start and at the finale of the narrative, Achilles is preoccupied with the collective domain of human existence. However, in every situation the focus is different. In the beginning Achilles’s collective attitude is confined to the Argive nation; and it is essentially unthinking; but at the end of the narrative, Achilles is in harmony with the human society in its most supreme, divine way. The growth of the identity of Achilles certainly suggests Homer’s knowledge of ‘identity’ as a catalyst that inspires accomplishment. Works Cited Atchity, Kenneth. Homer’s Iliad: The Shield of Memory. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978. Print. Cairns, Douglas. Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Lawall, Sara & Maynard Mack. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., 2001. Print. Read More