Achilles Mortality and Immortality - Essay Example

Achilles mortality and immortality Most analysts of the Iliad poem concur that the literary piece revolves around the development of Achilles. Achilles is a central character, if not the protagonist of the epic. Analysis of Achilles revolves around notable points. It is, therefore, essential to accord a general character analysis of Achilles in order to highlight his strengths and weaknesses. Achilles’ immortality connotes a godly like nature whereas the term mortality refers to a rather humane facet of his nature. Immortality, in the Iliad’s context, is also assessed in terms of how much a character may abandon his selfish ends for a greater communal cause. Indeed, his valor and skills at war leads the audience to suspect that Achilles was an extension of the gods’ world. The intersection of his mortality and immortality immediately appears in the Iliad text and it serves as an allusion to the audience that Achilles is not much of a hero. In spite of the fact that Achilles possesses an intimate relationship with the gods, such a relationship does not prove worthy to his end. Achilles owns all the attributes of a great warrior, as manifested in his contribution to the Achaean army, but his entrenched character flaws impairs his nobility and steadfastness. In the end, the plot highlights a thin line between his immortality and mortality. Achilles’ birth and beginning demonstrate his obscure identity between an immortal nature and a mortal one. Indeed, Achilles is born of the goddess, Thetis. This means that Achilles is partly and considerably an extension of the gods’ community. He seems a gift to the Greek people a manifested in the leading his community towards multiple victories. Achilles’ godliness, however, is limited and he seems to only enjoy an intimate communication with the gods. This is evident when he asks his mother Thetis to convince Zeus over causing vulnerability to the Greek army in the face of Trojans. Achilles, therefore, can enjoy an indirect communication with the gods through his mother. On the other hand, his father is Peleus, a normal human being. A prophecy had revealed that Thetis would bear a son who was greater than his father. Although Peleus had been great in war, his son would bear a slight sense of immortality and superior war skills that he could not achieved in his entire lifetime. Achilles’ mortality, therefore, is an extension of his father humanness. Homer says that Thetis sought to make Achilles immortal by dipping him in River Styx. She, however, leaves a part of Achilles’ body, the heel, which makes him vulnerable to death. The fact that the war between the Greeks and the Trojans emanate from Achilles’ anger and stubbornness is both a manifestation of his greatness and his humaneness. Although the Greeks had seized Troy, they had a peaceful coexistence with the Trojans. Achilles’ anger, however, sets a tone of war that instills a huge loss to both the Trojans and the Greeks. Such anger is attributable to the anger of a god that that brings tragedy to a community because of a supposed sin. It is arguable that Achilles, in the position of a god, might have been angered by the sinfulness and debauchery of Agamemnon. This phenomenon is evident in the story of the Judeo-Christian God who, for instance, became angry when the world became sinful. It manifests in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah when God felt that the people had betrayed His love and committed sins that were not worthy of forgiveness. Achilles’ anger, in this frame, is warranted since Agamemnon, a fellow Greek, betrays his trust. Agamemnon, instead of fostering unity within the Greeks, creates discord among his people. It is arguable that a greater cause rather than the mere Agamemnon’s seizure of Briseus angers Achilles. This is because Achilles does not take Briseis as his lover. Achilles’ attachment to Briseus is only limited to Briseis’ symbolism of his victory. Indeed, it is Patroclus who consoles Briseis not to grieve by convincing her that Achilles will marry her after the war. Achilles, as a god, does not manifest a dint of emotional interest in a woman since he is preoccupied by a greater cause of victory over the pleasure of being with a woman. In the Greek myths, holding a rival as a captive was an expression of an army’s strength. Achilles, therefore, might have used Briseus to remind him of his valor and his superior skills over the Hector’s contingent. Agamemnon, by taking Briseis, looks down upon Achilles’ contribution to the army. Achilles, as a normal warrior, expects appreciation and gratefulness from the throne, for delivering persistent victory to the Greeks. On the other hand, anger is a feeling that is attributable to humaneness. It shows a human being’s vulnerability and his inability to rise above trivialities. It also shows that human beings cannot exist in a continual state of happiness. It is essential to highlight that this frame of argument views Achilles’ anger as warranted, but not rational as expected of a god. In the position of a human being, it is understandable when Achilles becomes angry because Agamemnon takes his property without explanation. Achilles becomes angry because Agamemnon derails his masculinity by taking away his pride. Achilles shows a contrast between his lack of emotions in some instances and apparent manifestation of emotions in other instances. When he captures Briseis, he values her as an object rather than as a human being and more essentially he does not view her as a woman. Homer’s description of Briseis captures as an exceptionally beautiful woman of whom Achilles should have been attracted to sexually. Homer describes Briseis as having long hair, fair skin, blue eyes, and was considered ultimately pretty and intelligent. This suggests that Achilles would have rather treasured her as a great wife rather than as an object of treasure. Achilles’ wanting emotions also manifest in his treatment of Hector’s body. He says that Hector’s body belongs to the birds and the dogs, which should feed on it. Achilles mistreats Hector’s body, which contrasts with the society’s value on the dead. Even Zeus is wary of Achilles mistreatment of Hector’s body and it shows that Achilles is so godlike that he does not delve in ordinary human emotions. On the other hand, Achilles is moved to tears when he watches Priam beg him for his son’s body. He seems to have compared Priam’s grief with his own sense of loss over Patroclus death. Achilles treatment of Patroclus also shows the thin line between his mortality and immortality. Although Patroclus had been a loyal comrade to Achilles, Achilles values his pride above his friend’s loyalty. Patroclus, by taking up Achilles’ shield and offering his vulnerable self to the war, portrays his willingness to sacrifice for his friend’s end rather the Greek army. Achilles, however, is wary of Patroclus taking away his supposed glory. He, therefore, warns Patroclus not to pursue the Trojans. In a huge sense, Achilles feared that Patroclus was as equally good as he was. This expresses that Achilles might have been jealous of Patroclus’ valor and skills as overshadowing a legacy that he intended. Besides, he might have been wary of Patroclus’ intimacy as a danger to his singular identity. This means that he would have preferred to be referred as Achilles rather than as a friend to Patroclus. Such an argument, however, the deep relationship that had existed between Achilles and Patroclus. Indeed, although Achilles had been preoccupied with his own sense of glory, the death of Patroclus triggers a greater urge to rise above his desires and revenge for the death of his friend. The death occurs functionally to show a greater thing, Patroclus, that Achilles had valued over his own glory and legacy. In his life, Patroclus seems to have been his only attachment with humaneness. Although Patroclus was born of ordinary parents, Achilles was born of a female god and an ordinary man. He, however, befriends a normal human being as his trusted partner and advisor in warfare. Patroclus, as an advisor to Achilles, reveals that Achilles knowledge about life and war had not been infinite and exceptional as expected of a god. More essentially, Achilles’ intimacy with Patroclus manifests Achilles’ humaneness and love that made his vulnerable. This is because vulnerability is a significant indicator of humanity. It enables virtues such as love and empathy. Achilles’ closeness with Patroclus borders on erotic attachment. This is because Achilles had no other close relationship nor sexual love from any character. For instance, one of the only times Achilles becomes close to his mother is when he heeds her to cause a war between the Trojans and the Greeks. Achilles view Patroclus as more than a mere loved one. When Patroclus dies, he becomes disillusioned with life. He grieves and becomes guilty by saying, “"My friend is dead, Patroclus, my dearest friend of all. I loved him, and I killed him (Homer and Fitzgerald 356)." In addition, he says that he no longer possesses the will to remain alive on the Earth. Achilles by feeling guilty demonstrates that he takes responsibility for the death of his friend rather than blame Hector for the same. By murdering Hector, he gives anesthesia to his guilty soul. He longs for the world to have a sense of grief as much as his. This demonstrates that Achilles held Patroclus as an extension of his soul. In this sense, when Patroclus dies, he foresees his death and eventual damnation. When he converses with his mother, he explains his pain and arrive at a decision of killing whoever killed Patroclus. The development of Achilles’ grief shows his development towards mortality and humaneness. In the beginning, the hero’s grief achieves a physical form. He lays his murderous hands on his dead friend’s chest and groans like a lion. The idea of a lion symbolizes Achilles’ fading immortality and valor. This is because he does not cry with the voice of a normal human being but with voice of a lion, which is an animal that symbolizes valor and greatness. Achilles grieves over Patroclus the whole night and his mother, Thetis, finds him lying over Patroclus’ body. In this state, Achilles sobs and wails as a normal human being. He refuses to leave the side of Patroclus’ body until he demolishes the Trojan city. Achilles, therefore, descends from an uncaring and tough warrior to an emotional character and vulnerable character. In the war, while all the other soldiers fight the abstract Greek kingdom, Achilles fight for a more immediate cause, Patroclus. Such grief is as uncommon among men of valor as it is common among romantic partners. His transformation into a mortal human being is consistent with her mother’s view that Achilles is bound to die when he kills Hector. The last Trojan battle serves in providing contrasts and similarities between Achilles and Hector thereby showing their mortality. While the Trojan side is irrational for having captured Helen and still insisting on war to show its valor, Achilles joins the war to avenge for his friend’s death. Hector, therefore, fights for the glory of Troy while Achilles fights for a more human cause. Achilles’ decision in rising above human triviality such as glory contrasts with Hector’s preoccupation with winning a senseless war. On the other hand, as the battle develops, Achilles’ godlike nature fades wile Hector’s humanity emerges. Unlike Achilles, who does not acknowledge his vulnerability and his possibility at dying, Hector, though a fearless warrior, fears for his life when Achilles dangerously advances towards him. Hector knows that he would finally die and he realizes the same when Achilles becomes dangerous. Hector reminds Achilles of his eventual death as he has just died, but Achilles takes limited heed and drags Hector’s body without care. In other terms, Hector is a mortal reflection of Achilles. This is because a distinct stubbornness drive both men. Hector, unlike Achilles, stays at home during the war when he is not required on the front. In a meeting before the great Trojan battle, Hector returns home to bid his wife and children goodbye. His wife warns him about the foolishness of returning the war. She manifests this by touching a weak section of the war. This is symbol of military strategy that forewarns about the eventual death of the magnanimous Hector. On the other hand, Hector deems not being in the front lines as a sign of weaknesses and femininity. Hector seems to prefer his later legacy over his fate of dying and the murder of Priam’s subjects. He comforts his wife by saying that people will speak beautifully and proudly of him when he dies. This shows a magnanimous ego that later emerges even when Priam advises him not to fight with Achilles because the Greek warrior was receiving support from the gods. The end of both Achilles and Hector, therefore, arises out of their certainty with their immortality. It is essential to highlight that Hector invokes the name of gods before Achilles kills him by saying that it is only the deity that grants victory. Achilles, however, is sure of his place in history and he faces the war with a determination that Hector cannot harness. Achilles does not care about his fate when he decides to fight for the death of his friend. Hector, however, doubts his valor predicts his mortality before going for the war. He, therefore, struggles to achieve one thing that mortality cannot derail, a proper name in history. He knows that by facing Achilles, regardless of whether he dies, he would have secured an admirable place in history. Achilles, however, decides to use his valor towards vengeance rather secure his name because he is sure he has a name from birth. Hector’s pursuit of a legacy connotes an indirect pursuit of immortality while Achilles pursuit of vengeance is an indirect pursuit of mortality. Achilles seeks to make himself more human while Hector strives to make himself godlier. In a significant sense, these men wish they would trade their places. Achilles greatly loves the role is playing while Hector, in the end, becomes bored with the idea of war. This is true since Achilles is a person born for war while Hector is a person who makes the decision of being warrior. Unlike Achilles, he relies on his mortal efforts for a legacy. Before the birth of Achilles, the gods had predicted he would be a great warrior. In addition, while Hector has earthly relations in the form of his wife and children, Achilles has a god as a mother. Moreover, Achilles worries over a dead person while Hector worries over the lives of his family members. More essentially, Achilles cause of the Trojan battle manifests his mortality and human nature. Although Achilles is a great warrior who should rise above trivialities, he becomes angry when Agamemnon seizes Briseis. He fails to join a great war, for which he should dedicate his efforts, because of a personal problem between him and the king. Earlier in the text, Achilles organizes a forum for ending the plague by leading a delegation to the king. He ends up convincing the king to let of Chrysies. In this instance, Achilles’ godly and heroic nature shows through his sacrifice and willingness to help his people. When the king takes his captive, Achilles becomes angry and loses the sense of his communal goal. His actions further deteriorate his reputation and makes the audience lose hope on his savior nature. This is because initially, the Iliad plot builds to cast Achilles as a great hero. As the story unfolds, it appears that Achilles had captured Briseis as a property of war rather than as a lover. It, therefore, astounds the audience why he becomes angry when the king takes away Briseis. Achilles further shows immaturity when he asks his mother to cause war upon the Greeks. He sacrifices the lives of members of his community for his personal reasons. Given that the war had extended for a long time, Achilles should have been steadfast and ensured the sustenance of the war towards victory. His anger persists for a long time thereby betraying his divine role. Achilles properly knew his place in the Trojan War. In spite of this knowledge, he persistently works against his fate. In addition, Achilles further shows his immaturity by declining to join the war even when Agamemnon sends a contingent with Briseis and gifts. In a light sense, Achilles shows that he has a greater pursuit than mere accumulation of materials thereby demonstrating his immortality. In a considerable sense, Achilles is weighed down by excessive pride. He believes that even if Agamemnon gives him back Briseis, he cannot get back his most treasured property, his pride. Achilles watchers gladly as the Achaeans descend upon the Greeks since he is aware that without his presence, the Greeks cannot win the war. Instead of using his immortal and divine strength to help the Greek army, he enjoys the pleasure of his pride. Hector shows his vile human nature when he desecrates Hector’s body. This occurs in spite of his immortal and unbelievable tackling of the Achaean army which makes many members of the Trojan army die. His defiance at the gods and wanton killing of the Achaeans manifests an immortal power and godly vengeance that acts against a sin rather than act out of emotions. In essence, Achilles’ immortality and mortality has a blurry line. The birth of Achilles demonstrates an interlocution between his humaneness and godliness. While his mother, Thetis, is a god, the father, Peleus, is an ordinary human being. Achilles has apparent lack of emotions in some instances while he displays an emotional nature in other instances. While in the beginning of the play he seems preoccupied with his glory, he becomes intensely emotional when he loses Patroclus in the Trojan battle. This may also demonstrate Achilles development from immortality towards mortality. When he finishes mourning his friend, he regains his godly and immortal strength thereby killing many Achaeans. At the end of the story, however, he is moved by the pleas of Priam and does one last human act by giving away Hector’s body. By showing Achilles’ mortality, Homer informs the audience over the essence of humanity. Works cited Homer, Robert Fitzgerald. The Iliad. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Read More