Untitled - Get a Free Blog

Book Nine
The duty of vengeance is always hazardous and supplied the Iliad with
many moments of pathos; in the case of Akhilleus the pathos is refined into
heroism by the foreknowledge granted him by Thetis that he lives under a
conditional doom - if he slays Hektor he will quickly die himself (18.94-
126). We should not underestimate the importance of this link. Yet it is
directly mentioned only in book 18, a brilliant stroke, it is pleasant to
conjecture, of the monumental composer, bringing into focus the traditional
point that the hero was doomed to be short-lived and to die at Troy.
At the end of book 9 the Achaean leaders know where they stand: on
their own. But to the action of the poem the Book contributes nothing,
the situation on the ground being the same at the end as at the beginning:
the Trojans on the plain, the Achaeans within their wall. What then does
the Book add? It restores Akhilleus, who has been out of sight and mind
from the end of book 1, to the focus of attention; it sharpens his characterization
by showing him in contact with those nearest to him, as the encounters
with Helen and Andromakhe do for Hektor (6.313—502); but the
primary contribution of the Book is to the ethical plot of the Iliad. Without
it the plot would be a familiar story of heroism. The young warrior accepts
death as the price of heroic fame and duty. He admits to a mistake: it was
his fault that Patroklos died, immediately for not being at Patroklos' side
and more remotely for giving way to epis (18.97-no). If what he said
to Thetis were the sum of Akhilleus' responsibility, it would be easy to
absolve him; he speaks under the stress of deep emotion, the quarrel with
Agamemnon is too distant, and Patroklos had been reckless. For his mistakes
he could have pleaded 6nT|; he had not acted with his eyes open.
The idea of the moral responsibility of Akhilleus was always latent in the
story, but at some point, it is plausible to imagine, the monumental composer
realized that an explicit error of moral judgement would form the
keystone to his poem. It is the function of book 9 to make this clear. It was
natural that Akhilleus should be made to relish the prospect of a chastened
Agamemnon (11.608-10). So he made the prospect a reality and had
Akhilleus reject the overtures of his friends. To achieve this end the poet had
to confront a dilemma. As part of his motivation for the seizure of Briseis
Agamemnon was given a reputation for greed, at least in Akhilleus' eyes
(1.149); it would be easy therefore, maintaining the characterization of
both heroes, to have Agamemnon make an offer which Akhilleus could
stigmatize as mean and justifiably reject. On the other hand if Agamemnon
is made to offer more than could be reasonably rejected on that score, on
what understandable grounds could Akhilleus be made to reject it? There is
strong evidence (see 64on.) that in a culture dominated by the ideas of
honour and shame to reject compensation is to incur dishonour. Such an
impression must here be avoided. The crucial passage is 379-87. Akhilleus
56