Lucy Martin
Iliad Essay – Week 8
Does the end of the Iliad suggest a transformed approach to human relationships?
In the Iliad, Homer explores in great detail the intricacies and complications within human
relationships. However, towards the end of the story, although he does not wholly transform his
approach to human relationships, he deepens our understanding of how grief specifically can alter
one’s approach to relationships.
In book 21, lines 97-113, there are many instances in this speech where Achilles is shown to
be far more ruthless and cold in his approach to supplicants, including the use of ‘ἀμείλικτον’
(21.98), ‘(but the response he heard was) hard’. This comes right after a caesura, which puts a lot of
emphasis on the hard-heartedness of Achilles in this moment. Achilles then opens the speech to
Lycaon with the vocative ‘νήπιε’(21.99), ‘fool’. This derogatory vocative opening the speech sets the
tone as being one of derision and bitter spite, thus depicting Achilles’ cruelty in this part of the story.
This is further emphasised by the alliteration of pi continuing throughout line 99 ‘νήπιε μή μοι
ἄποινα πιφαύσκεο’, ‘fool do not offer me ransom’, it creates a feeling of a very forceful manner of
speaking, helping to create a feeling of hatred and disgust in Achilles. He then emphasises the word
‘βάλῃσι’, ‘throws/thrusts’, through placing it at the end of line 104 and by using enjambment to
convey the magnitude of the brutality of such an action, a man being thrown into his hands to die
that is. It gives the idea of a cruel pushing of a man towards a gruesome death, giving that idea of
helplessness and powerlessness about Achilles’ victims, making Achilles seem all the more violent
and barbaric in his slaughtering of helpless men. What is different about Achilles’ anger here, in
terms of its severity, is that, unlike in the case of Agamemnon, Homer goes out of his way to make us
sympathise with Lycaon. He does this by utilising enjambment at the end of line 97 emphasising the
word ‘υἱὸς’, which in turn puts emphasis on the father-son relationship, perhaps to pull on the
heartstrings a little and create pathos for this enemy character. He also places ‘λισσόμενος’,
‘entreating’, in the very important position at the start of line 98, and so emphasises that Lycaon is
at Achilles’ mercy. This illustrates an altered relationship between Achilles and supplicants as
Achilles himself says at one point that before Patroclus died he might have spared him (21.100-102)
and been more lenient but now, Achilles has changed, thus his relationships with others has
changed. Through his experiences throughout the book, he has become more ruthless, more savage;
crueller in every way. He seems almost existential here, the speech is very death-centric and his
words seem especially harsh in nature. Perhaps due to a combination of repeated uses of harsh
consonant sounds and also through his brutally honest or else nihilistic almost approach to talking of
death.
James M. Redfield talks about Whitman’s ideas about Achilles after Patroclus’ death, saying that “Of
Achilles after Patroclus’ death he writes:
Human ties have vanished utterly, and what remains, the inner divine force, no longer needs
to feel after its appropriate terms, but reveals itself coldly in an agonized, overwhelming will to
death. Achilles had given himself with his armor to Patroclus, and now he has no self.” This is very
intriguing as it illustrates how Achilles has been changed through loss and grief, and so through this
loss has become completely removed – has separated himself – from his companions, in that he, like
the gods, no longer feels so sympathetic towards the suffering of other mortals.
Then in book 22, Achilles and Hector finally confront each other, fighting one-on-one to see
who will come out on top. During this confrontation, Hector tries to talk Achilles into finding a
rational way to end the conflict but Achilles will not stand for it, and in a lengthy speech, lines 260-
, Lucy Martin
272, utterly rejects his proposal and explains why it is not possible. In line 262 he emphatically ends
the line with πιστά, which builds suspense in a way. It allows for the imagery of ‘lions and men’
being unable to cooperate and trust each other to take the forefront of the line. It is a sort of slow
but sure collecting of thought until the full picture is revealed at the end of the lion, which helps
make the section more engaging. Perhaps the delay of this word may also help to reflect the
complete lack of trust among the two parties he speaks of, the fact it is delayed making it seem
almost like an afterthought (not exactly but I know what I mean), also allowing for ‘οὐκ’ to come
near the very start of the line, which puts emphasis on the disparity between them and the hostility,
thus helping to illustrate the hostility between Achilles and Hector, especially in Achilles since he is
the one to speak these words, by comparison. This does not succeed in creating a transformed
approach to human relationships as there is still hostility between the Greeks and Trojans and no
leniency in that hostility between them, which can be seen throughout the story in many of those
‘pride before a fall’ sort of speeches between a typically arrogant Trojan speaking just before being
killed off by a noble Greek hero. Furthermore, this idea is fully explored through the repeated
negatives in line 262-262 (and 264), all near the very start of their line to emphasise this hostility and
disparity, the word choice of διαμπερὲς, ‘through and through’ (21.264), which shows a complete
inability in the two men to work things out, thus highlighting the idea of Achilles being unmoving and
stubborn in his anger and fury now due to death of Patroclus, a far worse dishonour or grievance
than the loss of Briseis, the use of ‘αἵματος’, ‘of blood’, at the very start of line 267 to put emphasis
on the gore and horrific aspect to the speech and show Achilles’ savagery and aggression within it;
his hatred for the Trojans and the magnitude of his anger. Hector and Achilles’ relationship here is
very reminiscent of the relationship between Achilles and Agamemnon in the beginning in Achilles’
approach of refusing to negotiate and make amends and in his incorrigible anger. However,
something about this seems far harsher, perhaps because Achilles intends to kill Hector and will not
rest until he does, which is an element distinctly absent from his feud with Agamemnon - Athene
specifically comes down and stops him from running him through with his spear. Thus proving that
Achilles is in a state of utter fury where he cannot be calmed down or made to feel pity; he has a
heart of stone and will not budge in his opinion. This does not so a particularly transformed
approach to human relationships compared to the beginning as it parallels the arch of Achilles and
Agamemnon, however it demonstrates a perhaps slightly altered approach in that this interaction is
between two enemies fighting for different sides in the war and furthermore there is the added
element of Hector being Patroclus’ killer which adds an extra layer of complexity to Hector and
Achilles’ relationship and so things are slightly altered due only to circumstances being different and
the effect of grief on Achilles. He wishes to take revenge for the killing of his friend and cannot be
stopped from fulfilling this, whereas before he could hold himself back from acting rashly and
dangerously – the taking of his prize is a more forgivable wrong. And so, it seems that grief although
it does not transform Homer’s approach to human relationships towards the end of the Iliad, it does
however add an extra layer of intensity to the relationships and emotions involved in Achilles’
interactions with the people around him.
In Book 23, lines 57-65, 75-79 and 99-101, Homer describes the Greeks going to bed and
Achilles being visited in the night by the spirit of Patroclus. Homer begins with a rather peaceful
scene of the Greeks returning to their huts after feasting, this is expressed in line 57 when Homer
says ‘ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο,’, when they had put aside their desire for drinking and
eating’. The assonance of epsilon in this line helps to create the feeling of the relaxed, jovial
atmosphere of feasting, far removed from the atmosphere of battle. In the following line he then
says they ‘κακκείοντες ἔβαν κλισίην δὲ ἕκαστος,’ ‘went each to their own huts to sleep’. The
alliteration of hard consonants is not contemptuous here but perhaps mimics the sound of footsteps
as men scatter – they all hurry off simultaneously to their huts. Another thought is perhaps a little
