The Iliad: Achilles and Priam

The following is a comment on Homer's The Iliad which discusses Achille's personal development as a result of Priam's request.



Pride and passion led to the downfall of Achilles long before his fate. As the greatest warrior in the Achaian army, he was consumed by honor. The first few lines of Book One foreshadow Achilles temperament and irrationality:

Anger be now your song, immortal one,
Akhilleus’ anger, doomed and ruinous,
That caused the Akhaians loss on bitter loss.

His wrath is provoked by his dire sense of honor- he is consumed by his personal morals (not necessarily concerned for the “greater good”) and becomes alienated from the Greeks and eventually, society. It is this distance (his inability to be truly close to anyone; to be passionate about human issues as opposed to aesthetic gain and glory) which inspires his fate. He is willing to endanger his army and the people closest to him in order to preserve his honor.

Honor and glory are driving forces which are characteristic of “the hero”. To be a hero is to accept the conditions and the expectations of a society- to uphold status and to be respected within the community. A hero “accepts his fate”. He will endure suffering and pain, and he will bring glory and good. Public opinion is important to the hero. If this relationship were to sour, his pride would be lost and he would feel as if he was of no value or purpose. This is true of Achilles.

At points, Achilles distances himself from those around him when he feels his sense of identity and honor has been attacked. This also shows Achilles feeling somewhat victimized. His being a “victim” is a result of his pride being attacked, therefore he lashes out and is aggressive towards others- when his honor is questioned, he is tyrannical and irrational and acts-out accordingly.

There is an evident “modern” psychology to Homer’s work. His characters experience distress and anxiety. Achilles is an example of this internal battle. He is never quite understood, as he is never quite “stable”. Achilles is often enraged, angry, hostile- he is never reliably rational because he is constantly consumed with his pride. Upholding his pride often endangers others.

Achilles’ mother is the goddess Thetis. Achilles is conscious of morality and immorality, which is a factor in his inability to function or interact within human society. He is an outsider- he knows he will die (in battle) but he persists because of his passion, ego, and sense of immortality.

There is a definite contrast between Achilles and Hektor. Homer depicts the theme of individual values and morals versus social values through these characters. Hektor is a hero who is motivated by responsibility and obligation to his people. Achilles is motivated in terms of defending his pride.



“The funeral games were over.”

The gods seem to be depicted throughout the Iliad, as an active human conscious. Their dialogue and interaction represents the internal struggle between right and wrong or good and bad- the gods appear as “egos” at play, like a human consciousness battling what is appropriate, fair, just, and deserving. The gods themselves seem like “visual figures” that depict the human consciousness and awareness. Their “play” or interaction with each others opposing ideals is relational to the concept of human indecision.

The gods constantly “play”[I]. This is evident at the beginning of the Iliad and continues through the book up until the end. In Book XX Zeus calls a meeting to ensure that Achilles will not “side-step” his fate- to ensure that he will die. Being immortal, the gods treat this horrific human battle almost like entertainment (maybe not fully, but it appears that way). They are constantly interjecting and changing the course of the events on earth. The gods are divided amongst themselves and debate and argue their way through designing the outcome for the individuals on earth. In Books XX and XXI the gods “instigate” the fighting between the Trojans and the Greeks , which leads to Hektors death in XXII

The goddess Athena plays a crucial and deciding role in battle. She is in support of the Achians. When Achilles and Hektor fight in Book XXII she “speaks” to Hektor, convincing him that he will survive the battle against Achilles. This shows the gods in the role of the human conscious- the battle between good/bad and right/wrong.

In Book XXII the gods have a discussion amongst themselves. Athena addresses Zeus (her father) persuading him to let her take control of the battle between Achilles and Hektor.

My dear and honoured child. I am not bent
on my suggestion, and I would indulge you.
Act as your thought inclines, refrain no longer. (p. 521)

It is evident that the gods have the “upper hand” in the battle at all times- the fate of the mortals, whether the Greek army or the Trojan army, are all in the hands of hegemony. The gods have the higher power- however- they are conveyed as being careless and carefree. This poses a detrimental issue because they are in fact “playing” with human lives.

Book XXIII brings the victory games. Achilles brutally sacrifices captive Trojan men and animals in a large fire-pit in honour of his friend Patroklos. They “wine and dine” and play games to celebrate their victory. Hektor’s body is abused. He is kept face-down in the dirt amongst all of the “festivities”. This further shows Achilles untamed and unjust anger. The gods play a role here because they keep Hektors body from deteriorating- perhaps aware of the following events which were to take place.

The vision Achilles has of Patroklos shows his human qualities. He decides Patroklos needs a proper burial and time to mourn his dead friend. The idea of “a proper burial” is to put a soul to rest. Achilles is sympathetic to this which momentarily restrains his anger.

Achilles is not compassionate towards the body of Hektor. He is brutal and immoral with him. Achilles behaviour creates a contrast between the way Hektor treated Patroklos, and the way Achilles treats him. Hektor (thinking he was fighting Achilles) killed Patroklos but did not mutilate him, whereas Achilles goes above and beyond the realm of “victory” and becomes immoral and unethical in his treatment of Hektor.

This leads to the revealing episode in Book XXIV when Priam appeals to Achilles.

It is the gods which inspire Priam to seek Achilles. Zeus holds yet another meeting discussing Achilles irrational behaviour. They argue but decide to return Hektor’s body to Priam for a proper burial.

When Priam visits Achilles in Book XXIV, it is evident that, up until this point, Achilles has been consumed by irrational feelings of anger, ego, and unjust pride. Now, Priam appeals to Achilles emotional intelligence, appearing as the father of Hektor and not as the King of Troy. He asks Achilles to remember his own father- suggesting that a father’s wish is to see his son treated with the respect he deserves.

Remember your own father,
Akhilleus, in your godlike youth: his years
Like mine are many, and he stands upon
The fearful doorstep of old age. He, too,
Is hard pressed, it may be, by those around him,
There being no one able to defend him from bane of war and ruin…

Ten days ago you killed him, fighting for his land, my prince,
Hektor.

It is for him that I have come among these ships,
to beg him back from you,
And I bring ransom without stint. (p. 584)



Achilles is compassionate. He remembers the “vision” of Patroklos, looking inside himself and understanding Priam’s pain and anguish. This adds to the psychological component of the book. Achilles is aware of himself in a more humane way- he is sympathetic to Priam. His uncontrolled anger has subsided and he has reached a state of enlightenment and personal development.

Much of the success of Homer’s Iliad is due to the psychological development of Achilles as he comes “full circle” with his wrath. His ability to give Hektor’s body back to Troy symbolizes his willingness to let go of his pride in the name of honour. He realizes here, what “honour” really represents.



[I] Book XX, p. 471



Homer's, The Iliad Anchor Books, 1974. Translated by Robert Fitzgerald.