An Interpretation of Book 17 of Homer's 'The Illiad'

Throughout Homer's 'Iliad', the characters embody the ideas central to the cultures they represent. There are two distinct groups portrayed in 'The Iliad'; the Trojans and the Achaeans, although countless other specific lands are mentioned in passing. The differences between these ancient Greek groups and our modern American society are numerous, and the similarities are often surprising. Within the plot of 'The Iliad', book 17 stands apart as a turning point in the great war, where warriors display very human emotions upon the death of a much-loved warrior, Patroclus. It is upon his death that the remaining books are based, and arguably what decides the victory of the war. I will examine how the actions and words of the characters in book 17 display the overarching characteristics of their culture and time, and how those characteristics compare to modern American practices.

An Achaean warrior, Menelaos, witnesses the fall of Patroclus and is moved to protect the body of his fallen comrade. He is described as 'protective as a heifer who has dropped her first-born calf: she stands above it, lowing, never having known birth-pangs before' (407*). This strange contradictory allegory of life and death seems awkward, as the birth of a calf could not be further in nature from the death of a warrior. But perhaps this is a carefully chosen allegory; to describe a fierce warrior in the midst of battle as a cow, and a young inexperienced one at that, may be eluding to Menelaos' state of emotions. While he is still a warrior, the death of a close friend in battle may weaken his emotional resolve to that of an animal. Numerous times in 'The Iliad' are formerly fierce bloodthirsty warriors reduced to tears and anguish upon meeting with the grief of death. The deep masculinity described in the book cannot be shaken by the pleading of family or loved ones, nor by fear, nor by pain of death. It is grief alone that breaks the Greek men, which may be telling of how grief was handled in the 12th century B.C. in Greece. It is clear from the dialogue throughout the book that honor and valor were of the utmost importance to Greek men, but this strange description solidifies the idea that grief may be one of the few accepted excuses for weakness in men.

Turning back to the idea of honor, we next examine the salutation made by Euphorbos, Patroclus's killer, to Menelaos;

"Son of Atreus, nobly bred, Lord Marshal,
yield, leave the corpse, give up his bloody gear!
No Trojan hit Patroclus in the fight
before I hit him. Let me have my glory.
Back, or I'll take your sweet life with one blow." (408)

While lofty statements such as this are commonplace in 'The Iliad', this quote in particular draws focus to the concept of honor in the ancient Greek society. In both earlier and later books, many characters describe and name the honors held by themselves or their fathers, as evidence to what level of respect they should command upon being met in battle. The longer a story of glory, the more respect is due. It is through the collection of valuable gifts or enemies property that one can 'build up' their store of glory. By possessing the armor of an enemy, it reads to all who see it as a trophy, attesting to the great skill and ability of whomever owns it. Because of this strong tie between war trophies and respect, Euphorbos is willing to challenge another man to one-on-one combat. The need to have physical proof of his success in battle is so strong that he is willing to risk his life for it. One might hypothesize that Euphorbus's tale, if he had come to possess the armor of Patroclus, would sound something like 'there lives Euphorbus, great warrior who struck down Patroclus in the great war, and now holds his shining armor wrenched from the hands of the great Menelaos, who sought to take it back to the enemy'. To own a trophy of one's conquests in a status symbol in this time, a concept which has no real equivalent in our modern society. American soldiers rarely take individual pride in battle accomplishments, preferring instead the anonymous glory of success as a unit. To try to claim individual success would be looked down upon and discouraged.

Later in the same scene, Aias is asked to lend aid to Menelaos in defending the body of Patroclus. A sharp contrast is seen in the allegory used to describe Aias upon reaching the corpse;

"And still Aias,
extending his broad shield above Patroclus,
stood as a lion will above his cubs
when a hunting party comes upon the beast
in underbrush, leading his young; he narrows
eyes to slits, drawing his forehead down." (411)

From a birthing cow to a dangerous lion, the characterization difference between Aias and Menelaos is striking. Although it earlier describes Aias's heart as being moved upon hearing of Patroclus's death, perhaps the difference in action is indicative of how emotionally distraught the two warriors are with grief. Menelaos perhaps reacted with less fury and more despair because the fallen man was dear to him, more so than he had been to Aias. Aias perhaps reacted with fighting fury because Patroclus was little more than a fallen comrade, as opposed to a close friend. Both reactions to the death are considered normal reactions in the book, and both are later mirrored by Achilles when he hears the news. Achilles, in an explosive combination of both reactions, becomes nearly unconsolable with grief, and then overcome with a bloodthirsty rage for revenge.

"So all fought on, a line of living flame.
And safe, you'd say, was neither sun nor moon,
since all was darkened in the battle-cloud -
as were the champions who held and fought
around the dead Patroclus." (418-19)

To regard this passage is to see what an impact the death of Patroclus had upon the final books of 'The Iliad'. Book 17 is a turning point in the poem's plot; it is at this point that Achilles is finally moved to join the war and turn the tides in favor of the Achaeans. One might say that the entire poem has been leading up to this turning point, since the cause of the war can be traced back to Achilles's beseeching his mother to exact revenge on Agamemnon (and subsequently, the entirety of the Achaean army). It's difficult for modern Americans to grasp the concept of mass death and destruction based off of one individual rather than national interests, but it does indeed happen. To take a glance back in our modern history, perhaps the first World War would not have begun if Archduke Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated by Gavrilo Princip.

Another strong concept displayed by 'Iliad' characters is revenge. In our society, revenge is considered morally wrong, as well as generally illegal. In American law, the reasons behind a crime generally have little impact upon the repercussions. However, in ancient Greek times, revenge appears to be a much coveted measure of glory. Perhaps because of the close relationship the Greeks held with their Gods (relations to the Gods affected almost every aspect of Greek life), death was not regarded as an end to wrongs done in life. Many characters take it upon themselves to exact revenge for past grievances or killed comrades, risking (and often losing) their own lives in the process.

"Then Automedon, peer
in speed of the war god, took the dead man's armor,
and vaunting cried:
"By heaven now I've eased
my heart somewhat of anguish for Patroclus,
tearing out a man's guts; but no such man as he."" (424)

Book 17 of Homer's 'The Iliad' is a battle-intensive portrayal of distinctly human emotions and societal characteristics that can still be found in our own time, over three thousand years later. Not only can we better understand the lives and cultural distinctions of the ancient Greek peoples, we can also gain some insight into universal human nature. Perhaps it is these unique perspectives that have made 'The Iliad' a classic through generations of scholars and students, each new interpretation revealing deeper and more lasting meanings.

* Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Robert Fitzgerald. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1974.