Agamemnon’s offer is irrelevant both for Achilles honour and his glory. If he has made his choice to die for glory (rather than live a long and quiet life) then the offer is meaningless - especially the promise of future benefits like an illustrious marriage and wealth. Achilles made that choice before his wrath at the beginning of the book. The only question remains is when will he re-enter the fray. If he is delaying entering the fray to prolong his life then he is doing it at the price of many lives of his friends and compatriots, including a father figure and ultimately his closest friend - this is neither honourable nor enhancing his glory as he continues to behave like a petulant child. His threat to sail off also appears dishonest given his earlier confirmed choice of death for glory.
I would have chosen a quiet long life but then I don’t claim to have semi divine status.
I wouldn't say the offer is irrelevant, at least in a symbolic sense. If Agamemnon continued to hold his grudge, there is no decision to make. By extending the offer to make amends, Achillies can choose to accept the "apology" or not, but it strips away the surface-level pretext for not rejoining the battle, causing him to wrestle with the deeper question.
I see Achilles truly struggling to choose between the 2 fates available to him. Even though we have an inkling of what he will ultimately do, the power of the entreaties to him, particularly from Phoenix, make his struggles appear to be more than showmanship. I was particularly struck by the invitation to Phoenix to spend the night; that really seems to humanize Achilles.
The fact that Achilles has more than one fate available to him, in my mind, further complicates the theme of fate v. free will. If we have multiple fates available to us, and if we are able to choose among them, then does that mean team free will prevails? Or even if we have multiple fates available to us, they are not infinite and our choices remain limited, so is team fate dominant?
When Diomedes replies to Agammenon's order to sail back to Argos, he declares courage to be the greatest power of all, even greater than honor. (Fagles, line 44). Honor and glory are pervasive, elevated virtue in the Ilaid, but Diomedes' statement is intriguing. It suggests that courage, even if it doesn't result in honor or glory, is a superior virtue, but this doesn't necessarily seem to be the case among the Greek gods and in Homer's poems. Courage is important, but honor and glory see to take center stage most of the time. In modern times, most of us value courage, particularly self-sacrificing courage on behalf of others, as being the highest order of virtue, whereas honor and glory are just vanity.
Completely agree. Courage to stand against the crowd is less evident in the Iliad but reminds me of a quote from my favourite book - Master and Margarita - Jesus is debating virtue with Pilate (who is this telling is afraid not to execute Jesus because he slandered Ceasar) - through various times Jesus repeats - “Cowardice is the greatest sin of all.” Is Achilles afraid to choose the less glorious fate?
I was not familiar with the book Master and Margarita, but thanks to your comment, I checked into it. I have added it at the top of the list of books to read. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Thank you for another wonderful reflection Matthew. You have certainly provided some interesting threads to consider. Achilles telling Odysseus that he has two possible fates is definitely a turning point. I feel that he is torn and perhaps wishes he was the one to have the long quiet life. However, the door is certainly left open that if the Gods or destiny desire another outcome then it will be so and his legendary status will live on.
Does he have 'free will' to control his response to the circumstances of destiny?
I read it as a master class in procrastination as demonstrated by a master procrastinator. It takes one to know one. It was interesting that he compared his hatred of A. to his hatred of "the very Gates of Death." Fear of death. Achilles knows his fate has been decided - sailing to Troy set that end in motion - and now he's feeling regretful and dragging his swift feet to prolong what life he has left. He's a realist among men suffering from their allegiance to pride and honor.
On another note, if anyone is in the Cambridge, MA area, you should go see The Odyssey at the A.R.T before it closes on March 16! I thought it was really entertaining and it was fun to fill in some of the blanks with what I've read thus far in The Iliad.
1570s, "position of an ambassador," from French embassee "mission, charge, office of ambassador," Old French ambassee, from Italian ambasciata, from Old Provençal ambaisada "office of ambassador," from Gaulish *ambactos "dependant, vassal," literally "one going around" (from PIE *amb(i)-ag-to, from roots *ambhi- "around" + *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move").
Achilles is only three days from home!!! Just go home and cool off then come back!
I’m a week late here but I’ve been to the local university library where they have extensive commentaries on the Iliad. Apparently the speeches during the embassy were used as models to teach oratory and the structure of speeches in antiquity.
I liked the scene where the embassy is walking along the beach towards Achilles. It felt very modern to slow the action down there for a moment while they walk to the far end of camp. It turns out this is the infamous section where the Greek uses the dual number grammatically even though there are at least 5 people. The commentary calls this “embarrassing” and summarizes various attempts to show that the dual means this pair or that pair of the five. Ultimately, the commentary settles on this section being a formulaic instance of the two-heralds-deliver-a-message scene (as in Book 1 where messengers take Briseis), concluding that “such confusion is quietly tolerated, for the acceptability of the text depends on its auctoritas as much as its intelligibility.” I think that’s fair although this commentary seemed reluctant to take up ways in which the oral tradition could have changed this section.
I thought the scene where Ajax nods to Phoenix, presumably to begin entreating Achilles but then Odysseus jumps in first was a great bit of characterization.
I also looked up the scene at near the end that’s lists who Achilles et al. are sleeping next to. Not much help. I had wondered if it was included against allegations of his relationship with Patroclus but the commentary didn’t want to wade into such waters, I think. Maybe I’ve just read Song of Achilles too recently.
I loved the scene with Phoenix. It really humanized Achilles for me.
But I was a bit shocked and so put off when Achilles nonchalantly said Agamemnon could keep Briseus’ daughter (I’m assuming this is the same person as Briseis from the beginning?)!
“He keeps the bride I love…We’ll let him bed her now- enjoy her to the hilt!” Ugh, Achilles. Really?!
Agamemnon’s offer is irrelevant both for Achilles honour and his glory. If he has made his choice to die for glory (rather than live a long and quiet life) then the offer is meaningless - especially the promise of future benefits like an illustrious marriage and wealth. Achilles made that choice before his wrath at the beginning of the book. The only question remains is when will he re-enter the fray. If he is delaying entering the fray to prolong his life then he is doing it at the price of many lives of his friends and compatriots, including a father figure and ultimately his closest friend - this is neither honourable nor enhancing his glory as he continues to behave like a petulant child. His threat to sail off also appears dishonest given his earlier confirmed choice of death for glory.
I would have chosen a quiet long life but then I don’t claim to have semi divine status.
I wouldn't say the offer is irrelevant, at least in a symbolic sense. If Agamemnon continued to hold his grudge, there is no decision to make. By extending the offer to make amends, Achillies can choose to accept the "apology" or not, but it strips away the surface-level pretext for not rejoining the battle, causing him to wrestle with the deeper question.
I see Achilles truly struggling to choose between the 2 fates available to him. Even though we have an inkling of what he will ultimately do, the power of the entreaties to him, particularly from Phoenix, make his struggles appear to be more than showmanship. I was particularly struck by the invitation to Phoenix to spend the night; that really seems to humanize Achilles.
The fact that Achilles has more than one fate available to him, in my mind, further complicates the theme of fate v. free will. If we have multiple fates available to us, and if we are able to choose among them, then does that mean team free will prevails? Or even if we have multiple fates available to us, they are not infinite and our choices remain limited, so is team fate dominant?
When Diomedes replies to Agammenon's order to sail back to Argos, he declares courage to be the greatest power of all, even greater than honor. (Fagles, line 44). Honor and glory are pervasive, elevated virtue in the Ilaid, but Diomedes' statement is intriguing. It suggests that courage, even if it doesn't result in honor or glory, is a superior virtue, but this doesn't necessarily seem to be the case among the Greek gods and in Homer's poems. Courage is important, but honor and glory see to take center stage most of the time. In modern times, most of us value courage, particularly self-sacrificing courage on behalf of others, as being the highest order of virtue, whereas honor and glory are just vanity.
Completely agree. Courage to stand against the crowd is less evident in the Iliad but reminds me of a quote from my favourite book - Master and Margarita - Jesus is debating virtue with Pilate (who is this telling is afraid not to execute Jesus because he slandered Ceasar) - through various times Jesus repeats - “Cowardice is the greatest sin of all.” Is Achilles afraid to choose the less glorious fate?
I was not familiar with the book Master and Margarita, but thanks to your comment, I checked into it. I have added it at the top of the list of books to read. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Thank you for another wonderful reflection Matthew. You have certainly provided some interesting threads to consider. Achilles telling Odysseus that he has two possible fates is definitely a turning point. I feel that he is torn and perhaps wishes he was the one to have the long quiet life. However, the door is certainly left open that if the Gods or destiny desire another outcome then it will be so and his legendary status will live on.
Does he have 'free will' to control his response to the circumstances of destiny?
Another great piece is the parallels that you draw, too.
I read it as a master class in procrastination as demonstrated by a master procrastinator. It takes one to know one. It was interesting that he compared his hatred of A. to his hatred of "the very Gates of Death." Fear of death. Achilles knows his fate has been decided - sailing to Troy set that end in motion - and now he's feeling regretful and dragging his swift feet to prolong what life he has left. He's a realist among men suffering from their allegiance to pride and honor.
On another note, if anyone is in the Cambridge, MA area, you should go see The Odyssey at the A.R.T before it closes on March 16! I thought it was really entertaining and it was fun to fill in some of the blanks with what I've read thus far in The Iliad.
Of interest.
embassy (n.)
1570s, "position of an ambassador," from French embassee "mission, charge, office of ambassador," Old French ambassee, from Italian ambasciata, from Old Provençal ambaisada "office of ambassador," from Gaulish *ambactos "dependant, vassal," literally "one going around" (from PIE *amb(i)-ag-to, from roots *ambhi- "around" + *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move").
https://www.etymonline.com/word/embassy
Achilles is only three days from home!!! Just go home and cool off then come back!
I’m a week late here but I’ve been to the local university library where they have extensive commentaries on the Iliad. Apparently the speeches during the embassy were used as models to teach oratory and the structure of speeches in antiquity.
I liked the scene where the embassy is walking along the beach towards Achilles. It felt very modern to slow the action down there for a moment while they walk to the far end of camp. It turns out this is the infamous section where the Greek uses the dual number grammatically even though there are at least 5 people. The commentary calls this “embarrassing” and summarizes various attempts to show that the dual means this pair or that pair of the five. Ultimately, the commentary settles on this section being a formulaic instance of the two-heralds-deliver-a-message scene (as in Book 1 where messengers take Briseis), concluding that “such confusion is quietly tolerated, for the acceptability of the text depends on its auctoritas as much as its intelligibility.” I think that’s fair although this commentary seemed reluctant to take up ways in which the oral tradition could have changed this section.
I thought the scene where Ajax nods to Phoenix, presumably to begin entreating Achilles but then Odysseus jumps in first was a great bit of characterization.
I also looked up the scene at near the end that’s lists who Achilles et al. are sleeping next to. Not much help. I had wondered if it was included against allegations of his relationship with Patroclus but the commentary didn’t want to wade into such waters, I think. Maybe I’ve just read Song of Achilles too recently.
I loved the scene with Phoenix. It really humanized Achilles for me.
But I was a bit shocked and so put off when Achilles nonchalantly said Agamemnon could keep Briseus’ daughter (I’m assuming this is the same person as Briseis from the beginning?)!
“He keeps the bride I love…We’ll let him bed her now- enjoy her to the hilt!” Ugh, Achilles. Really?!