Who’s the hero of The Iliad? Is it Achilles or Hector? Or should they both be considered heroes?
If we are to answer these questions, we need to know what is meant by heroism. We also need to know what Homer meant by heroism. Was the pagan Greek understanding of heroism different from ours? If so, how was it different and does this difference impact our understanding of Homer’s epic?
Although The Iliad has cast its shadow across the full expanse of western civilization, from Virgil’s epic, The Aeneid, to Dante’s Divine Comedy and the works of Shakespeare, its impact on modernity has largely been governed by the way that it was read by the so-called neoclassicists of the Enlightenment.
In some sense, aesthetically and philosophically, neoclassicism can be seen as an attempt to leapfrog over the Christian middle ages in pursuit of an alternative to Christianity itself. This process had begun during the late Renaissance when the neopagan Muse turned to the Greek pantheon for inspiration, Venus replacing the Virgin as the new aesthetic ideal. (It was Ruskin, I believe, who lamented that Venice had metamorphosed from a medieval Virgin into a Renaissance Venus.)
The problem with our understanding of The Iliad is not, therefore, the shadow that it has cast over civilization but the shadow that neopaganism and neoclassicism has cast over it. It is this revisionist reading of the classics that has clouded our vision, preventing us from seeing Homer’s work as Homer himself would have seen it. This problem was summarized by C. S. Lewis who likened Greek paganism to a virgin awaiting the coming of the Bridegroom and modern neopaganism to a divorcée turning its back on the marriage. If we read Homer’s epic from the perspective of those who have divorced themselves from all divinity, we are not reading it from the perspective of Homer.
The difference between the “virgin muse” of the Greeks and the “divorced muse” of the moderns can be seen in the definition of the word hero. The modern definition of hero is “a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities”. In this sense, we might consider Achilles and Hector to be equally heroic to the extent that they are admired and idealized for their courage and outstanding achievements. Since, however, Homer makes the pride and anger of Achilles the cautionary theme of his epic, showing its harmful consequences in the destruction of his friends and foes alike, it is difficult to see that Achilles can be seen as exhibiting “noble qualities”. Quite the contrary. Yet modern neopagan or atheist humanist readers of the epic, echoing the pride and anger of Nietzsche, admire and idealize Achilles’ prideful courage and his outstanding achievements as a peerless warrior. These are his “noble qualities”. It is his strength and valour that matters. He is a superhero. An übermensch.
But does this modern neopagan reading of the epic accord with Homer’s understanding?
A clue can be found in the older understanding of the word hero, which is presumably the meaning of the word that Homer would have known. Etymologically, the Greek hḗrōs means “protector” or “defender”. Can Achilles, by any stetch of the imagination, be seen as a protector or a defender? He withdraws from the fighting, betraying his friends and his people, and is directly responsible for the deaths of many Greeks, including his friend Patroclus. Can such a man be said to be a hero in the classical etymological meaning of the word? Hector, on the other hand, is shown as the protector and defender of his own wife and child, and of his people.
One final piece of formal evidence can be given in support of Hector’s claim to true heroism. Since Homer opens his epic with the focus on Achilles and his destructive anger, it would have made formal sense to end it symmetrically with Achilles’ death, the final destructive consequence of his anger. Instead, he ends with a series of eulogies to heroic Hector. The Iliad begins with Achilles’ refusal to serve as a protector and defender of his own people, casting him in the role of an anti-hero, and ends with the heroic death and subsequent eulogizing of one who had laid down his life as a defender and protector of his wife, child and people. Reading The Iliad as Homer wrote it, there can be little doubt that Hector, not Achilles, is the true hero.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is “Achilles doodt Hector” (circa 1831 – circa 1893) by Léonce Legendre, and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The hero is Homer. It is only the West who have honest poets and honest historians. We paint our cultural heroes with their warts instead of hiding the warts. Would the Egyptians allowed a Homer? Did the Babylonians, the Assyrians paint an honest picture? None comes to mind, with the possible exception of Gilgamesh, but he’s not quite Abraham, much less a Moses. Perhaps Confucius comes closest, but Homer helped create our Western tradition, bolstered by the Hebrews of showing our leaders and their weaknesses.
Paradoxically, this is our strength. Homer and Moses set the pattern. The rest, as they say, is commentary.
Excellent! Finally an essay from someone that actually has read the Iliad! It’s tiresome to listen uninformed “scholars ‘ lecturing on Homer and the Iliad that ignore the dramatic role of Hector -as the hero – and Achilles as the antihero. The initial books the Greek characters (like Ajax) are brutal, abusive, and merciless setting the tone of the nature of the invaders. All for what? Pride and hubris. I could go on, but the mini essay is eloquent on an important point of the epic.
Hector was fighting for his country (city state) and was not responsible for it’s political decisions. Achilles was fighting for his ruler’s legitimate claims. Both acted in accordance with their duty as seen at the time. Ancient tales offer lessons, not direction.
The point is that Achilles refuses to fight for his ruler’s legitimate claims thereby wreaking havoc.
Not really sure that your wife running off with another man is a valid casus belli, even in Ancient Greece.
The Iliad clearly depicts the Greeks as in the wrong, from the get go, when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigeneia, to ensure fair winds. The whole enterprise is about individual anger, pride, and rage.
It is a case for a feud, as documented all the way up to the present say in Greece and Balkans, and in essence that is what the Iliad is, a tale of a blood feud, which the Greek audience would have well understood, told on an international scale
I greatly enjoyed this essay. I’ve reread The Iliad many times, and Hector is my favorite character, a true hero. He fights to protect his home and family. He goes out to face Achilles and certain death despite his family begging him no to. Even when Athena’s ruse is revealed and his fate is sealed, he faces Achilles with honor and dignity. While there are things I admire about Achilles, I am not won over by his “prideful courage.”
It appears that I share many values with the author in reaching this judgement. I feel compelled to share that I am an atheist Neopagan (Hellenic revivalist) with humanist values. While I’m not certain that we share the same definition of “Neopagan,” I think that the author is talking about my ilk, and would caution against making ungrounded assumptions and painting with a broad brush. I think the question of “Who’s the Hero” would find a divided opinion in both Christian and Pagan camps.
Achilles is a the hero, since the poet tells us he does nothing but transmit what the muse relates, surely to be understood as the notes Achilles himself played on the kithara. Achilles doesn’t die in the Iliad because he becomes immortal through fame, it is an attempt to create a homecoming epic for the hero of that doesn’t return. As such we see Achilles go forth, triumph through salvific rage, and return to Patroclus’ funeral his substitute. The tradition of Homeric poets knew well what they were doing, crafting a man into an immortal through song. Having him die in his immortal song would undercut that message.