User:Burj33

Introduction
“Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilles and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaeans, hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished since that time when first there stood in division of conflict Atreus’ son the lord of all men and brilliant Achilles” Il 1.1-7. The opening lines of Homer’s Iliad, a poem of 15,693 lines written in dactylic hexameter. The text has been divided into 24 books which themselves vary in length, however this division was made long after the first written version of the poem in around the 3rd century BCE. It is a tale of legendary heroes from another age, before the age of modern man, most of whom are Achaean warriors. Chiefly among these heroes, the story is concerned with the son of Peleus, Achilles, and his anger, the consequence of an insult to his honour by the Achaean “lord of all men” Agamemnon. The “pains” described in the proem are a result of the conflict of honour between the two leaders, Agamemnon and Achilles; one leading through hereditary right, and the other through merit. Tension arises as these two heroes are faced with losing honour in the form of rank for Agamemnon and a symbol of victory for Achilles. The poem, therefore, is not some story praising the glory of great men overcoming some great evil, but of the weakness inherent in a human beings character and the problems this can cause. Most prominently among those who suffer from the consequences of being human is the Trojan hero Hector, defender of Troy. A man locked in the devices of fate and the power of the gods. It is unclear in the opening lines as to whether the “will of Zeus” is that of his promise to Thetis to make the Achaean army suffer defeat in order to punish the insult to Achilles, but it is this promise from Zeus that gives Hector, as leader of the opposing Trojan forces, the opportunity to shine as a worthy hero. But, it is Hector’s humanity that deprives him of understanding his true situation and causes his ignominious downfall. As flawed as Homer presents Hector, it is these flaws that provide the link between the audience and the poem. The emergence of the city sate/ polis in Greece, in the 8th century BC, the time the Iliad was performed would mean that the depiction of the city of Troy in the poem would have held particular significance for the Greek audience. So Hector is the vehicle through which the audience can see how people like Achilles would affect people like them. This is an issue which is important, for the poem ends with the burial of Hector: “Such was their burial of Hector, breaker of horses.” Il 24.804, the main example of the tragedy of human weakness and, moreover, the answer to the suffering described in the proem. This essay will examine the importance of the character Hector to the story of Achilles, and, in doing so will attempt to analyse Hector and distinguish the elements of his character and his situation that draw the tragedy away from the story of Achilles alone.

'

Hector as a Hero
'

In the poem the Trojans represent society and culture, this is due to the fact that it is their city and their daily life into which the audience gains insight and around which the action of the poem takes place; it is not solely the warriors who are present in Troy, as is the case with the invading Greeks, but men and women, parents and children, and young and old. Every single Trojan and their family are under threat of the invading Achaean army and it is Hector, the leading warrior, husband and father, brother and son, and the chief exemplar of the familial solidarity that is commonly associated with the Trojans, who must defend them against the might of the Achaean army and their numerous heroes. Indeed when Hector finally does fall to the hands of Achilles outside the walls of Troy, the Trojan people wail and lament as if Troy itself was falling, “It was most like what would have happened, if all lowering Ilion had been burning top to bottom in fire.” Il 22.410. The audience is able to see Hector in two separate arenas: the Trojan hero on the battlefield and the family man within the walls of the city. These two arenas collide with each other in book 6; Hector has re-entered the city under the instruction of his brother Helenus, an auger, and is sending the women of Troy to make tributes to the goddess Athena so that she might save them from the onslaught of Diomedes. Whilst inside the city Hector eventually encounters his wife Andromache and their baby son Astyanax. Homer makes it clear at this point that Andromache is dearer to Hector than any other. This is done using the “ascending scale of affection motif”, a poetic principle according to which a hero meets or refers to a number of loved ones or comrades in the order of his increasing love for them. The order of the meetings confirms this point – Trojan people, Hecabe and Priam, his brothers, and finally Andromache and Astyanax. The interaction that takes place results in a passage where Hector, the chief defender of Troy, reveals, perhaps uncharacteristically, that he is under no illusion and understands fully that Troy will eventually fall, a sense of foreboding that nothing lasts forever, “For I know this thing well in my heart, and my mind knows it: there will come a day when sacred Ilion shall perish” Iliad 6.457-8. This inevitability and use of foreshadowing renders this meeting as tragic as it is tender, the vision of the family man juxtaposed with the Trojan hero, a contrast highlighted by Astyanax’s fearful reaction to his father’s plumed battle helmet, “frightened at the aspect of his own father, terrified as he saw the bronze and the crest with its horse-hair” Iliad 6.468-9, and Hector’s subsequent removal of his helmet in order to comfort his much-loved son. It is through this engagement between Hector and his son that one of the central themes of the poem is emphasised: the clash between the domestic and heroic worlds. In order to submerge himself into the ideal of Trojan domesticity fully Hector must remove his helmet, the subject of his most distinctive epithet; “Hector of the shining helmet” Iliad 22.471, and with it shed his heroic identity, for whilst others may recognise him through his helmet, Astyanax, one of the chief components of Hectors domestic life, cannot. However both the family man and the Trojan hero must make the same choice – whether to be defeated defending the city outside of the walls or defending his family inside of the walls. It is this choice, and the contradiction between defender and family man inherent in his character, that are the source of Hectors dilemma, a dilemma that only materializes with the interaction between Hector and his family and the glimpse inside Troy, the only place the audience can conceive of familial life. On the one hand, Andromache’s plea for Hector to stay inside the walls and to protect her and Astyanax, “stay here on the rampart, that you may not leave your child an orphan, your wife a widow…” Iliad 6.431-2, represents Hectors desire to protect his family, however, this is matched on the other hand by Hectors ingrained sense of duty, “I would feel deep shame before the Trojans,…, if like a coward I were to shrink aside from the fighting,…, since I have learned to be valiant and to fight always among the foremost ranks of the Trojans” Iliad 6.441-5. After praying a – characteristically - deluded prayer, Hector’s reasoning often suffers from bad judgement e.g. his decision to fight against Achilles, for Astyanax’s glory in a future that he himself had ruled out only moments before, Hector sets aside his premonitions of doom and his hopes for the future and gives in to a pragmatic fatalism, “no man is going to hurl me to Hades, unless it is fated, but as for fate, I think that no man yet has escaped it…” Iliad 6.487-8. With this he instructs her to go about the business of women whilst he goes and does the work of men, “Go therefore back to our house, and take up your own work…; but the men must see to the fighting, all men who are the people of Ilion, but I beyond others” Iliad 6.490-3. With this instruction, and his last verbal confirmation of his duty to Troy and its people (6.493), the two part: Hector picks up his helmet, the symbol of his heroic identity, and resumes where he left off. The role played by Hector within the city, that of father, husband, son and brother, is a role that stands in a relationship of tension, if not contradiction with the role he must play outside the city, and it has now been banished, with Andromache, back to his house, the centre of his family life. It is here, with Hector’s choice to fulfil his duty and go back to the fighting, that a paradox becomes evident: Hector’s heroism, that is to say in this instance his reasons for going to war, defined by his obligation to his own people, an obligation which leads to his own death, is as harmful to the ones whom he holds dearest, those he would protect, as it is to those he would destroy on the battlefield. In order for Hector to defend those whom he loves, he feels he must leave them and fight on the battlefield, and, as a consequence, his defence of them becomes a betrayal, for Hector is the means by which the city is still standing (6.405) and when he falls so too will Troy and with the city, his loved ones will fall to the Achaeans, something that is grimly foreseen by Hector’s forecast of the city’s downfall and Andromache’s future as a captive, “When some bronze-armoured Achaean leads you off, taking away your day of liberty…”Iliad 6.454-5. The aforementioned foreshadowing in this passage, and elsewhere, leaves the audience in no doubt that Hector is doomed; and this is a position they share with Andromache and her servants at the result of the meeting, “So they mourned in his house over Hector…,for they thought he would never again come back from the fighting alive” Iliad 6.500-2. Subsequently the audience are made to see Hector as those closest to Hector do; those for whom his death represents the greatest loss. As Hector is the defender of Troy, and, for Andromache, represents every member of her family, “Hector, thus you are father to me, and my honoured mother, you are my brother, and you it is who are my young husband.” Il 6.429-30. So too is he the enemy of, and an important juxtaposition to the character of, Achilles. It is said in the opening lines of the poem that the focus of the story is that of Achilles’ wrath, as a result the poem can be split into two parts: firstly, Achilles’ anger at Agamemnon and, secondly, his anger at Hector for killing Patroclus. The poem climaxes with the duel between Hector and Achilles, Hector’s death, and finally his burial; according to Redfield one could view the Iliad as the story of the relationship between these two heroes. Hector is important to the story of Achilles, and thus the Iliad as a whole, because he represents the necessary enemy hero. Achilles cannot win through against a number of mediocre Trojans, for this would constitute a hollow victory; he must have a worthy adversary to defeat and thus affirm his heroic status, and in the Iliad it is Hector, the defender of Troy. In the poem Hector appears both as a worthy, and yet, in some instances, an unworthy adversary. Achilles is under no illusion as to whether he can beat Hector, “…yet when I was fighting among the Achaeans Hector would not drive his attack beyond the walls shelter, but would come forth only so far as the Skaian gates and the oak tree. There once he endured me alone, and barely escaped my onslaught” (Il 9.352-5). But in other places it is said that Achilles himself is wary of Hector, Agamemnon says that “even Achilles, in the fighting where men win glory, trembles to meet this man…” Il 7.113-4. Indeed many of the Achaean heroes tremble at the thought of facing Hector: when he challenges any Achaean man to single combat no one is willing to stand up until Menelaus volunteers only to be told that he has no chance of victory. After a berating from Nestor the bravest Achaeans volunteer and it is Aias who is chosen by lot to face Hector. It is at this point that we must question Hector’s heroic, yet mortal, capabilities, for he is roundly beaten by Aias in their duel and elsewhere, despite being scared of him, Diomedes beats him back. This, perhaps, misplaced fear of Hector gives the Trojan hero bragging rights. Consequently he is privy to moments of delusion and misguided confidence: “but now when the son of devious-devising Kronos has given me the winning of glory by the ships, to pin the Achaeans on the sea, why, fool, no longer show these thoughts to our people.” Il 18.293-5. Despite his boasting he never achieves victory over any of the high ranking Greek heroes. Indeed, the only hero Hector defeats is Patroclus, but even this victory is made as hollow as the boasts he shouts at his various opponents, since it only occurs as a result of interference from Apollo which renders Patroclus defenceless. Most of Hectors victories arise as a result of divine favour. This divine support is due to Achilles’ appeal to his goddess-mother, Thetis, to persuade Zeus to exact defeat on the Achaean army, therefore as leader of the Trojan forces Zeus grants Hector limited victory. As leader of the Trojan forces Hector is introduced to the audience in the first six books as a hero of responsibility: Iris tells Hector to rally the men of the city, Paris asks for the duel with Menelaus , Sarpedon berates Hector for not rallying the men and as a result Hector rallies the men , and Helenus instructs him to go into the city and instruct the women to pray to Athena. The Idea of Hector as a hero of responsibility is a common theme in scholarly assessments of his character; we have seen how this sense of duty is central to the conundrum of Hectors situation in book six. However, when he trembles at the sight of the approaching Aias  his fear of death is overcome by his fear of disgrace. Here though, it is important to separate this disgrace with the type of disgrace one could associate with his duty; the two forms of disgrace are distinguishable as reasons for fighting and his reasons for going to war. As a hero on the battlefield in the Homeric world, Hectors conduct is governed by his desire to win glory/kleos for himself and his family  and achieve the immortality through art so desperately sought after by the archetypal Homeric hero. Instead of retreating like a coward, Hector feels that, as a hero, he must stand fast, the same feelings felt by Odysseus in book 11: “since I know that it is the cowards who walk out of the fighting, but if one is to win honour in battle, he must by all means stand his ground strongly, whether he be struck down or strike down another” Il 11.408-11. This speech highlights the debate found inside the hero’s heart when he doubts his survival; it would appear through Odysseus’ words and Hectors ability to stand fast in front of Aias, the fear of being a coward is greater than the fear of death. After his meeting with Andromache in book 6, where the warrior comes into contact with the domestic world, Hector undergoes a fundamental change – he begins to lead where once he has done others bidding. This new Hector is a creation of the absence of Achilles, the removal of the greatest Achaean hero leaves a space for Hectors confidence, but a misplaced one; he expects and promises victories that never materialise, despite getting very close on a number of occasions. He manages to drive the Achaeans back to their ships, and, moreover, manages to set fire to some of them, with only Hera, who urges a counter-attack, and nightfall saving the Achaeans respectively. Hectors confidence stems from his misreading of the promise of support from Zeus, “I see that the son of Kronos has bowed his head and assented to my high glory and success, but granted the Danaans disaster.” Il 8.175-7, but likewise this is the cause, as we shall see later, of his misguided delusion. His lack of any real success can perhaps be attributed to the Achaean bias of the poem, the poet must allow Hector to be second only to Achilles (the plot requires it) but there are certain restrictions felt by Homer which amount to Hectors lack of victory over any individual high ranking Achaean hero. His confidence in the promise of Zeus causes him to shed the identity of the responsible defender of the city; Hector’s interpretation of that promise indicates that he is not prioritising the defence of the city but is pursuing complete defeat of the Achaeans, the complete opposite of his priorities in books one to six, where he adheres to the advice of others, and places his faith in a victory that is not part of Zeus’ plan, let alone the promise. He misinterprets omens, overruns his allotted fortune, and ignores the sensible advice of his advisors. Returning to the hero of responsibility would mean following the right course of action as it is pointed out to him by others, and in so doing protecting the city that represents everything he stands for. Hector, however, has changed, a change that is compounded after his assisted defeat of Patroclus, where his response to the prophecy of his own death at the hands of Achilles betrays his misunderstanding of the situation and foreshadows the tragic folly that accompanies his decision in book 18 to keep the army out on the plain once Achilles returns to battle: “Patroklos, what is this prophecy of my headlong destruction? Who knows if even Achilles, son of lovely-haired Thetis, might before this be struck by my spear, and his own life perish?” Il 16.859-61. The denial in Hector’s reaction to the prophecy of his death is contrasted starkly by the reaction of Achilles to the prophecy of his death by the dying Hector, “Die: and I will take my own death at whatever time Zeus and the rest of the immortals choose to accomplish it.” Il 22.365-6. This contrast represents a fundamental difference between the two leading characters in the poem; Hector is a human with no divine parentage, whose heroism stems from his devotion to his city and his family, whereas Achilles has a goddess mother and as a result is himself semi-divine. This means that Achilles has access, through his mother, to the divine knowledge of fate – Achilles knows he has a short life and as a result is primarily concerned with making sure that, through his exploits, and his accruement of kleos, he will achieve immortality. Hector, on the other hand, has no divine insight into fate, and, as a result, is primarily concerned with his family and his city, the two things that are the source of his heroism. It is precisely this contrast however, that forms the basis of a relationship between the two characters. Hector cannot and will not defeat Achilles, a fact made obvious by both the gratuitous foreshadowing of book 6 and Patroclus’ prophecy, and Achilles’ divinity and subsequent superiority to Hector. In spite of the factors that separate them the two are joined together by their short lives; Achilles as a super-human, having made the choice and Hector through his mortality and the mistakes he makes as a result. This connection is made clear in the text in book 15.612 where Hector is described as minunthadios, meaning “having a short life”. This word is not just a description of a mortal man but is charged and refers directly to Achilles. In the poem it is only used of two other characters, Lykaon who is “to have a short life” Il 21.84 at the hands of Achilles, and Hector, who is also said to “have only a short life” Il 15.612. The difference here is that whilst Achilles is firmly aware of his own mortality and his impending death, since he knows that his death is inextricably linked with the death of Hector, Hector does not know when he will die. This creates, therefore, an impasse where the two have to meet in order for the story to continue: without the death of Hector, and subsequently the vengeance of Achilles, the inevitability of Achilles’ death, the culmination to the heroic age , cannot occur. It is the decision of Hector in book 18 not to run away from Achilles that results in the duel. This decision, other than being instrumental to the plot, is also key to the understanding of Hector’s character; this decision will decide his fate and thus the fate of Troy. His delusion has come to a head in rejecting the sober counsel of Polydamas, and replacing it with the misplaced confidence in divine support, Hector begins to believe that he may even triumph over Achilles himself, unconsciously foreshadowing the moment he flees Achilles before the duel by claiming “since I for my part will not run from him out of the sorrowful battle, but rather stand fast…” Il 18.306-7. Hector is merely human and cannot, and will not, accept the knowledge of his death, and as a consequence, he continues to hope. The tragedy here is that the audience know Hector’s hope is in vain.

The new Hector that emerged into the space created by the absence of Achilles is deluded; this delusion stops when Achilles rejoins the fighting, and Hector is alone outside the walls, a result of his foolish rejection of Polydamas’ advice. Polydamas seems only to be present as a contrasting character to the deluded Hector. Described as being as successful with words as Hector is with his spear, his portrayal is one of a prudent, pious and intelligent man, “he alone looked behind and before him.” Il 18.250. As the consequences of Hector’s decision are revealed, the audience becomes aware, when considering the necessity of the character of Polydamas, of the tragedy of Hectors typically human ignorance and the limitations this has on his admirable heroism. However, it is this heroism that now has him standing fast, awaiting the approach of Achilles. Yet it is not clear why Hector does not retreat into the city: having failed to heed Polydamas’ advice to withdraw the army back into the city, Hector, “speaking to his own great hearted spirit” Il 22.98, starts to worry over the approaching confrontation but will not retreat into the city: “If I go now inside the wall and the gateway, Polydamas will be the first to put a reproach upon me…. Now, since by my own recklessness I have ruined my people, I feel shame before the Trojans…” Iliad 22.99-106. The source of his bravery has now become evident: Hector’s fear of shame and being blamed by the Trojans is, at this point, greater than his fear of fighting the fearsome Achilles and risking his life, and, because he is the cities defender, Troy as well. To protect his city in accordance with his responsibility, as we have already seen, is Hector’s reason for going to war - something he views as his duty, and at this point he is ready to accept a heroic death instead of facing heroic disgrace for a cowardly retreat and have to face up to his failure to the Trojan people, “it would be much better…, to go against Achilles, and slay him, and come back, or else be killed by him in glory in front of the city.” Iliad 22.108-10. According to Redfield the fear of disgrace, or shame, aidos, is the most pervasive ethical emotion in Homeric society, and is usually the reaction of one to their social situation and the judgment of others. As a result it could be possible to attribute Hector’s reasons for standing fast, and thus his heroism, to his sense of aidos; in going to war Hector has responded to his social obligation to his people, but in the fighting it is his desire not to be viewed as a coward or as having failed, this is his reaction to his situation and, clearly, the judgement that he expects others to make of him. So, standing fast in front of the city, Hector is trapped between death and admitting failure, and, through foreshadowing, the audience is aware, even if Hector himself is not, that he will be killed. With the knowledge that Hector will not, and was never going to, re-enter the city, it is now apparent that he has not trapped himself through his bad judgement, but rather he has been trapped by his fate, “But his deadly fate held Hector shackled, so that he stood fast in front of Ilion and the Skaian gates.” Iliad 22.5-6, and his fate is to die at the hands of Achilles. However, there is no possibility of Hector ever surviving the Iliad, for, as we have seen, through his motivations for entering the field of battle (responsibility and a sense of duty) Hector is a contradiction to the heroic code, and, moreover, a contradiction to the Homeric world, epitomised by Achilles, the life of whom is centred around the accruement of personal glory. Consequently, it is necessary for Troy, the centre of heroic contradiction, and Hector, the defender of the familial solidarity that is Troy, to be destroyed by the archetypal hero if the heroic age is to continue on past this poem, something that, due to the plans of Zeus will not happen. The destruction of the threat to the heroic way of life, characterised by the invading Achaean forces in the poem, leads to another paradox; the ultimate victory and attainment of honour, the main focus of the heroic code, involves wiping out the city of Troy, the community that represents social and domestic civilisation and is very much like the cities that the Achaeans left behind when embarking on the expedition.

Hector and the Gods
It could be said that the Iliad is a poem primarily concerned with the endeavour and achievement of mortals in spite of the knowledge of their own mortality. This theme is certainly given substance when one considers the heroic code and the hero’s desire to win kleos in order to overcome their mortality through everlasting fame and poetry. The struggle for glory among the heroes and men on the plains outside Troy, risking their lives for glory, is contrasted with the casual indifference for human life displayed by the gods. At the beginning of book one, Apollo sends a plague down upon the Achaean camp for the insult to one of his priests. The characterisation of the god in this opening passage is a terrible one, “Phoibus Apollo heard him… angered in his heart, carrying across his shoulders the bow and the hooded quiver; and the shafts clashed on the shoulders of the god walking angrily. He came as night comes down…and let go an arrow”. Il 1.43-8 However by the end of the first book of the poem the gods are presented in a completely different light. There has been disease, quarrel and death amongst the mortals, and up on Olympus it looked like it might have interrupted the gods and upset their carefree existence until Hephaestus makes them realise it is not worth their troubling over, “This will be a disastrous matter and not endurable if you two are to quarrel thus for the sake of mortals and bring brawling among the gods.” Il 1.573-5. The book closes with the gods in “uncontrollable laughter” Il 1.599 at the sight of Hephaestus moving round on his crippled foot. What is achieved by the poet here is the contrast between the suffering of men and the ‘frivolity’ of the gods – the contrast between mortality and immortality, and the cares and worries, or lack of, that each brings. This contrast is explicitly highlighted by Longinus in his On the Sublime where he describes how “Homer made the humans in the Iliad gods and the gods humans”. The switching of places based on characterisation and behaviour shows the gods as precisely what they shouldn’t be, i.e. irresponsible and subject to human weaknesses, and the humans for what they can only ever endeavour to be – immortal. As well as the ‘frivolity’, there are moments of solemnity among the gods such as when Zeus mourns Sarpedons impending death and his inability to prevent it, “she spoke, nor did the father of gods and men disobey; yet he wept tears of blood that fell to the ground, for the sake of his beloved son, whom now Patroclus was presently to kill” Il 16.458-61. The poems main field of action is the battlefield, and, consequently, the endeavours of humans, and the gods, especially Zeus, are the spectators observing the action from their home on Mt Olympus: “Even so, I shall stay here upon the fold of Olympus sitting still, watching, to pleasure my heart.” Il 20.22-3. Through observing they occasionally look on with pity and compassion as we have seen with Zeus and Sarpedon; yet they are also capable of looking on in amusement: “Now the gods at the side of Zeus were sitting in council over the golden floor, and among them the goddess Hebe poured them nectar as wine, while they in the golden drinking cups drank to each other, gazing down on the city of the Trojans.” Il 4.1-4. However, despite spending time looking on they can also be seen participating. The participation of the gods in the human action of the poem can be a result of personal reasons; many of the gods have human offspring fighting on the battlefield such as Aeneas, son of Aphrodite, and Achilles, son of Thetis. Yet even those gods motivated by personal reasons to intervene in the war are themselves subject to the rules of fate, such that fate often overrules a god’s personal desire. Indeed, the outcome of the story of the poem itself is determined by fate; interference from the gods is often necessary given the constrained outcome of the story; there is an outcome which is fated to happen and the gods ensure that this outcome is reached. Gods are able to guide their favourites through the story, towards the fated outcome, in the best way possible, preventing situations that are not fated; the premature deaths of heroes are often averted by their supporting god and in book 2 Hera is forced to prevent the Achaean army leaving Troy “beyond fate” Il 2.155. To this extent the gods become characters in the story and are implicated in the plot. In the case of the Trojan War it so happens that fate is in accordance with the plan of Zeus to end the race of the heroes. This is something that is alluded to in the proem of the Iliad: “Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilles and its devastation… (which) hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished…” Il 1.1-5 For Troy to fall, it is necessary that the defender is defeated. Hector must face Achilles in a duel that he will not win. The resonance of this duel is that it pre-empts the destruction of Troy and as a consequence the premature, yet, portioned death of Achilles – the heroic epitome. Achilles is a favourite of Athena, a goddess who chooses her favourites based on success, and Hector has the support of Apollo. These two heroes and their supporting divinities work against each other until Hector’s fate is reached and there are parallels present between each hero and his opposing divinity, especially in the case of Hector and Athena. Whilst encouraging Achilles, the man who will bring about the fall of Troy, Athena is also worshipped by the Trojans as the defender of Troy, something which is well known to be the duty of Hector: “O Goddess Athene, our city’s defender, shining among goddesses…”Il 6.305. It is Hector who arranges the offerings for this prayer to Athena. However, perhaps chiefly among the common associations between Hector and Athena is their connection in metis/cunning, for Hector is described, in places, as being equal to Zeus in metis, the quality that is most associated with Athena. It is precisely this metis that Hector lacks at crucial moments; his misinterpretation of the bird omen, and, more importantly, his decision to ignore Polydamas’ council and stay outside to fight Achilles, the outcome of which is his own death. The bird sign is something that is important to Homeric epic, especially the Iliad. Birds are mentioned in the opening lines of the poem, “hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished…” Il 1.3-5. In these opening lines the mention of birds emphasises the vision of dead heroes; the birds are feeding on their corpses, a gruesome confirmation of the destruction of the heroes, and it is Hectors belief of absolute support from Zeus, and misinterpretation of the bird sign that cements the course of events that will lead to his own death. The bird omen is described as “a portent of Zeus of the Aegis” Il 12.209, and Hector is warned of its true meaning by Polydamas: “So we, even though in our great strength we break in the gates and the wall of the Achaeans, and the Achaeans give way before us, we shall not take the same ways back from the ships in good order; since we shall leave many Trojans behind us, whom the Achaeans will cut down…” Il 12.223-.7 Hector’s response is to remind Polydamas of the earlier promise of Zeus, a promise he misconstrues as being infinite: “…you who are telling me to forget the counsels of thunderous Zeus, in which he himself nodded his head to me and assented.” Il 12.235-6, and so Hector uses Zeus’, now defunct, promise to overrule the god’s new warning of immediate danger from the bird sign. By giving an infinite property to the finite promise of Zeus, Hector’s dependence on human reasoning is proven, unable to comprehend the necessary orchestration of the gods and fate, he places his own explanation on it: “One bird sign is best: to fight in defence of one country.” Il 12.243. Hector’ role as defender of the city is a role that separates him, in terms of responsibility, from the rest of the Homeric heroes. As well as in signs, birds are also used in similes, where they act as signs in need of interpretation both for the audience within the poem and for readers/listeners of the text. An important use of a bird simile comes in Hector’s final duel with Achilles. He is described as “a high flown eagle” when making his charge at Achilles. Birds are used as omens, and in this case, this simile of Hector as a bird, can certainly be seen as an omen – Hector has become his own bird sign; the omen of his own death. The beginning of the story and the plan of Zeus is signified by birds; the events that lead to the destruction of Troy and the death of Achilles, Hectors death, are signalled by the misreading of a bird sign, and the final destruction of Hector comes after a bird simile. Hectors death comes about after placing too much confidence in his support from Zeus and his decision to remain outside to fight Achilles, which is approved by the Trojans. This decision is brought about by Athena, who is said to have “taken away the wits from them” when choosing their course of action. Indeed Hector decides to go on an offensive course of action as opposed to the defensive course of action advised by Polydamas, which is his typical role. His lack of metis here is also apparent in his understanding of the promise of victory from Zeus. When he misinterprets the bird omen sent by Zeus as a warning of the limits placed on his promise he does so through his characteristically human reasoning – he has the Achaeans pinned back and on the run, there is no reason for him to fall back other than because it is not fated and subsequently not the will of Zeus. The realm of fate and the gods is a realm, from which, Hector is increasingly detached. This occurs through his mortality and his concerns with his duty: defending Troy and his family. It is not until his impending doom that Hectors understanding of his situation is complete and correct: “it was Athena cheating me, and now evil death is close to me, and no longer far away, and there is no way out. So it must long have been pleasing to Zeus…But now my death is upon me.” Il 22.299-303. However, whilst it is apparent that Athena uses a cruel trick in order to bring Hector to his inevitable death, Otto argues that this does not have to be construed as cruel of Athena; it must be understood how it is not Athena’s trick that destroys Hector; his death is fated and inevitable. By persuading Hector to turn and fight, she acts merely as the path and fulfilment of divine necessity and brings Hector to the honourable death, so desperately necessary for a warrior following the heroic code. Hector is an example of how the gods are capable of getting involved for the sake of personal interest and the designs of fate. His success arises only as a result of Thetis’ persuasion of Zeus to make the Achaeans suffer for Agamemnon’s insult to Achilles’ kleos. As a result of the wish being granted, Hector gains the support of Zeus, but it is not ultimate support – fate decrees that Hector and the Trojans will not win; they will in fact be destroyed. The orchestration of Hector by Zeus and the other gods provides the frame within which his success or failure is evaluated; the gods hand Hector a double edged blade – they give him the support necessary to defend his homeland and do his duty, but in turn this leads to his mistakes and failure.

Conclusion
“Such was their burial of Hector, breaker of horses.” Il 24.804 The final words of the Homers Iliad, and interesting that they should be about the burial of the main Achaean adversary; the opening lines of the poem are concerned with how the souls of many great heroes were hurled down to Hades, and it is Hector who is one such hero. However, it is possible to note that whilst superficially the poem may be concerned with the battle between Greek and Trojan forces, the motifs of mortality versus immortality, and divine versus human, clearly transcend the lines. At the end it is not just the story finishing with the burial of the enemy hero, but with the burial of a hero who has suffered, more than anyone else in the poem, from the consequences of his humanity and the mortality and error this brings. In the story of Hector the audience can see that at crucial moments, wisdom and courage may not be enough and that human strength and virtue can reach their limits. Indeed the transcendence occurs so prominently that it is Hector, in the end, who earns the sympathy of the audience; the identifiable characteristics of mistake and human concern make this inevitable. Whilst, within the poem, the death of Hector served as a symbol for the early death of Achilles, a tragedy in its own right, for more recent audiences it is Hector that captures their affection and admiration, and it is his burial that rounds off the tragedy of Hector and Troy. Indeed it is precisely this flawed hero that Shakespeare, in his Troilus and Cressida, sympathises with and praises by making Achilles’ triumph even hollower than Homer made Hector’s triumph over Patroclus: “If this be so, then bragless let it be. Great Hector was a man as good as he.” But in the Iliad there is no such distinction; Hector is portrayed as inferior to Achilles who, after all, is a demi-god. To the audience Achilles is a strange and magical being; he has divine parentage, armour fashioned by the gods, and talking horses, whereas Hector is the hero that we, in our moments of greatness, can hope to compare ourselves to. In ending with the burial of Hector, Homer places the emphasis not on the individual death of a warrior (the motivation behind his heroism), but on the social and civilised existence that is characteristically human in the face of suffering and loss. Hector throughout the story is a hero of obligation; whether it is an obligation to the heroic code or to the city, the presiding issue is that he is always attempting to do his duty and fulfil his position in society he believes people expect of him. Whilst, admittedly he fails in his duty to Troy, one must understand that he could never win; his actions and endeavours in the face of his fate, which at times only he is unaware of, means that on a human level it is the tragedy of Hector that is left with the audience. In this way the Iliad concludes with emphasis on humanity, personified by Homer’s portrayal of Hector and Troy, rather than the heroic conventions pointed to in the opening book.

Bibliography

Translation:

Lattimore, R. 1951. The Iliad of Homer. The University of Chicago Press.

Bibliography:

Schein, S.L. 1984. The Mortal Hero; An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad. California.

Nagy, G. 1980. Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Johns Hopkins University Press. Redfield, J.M. 1975. Nature and Culture in the Iliad; the Tragedy of Hector. Duke University Press. Silk, M. 1987. The Iliad: A Student Guide. Cambridge University Press. Van Wees, H. 1992. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer. J.C. Gieben. Loraux, N. 1989. The Experiences of Tiresias: Feminine and the Greek Man. Princeton University Press. Mackie, H. 1996. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Mueller, M. 1984. The Iliad. Allen and U Kakridis, J. Th. 1988. Homeric Researches. Taylor and Francis. Kirk, G. S. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary: Books 21-24. Cambridge University Press. Kirk, G. S. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary: Books 5-8. Cambridge University Press. Kirk, G. S. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary: Books 13-16. Cambridge University Press. Otto, W. 1954. The Homeric Gods. Thames and Hudson. Griffen, J. 1983. Homer on Life and Death. Clarendon Press. Edwards, M. W. 1987. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Johns Hopkins University Press. Sheppard, J.T. 1970. The Pattern of the Iliad. Methuen Young Books. Slatkin, L.M. 1995. The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad. University of California Press. Bushnell, R. (1982). Reading “Winged Words”: Homeric Birds Signs, Similes, and Epiphanes. Helios 9:1-13.