“But what should I do? It is God who works all things.” (Iliad IXX ll. 90) These words of Agamemnon are only in the situation of heroic characters: The gods command mortals. These things being so, the responsibility of the mortal rests with the Immortals. Thus, how the hero thinks he is responsible or not responsible depends on his opinion of the Gods. Agamemnon’s comment means a sentence in itself – he thinks he is entirely subject to the will of Olympias. But Achilles, in sport, attached himself to the gods. Since the opinions of Agamemnon and Achilles about the gods conflict with each other, the opinions of those whose authors contend about Briseis also conflict. This conflict can be understood by looking at the different beliefs of the Gods of the heroes.
To illustrate his point and argue that he is free from duty, he recites in a sermon the story of Hera’s deception of Jupiter by her eldest daughter, Delusion. The story itself seems to parallel the situation: the most powerful figure (Jupiter/Agamemnon) is deceived by the immortal Delusion because of some deception, hindrance or feminine scandal (Hera/Briseis), and as a result the great hero (Herakles/Achilles) suffers, and the delusion is expelled. On both sides, the royal figure, however great and powerful, rolls his eyes through Delusion, “the villain who deceives all… and seduces.” (Iliad IXX ll. 91-94) Agamemnon’s admission after the story has been told – “… I was deceived and Jove took the genius away from me…” (Iliad IXX ll. 137) – also still connects his point; He is the ruler of the gods and men.
In short, as it seems, diametrically opposed to Agamemnon, he does not consider himself subject to the Gods, but rather as one with the Immortals. In fact, he does not think of himself as an equal – he knows that their power is far greater than his strength, and that he is ultimately subject to death: “The fate of the man who holds back is the same if he fights bravely. … A man still dies if he has done nothing, as if he has done much.” (Iliad ll. 318-320) But he deals more with them. Not only do the mortals, like Achilles, bring about the ends of the gods. The declination of Jou’s head protects Achilles. He uses guests with Olympus Thetis, though carefully spoken, was commanded: “Sit down on your knees, and warn these now, if by any chance he wishes to help Atreus.” Reigning Agamemnon acknowledges madness widely, Achas does not honor the best.’ (Iliad I ll. 407-412).
In Agamemnon’s mind, while Delusius, guilty of his deeds, walked bipedally in the air, the Alien was on his head, very lightly. “and I am not responsible, but it is Jupiter, and Parcae, and Erinys wandering, who was caught in a meeting with a cruel error of heart: he himself was robbed of the spoil of Achilles.” But Achilles regards his deeds, and with Agamemnon, a quarrel between both; in speaking of his battle Achilles only mentions the Gods as a figures of speech: “‘Son of Atreus. was this better and for both of you, and for me, that because of the sadness of our hearts we quarreled together for the sake of the girl in the hatred of the soul? That day I killed Lyrnessus with an arrow It is true that Agamemnon is responsible for his anger and avarice in Briseis.
That these two notions of duty are at variance with each other is evident; The influence of the ideas of the heroes on the struggle of the Gods is imputed. Thus the question becomes one of determination by which the conception of the Gods agrees with Olympus, and therefore leads to the due determination of responsibility. But it is possible for either cause, but neither to be entirely rejected; For Achilles certainly interacts with the gods differently than Agamemnon. To reconcile the two, it is necessary to go somewhat outside the matter and context of the epics to examine the nature of the Gods.
Rather than Gods being physically existing beings, essentially as incredibly powerful and immortal human figures (which completely misrepresents our way of thinking), they can be thought of as projections of psychological things and powers given by individuals. and, in the Greek Pantheon, by the common consent of the society. The constructions of the mind, as much as the mortal gods give; This force and its exercise are no less real than the “real” figures. Rather, someone suggests that our knowledge of a certain “real” person is based entirely on our perceptions, and those perceptions are entirely subject to the mind, that we can only know someone as our mind projects them to us. These things being so, the Olympian gods are not less, but more true; indeed, they are as we make them. A brief encounter with Achilles in lib. 1. When Athena was urged by Hera to dissuade Agamemnon from dissuading him from the sword and to kill him, such as delay and thought of deeds on the part of Achilles, which is done in the epic for the remaining hero god. . Again, this is not to say that gods are not real; except that they are healed by the minds of mortals.
This paradigm is compatible with Agamemnon’s and Achilles’ ideas of divinity. Agamemnon is subject to the gods, because he does so about them; this is as above men, whose will influences and controls more or less every aspect, quality and event in the world. He invokes Delusion, the daughter of Jupiter, as a wandering delusion of his (or of humanity) who has indeed taken away their minds. Likewise, Achilles can work as if he were in friendship with the Gods, because he thinks of himself as such. She conceives not unlike herself; just more powerful. Thus the communication with them has more closeness and directness than in the exhortation of Thetis, and less sense of alienation in Agamemnon’s conception.
Continuing to use the same method, he can appreciate the two conflicting opinions of the heroes about mortal duties. The conflict cannot now be seen not as revolving around which hero’s understanding of the Gods is right and which is wrong, but only as a difference between Agamemnon’s and Achilles’ understanding of divinity, and thus a different type of appropriate responsibility. a mortal in that place under the authority of the Gods. Essentially, according to this paradigm of the deity, as a psychic projection, the Gods are manifest through the minds of mortals, and in turn influence those mortal minds and the actions of mortals; this means that both the divine and human parts share responsibility in their own way. Man stands before the Gods, who cause man to act. Heaven is completed on earth; Earth is perfected by heaven.
Where does this leave Agamemnon and Achilles? If the gods are projections of their own mind, are not the heroes themselves “divine” authority? But to ask such a question is to pass over the power which the characters of the gods give to the epic; AGAMEMNON and ACHILLES both Immortals make truths, which the birds interpret as omens. When one of us has such power over a mental fiction – an idea, a feeling, a fleeting thought – it can indeed be said that they have lost control. Thus with the heroes: They truly made the gods more pious in their prowess.
