1.

The section outlines the supplication of Thetis to Zeus in order for her to carry out her son’s request
to bring victory to the Trojans until Agamemnon recompenses Achilleus’ honour and prizes. It occurs
after a quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilleus as Agamemnon, leader of the army, felt it fair to
take Achilleus’ prize Briseis in return for him giving up his prize Chryseis to stop the plague in the
camp. After he laments this loss on the shore, Thetis joins him and he requests that she use her
favour with Zeus to change the outcome of the war.

As soon as the gods return from feasting with the Ethiopians, Thetis is forced, by her maternal and
caring nature to travel to Olympos. While she is his mother, the “demand” highlights the
effectiveness of Slatkin’s argument that Thetis is subordinated to her maternal instincts in the Iliad.
Epithets of “wide-seeing son of Kronos” and “lord Zeus” indicate the power of the god that Achilleus
has requested to influence the war. These are used by Homer to ensure a specific characterisation of
Zeus that is throughout the poem that would familiar to the audience of this long poem.
Additionally, superlatives such as “highest” to further emphasise to the audience the scale at which
the request is being undertaken and the ramifications it may have.

The supplication that is undergone may not have been liked by Hera later in the poem, but ensures
proper respect is given to the superior power. That she indicates that she has been previously of
“service” to Zeus is significant because it is not only the reason she (and Achilleus) feel will agree to
their demands, but also the power she could wield with the support of Zeus. Willcock describes how
Homer created the reason for Zeus to be indebted to Thetis which is described by Achilleus
previously, and the narrative certainly is expanded by this episode.

However, more importantly, she continually refers to “honour” that has been taken from Achilleus in
the last four lines. Thetis here acts as the promoter of nemesis for Achilleus after he has lost his prize
and this indicates the importance of the heroic code that was placed at the time of ancient Greek
society for the performance of this poem. Therefore, the most significant theme overall in this
extract is honour not only through Achilleus losing it through Agamemnon, but also the pressure
placed on Zeus to fulfil the reciprocity and favour that Thetis is owed by him. He, of course, will go
on to bring Trojan success in the next day’s fighting, but he agrees completely with her request and
Achilleus, at least among the gods, is ensured honour. This is mirrored in book 24 at the end of poem
when Hera ensures Achilleus maintains his honour and Hermes cannot steal Hektor’s body (and
Achilleus’ honour) away.
2.

The strength of Diomedes is clearly highlighted in this passage through his limitation of the threat of
Ares and Hektor. This occurs on the first day of the battle which had started after Pandaros (Trojan)
broke the truce initiated by the duel between Paris and Menelaos. Diomedes’ aristeia ensures that
the Achaians enjoy most of the success in book 5 and 6.

There is a view of respect that the audience can hear in this section where Diomedes describes how
the Achaians used to look upon a heroic Hektor with “awe” as a “brave fighter”. The audience would
implicitly understand that this referred to the respect, honour and ‘time’ that Hektor achieved over
the previous nine years of the Trojan War. This respect has been tarnished by the presence of gods
supporting his movement. Supporting this, the opening line indicates how Hektor was not at the
front of the fighting. Sarpedon in book 12 tells Glaukos how important fighting on the front line of
the battle is to being heroic and the reason for fighting, and yet Hektor is hidden away with the
support of his gods. By “keeping him from destruction”, his own skill and technique can be
challenged. It is descriptions such as these which have left scholars such as Farron to highlight how
Hektor is not a formidable warrior in the Iliad. While he may be the greatest fighter, it is with the
support of the gods. Diomedes does this to raise the morale of his troops ahead of his mighty
aristeia where he will kill Aineias and even wound Aphrodite. Significantly, he will even wound
Ares and therefore, this speech represents the beginning of his rising influence not only in the battle,
but through raising the morale of the Achaians.

However, there is also a key theme of the power of the gods that punctuates the poem and in this
passage specifically. Enyo, the sacker of cities, as well as Confusion accompany the god of war and
the personification of Confusion describes its impact on the Achaian forces. Enyo accompanying Ares
indicates the support that the Trojans have. Moreover, the fact that Diomedes can see these
powerful beings indicates their threat to the Achaians. The simile describing how a personified river
flees a terrifying sea represents how Diomedes is struck by fear for the more powerful gods.
However, confusingly, Homer uses this simile of different sized beings and then Diomedes describes
them as “in human form”. While diminishing their threat, this limits the impact they could have and
marks a contrast to book 18 where Ares is described in gold armour and larger than mortals on
Achilleus’ immortal shield.
Overall, though this suggests the beginning of Diomedes greatest success in the poem, the power of
the gods ensures even he must retreat. Though later attacking Ares and Aphrodite and even Apollo,
this retreat indicates the power that the gods wield over mortals when they are seen.

What does the scene between Achilleus and Priam in Iliad 24 tell us about heroic values?

Honour, as a significant indication of heroic values, is revealed to be a set of rules that characters of
the Iliad, and its audience, understand. This scene, that occurs towards the close of the Iliad,
indicates that heroic values are a code that is to be kept by heroes demanding time (status and
honour). Achilleus is forced to recognise Priam’s supplication and he realises that he must submit, as
a hero desiring honour, to the demands of Priam for the return of the body of his dead son. The
scene is marked by two requests by Priam: first and most clearly, for the body of Hektor; secondly,
for food and a place to sleep. Though gods instigate the scene, it is Priam and Achilleus that each
offer their own personal interpretations of heroic values which result in reciprocity and mutual
lamenting. The value that Achilleus places on heroism may change even within the scene, but
underlining the exchange is the view that, regardless status, reciprocity can reveal the human nature
in all heroes.

Firstly, the request for the body of Hektor comes in the form of a supplication with Priam, thought
far older, undergoing the full ritual of kneeling and touching the chin of Achilleus. The significance of
this is revealing how much time Achilleus has achieved through his warrior status and killing of the
opposing hero of the Ilaid: Hektor. The supplication reveals the authority of Achilleus, but can
threaten his integrity (as pointed out by Gould) as he now must give up the tangible sign of his
power but also his anger. In fact, in this relatively mild scene, the single time Achilleus does speak in
anger to Priam is about how it is the gods enforcing this exchange. This could suggest his bitterness
in that the enemy he has taken now should be returned by the will of Zeus. However, like the
audience of the poem, Achilleus understands that his previous treatment of the dead body
symbolises how unfinished the course of his anger is until he gives it up.

In Plato’s ‘Republic’, he describes Homer as the first of the tragic poets and it is primarily this scene
of mutual feelings for loss that led audiences to consider Achilleus in this way. Emotion also plays a
part in Achilleus’ realisation of the heroic values he must uphold. Both he and Priam lament for their
losses and the future loss Peleus will have upon Achilleus’ short life caused by his desire for glory.
Additionally, Priam’s request for the body also involves reciprocity and mutual exchange as he has
brought with him a vast ransom that would adequately meet the requests of a standard exchange
for the body. However, Achilleus decision in book 24 to ignore the ransom as a sole reason for
accepting the supplication mirrors Agamemnon’s rejection of Chryses’ “unlimited” ransom in book 1
for his daughter Chryseis. However, there are two important differences: Hektor is dead where
Chryseis was not, and Achilleus does accept the offer, despite labelling his reason for doing so as for
the will of the gods. Achilleus ensuring that Priam has food and a bed is significant because it is an
honourable act considering that it is requested by the father of enemy. This indicates the power and
persuasion of the code which are enforced through heroic values maintained by heroes.

This scene also makes clear that heroic values can be changed throughout the Iliad. Primarily
through Achilleus, there is a shift from anger and nemesis to acceptance and aidos that would be
recognised by the audience of the poem in ancient Greek society as pillars of heroic ambitions. This
change could be influenced by the fact that nemesis has not always been a successful method of
closure for Achilleus. Earlier in book 24, he is seen sleepless and dragging dead Hektor’s body around
the tomb. Clearly, retribution for Patroklos’ killing did not satisfy the hero. This is perhaps why
Achilleus discusses the acceptance of the supplication with Priam. Not on a “bier”, Hektor’s body is
treated with distain, but after the single scene with Priam, he has given up the enemy body for an
honourable burial in Troy.

Most significantly, Homer highlights to his audience how the gods are the fundamental reason for
the maintenance and changing of heroic values in the Iliad. Zeus himself instigated the conciliation
and supplication through Thetis and Iris to Achilleus and Priam respectively and therefore it is he
who ensures that both Achilleus maintains his honour, and Troy receives their hero. This scene could
not have occurred through the actions of mortals alone as clearly seen by the days and days of
Achilleus’ sustained anger towards the dead body. Achilleus goes further in this scene to describe
the two jars used by Zeus to pour evil or goodness into mortals. This depiction of immortal
dictatorial measures over human life, impacts on heroic values because Zeus is creating the
aspirations that mortals must be heroic by following these values. It clearly counters Lesky’s view
that Achilleus continually influences the actions of Zeus (beginning in book 1) because now Zeus is
affecting the actions. This is significant because it reveals the change that Achilleus undergoes in
terms of how he views himself as a hero in this scene. Snell goes further to suggest that individuals
can instigate changes to the narrative.

In conclusion, Achilleus actions are influenced by the gods, but only to the extent that he enforces
his own chosen stereotypes of heroism. Priam was also told to undergo the supplication and offer
the ransom, but the emotion which characterised their meeting revealed the nature of heroic values
that can transcend enemy status. Honour is clearly the greatest of the heroic values, and Achilleus
adheres to this by ensuring he keeps his honour, but what is clearer is that the poem is greatly
added to by this scene’s example of how a hero can adapt the intensity of the heroic values such as
time to become a greater person in the situation, and convey reciprocity. Though Achilleus knows it
is gods that have brought Priam to him, he still undergoes self-chosen actions, such as offering the
father of his greatest enemy shelter and food, that maintain his position as the greatest hero in the
Iliad.