Rage or Return: Achilles, Odysseus, and the Poetics of Suffering
What Homer's heroes teach us about tragedy.
Unlock the timeless wisdom of the West—join The Occidental Tourist for weekly free insights into the books and ideas that shaped history, culture, and the human spirit!
Rage—Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles,
murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses,
hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls,
great fighters’ souls, but made their bodies carrion,
feasts for the dogs and birds.
The Iliad, Book I
So begins Homer’s invocation to the Muse in his epic battle tale, The Iliad. In these few lines, translated here by Robert Fagles, Homer traces the main action of his story: Achilles’ boundless rage, the mênis (μῆνις) that holds him hostage while the gods make sport of the unfolding tragedy between Trojans and Achaeans1 on the windswept battlefield of Troy.
Achilles’ wrath is first ignited when the Achaean Commander, Agamemnon, is forced by Apollo to surrender the young woman who was his war prize, and compensates his loss by seizing Achilles’ cherished prize, the beautiful Briseis. Enraged, Achilles withdraws from battle to weaken the Achaeans and give satisfaction for his injury following the petty but ruinous logic of “I’ll show them!”
It is not until the Trojan warrior Hector slays Patroclus, Achilles’ closest companion, that his mênis reawakens with god-defying fury and propels him back onto the battlefield. Achilles’ renewed rage reverses the tide of war in the Achaeans’ favor, leaving a wake of destruction and mutilated corpses. Achilles’ killing spree eventually culminates in Hector’s death and desecration but still he finds no satisfaction for his grief. His mênis finally exhausted, Achilles is moved to a surprise act of mercy toward Hector’s bereaved father, Priam, in the poem’s beautiful final scene:
[Priam’s] words stirred within Achilles a deep desire
to grieve for his own father. Taking the old man’s hand
he gently moved him back. And overpowered by memory
both men gave way to grief. Priam wept freely
for man-killing Hector…as Achilles wept himself,
now for his father, now for Patroclus once again,
and their sobbing rose and fell throughout the house.The Iliad, Book XXIV, lines 592-599
A Simple Story of Suffering
Aristotle calls The Iliad a “simple story of suffering.”2 We should not understand him to mean, however, that Homer’s epic lacks the expansive vision of world-class literature. To the contrary, writes Northrop Frye, epic poetry traditionally spans an “encyclopaedic range” of themes, from Heaven to Hades and everything in between.3 Aristotle's point is structural: the poem’s unity lies in its unrelenting depiction of destructive action—woundings, tortures, deaths in plain view.4
The Iliad abounds in bloodshed, of course, as anyone who has spent even an hour with it knows. But this only partly accounts for its tragic tone. I think what ultimately makes Homer’s poem “a story of suffering” is that it depicts so acutely Achilles’ irreversible trajectory towards self-inflicted isolation and untimely death, the literary definition of tragedy.5
The Odyssey: Suffering as Endurance
In Homeric Moments: Clues to Delight in Reading the Iliad and the Odyssey, Eva Brann contrasts Achilles’ experience of suffering in The Iliad with that of Homer’s other great character, Odysseus, in The Odyssey:
Both men know suffering…though one is temperamental and the other enduring. And both, in their way, are twice-dead: Achilles lives in a virtual Hades, and Odysseus visits the real one. But Achilles really dies and Odysseus returns alive from the abode of the dead, and that is the crux of the antithesis about which the two poems pivot.6
Brann is alluding to Book XXI of The Odyssey where Odysseus journeys to the underworld and spies mournful Achilles, lamenting his brief life which he exchanged for kleos (κλέος)—immortal glory. “No winning words about death to me, shining Odysseus” protests Achilles’ shade to his former comrade-in-arms. “By god, I’d rather slave on earth for another man—some dirt-poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive—than rule down here over all the breathless dead.”7
Odysseus departs from the underworld to find his way back to Ithaka, the long-forsaken home to which he will return more ragged than a “dirt-poor tenant farmer,” determined to achieve not kleos but nostos (νόστος)—a hero’s homecoming.
Homer’s Heroes in Dante’s Hell
Odysseus’ descent to Hades calls to mind Dante’s similar journey through Hell in the first book of the Commedia. This is no surprise, of course, because Il Sommo Poeta is merely following the literary tradition of both Virgil and Homer. This time, it is Dante’s turn to muse on the fates of Achilles and Odysseus (known to Dante by his Latin name, Ulysses).
Given Achilles’ history of temper tantrums, you might expect to find him in the Fifth Circle of Hell, where the wrathful are punished. In fact, Dante assigns him to the Second Circle with the lustful sinners and those who died for love. (We’ve already met one of them, the faithless Francesca da Rimini.) Commentators like Henry Wadsworth Longfellow read this in light of a popular Greek legend about Achilles’ death (of which Homer is silent): “Achilles, being in love with Polyxena, a daughter of Priam, went unarmed to the temple of Apollo, where he was put to death by Paris” with an arrow to his mortal heel.8 Realizing he had been duped, Achilles’ ghost returns later to demand that Polyxena be sacrificed on his tomb. So much for love.
What these stories reveal is that Achilles’s true weakness, his “tragic flaw”—hamartia in Aristotelian terms—is not his exposed heel but his passionate nature. Both Achilles’ martial fury and violent grief find their source in his unbridled thumos (θυμός)—the emotive force comprising one’s heart or spirit—rather than reasoned reflection. In this sense, even though Achilles is a man of relatively mature years (presumably in his mid-thirties), he is emotionally an adolescent, according to Brann:
What is young is his passionate pride, his all-concentrating wrath, the mênis, [which is] that deeply mindful, minding, remembering anger at an insult and an injustice to which his poem is devoted.9
In contrast, cunning Odysseus is Achilles’ elder in both years and emotional maturity. He displays a mastery of mêtis (Μῆτις), the measured, tactical foresight for which he is best known. It is his plan of deception that finally defeats the Trojans and brings the decade-long war to an end. But Odysseus, too, receives a sinner’s reward in Dante’s Inferno, as we’ll explore in the next post.
What should we make, then, of Homeric heroism in Dante’s world? Achilles’ unrestrained thumos terminates in sins of passion. Odysseus’ resourceful mêtis borders on base trickery. Both are eventually undone by the famous qualities that once defined their greatness.
Dante offers a sobering conclusion: glory detached from virtue earns no true laurel. In this world or the next, passion without measure, cunning without conscience, leads not to eternal reward but to ruin.
As with many websites, The Occidental Tourist uses affiliate links, which allows us to earn a small commission on any qualified purchases, at no additional cost to the buyer.
I.e., the Greeks
Aristotle, Poetics, 1459b 15.
Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), 318.
Aristotle, Poetics, 1452b 10-15.
Cf Aristotle, Poetics, 1452b 10-15, and Frye, Anatomy, “First Essay: Tragic Fictional Modes.”
Brann, Eva. Homeric Moments: Clues to Delight in Reading the Odyssey and the Iliad. Kindle Edition. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Paul Dry Books, 2002), 44.
Homer, The Odyssey, trans. Robert Fagles, Deluxe Edition. (New York, NY: Penguin Classics, 1996), 265.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “Inferno 5.65,” Dartmouth Dante Project, accessed March 19, 2025, https://dante.dartmouth.edu/search_view.php?doc=186741050650&cmd=gotoresult&arg1=1.
Brann, Homeric Moments, 42.
Amy, thanks for this. You accomplished Plutarch’s aim: “The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.” Thanks for giving me a light!
I freely admit to having a hard time bridging the chasm between Homer and Dante, no matter how able the intermediaries, or how compelling the importation (and imputation!) of Homer’s heroic characters into the Commedia. I can’t help but feel dubious about judging Akhilleus and Odysseus (and other imports) in a Christian rearview mirror. The membrane between cultures and moral frameworks is often opaque. To help with permeation and treat my moral vertigo, I turned to both Akhilleus and Buonconte di Montefeltro (the great Ghibelline warrior featured in Canto V of Purgatorio) — two men at the top of their martial arts, firmly planted in their respective cultures, moral frameworks, and (lucky for them) grand epic poetry.
Nietzsche (certainly not a Christian moralist!) asked: “Why did the whole Greek world exult over the combat scenes of the Iliad? I fear that we do not understand them in sufficiently ‘Greek’ manner; indeed, that we should shudder if we were ever to understand them in ‘Greek.’” As I noted in a previous comment, Simone Weil said “understanding” of the Iliad came with appreciating that the true subject matter at its center was force. Here’s what Vol 3 of The Iliad, A Commentary says: “The hero then must epitomize force. Every major figure in the Iliad is given a rampage, an aristeia…battle frenzy infects most heroes.”
Weil discounted ascribing the Iliad’s symphony of force to a more primitive and brutal stage of civilization, saying: “those wise enough to discern the force at the center of all human history, today as in the past, find in the Iliad the most beautiful and flawless of mirrors.”
Homer would have been intent on a reflection imparting inspiration, and transmitting social, political and moral values, hopes and beliefs for all Greeks. What passionate young Greek wouldn’t hope to see the reflection of Akhilleus in their mirror, and embrace the virtues of martial excellence, courage, loyalty, duty, and honor? After all, Akhilleus was viewed as a larger than life embodiment of “arete” (excellence, virtue), and personified “Kleos” (renown or glory — akin to “Fama” in Dante’s era.) But, as Psalm 144:4 so eloquently says: “Man is like a breath, his days are a passing shadow.” Neither a quiet nor long life was Akhilleus’ choice, and, as a character in a heroic poem, he could not be perfectly virtuous. He had to have a flaw, and have it in excess — in his case, passionate hubris — a significant failing that exacted the cost that must be paid for glory. And pay it he did; he chose, as Heraclitus said, “one thing above all others, immortal glory among mortals.' The sole purpose of a mortal existence measured in breaths was great deeds performed in pursuit of Kleos — recognition, respect and remembrance. Weil’s mirror reflects the measures of force Homer employs to dole out glory and fame — or ignominy and shame.
Dante’s culture was no less attuned to duty, recognition, respect and remembrance. “Fama” — the medieval conceptualization of reputation or public standing — was the currency of public life. The Tuscan poet Guittone d’Arezzo wrote “for shame is more to be feared than death, / … for a wise man ought to sincerely love / a beautiful death more than life, / for each person should believe that he was created / not to stay, but to pass through with honor”. The 1882 Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, the official code of ethics for Japanese military personnel, stated "duty is heavier than a mountain; death is lighter than a feather." Dante, Montefeltro, and Akhilleus would have nodded in recognition.
The prevailing, informal chivalric code that guided behavior and contributed to public standing in Dante’s era was heavily influenced by Christian values — the “armor of God.” Isaiah 59:17: “He put on righteousness like a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in fury like a cloak.” A knight like Montefeltro would have considered himself a “Miles Christi” — soldier of Christ. Any warrior of any era prized Kleos or fama, but the ultimate goal for Milites Christi was divine union with God, not “immortal glory among mortals.” A Miles Christi was not to fight for personal glory; he was expected to protect Christianity and uphold the values of the faith. Dante would have expected unwavering faith, courage, charity, justice, humility, temperance, fortitude and wisdom from his spiritual and martial champions, and used those measures of faithfulness to classify his winners and losers.
There were, then, many commonalities, but profound and obvious dissimilarities, too, between this tale of two warriors: the instrument (force or faith), the relationship between the divine and human realms (interventionist, dispensing favor or wrath, or observer), and the desired goal (fame or union). The clearest moral stature of Akhilleus and Montefeltro occurred when they faced death. In The Anatomy of Courage, Lord Moran said “no man has an unlimited stock” of courage…”A man’s courage is his capital and he is always spending.” For epic poetry, the hero has an indeterminate but not inexhaustible line of credit — courageous aresteia today; a meal for the vultures tomorrow. And no amount of courage or strength ensures success. Michel de Montaigne, in his essay “On Glory,” said “How many brave actions are buried in the crowd of a battle?” All, it would seem, that are performed by the “extras,” the “breathing but soulless instruments” that aren’t worthy of the poet’s pen. The Iliad: “…they on the ground Lay, dearer to the vultures than to their wives.” Peacock to feather-duster, I suppose.
Our two peacocks certainly would have commanded attention whether fighting at Troy in ~1180 BC or Campaldino in 1289 AD. Their martial prowess was a given. But Akhilleus’ unchecked pride and wrath fall short of Homeric or chivalric virtues on either battlefield. Compare him to Montefeltro in this excerpt from “Campaldino 1289: The Battle That Made Dante:” “As preparations for battle at Campaldino were underway, Montefeltro climbed up the tower of Poppi to make a better assessment of the enemy forces. What he saw was sufficiently disquieting to suggest to Bishop Ubertini that fighting should be avoided. Montefeltro’s suggestion, however, enraged the Bishop, who had no intention of seeing his lands ravaged further. Turning angrily towards Buonconte, he snapped: ‘You were never of that family!’, implying that no true Montefeltro would show hesitation in the face of the enemy, and thus his interlocutor was not just a coward but also a bastard. Buonconte ignored the insult, answering with realistic fatalism: ‘Should you come where I shall go, you will not return’.”
Had the Bishop insulted our Greek, Akhilleus’ would have grasped his sword hilt. Who would have stayed his hand? As Eva Brann said, the Greeks “had their gods to help and harass them.” You rightly note the divine capriciousness of the Iliad’s gods — reminiscent of Gloucester's speech in King Lear, IV.1.37: "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport." Would Akhilleus experience another intervention by Pallas Athene? (“Refrain from violence; let not thy hand Unsheathe the sword, but utter with thy tongue Reproaches, as occasion may arise...”). We see, then, divine distinction reflected in our looking glass: Akhilleus’ gods intervene; the Milites Christi’s God invites. Montefeltro’s self-control was an amazing exercise in temperance (self-control and moderation, especially regarding desires and pleasures). Compare that to Akhilleus’ intemperance — it bought him a one-way, non-refundable ticket to the Second Circle of Hell, reserved for the lustful who lacked control, over their passions, as you note. (Maybe Francesca da Rimini can help temper his tumultuous desires — but I kinda doubt it.)
For Dante’s conclusion “that glory detached from virtue earns no true laurel,” you need a warrior standing before the looking glass who is equipped with Christian virtues and a beatific vision of the eternal reward of divine union. For Homer’s, you need a warrior equipped with heroic ideals, the poem’s great deeds, a passion for Kleos, and his acceptance that force will deform his soul, bring about destructive consequences, and fall short of eternal reward. “Immortal glory among mortals” is not the highest state of fulfillment and joy for the soul in Dante’s universe.
P.S. I think it’s ironic that Akhilleus is condemned to the Second Circle but enjoys “immortal glory among mortals,” whereas Montefeltro is in Purgatory earning eternal reward credits, but has to appeal to Dante to remember him to mortals (“Do you, among the living, retell”). Forgotten feather-duster to peacock, I suppose.
P.P.S. Perhaps placing Akhilleus in the Second Circle was a “classification of convenience;” easier to chalk his inclusion up to lust and disorderly love than to explain why the Fifth Circle is the prison for epically heroic credentials.
Commendable work, Amy.