The last time I read Homer’s ‘Iliad’ was in my Year 11 Classics class, but it’s the text that first came to mind when Joe Zizek brought up the topic of how we should discuss past violence. The ‘Iliad’ may be of hotly-debated historical value, but it’s a story with a clear impact on modern media, bringing about countless retellings in all forms. The one I’d like to discuss here is Madeline Miller’s ‘The Song of Achilles’.
The ‘Iliad’ takes place during the Trojan War, and while it primarily focuses on Achilles, the hot-headed jewel in the Greek army’s crown, a multitude of other characters find their place in its words, including a woman named Briseis. In the original text, Briseis is a member of royalty in a city ransacked by the Greeks, Achilles among them. Shortly after, she is taken by him as a ‘prize of honour’, a representation of his skill in battle, and a role that encompasses that of concubine. However, the tragedy of Briseis’ past is never brought up, her opinions on being treated like little more than goods to be bartered never considered. She is, like many women in Ancient Greek texts of the time, dismissed.
Briseis’ dismissal in the original text has led Madeline Miller to take the opportunity to revitalise this character, giving her opinions, and an actual personality this time. However, Briseis’ new voice comes at a cost. She’s changed from a queen to a “simple Anatolian farmgirl”, and her origins receive almost as little discussion as they do in the ‘Iliad’. Instead of being the one who tears her life to pieces, Achilles becomes her saviour. He takes her in, and shields her from the many horrors of the Greek camp. Miller gives Briseis safety, but does so at the cost of minimising her experiences, ignoring Achilles’ original role in her life and the pain his actions brought upon her in a way similar to that of Homer.
Can Miller’s lack of acknowledgement towards what Briseis has faced as a victim of conflict be justified? Her doing so gives Briseis’ story a rather different tone than that found in the original text, one more focused on providing the character with a brief respite before the events of the book throw her into turmoil. There’s a kind of relief in seeing this woman finally achieve a measure of peace, but I can never get over just how much it reminds me of the ignorance of the original text. There is a clear difference between telling a story where those who have been hurt achieve safety, and pretending they were never hurt in the first place.
The ‘Iliad’ may be debatably historical, but these sorts of retellings of past events, particularly those of conflict, are commonplace. Viewing these past conflicts from new perspectives can provide valuable insight into the lives of those that experienced them, but how do we justify them when these new perspectives uphold past ignorances?
I love this book!!!
It’s really interesting reading about your take on the erasure of Briseis’ past, I never really thought about it in this way. I think maybe part of the reason Miller made the creative choice that she did was to show the more human side of the Greeks (well, maybe just Achilles, definitely not Agamemnon…), or to reflect the worldview of the time. None of the Trojan ‘heroes’ would seem like very heroic people if we look at it from today’s society’s point of view (take Heracles, for example, he murdered his whole family and was considered the greatest hero of all time). They all did terrible things, but the Greeks were there to fight a war, and in a way, Briseis’ fate was sealed as soon as they docked on the beach, it was just a matter of who she would be taken by.
Miller also shows how scared and untrusting she is of Achilles even after she realised he wouldn’t hurt her. Throughout the book she never ends up warming up to him, despite him saving her from fates like Chryseis’, you can see that that scar of him murdering her town is always there. They never become close despite living in the same camp for nearly ten years and she says some very harsh things to him near the end of the book. I don’t think there was much else Miller could do to show Briseis’ bloody past other than including the actual scene of her town being sacked, which wouldn’t have fit into the plot. I think all the little touches Miller included (like having Briseis only know the Greek word for “mercy” and learning from her father how to act as a slave) paid tribute to the brutal reality of her situation.
(Also, I think a BIG part of it is the fact that the book is told from Patroclus’ perspective, and he, bless his heart, could never really see any bad in Achilles, let’s be honest)
Anyway, thanks for a lot of interesting things to think about! We’re re-reading the Iliad in my classics class right now so I’ll definitely be thinking about how both sides are portrayed in it and compare it to their portrayal in TSOA :))
This was an interesting read. I love applying historical texts like the Iliad to today, it always provides a new insight into today’s society and the society of yesterday. I like how you showed all the different sides of the story, taking into account each persons story. I also really liked how you talked about retelling stories of violence makes us more violent as a society. I never really thought about that but it actually resonates with me. If we live in the past, we’re bound to make the same decisions in the future.
Definitely an interesting take on the story. If you’re interested in Briseis, I’d recommend reading “The Silence of the Girls”. It does a completely different take, showing more of the horror the character faces (and through doing so, telling the story of all women brutalized in war).
If you look at Simone Weil’s view of the Iliad, it’s interesting to think of these women as another victim of ‘force’.