By Piper Langenfeld ’29

*Editor Contribution

Major: English; Minors: Creative Writing and Journalism, Editing, & Publishing

Contributor Biography: Piper is a freshman English major with minors in creative writing and JEP. She is the associate editor for WCR and she is heavily involved in the dance club. When she’s not in the library studying, she loves reading fantasy novels and watching historical films. 

Brief Description:  This essay focuses on social class with emphasis on the distinction between kings, gods, heroes, and soldiers in The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller and The Odyssey and The Iliad by Homer. Achilles is known as “the best of Greeks” despite only being a prince, in part because his mother is a goddess. Although he’s from a small kingdom, he’s still seen as an equal to the kings he fights beside because of his godly blood. I also focus on the difference between Patroclus’ life as a prince compared to his life as an unknown boy in Phthia as Achilles’ companion, despite coming from a larger, wealthier nation.

The following was written for FYS 101-73: Homer to Percy Jackson

In The Song of Achilles, Patroclus is the main protagonist: a boy born into a wealthy family who is then thrust into a world where he lacks the privilege he had grown to expect. Nevertheless, Patroclus manages to maintain his ethical code during the Trojan War despite his loss of status in a society where rank is equal to power. Madeline Miller portrays Patroclus as one of the most sympathetic characters in conjunction with being one of the most downtrodden, emphasizing his helplessness and connecting it to his compassion. By contrast, Odysseus in Homer’s Odyssey is the opposite of downtrodden: a captain, a king, and the hero of his epic. Odysseus consistently demonstrates a lack of empathy for those weaker than him and often lets his greed take priority over his crew’s safety. Similarly, throughout The Iliad, characters such as Achilles and Agamemnon repeatedly break their society’s social contract; but are still honored and idolized by Homer. In The Song of Achilles, Madeline Miller portrays characters who are lower in social class as the most sympathetic, differing from Homer’s original epics, which feature the elite and privileged as the primary heroes.  

In The Song of Achilles, Miller emphasizes Patroclus’ level of wealth and privilege before and after being exiled from his homeland. When Patroclus competes for Helen’s hand in marriage, Patroclus’ father, Menoitius, remarks that “‘Others have brought bronze and wine, oil and wool. I bring gold, and it is only a small portion of my stores’” (9), bragging about how wealthy Patroclus’ family is. Patroclus states that his father is a king born from kings (1), ruling a nation that is much larger than others, highlighting the amount of influence Patroclus has and would soon lose. The power and wealth Patroclus’ father possesses directly influences how much Patroclus is worth as a prince; however, his father did not view him as someone who was strong or smart enough to rule, even telling Patroclus that “‘[Achilles] is what a son should be’” (3). The other boys in Patroclus’ homeland did not view him as a threat, or even a prince. Instead of threatening Patroclus for his dice, Clysonymus simply asked for them, expecting to be given the dice despite being a lower rank than Patroclus (17). The lack of respect Patroclus received from his peers did not change over time and even worsened when he lost his title as prince. Patroclus resented Achilles for the power he held as soon as they met; not only was Achilles a prince in title, he was also widely respected by his peers. When observing Achilles, Patroclus admits that “The keen edge of my envy was like flint” (26), and mocks Achilles’ title out of jealousy (27). Even though Patroclus starts off as a prince in The Song of Achilles, he was never truly treated as such—bullied by his peers and sneered at by his father. In spite of this initial jealousy, Patroclus eventually befriends Achilles, and then falls in love with him, showing an aptitude to change. Once Patroclus became adjusted to his life after exile, he was able to take on a more positive outlook, such as when he started to enjoy his life on Phthia, finally finding a companion in Achilles, and enjoying the stories Achilles’ father Peleus told. This ability and willingness to change in a new environment with new circumstances contributes to Patroclus’ sympathy as a character because he demonstrates growth and perseverance, even at a young age. 

Despite his helplessness following exile—and the continuous loss of his loved ones throughout his life: his mother, Achilles, and Briseis—Patroclus is still able to remain moral through his hardships, something Odysseus and other characters in Homer’s epics cannot claim. Miller’s Patroclus is willing to do anything for the people he cares about, such as when he climbs Mount Pelion even though he “had no food, nor water, nor hope of shelter” (69) just to get to Achilles, so they could continue to be companions. He also follows Achilles to war despite originally expressing that he didn’t want to and had no obligation to do so due to being exiled (117). Patroclus continually forgives Achilles, such as when Achilles impregnates Deidameia (136), and Patroclus even sacrifices himself for Achilles’ honor, telling him to “‘Put me in your armor, and I will lead the Myrmidons. They will think it is you’” (324) so Achilles will always be remembered as a savior of the Greeks. It could be argued that Patroclus only truly loves Achilles and that this kindness does not extend to other characters; however, Patroclus also deeply cares for Briseis. Instead of allowing Agamemnon to rape Briseis, which would then give Achilles the right to kill Agamemnon, Patroclus warns Agamemnon of Achilles’ plan, choosing Briseis “‘Over [Achilles] pride’” (295). In doing so, Patroclus risks Achilles’ chance at fame, as they were still unsure at the time how much honor Achilles would retain and what stories would follow his death—all to save Briseis, a war prize. By contrast, in The Odyssey, Odysseus “sacked / the town and killed the men” (9.41-42) of the different places he came across, all to make himself richer. Even as a king, Odysseus wants more than he already possesses back home, whereas Patroclus continues to make sacrifices for his loved ones until he eventually lays down his life for Achilles, in spite of having very little wealth and privilege compared to Odysseus.  

There is a sharp contrast between Achilles and Patroclus in The Song of Achilles because of their difference in class and Achilles’ godhood. As the Trojan War continues, Patroclus explains that he did not have to fight as often because “[He] was not a prince, with honor at stake. [He] was not a soldier, bound to obedience, or a hero whose skill would be missed. [He] was an exile, a man with no status or rank” (241). Patroclus also relays that “[Achilles] never stumbled, not once. He was the only thing on the battlefield that didn’t pitch” (238). Achilles’ fighting prowess contrasts Patroclus’ little experience on the battlefield, and Patroclus explains that he “could do nothing but grip [his] shield and run” (237), vulnerable and afraid where Achilles succeeds. Even though this weakness on the battlefield displayed by Patroclus would have been condemned, or at least criticized in The Iliad, Miller presents fighting on the battlefield as inferior to working in the medical tent. Working in the medical tent results in Patroclus gaining a positive reputation among the other men and increases his status as he begins to help the soldiers, regardless of the fact that he rarely fights. Achilles, on the other hand, has a negative reputation among the men. This is especially apparent towards the end of The Song of Achilles, when Patroclus explains that “[Achilles’] refusal [to fight] in the face of prizes and apologies would only seem like madness… They will hate him” (310). The reputation that Achilles and Patroclus maintain among the other men is directly linked to how sympathetic the two of them are as characters. Although Achilles has a higher rank than Patroclus, and was seen as indispensable in the war effort due to his inhuman strength and ability, Achilles’ position as a leader directly connects to his honor—the honor which Miller portrays as foolish and unreasonable. In The Iliad, Achilles and Patroclus are both honored for their actions in battle, and this is especially present in Book 23 of The Iliad, where Achilles celebrates Patroclus in death through various games. In The Song of Achilles, Miller emphasizes Patroclus’ acts of kindness and goodwill, demonstrating that Patroclus does not require the same reputation as a hero that Achilles does to be deemed sympathetic and admirable.  

In both The Iliad and The Song of Achilles, Achilles and Agamemnon are portrayed as overly prideful men whose honor and self-satisfaction hurt those they swore to care for. However, Achilles and Agamemnon are not equally sympathetic between the epic and the book. In “Achilles Revolutionary? Homer 1.191” by Jenny S. Clay, Agamemnon is referred to as a “shepherd of the people” (937), meaning that his position of power and privilege insists on his ability to protect the men he rules. Agamemnon not only disrespects his role as ‘shepherd’ by allowing the plague during the Trojan War to continue, but he also attempts to take Achilles’ war prize: Briseis. Clay insists that the power Agamemnon has is connected to the power the men in the army have, explaining that “the people, in turn, have the ability to reward good leadership in the distribution of [war prizes]” (938), and Agamemnon taking Achilles’ war prize from him goes against the foundation of respect present in The Iliad. Clay also points out that Achilles is a revolutionary; he considers killing Agamemnon, which would “have the gravest political consequences for the whole expedition, either aborting the whole undertaking or choosing a new leader” (936). Despite these treasonous acts both men commit in The Iliad, they remain as admirable characters, honored for their strength and ability in battle. As highly ranked leaders, they are given more grace in the narrative by Homer and direct the blame for their actions onto the gods so they can easily be forgiven by their men. Agamemnon and Achilles’ praise in The Iliad contrasts their reputation in The Song of Achilles. Agamemnon is portrayed as a cruel-hearted man by Patroclus, who explains that “When the man in front of him spat at [Agamemnon’s] feet, Agamemnon lifted the scepter and brought it down sharply on his head. We all heard the crack of breaking bone” (256), and Miller exacerbates this sentiment by depicting how Agamemnon harshly treats Briseis. While Achilles’ overwhelming pride is shown by Miller, Achilles is seen through Patroclus’ eyes, framing him in a more sympathetic way. This bias is emphasized when Patroclus claims that “[Agamemnon and Odysseus] have confounded [Achilles], tied him to a stake and baited him” (315), implying that Achilles isn’t actually like Agamemnon and Odysseus, despite Achilles always having been portrayed as prideful. Although Achilles is not the most sympathetic character in The Song of Achilles, he is treated with more sympathy than Agamemnon because of Patroclus’ biased view. Miller’s refusal to portray Agamemnon as sympathetic contrasts with The Iliad’s idolizing of both Agamemnon and Achilles, despite the poor, honor-based decisions they make that negatively impact the rest of the men.  

Thetis is also a character that is portrayed differently between the two authors—Miller making her into more of an antagonist than she ever appears to be in The Iliad. Homer’s Thetis is characterized as a protective and loving mother to Achilles, doing whatever she can to protect Achilles and stop his prophesied end, such as getting him new armor from Hephaestus in Book 18. While Thetis remains a protective mother in The Song of Achilles, Miller depicts her as someone who loves Achilles’ honor more than she loves her actual son—Patroclus even acknowledges that “[Thetis] made Pyrrhus, and loved him more than Achilles” (365). Despite Pyrrhus’ brutality, and his death following the rape of Agamemnon’s son’s bride, Thetis supposedly loved Pyrrhus more than Achilles because of the strength he had, something Thetis thought Achilles lacked, especially towards the end of his life. To Achilles, Thetis said, “‘I left you too long on Pelion. It has ruined you’” (347), and then, “‘I am done. There is no more I can do to save you’” (347), resenting Achilles for mourning Patroclus, viewing his grief as weakness. Miller’s characterization of Thetis diverges from Homer’s Thetis, who would “‘find / a way to shield [Patroclus] from the black fly hordes / that eat the bodies of men killed in battle’” (19.33-35) just to console Achilles about Patroclus’ corpse decomposing. Homer’s Thetis was willing to sympathize with Achilles in his grief and even decided to ease his worry. These differing characterizations of Thetis point to the respective writers’ view on class: Homer’s privileged characters are portrayed as sympathetic, and Miller’s privileged characters are portrayed as selfish, or prideful. Thetis in The Iliad is portrayed as a kind mother who would do anything for her son, despite her position as a goddess, and this humbleness makes her a more likable character. In The Song of Achilles, however, Thetis’ status as a goddess is abhorred by Patroclus, scaring him away from his lover and separating the couple. Despite Miller’s Thetis doing no serious harm to Patroclus, when compared to Homer’s Thetis, who went as far as protecting Patroclus’ body after he dies, Miller’s Thetis appears cruel. This difference in characterization emphasizes Miller’s decision to only portray the less privileged characters in her book as sympathetic, even going so far as to alter Thetis’ original personality. 

In The Iliad, Briseis is simply a war prize and a character that emphasizes Achilles’ pride; however, in The Song of Achilles, Briseis not only obtains an identity, but she is also portrayed as one of the most sympathetic characters, second only to Patroclus. In “A New Voice for an Ancient Story: Speaking from the Margins of Homer’s Iliad in Madeline Miller’s The Song of Achilles,” Maria A. Struzziero argues that Briseis in The Song of Achilles “reinvents Briseis’ position and role, and makes her fully visible by adopting the sympathetic and close power of observation of Patroclus” (145). Struzziero also draws attention to the autonomy that Briseis gains through the adaptation, starting out as “a slave subjected to the force and will of her Greek captor” (145) to having the freedom to “[spin], and [talk] in their own language” (Miller 232) in The Song of Achilles, teaching the other girls who are war prizes how to cope with their new lives after being kidnapped from their homes. Briseis does not have the chance to be a sympathetic character in The Iliad because she has no identity. In The Song of Achilles, Briseis is able to be sympathetic not only because of her love and care for Patroclus, but also because of her own kindness and her ability to thrive in a difficult situation. Miller’s Briseis even works her way from a war prize into a woman able to stand up to Achilles, yelling “‘Kill me. It will not bring him back. He was worth ten of you. Ten!’” (340) despite being many ranks below him. Briseis is presented as an underdog in The Song of Achilles, and although her lower rank would not be honored in The Iliad, her lack of privilege is celebrated in The Song of Achilles due to the perseverance and love she demonstrates in spite of her perilous circumstances.  

While lower class characters such as Briseis and Patroclus may succeed in The Song of Achilles, only the upper class characters in Homer’s epics are able to thrive and possess agency. In “The Poet Who Sings through Us: Homer’s Influence in Contemporary Western Culture” by Scott A. Belsky, positions of power are heavily discussed, including how much agency each group has. Belsky recurrently mentions how Odysseus pursues his own desires, even at the expense of his crew, such as wanting to stay and be welcomed as a guest in Polyphemus’ cave instead of leaving right away like his crew suggested (9.223-229). As an aristocrat and captain of his own crew, Odysseus has every right to take these risks, no matter how much danger he puts his crew in, because of the amount of power he possesses. By contrast, Belsky argues that “lesser characters [who] are given an independent voice… are always presented in an unfavorable light” (220), citing the men opening the wind bag and being pushed away from home after being ordered by Odysseus to not open it, suggesting that this is Homer’s way of rebuking breaks in social class. The men are meant to heed Odysseus’ every order, and this break in social class appears again when the men kill the sun god’s cows and are then slaughtered by Zeus. Belsky also mentions a scene in The Iliad where Achilles and a soldier named Thersites both criticize Agamemnon; however, while Achilles is able to do this and walk away unpunished, Thersites immediately faces consequences, and Belsky comments that “Although both [Achilles and Thersites] point out the dishonorable act of lusting over women and plunder, only Thersites earns a beating from Odysseus” (223). Odysseus, as an aristocrat, can act however he pleases, protected by his position as a king and a captain; however, when a character of a lower class attempts to voice their opinion, they are penalized in some way for acting out of their assigned role. Even though Odysseus continually puts his crew at risk, often for his own gain, and Achilles breaks societal expectations by criticizing Agamemnon, both characters are still seen as sympathetic in The Iliad and The Odyssey because of Homer’s belief in the superiority of the wealthy, and their divine right as kings and aristocrats. 

Although there are exceptions to Miller’s and Homer’s class rules—Miller’s Odysseus coming across as more cunning and mysterious rather than a true antagonist, and Homer’s Eurycleia being portrayed as loyal despite being a slave—the two writers are mostly consistent about which characters are honored in their texts, and which are scorned. These differences serve as a commentary on the values of people from the past and those in the present, and how society has changed throughout history. While Homer’s culture may have revered power and birthright, Miller’s propensity to uplift underprivileged characters could be a look into how today’s society appreciates those who can create themselves out of nothing, like Briseis did, instead of those who were born with privilege. 

Works Cited  

Belsky, Scott A. “The Poet Who Sings through Us: Homer’s Influence in Contemporary Western Culture,” College Literature, vol. 34, issue 2, 2007, pp. 216-228. 

Clay, Jenny S. “Achilles Revolutionary? Homer, Iliad 1.191,” The Classical Quarterly, vol. 72, issue 2, 2022, pp. 934-939. 

Homer. The Iliad. Translated by Robert Fitzgerald, Anchor Books, 1974, pp. 105-525.  

Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Emily Wilson, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2018, pp.        241-492.  

Miller, Madeline. The Song of Achilles. HarperCollins Publishers, 2012, pp. 1-369.  

Struzziero, Maria A. “A New Voice for an Ancient Story: Speaking from the Margins of Homer’s Iliad in Madeline Miller’s The Song of Achilles,” Anglica: An International Journal of English Studies, vol. 30, issue 1, 2021, pp. 133-152.