All these and similar demonic features in the image of Achilles, so clearly expressed in Homer, but not always sufficiently appreciated, significantly complement the above characterization of Achilles, making him a true hero of the epic with all the main features of Homer's aesthetic worldview in general.

Finally, if we have touched upon the most ancient basis of the image of Achilles, which Homer does not forget to talk about despite all the classicism of the image of Achilles, then we should also recall those features of the later already overripe epic, where we have before us not only the revelation of the inner life of the personality of Achilles, which is absent in ancient and severe heroes, but also the depiction of various kinds of whims of Achilles, his instability and stubbornness. his excessive anger and the advancement of his personal interests above his patriotic duty, to which he devotes his whole life, his lack of principle, both in the question of the concubine Briseis and in the question of revenge for Patroclus, when he should have fought not at all for revenge after the murder, but for his duty to his country in general. His heroism, his devotion to the interests of the fatherland, his ardent patriotism, his courage and fearlessness constitute the central content of his character. They are beyond doubt, they make him the greatest hero not only of Greece, but also of world history. Without this self-sacrificing heroism, Achilles would not have realized the primacy of the general over the individual, i.e., he would not have been an epic hero at all. However, this. The central content of his character, on the one hand, is rooted in the distant mythical past and in immemorial chthonic antiquity. And, on the other hand, his character is the product of a later subjective development, when the ideals of severe heroism were already receding into the past, and next in line was a capricious and capricious subject with all the egoistic and nervous features of his unstable inner life. Here, too, Homer is faithful to his basic epic style, namely, his retrospective and summarizing tendency, which forced him in his artistic images to sum up the most diverse stages of communal and clan development.

This is the main aesthetic focus of Homer's artistic style, especially visible in the image of Achilles.

Achilles as a character is nothing but a new example of the preliminary characteristic of the epic which we had at the beginning: Achilles is a mythical creature. It is a mythical creature of a spontaneous bodily character, both in the sense of the pure element and in the sense of its plastic form; the mythical, plastic, elemental-bodily image of Achilles is given in Homer epicly, i.e., externally, impersonally, since everything essential is invested in Achilles only by the gods and fate, and he himself is basically only aware of his predestination. Element, plasticity, mythicality, fate and predestination, and the awareness of this fate, leading from animal existence through a tender heart to sorrow and doom, including the capricious and egoistic psychology of the hero who already goes beyond the boundaries of the epic – this is what Homer in general and his Achilles are. This entire socio-historical complex, from chthonic mythology to capricious psychology and civilization, must be understood as something single and indivisible, not as a mechanical sum, but as a living and indecomposable organism. [243]

3. Agamemnon. Homer clearly does not like Agamemnon and often tries to belittle him.

In general, the Iliad can be seen in many respects as a satire on the Achaean kings and, above all, on Agamemnon and Achilles. Of course, Agamemnon in Homer is not as low as Achilles. Achilles is not moved by any defeat of the Achaean army, and if anything is moved, it is only the death of a close friend.

Agamemnon is much more principled and much less petty than Achilles. Having taken the captive from Achilles, to whom he, as the supreme administrator in the war, had no less right than Achilles, at the first military damage to the Achaean army, he returns this captive to Achilles and appeases him in every possible way. Homer depicts Agamemnon in all the greatness of the Achaean leader, compares him to the gods and provides him with weapons only slightly worse than those of Achilles. But it was easy for Achilles to get his famous shield, since he was the son of a sea princess, and she asked Hephaestus himself for this weapon.

Agamemnon is a brave warrior, since for all the Homeric democracy, he was the permanent commander of the Achaean army throughout the war. It didn't cost anything to remove him. But he was in place, and it was inexpedient to displace him. Nestor calls him the strongest bulwark for the Achaeans in the whole war and cannot deny him the greatest honor that he possesses (Ill., I, 278 ff., 283 ff.). Several times he was ready to abandon the field of battle because of the futility of the struggle and in view of the aimless, senseless death of many Achaeans. Suggesting that the war should be stopped (Illus, IX, 13-28), he states with contrition of heart the deception of Zeus, who promised him victory, and with tears in his eyes regrets the death of a huge number of Achaeans, thereby displaying a humanism unknown to Achilles. Not only Agamemnon, but also Nestor, Odysseus, and others talk about the end of the war (X, 145-147). Agamemnon (XIV, 64-81) at the most critical moment proposes to lower some of the ships from the shore to the sea, in order to save at least something from the Trojans who approached the ships. But this is not his firm opinion, and even more so not an order, because after the first brief objection to this Odysseus, he is again ready to fight to the end.

Theoretically, reasoning and interpreting the artistic image formalistically, one can, of course, reproach Agamemnon for taking Briseis away from Achilles and for his advice to end the war. But Agamemnon himself is not at all inclined to exaggerate his wisdom and quite rightly explains his actions by the delusion of Ata, the demon of madness (XIX, 78-144). This only indicates his modesty and his lack of desire to persist in his mistakes. His detailed account of how Ata brought madness to Zeus himself before the birth of Hercules leaves no doubt about it. In the same way, deceived [244] by a dream about the departure of the army to his homeland (p. II) and later unraveling this illusion, he modestly retreats; and one can only regret that such an exalted king turned out to be a pawn in the hands of the treacherous Zeus.

It follows that Agamemnon does not have the despotic and audacious character that many have attributed to him. On the contrary, his character is weak, as Diomedes says (Ill., IX, 39 ff.). If he orders something in the heat of the moment and someone criticizes him, he is immediately ready to take back his words, apologize and cover everything with his peacefulness, as it happened once, for example, with his order to go into battle and with the objection of Odysseus to this (IV, 338-363).

This weakness of character explains his angry outbursts, when he suddenly boils over, but immediately calms down. This explains his famous quarrel with Achilles (Ill., I), and Agamemnon turned out to be not vindictive, despite all the insults from Achilles, and Achilles, who insulted him, was just vindictive for a long time. And Nestor, who reproaches Agamemnon for having offended his best husband (IX, 110), is undoubtedly cunning, counting on Agamemnon's modesty and conscientiousness, which immediately happens: Agamemnon sincerely repents and deeply regrets the taking of Briseis from Achilles. In general, Agamemnon patiently listens to the endless objections of his subordinates and at the same time never resorts to extreme punishment, but, on the contrary, almost always tries to correct his mistakes.

It is quite soft and not petty. Recommending Diomedes to take a comrade for reconnaissance, he gives him the full right to choose anyone he wants and not to take into account the nobility of origin or, on the contrary, weak physical strength (X, 234-239).

Of course, Achilles condemns and belittles him in every possible way, calling him a dog, a drunkard, a shameless, a despot, and a coward (except for point I, where Achilles simply does not control himself, we can cite his calmer speech in IX, 332-378). But Achilles is a deeply interested person, and not only interested, but also embittered, poorly controlled by himself. Achilles (IX, 321-331, 352-377) not only exalts himself and his exploits immoderately, but reaches the point of complete anarchism, denying all authority of the supreme Achaean leader and preparing to go with his entire retinue to his homeland the very next day because of some trifle. In the mouth of the petty Achilles, who puts his cohabitation with an accidental captive above the interests of his people, this curse by Agamemnon sounds unconvincing.

True, Agamemnon is cruel. But he is no more cruel than all the other heroes. If he forbids Menslay to spare the Trojan Adrastus, and is ready to destroy even infants in the womb of mothers from a hostile country, this may be considered a trifle in comparison with the cruelty which Achilles showed to his enemies, not excepting the helpless and even minors.