These plans are offered with students of the Iliad in mind, especially those who are preparing for the JACT Classical Civilisation 'A' level examination.

This is a very challenging title!

The focus must be on his wrath and its effects on him and others; however, the second part of the quotation invites a wider view ('the whole heroic scheme of life').

The heroic aspects of his wrath could include his aristeia (especially Book 21) and his undoubted status as the finest Greek fighter. But this leads to the tragic consequence of Patroklos' death (Book 16) and the general suffering of the Greek army in his absence. The heroic and tragic aspects can be seen as closely linked.

As for seeing his wrath as a flaw in his character, the following could be mentioned: his rejection of the embassy (Book 9), and, earlier, his outspoken criticism of Agamemnon in Book 1; his reckless taunting of the river god (Book 21); his treatment of Hektor's corpse. Those who might attempt an opposing view could mention that Achilles has not always been like this (see his comments to Lykaon in Book 21 and the release of Hektor's body in Book 24, in spite of some prompting). Indeed, Oliver Taplin (Homeric Soundings - Clarendon 1992) makes a very plausible case in Achilles' defence, focussing on Agamemnon's position as a basileus among other basilees who went to Troy to do him and Menelaos a favour: Agamemnon has broken this arrangement by his handling of Achilles. Also, there is the concept of corporate guilt: the Greek army gave Briseis to Achilles as his geras, yet they raise no objection to Agamemnon's conduct. These considerations might cause some to have another look at where the chief blame lies for what happens.

The second part of the quotation could be linked to the importance of honour (time) and status (kleos) among Homeric basilees. When challenged in these areas, they were quick to react. Agamemnon is also angry, and his wrath too has tragic consequences for the army. It could be argued that Agamemnon knows what is required of him to restore Achilles to the fighting - an apology in person - but sends his envoys instead. Taplin sees him as long on words but short on actions.

The key here is whether we view Achilles as essentially the same character reacting to different events or whether he in fact undergoes some sort of character development during the course of the narrative.

It is possible to make out a case for some degree of development. It could be argued that he returns to the fighting to avenge the dead Patroklos, not for selfish reasons (unlike his withdrawal in Book 1, driven by a desire to preserve his time and kleos?). Other points which could be mentioned include the shifts in his position during the embassy (Book 9), although many would probably find it difficult to view these movements in his position as developments in his character.

It is obviously important to include plenty of textual support, whichever way one argues.

There is no shortage of material for this one. Taking the more orthodox route first, Achilles' anger and withdrawal in Book 1 can be viewed as characteristics of a man who is too quick to take offence and very jealous of his time and kleos. His rejection of the 'heroic code' and the Greek embassy in Book 9 may represent 'coming off the gold standard'. Note also his concern that Patroklos may outshine him (Book 16). His insistence on fighting on an empty stomach (Book 19) seems rather impulsive and in strong contrast to the approach of Odysseus. He rashly takes on the river god in Book 21, and his treatment of Hektor's corpse is excessive; we note also his killing of twelve Trojan youths at Patroklos' funeral.

M S Silk in his discussion of the poem (Cambridge 1987) refers to the isolation of Achilles. He puts himself in extreme positions, and in this respect it is important to note the criticisms of Patroklos in Book 16: his concern for what is happening to the Greeks leads him to speak very harshly to Achilles. Patroklos is Achilles' only true friend.

Oliver Taplin (Homeric Soundings - Clarendon 1992) attempts to clear Achilles of such charges. Following this approach, Achilles' anger at the beginning of the poem can be seen as a reaction to Agamemnon's breaking the terms of an alliance with basilees like Achilles; according to this view, the position of Agamemnon as supreme commander is by no means unequivocal. Similarly, the failure of the army to object when their geras is taken from Achilles can be seen as incurring corporate guilt: Achilles therefore considers their suffering in the following books to be justified. In Book 9, Agamemnon can also be seen to be long on words but short on action, failing to give Achilles the personal apology he wants. It is interesting that Achilles raises no objections to Agamemnon's apology after Patroklos' death. In Book 21, we are reminded that he was not always without pity: his words to Lykaon do not appear to be impulsive. In Book 23 we see a more balanced figure, managing the keenly contested games effectively. And, of course, the magnificent ending of the Iliad, especially the point where he persuades Priam to eat: the old king evokes painful thoughts of his own father.

To take Achilles' apparent rejection of the 'heroic code' (Book 9) further, it is important to reflect on his unique position: no other fighter has sure knowledge of his destiny. Given this unique awareness and what he sees as a breaking of the rules by Agamemnon earlier, his decision to go home can be defended. Again, Taplin argues that the idea of a 'heroic code' is not firmly established: that is why there is so much discussion about it during the course of the poem.

Obviously, whichever way one argues, it is important to take account of opposing views and, as with all the plans offered in these pages, to flesh out the main points with a range of reference and quotation.