Book VII and Book IX of Homer's Iliad present opposing views on the importance of material wealth in relation to the heroic code, consecutively opposing Hector and Achilles, who have already been established by the poet as having a polar character. On the one hand, in the passage from Book VII, material wealth acts with moral significance to end the battle between Aias and Hector and promote a friendship for the benefit of the Trojan and Greek armies; as Achilles shatters this heroic ideal, as if gift-giving as an act has lost its meaning as a means of repairing the relationship between Achilles and Agamemnon, and is completely undermined by the questionable self-preservation of 'Achilles due to his lack of emotional control. Since material wealth in Homer's time was representative of social status, the exchange of gifts would have prevented a certain honor that could be easily linked to the heroic code. The acceptance of gifts, which seems to act as a form of forgiveness and relative peace between two people, as reflected in the passage from Book VII, follows the expected dignity of the hero in order to protect the needs of the population at large. Yet the rejection of the gift due to the desire for personal preservation is reflected in Book IX. Therefore, the acceptance and rejection of gifts add or detract from the heroic image of Homer's characters, Hector and Achilles. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an original essayThe basis of the gift exchange in the passage from Book VII and Book IX is the change in the relationships between two central characters of the epic, and therefore the result of the gift is of great importance and has poignant significance for the development of the poem. In the passage from Book VII, the emphasis seems to be on the development of the original "hostility" between the heroic males into "close friendship" – and thus the development of their relationship. Hector's prediction of the Achaean and Trojan responses, which reads: "these two fought in consuming hatred, then united in close friendship" illuminates Hector's desire for peace in the battle at nightfall, having already explained that it is better to "give in", instead of persevering for the personal glory of either warrior, knowing that ultimately the decision belongs to the “divinity” – Hector does not attempt to dispute this, nor does Aias refuse his offer, although it has a rather demanding, underlying impersonal sense of “come then”. The exchange seems to be of personal items, which also adapts the relationship between the two heroes, since the gifts of the "sword with silver studs" and the "war belt colored and shining with crimson" are not not just rich material goods in terms of are only worth personal goods, giving the exchange moral significance in their metaphorical exchange of parts of each other. On the other hand, in Book IX, the exchange of gifts only fuels the hatred and “anger” between Achilles and his king. Gifts are treated with a contrasting lack of moral value and are instead spoken of in more personal terms, as if they should not be shared. Achilles' repetitive use of possessive "I" and "mine" in response to his material wealth suggests a greed and lack of personal value that views gifts as having "no action" and arguably no meaning - without seeing Agamemnon's attempt to reconcile with Achilles under the heroic code, and considering the "gifts" as mere objects such as "gold",the “bronze” or “women” who have economic value, which are “attributed” to him as are his other earnings, not as a representative of excuses. By ignoring the underlying reasoning behind the gifts, Achilles places himself and his own personal needs above those of Agamemnon, his elder and supposedly better, as well as the entire army. Regarding the heroic code, which expresses the need to place the needs of one's men above the personal needs of oneself, the union of Hector and Aias in "friendship" at the end of the battle is in the interest of the “Greeks”. » and “Trojan horses”. Homer's almost repetitive use of nonviolent language, "kinship," "thanksgiving," and "happiness," evokes images of peace and friendship and emphasizes the benefits that both armies receive from accepting these rich personal gifts. The friendly exchange gives the reader insight into the priorities in the heroes' minds - that their internal emotions towards each other, which at the time of battle are "hostility" and "all-consuming hatred", are set aside. side due to their understanding of their greater "divine" goal for the eventual "victory" of either army. The heroes' recognition of collective rather than personal purpose is emphasized in Hector's piety and understanding of "divinity", meaning that he must ultimately give way to the powers above him and accept his fate , rather than trying to control it. Achilles' lack of understanding in the passage from Book IX contrasts with this. Instead of behaving in the manner expected of a great warrior-hero and accepting the embassy's offers, Achilles' refusal shows a lack of collective responsibility in his character by placing his own emotional needs, entirely consumed by “hate” and “anger”. that the other heroes know how to put aside above all else. Achilles seems to promote a sense of inactivity in his question of "not acting" at all costs, even if he were given "ten times...twenty times" more as a reward; Achilles makes no distinction to separate the personal and public demands of heroism. In fact, one could argue that his response is completely anti-heroic, in effect calling for a suggested rebellion: "so that other Achaeans would turn against him in anger", and thus preventing any progress that would lead to Greek success, attempting to make its own lack of “action” universal. In an attempt at pervasive immobility, Achilles goes against the heroic code that requires him to accept and promote forgiveness, just as Hector and Aias are able to do in Book VII. the exchange between Hector and Aias differs most starkly in the plot of the Iliad. It is possible to argue that the personal grudge, the “hatred” and “anger” of a single person, is what motivates the entire plot of the Iliad. Although a momentary peace is often established throughout the poem, peace in its entirety is never fully found because, even at the end of the poem, we find ourselves in media res. Achilles' treatment of the staff, evident evidently in his repetitive use of "my", is no different from the hostility between Menelaus and Paris towards Helen, refusing to reach an agreement even when lavish gifts of great material value are given to the Greek army. The exchange between Hector and Aias could therefore be described in this case as unusual, as they are able to find “friendship” and share an equal “victory” even in a “hostile” environment. It is interesting to note that when we compare the two passages of Book VII and Book IX, Achilles' response is undoubtedly more human and authentic, and therefore more relevant, than the..