Achilles and Otto Rank
The word, “hero” is used too carelessly in ‘s society, where we love to adore and admire the famous, strong, and popular. It seems like in this present day and age, anyone can be a hero. If someone rescues a cat from a tree, an old lady can call them a hero. One can be a hero if they can win an impossible number of sporting events while suffering from a life-threatening disease or disability. If a person donates money so a business can stay open, they’re considered a hero in the eyes of the employees whose jobs they just saved. Though this term is used too loosely, there are some who try to understand the true meaning of what it is you need to become a hero. One of these people, Otto Rank, created what he thought was the perfect hero pattern, but the character, Achilles, of Oedipus’, The Iliad, breaks Rank’s pattern and thus proves him wrong.
Many theologists, including Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Otto Rank, and Sigmund Freud have all offered their ideas on what it takes to be a hero, but there has been a lot of disagreement and discrepancies between all proposed, “hero patterns.” Some, like Jung, focus primarily on the emotional side of the hero, and how they develop inside. Others like Otto Rank, focus on physical development and the actual events that constitutes a hero, while some prefer Joseph Campbell’s view, which falls somewhere between the two (“Michael Bryson,” English 355: Writing About Literature). What really makes a hero? Is it possible to find a formula based on common characteristics between every hero that has ever existed? According to Otto Rank, yes we can, and he has already done it.
Rank, a student of the great Sigmund Freud, thought he had the classic “hero pattern” all figured out. The pattern he found focuses primarily on the hero’s first part of life, and the circumstances surrounding their physical growth from birth. His main focal point of the idea of a hero is that they seek to replace their father’s position in life (Bryson)
In general, Otto Rank’s hero is someone born of high-ranking parents. However, the situation surrounding their birth becomes complicated, and usually involves some sort of threatening prophecy against the father through an oracle. This leads to the intentional separation of the child from his parents. They are usually cast out into the water, and basically left for food for wild animals or starvation, basically whichever one came first. However, the hero is saved and raised either by animals or citizens with humble positions in society. When he grows up, the hero searches and finds his biological parents, and somehow extracts revenge upon his father. This leads to praise and acknowledgment of the hero, which he had deserved all his life.
Although some heroes fit Otto Rank’s formula for a hero, others like Achilles do not match up to all of the necessary characteristics. This therefore raises two possibilities: there might be flaws in Rank’s theory, or Achilles is not a true hero, thus Rank’s pattern cannot be applied to his life.
Nonetheless, Achilles does meet some of the qualifications Otto Rank has drawn up on what is needed to be a hero. First of all, Achilles was born of high-ranking parents, since his parents were Peleus, king of the Myrmidons, and Thetis, a sea nymph. The gods, Zeus and Poseidon first vied for Thetis’ hand in marriage, but then the oracle Prometheus warned them that Thetis’ future son would surpass whoever his father was. Afraid for their positions as almighty gods, Zeus and Poseidon arranged the marriage of Peleus and Thetis (“Carlos Parada,” Greek Mythology Link). This story of Zeus, Poseidon and Thetis shows that there were difficulties and a prophecy by an oracle before the hero’s birth, fulfilling two of Rank’s hero pattern categories.
Unfortunately for Rank, Achilles was never cast into the water in a box to be left for dead. Quite the contrary, when dipped into the
Styx
River
by his mother, his entire body became invulnerable, except for the heel she held him by so he wouldn’t drown. Although Achilles’ parents never feared him, since Peleus knew nothing of the prophecy, Achilles was not raised by them. When he was a young child, Thetis gave him to a centaur to raise and educate. Shortly after that, Achilles was sent away to be watched by Lycomedes in
Scyros
, disguised as a girl. This was his mother’s idea, because she knew that he was destined to become a great warrior one day and did not want him sent off to Troy with the Myrmidon army (“Brian Phillips and James Hunter,” Sparknotes). This situation is considered a separation between the hero and his parents, so in a very small way, it is related to Rank’s idea of abandoning the child hero when they’re young. Also, Achilles being raised and educated by a centaur is almost like Rank’s pattern of the hero being rescued and brought up by animals or a lowly couple, but it is not a perfect fit.
The next two stages in Rank’s “formula” have no relevance with Achilles’ life. Rank believes that after the hero is raised by ordinary strangers, he sets off on a quest to find his real parents and take revenge on his father for abandoning him. This is not the case for Achilles, because after he is raised in
Scyros
, he never went to find his parents. The story goes that Achilles was discovered to be a boy by Odysseus, then willingly left for
Troy
with a Myrmidon army (Parada). There, he was able to show Odysseus and the Trojans his true power as a warrior. Another point is that since Achilles never goes to see his parents again, there is no opportunity for him to take revenge on his father, which Rank says all heroes will eventually do.
Rank believes that the revenge against the hero’s father will somehow allow them to gain power, wealth, and glory. Achilles was destined to achieve a higher position in life than his father, but he did not earn it through revenge, but making himself known as an undefeatable warrior on the battlefield. Long after Achilles’ death in battle, he was remembered as one of the greatest fighters, adored and upheld almost as high as the almighty gods (Parada).
Now that we’ve seen how inaccurate Rank’s hero pattern was for Achilles’ first part of his life, we have to wonder if Achilles should even be considered a hero at all. According to Rank, since Achilles doesn’t match all the requirements, he isn’t a hero. But can we trust that his hero pattern is accurate?
Achilles was an amazing fighter, but that is all that he was known for. Achilles, as we know, was already destined by fate to be a fighter, and it seemed no matter what his mother did, fate swept him up in the war against
Troy
, giving him the perfect opportunity to shine. Even if he was sent off somewhere far, far away, fate would have always led him back to
Troy
and all the fame and glory that went along with it.
I do think Achilles is a true hero, and also believe Rank’s pattern is somewhat incorrect. Achilles’ mother set him up to be a warrior when she had his body touch the water of the
Styx
River
, and he eventually fulfilled his destiny to become greater than his father, and achieve the greatness he deserved thr ough fighting the Trojans. I disagree with Rank in that I don’t think that certain events make a person a hero. If a hero has to kill their father, or become a mighty warrior, I believe that whatever that person does, as long as they fulfill their destiny and become who they are made to be, they qualify as a hero.
