“Both Priam and Achilles need to come to terms with their pasts before the ransom can occur”.

In his reimagining of Homer’s Greek epic, David Malouf’s Ransom explores the notion that the past is as relevant to the present as it is to the future and suggests that events pertaining to the past – such as childhood experiences and one’s familiarity with convention – significantly influence the decisions an individual makes in the present. In stark contrast to The Iliad, the main characters of Priam and Achilles are both depicted simply as “ordinary men” throughout the novel, both exhibiting vulnerability, genuine human emotions and “the play of a dual self”; highlighting the internal struggle they face in identifying with their roles. These characters are linked to the concept of the past through Priam’s epiphany to approach Achilles “in a wagon drawn by two black mules” … “stripped of any signs of kingship or regalia” and ransom back the body of his son, Hector. Through Priam’s extraordinary gift of foresight does Malouf suggest that it is imperative for these two men to reconcile their differences and accept their pasts, if the unconventional, “unthinkable” ransom is going to be successful. Such past experiences that the two characters must come to terms with include understanding their own mortality, accepting the loss of beloved family members and coping with the challenging of tradition.

Both Priam and Achilles need to accept their past, in terms of their mortality and their unfavourable fates, if they wish to be immortalised through the imaginative courage shown by Priam and the compassion demonstrated by Achilles in the ransom of Hector’s body. Characteristic of Ancient Greek literature, Malouf draws on the seemingly contradictory, albeit, harmoniously-existing premises of determinism – the idea that the omniscient gods design an unchangeable course for human life – and free will – the power of directing one’s action voluntarily – to suggest that whilst the characters are constrained by the ineluctability of fate, they are still able to exercise their free will in “trying something that might force events on to a different course”. Hence, it is only after Priam’s acceptance that Achilles’ son, Neoptolemus, is inevitably going to slay him in the public streets of Troy, does Priam decide to take a “chance” in “dressing in a plain white robe”, acting contrary to his role as king and trying “something that has never been done or thought of” in a desperate attempt to liberate the spirit of his son. To a lesser albeit still significant extent, Achilles’ desire to leave a lasting legacy upon the Greeks motivates him to empathise with Priam as a father and exhibit compassion in returning his “implacable enemy’s” body, exemplifying that Achilles has finally accepted the loss of his “soulmate”, Patroclus. Hence, in order to be immortalised in the perpetual form of story, Priam and Achilles choose to accept their ineluctable misfortune and capitalise on their ability to exercise free will through the ransom of Hector’s body.

Pertaining to their more immediate past, Priam and Achilles must also come to terms with their grief experienced over the loss of loved ones and must reconcile their differences through their shared sense of mourning if the ransom is to be successful. Achilles’ grief over the death of his “soulmate and companion since childhood” is best encapsulated through Achilles shift to his mother’s element, pertaining to the sea as well as the “fluidity”, “weightlessness” and security offered by Thetis’ divine spirit. Through Malouf’s portrayal of Achilles outside his father’s element – relating to the “rough world of men … a world of pain, loss, dependency, bursts of violence and of fatality” – does the writer stray away from the masculine stereotype of Ancient Greek warriors and instead, affirm Achilles’ vulnerability as a result of his grief. Moreover, Achilles’ mourning is best encapsulated through the symbolism and vivid imagery evoked by the dust, in Achilles’ displays of intense grief where he “covers himself from head to toe in dust” and “pours fistfuls of dust over his head” as well as through the motif of the “centre” and the “other”, where Malouf describes Achilles as “hollow” without Patroclus, the man who was, hitherto, the “centre” of Achilles’ life. Hence, the common sense of mourning shared by these two archetypes – coupled with the fact that these men are both fathers who are missing the company of their sons – ensures the success of the ransom, as Achilles is able to empathise with Priam and view him “not as a king, but as an ordinary man, a father”. As a man who is “always expected to act as the king”, Priam also provides Achilles with the “chance to break free of his obligation of being always the hero” by forgiving Achilles’ desecration of Hector’s body and appealing to Achilles’ sense of love and family through reference to Achilles’ own son, Neoptolemous. Thus, through the empathy shared as a result of their loss of loved ones, Priam and Achilles are able to forgo each other’s sides of battle and formal roles to act simply as fathers, who both yearn for the affection of their sons.

Prior to the return of Hector’s body, Priam must come to terms with the fact that what he is about to do challenges tradition and goes against “what is established and conventional”. Priam’s visionary idea to “go humbly, as a father and as a man, to his son’s killer, and ask in the gods’ name … to be given back the body of his dead son” is initially met with much perplexity from his court – who beg Priam to “spare himself this ordeal” and “relieve himself of this unnecessary task” – and also from his wife, Hecuba, who is sceptical of Achilles’ ability to “take the gift” Priam holds out to him and “act like a man”, describing Hector’s killer as a “wolf” and a “violator of every law of gods and men”. Nevertheless, through Priam’s unwavering beliefs that a “goddess is speaking through him” and that it is the “intentions of the gods” that he goes to Troy to ransom the body of his son, does the ruler of Troy understand his iconoclasm is, in this case, justified and hence, this propels Priam in his quest to obtain some closure regarding the death of his son. Furthermore, Malouf’s inclusion of the embedded narrative, retelling the account of Priam’s sister saving his life when he was the young Podarces, encourages Priam that his “new” and “unprecedented” idea will be successful as he is to be “ransomed a second time – to ransom myself as well as my son”. Therefore, Priam coming to terms with his challenging of tradition and his realisation of the chance act that occurred when he was Podarces, allows him to realise that his epiphany to ransom his son’s body may indeed work.

In his modernisation of the world of Ancient Greek literature, Malouf’s Ransom delves into the complexity of the characters Priam and Achilles, suggesting that rather than being a king and warrior respectively, these two archetypes are simply fathers and “ordinary men”. It is this exploration of duality and conflict of self regarding Priam and Achilles that allows Malouf to highlight the importance of their pasts, emphasising that the two must come to terms with their unfavourable fates, all-encompassing grief and challenge of tradition before the ransom of Hector’s body will be successful.