The ange o Achilles in The Iliad and o
F ancis Ma ion Ta wa e in Flanne y
O’Conno ’s The Violen Bea I Away
ÁNGEL RUIZ PÉREZ
Abs ac
Achilles’ ange in he Iliad ac s as a ca alyze in he wa ’s ou come and also
helps cha ac e ize Achilles himsel , us a ed because, in spi e o being a goddess’
son, he su e s a des iny o dea h. This a icle d aws a compa ison be ween Achilles’
w a h and he ange ha uels Ta wa e in The Violen Bea I Away, Flanne y
O’Conno ’s las no el. As wi h he p o agonis o he Iliad, Ta wa e ’s ebellion o
p o e ha he is in o al con ol o e his own li e e en ually jeopa dizes he o de o he
wo ld a ound him.
Keywo ds
Home , Iliad, Flanne y O’Conno , Ange , Achilles, Ta wa e .
1. In oduc ion
The main aim o his a icle is o con ibu e o an unde s anding o he ange
ha cha ac e izes F ancis Ma ion Ta wa e , he p o agonis o The Violen Bea I
Away, Flanne y O’Conno ’s second and inal no el. The elemen o compa ison used
will be he same de ining ange in Achilles, which we see om he e y opening e se
o he Iliad. In p inciple, he wo wo ks do no seem o sha e any signi ican poin s o
con ac , bu a compa ison be ween hei espec i e p o agonis s shows ha simila i ies
do indeed exis , o he ex en ha bo h ind hemsel es aced wi h o he s who a e
p esen ed as models and as i als, wi h ange de ining hem in he complex si ua ion o
ha ing o choose ei he assimila ion o such models and expec a ions o b eaking ee
om hem. In a way, Ta wa e enac s, in a so o e e nal e u n, he con lic Achilles
had o ace as a young man o his libe y and s a us in he wo ld. Flanne y O’Conno
was a no elis , a Ca holic in he Bible Bel Sou h bu he con lic is essen ially he
same, as we shall see.
Al hough O’Conno claimed o ha e had no classical aining, she did ead
Home , a leas he Robe Fi zge ald’s 1961 ansla ion o he Odyssey (O’Conno 1979,
530). All he quo a ions in his a icle will be d awn om he iend Robe Fi zge ald’s
1974 e sion o he Iliad, made en yea s a e he dea h, al hough i seems e y
Jou nal o Compa a i e Li e a u e and Aes he ics, Vol.40.2 : 2017
28
unlikely ha she was awa e o i . She was pa icula ly in luenced by he in e p e a ion
o he Aus ian philosophe E ic Voegelin, o which I will e u n owa ds he end o his
a icle.
I will begin by no ing he s uc u al simila i ies o he wo wo ks on he na a i e
le el, be o e conside ing he implica ions o ange in pa icula , hen inally u ning o
he amily in e ac ions be ween cha ac e s in he managemen o hei ange .
2. The iolen bea i away and he Iliad, ela ed s uc u es
In he Iliad Achilles su e s he absence o his a he Peleus and has o ea i m
himsel be o e Agamemnon, King o he G eeks, which p o okes he he o’s ange .
P iam, a he o his a chenemy Hec o , will be he one who makes Achilles pu aside his
ange , o cing him o disco e compassion in he ace o his own so ow. In O’Conno ’s
no el, F ancis Ma ion Ta wa e acilla es be ween ul illing he las will o his g ea
uncle Mason, a sel -s yled p ophe , and s aying wi h his uncle Raybe . Mason
kidnapped Raybe when he was six in o de o make him a p ophe , al hough by he age
o 14 he had ejec ed eligion, e ea ing o an asce ic li e guided by empi icism and
o ien ed owa ds he igo ous con ol o his emo ions and a ec ions.
Ta wa e was he son o Raybe ’s sis e and was bo n sho ly a e a ca acciden
as a esul o which he la e and his g andpa en s (Mason’s sis e and he husband)
died. Raybe had wan ed o aise him, bu Mason, he elde ly p ophe , kidnapped he
baby jus p io o his mo he ’s dea h, bap izing him and s aying wi h him in an unknown
place in he woods o Powde head un il his own dea h, p epa ing he young Ta wa e
o his calling as a p ophe and cha ging him wi h his e en ual bu ial, as well as wi h
he bap ism o Raybe ’s own son, a child o educed men al capaci ies called Bishop.
The no el ocuses on he si ua ion o Ta wa e om he momen o Mason’s dea h,
and on he ques ion o whe he he will espec Mason’s inal o de s.
Bo h Ta wa e and Achilles ha e o decide on he meaning o hei own li es.
F om he beginning o he no el, he possible calling o Ta wa e o become a p ophe
is epea ed by his uncle Mason, bu om he ou se he boy also seeks o a i m his
own eedom abo e all else. F om he s a he has an independen pe sonali y, as well
as conside ing himsel supe io o his uncle (“The boy, who had ideas o his own,
lis ened wi h an impa ien con ic ion ha he would no make any mis akes himsel
when he ime came and he Lo d called him”, O’Conno 1988, 332). Ta wa e admi es
he g andiose and e ible image o a p ophe ha he has c ea ed o himsel , based on
he example o Mason and on he Old Tes amen p ophe s, bu pays no a en ion o
Mason when he speaks o “ he swea and s ink o he c oss, o being bo n again o die,
and o spending e e ni y ea ing he b ead o li e” (O’Conno 1988, 334).
The in e io con lic a ises in him upon he dea h o his uncle, since he nei he
alues he p ize o he “b ead o li e” no is he ce ain abou his calling o be a p ophe ,
which he wan s o p o e by means o his own a i ma ion and also h ough he s amp
o a di ine calling, which he expec s will come abou in spec acula ashion. Fo his
eason he does no conside i his mission o bap ize he backwa ds child o his uncle
Raybe o o bu y his uncle Mason. Like Achilles, he wan s o ope a e on his own
e ms. As S igley explains in Ta wa e ’s case i is no so much a ma e o an exis en ial
29
p oblem, o ha wi hin himsel he doub s he exis ence o God, bu a he o ge ing in
con ol o his own li e agains he wo i als, his uncles, bo h o e y s ong cha ac e s.
In he end, i is abou he himsel knowing “who he is in ela ion o God and how ha
knowledge will a ec his li e and ac ion” (S igley 2004, 106). He has seen Mason’s
s uggle o con ol Raybe , and obse es how Raybe ’s igo ous asce icism is a isk
h ough he impe uous lo e o his son Bishop (S igley 2004, 181 n. 25). Tha lo e o
his son would lea e him a he me cy o his lo e o all eali y, and ul ima ely a God’s
me cy, o which Mason has p epa ed Ta wa e ye which he inally ejec s. On he
o he hand, Mason has augh Ta wa e o ea and despise Raybe ’s a emp s o
con ol hem by means o psychological in es iga ion. As a esul o his, he pe cei es
dange s e e ywhe e, which may explain his u e lack o empa hy o o he s. The
ques ion, hen, is whe he he will “bea away” h ough iolence any con ol o himsel ,
o i he will u n i on himsel o bap ize Bishop, ecognizing his alue be o e God.
Ta wa e ying o d own he young child, S igley concludes (2004, 112-14), is his bes
a emp o be he mas e o his u u e li e, bu he ge s de ea ed, as he u e s he wo ds
o he bap ism in ha e y momen he is d owning he child. Fo Ciuba (2012, 70),
“Ta wa e seeks no so much o escape being a p ophe bu o ealize his oca ion in a
less shame ul and mo e iolen way”, ye wi hou success.
When Mason eminds him ha he escaped he con ol o Raybe , Ta wa e eels
mo ed: he has lea ned abou eedom om him, bu no wha sus ains i . As Mason
explains o him:
“You we e bo n in o bondage and bap ized in o eedom, in o he dea h o
he Lo d, in o he dea h o he Lo d Jesus Ch is .”
Then he child would eel a sullenness c eeping o e him, a slow wa m
ising esen men ha his eedom had o be connec ed wi h Jesus and
ha Jesus had o be he Lo d. (O’Conno 1988, 342)
Acco ding o Huelin (2012, 125) he e is a p oblem in Ta wa e , compa ed o
Mason: “Mason holds o a posi i e concep ion o eedom, ha is, eedom o be
enewed in Jesus Ch is , Ta wa e hinks o eedom en i ely in nega i e e ms: ee
om ou side in e e ence in his choices, ee om obliga ions, and hus ee o be
one’s son”. Fo Biebe Lake (2010, 30), in a compa ison wi h O’Conno and James
Baldwin, he o me ’s “highes alue is no au onomy. Fo he , eedom comes h ough
ul illmen , and ul illmen comes h ough ecogni ion o one’s ue s a e be o e God, a
ecogni ion ha mus be e ealed”: his is wha he no el manages o explo e in all i s
na a i e possibili ies in he case o Ta wa e .
3. The poli ical p oblem o human ela ions
In he Iliad, Achilles jeopa dizes “poli ical” o de o he G eek side and isks he
des uc ion o he a my, all his h ough his e usal o igh due o a pe sonal
con on a ion wi h King Agamemnon o e a woman, Ch yseis, a sla e. Also in he
case o Ta wa e , he igh is one o con ol, a igh he begins by se ing i e o his own
house. Wha he wan s is o id himsel o an obs acle o his own aims, in his case he
mission o bap izing he child, as his objec i e is o li e alone and isola ed in he o es
30
wi hou con ac wi h anyone, in an impossible u opian eedom wi h no ies. Fo Achilles,
he dispu e a ises wi h King Agamemnon due o a ques ion o honou (o p ecedence
and s a us, seen in i sel in he di ision o he spoils o wa ), bu a he oo o his is he
ques ion o he alue o li e in he ace o he eali y o dea h, as he says o his mo he
The is:
As my li e came om you, hough i is b ie ,
honou a las om Zeus who s o ms in hea en
I call my due. He gi es me p ecious li le.
See how he lo d o he g ea plains, Agamemnon,
humilia ed me! He has my p ize
by his own whim, o himsel ! (Il. 1.352-6. T ansla ed by R. Fi zge ald)
The i s hing ha Ta wa e con on s, and which he pe cei es as he i s
obs acle o he es o his li e, is o bu y his uncle, and i is he e ha he begins an
in e io con e sa ion wi h a s ange -and a he same ime someone e y close- who
encou ages him o ebel, eminding him ha he es a e is going o be inhe i ed by his
uncle Raybe . This con e sa ion p omp s he ollowing esponse: “I own i , Ta wa e
said, because I’m he e and can’ nobody ge me o . I any school eache comes o
claim he p ope y, I’ll kill him” (O’Conno 1988, 337). Owne ship gua an ees a sa e
space o bo h Achilles (his sla e Ch yseis) and Ta wa e o e o he po en ial owne s,
Agamemnon and Raybe .
The p ac ical di icul ies o he bu ial (his uncle Mason was e y bulky, he soil
e y ha d), and conside a ions as o wha is o is no sui able o do, go hand in hand
wi h he i ual alue o a ecogni ion o he eali y o he a e li e, and wi h i he hope
o esu ec ion and he ea i ma ion o ai h in Ch is . In an e iden ly non-Ch is ian
con ex , he cha ac e s o he Iliad all sha e he belie in he impo ance o he une a y
honou ing o he co pses, bu Achilles is he only one who ac s agains his wi h
espec o he co pse o his enemy, Hec o , some hing ha he la e o esaw, ea ing
ha i he died a he hands o Achilles his body would be ea en by dogs. The e is an
echo in how Ta wa e ells Raybe abou he unbu ied body: “I i ’s any hing le o
him, he buzza ds wouldn’ ha e i and he bones he dogs’ll ca y o ” (O’Conno
1988, 387).
He e, hen, we ha e he i s clea pa allel: nei he Ta wa e no Achilles espec
he une a y i es o he dead. Achilles is consumed by ange , which demands o him a
e enge ne e sa is ied by he dea h o Pa oclus a he hands o Hec o . This ange ,
des uc i e in na u e, also b ings wi h i he dea h o many o he s, as o e old in he
i s wo e ses o he epic poem:
Ange be now you song, immo al one,
Achilles’ ange , doomed and uinous,
ha caused he Achaeans loss on bi e loss
and c owded b a e souls in o he unde gloom
(Il. 1.1-2. T ansla ed by R. Fi zge ald).
31
To Ta wa e he du y o bu ying Mason, which he ies o ul il bu soon
enounces, inally becomes he challenge o p o e ha wha lies behind dea h does
no a ec him. He bu ns down he house so as o bu n he co pse which lies wi hin i ,
in an ac o ebellion ha h oughou he no el will be eplica ed in episodes o g owing
iolence. The ac is ha nei he Achilles no Ta wa e ha e he leas in e es in he
poli ical o social implica ions o hei ac ions: Achilles con empla es impassi ely he
de ea o his side, and does no hing un il he is a ec ed pe sonally by he dea h o his
iend Pa oclus, and e en hen he seeks only pe sonal e enge agains Hec o . In
O’Conno ’s no el, Ta wa e , who has li ed his en i e li e isola ed in a o es wi h his
uncle, con inually shows his inabili y o communica e ( he scene in which we see his
igno ance o a elephone is especially b illian ) and he only hing he seeks is o
escape he o de s o his uncle and o e u n o he soli ude o he woods, all by himsel .
The ange se es bo h p o agonis s as a means o u he isola ing hem, no o
communion wi h o he s. I is clea in bo h cases ha he key elemen conce ns hei
du ies wi h espec o he dead. Especially signi ican is a con e sa ion in which
Mason eminds his nephew:
“The wo ld was made o he dead. Think o all he dead he e a e,” he
said, and hen as i he had concei ed he answe o all he insolence in
he wo ld, he said, “The e’s a million imes mo e dead han li ing and he
dead a e dead a million imes longe han he li ing a e ali e,” and he
eleased him wi h a laugh. (O’Conno 1988, 339)
The i s chap e o he no el ends wi h a con e sa ion be ween Ta wa e and
Meeks, a coppe lue salesman, which helps o ein o ce he idea ha nobody owes he
dead any hing:
“You don’ owe he dead any hing,” Ta wa e said in a loud oice, speaking
o almos he i s ime since he had go in he ca .
“No hey you,” said he s ange . “And ha ’s he way i ough o be in
his wo ld—nobody owing nobody no hing.” (O’Conno 1988, 362; my
i alics)
In he end, he p oblem also conce ns du ies o he di ini y. In he no el, he
di ine p esence is hin ed by means o he ligh o he s a s. A he beginning o he
hi d chap e , while wai ing o go in o Raybe ’s house, Ta wa e “did no look up a he
sky bu he was unpleasan ly awa e o he s a s. They seemed o be holes in his skull
h ough which some dis an unmo ing ligh was wa ching him. I was as i he we e
alone in he p esence o an immense silen eye” (O’Conno 1988, 385). All his migh be
explained as Ta wa e ’s pu ely subjec i e imp ession (“as i ”), bu i is also he case
ha om he poin o iew o he na a o he p esence and men ion o he sun
highligh ing he ac ion has a clea sense o anscendence.
The p esence o he di ine is a mo e explici in he Iliad. The gods in e ene,
bu no o oppose Achilles’ ange , gi en ha he has he suppo o Zeus himsel . Zeus
has his own pa icula objec i es in doing so, apa om showing his app ecia ion o
Achilles’ mo he The is, he sel a goddess. The e m o “ange ” (menis) used o
32
desc ibe wha a ec s Achilles in he Iliad is ypically applied only o he gods, and as
such ca ies cosmic implica ions, as Muellne (1996) has discussed.
Analyses oo ocused on he psychological seem a emo ed om Home ’s
a , some hing which can also be said in b oad e ms o The Violen Bea I Away. By
conside ing he ange o hese cha ac e s, we a e no ocusing so much on he exp ession
o an inne us a ion, bu mo e on he ex e nal pe cep ion o he us a ion a a
desi ed ou come which is no ul illed. Muellne (1996, 50-51) akes A is a chus’
de ini ion o menis as “long-las ing anco ”, no ing ha i “is no a wo d o a hos ile
emo ion a ising in one indi idual agains some o he indi idual”, bu ha i goes
agains he social, cosmic o de . I has social consequences, in ha i supposes he
b eakdown o ha which gua an ees coexis ence, beginning wi h he sys em o he
dis ibu ion o awa ds, he exchange o weal h and also o honou s. In addi ion, Achilles
is he i s ic im o his ange , and “su e s om he loss o ies o he wide wo ld bu
also in ha he is he eby ha ming his own sel ” (1996, 138), he same as will happen o
Ta wa e .
4. Cha ac e iza ion o in e nalised ange in bo h cha ac e s: esen men
The ac ha he e is no clea psychological o ien a ion in ei he o he wo ks
does no imply ha Ta wa e ’s ange in ol es no esen men . In e ms o his u u e
a e, his ange a ises om he eali y o dea h, iewed as pa o li e’s ine i able end,
when his is unde s ood as a ee space wi hou limi s o he “I”. The same can be seen
o Achilles: as he son o a goddess and a mo al, he could ha e achie ed immo ali y,
as happened o o he s in he same si ua ion, such as Dionysus and He acles, as well
as he child en o Zeus, bu o him his is o bidden. His a e is ei he dea h now (in his
case wi h he coun e pa o an undying ame) o dea h yea s la e ; bu dea h i is in
ei he case (Il. 9.401-16).
Wha Ta wa e pe cei es in Mason, apa om his ce ain y o li e in eal
eedom ha anspi es, is he hunge ha Mason has o Ch is and which he, Ta wa e ,
does no unde s and: “The boy would ha e a hideous ision o himsel si ing o e e
wi h his g ea -uncle on a g een bank, ull and sick, s a ing a a b oken ish and a
mul iplied loa ” (O’Conno 1988, 369). He does no pe cei e his hunge , bu ea s i as
some hing ha will ensue e en hough no desi ed, h ough some hing g ea e han
wha is ep esen ed in some hing ha is hidden in his blood. Fo his eason he a oids
hinking abou i .
Ta wa e desi es a di ine calling uncon amina ed by ea hly hings, no he
kind o e e nal communion which his uncle alks abou . Thus, e en as he ies o dig
he omb, he ea i ms himsel in his eedom o ac : “‘Now I can do any hing I wan o,’
he said, so ening he s ange ’s oice so ha he could s and i ’” (O’Conno 1988,
345). And i is he oice o he s ange which is in ed wi h ange :
As Ta wa e slashed a he g ound wi h he sho el, he s ange ’s oice
ook on a kind o es ained u y and he kep epea ing, you go o bu y
him whole and comple ely by hand and ha school eache would bu n
him in a minu e. (O’Conno 1988, 345; my i alics)
33
As a ai o cha ac e Ta wa e sha es his ange wi h his uncle Mason,
pa icula ly en aged when he ecalled he ime ha he spen in he ci y wi h Raybe .
And ha same ange is el by Ta wa e he i s ime he mee s Bishop, as i su e ing
om childish jealousy (“Suddenly a emendous indigna ion seized Ta wa e ” O’Conno
1988, 350), p omp ing him o ell Bishop ha he had been he i s in he house, alling
in o a age which will g ow un il Mason emo es him om he scene in o de o bap ize
he child, -some hing which Raybe impedes- bu which p ecipi a es he announcemen
ha Ta wa e will in ac be he one who pe o ms he bap ism. The highpoin o he
ange will come when F ancis d owns Bishop, as a elease om he weigh o he
esponsibili y o bap izing him, wi h which he expec s o seal his u u e in absolu e
eedom and soli ude.
Meeks, he salesman who akes him o own, conside s him “jus enough o in
he head and jus igno an enough o be a e y ha d wo ke ” (O’Conno 1988, 365).
Such s angeness o cha ac e and lack o social skills is g ea ly a odds wi h Achilles,
he son o a goddess and an ou s anding cha ac e in all espec s. Bu wha does
indeed uni e hem is s ubbo nness, a pe sis ence in de ending he absence o ies o
limi s, a s a e o which hey bo h aspi e, al hough he e hangs abo e bo h o hem a
a e which hey ejec . “Mason said o Ta wa e : ‘Go wa n he child en o God,’ sai h
he Lo d, ‘o he e ible speed o jus ice.’ Who will be le ? Who will be le when he
Lo d’s me cy s ikes?’” (O’Conno 1988, 368). This is epea ed a he end o he no el,
when Ta wa e , ha ing been aped, e u ns o Powde head and e e y hing comes o a
s a e o comple ion:
He h ew himsel o he g ound and wi h his ace agains he di o he
g a e, he hea d he command. GO WARN THE CHILDREN OF GOD OF
THE TERRIBLE SPEED OF MERCY. The wo ds we e as silen as seeds
opening one a a ime in his blood. (O’Conno 1988, 478)
The e is a di e ence be ween wha Mason p ophesied and wha Ta wa e hea s
a he end. This la e is he o de ha he has been an icipa ing wi h ea h oughou
he no el (apa om ha o bap izing Bishop, wi h which he complies only eluc an ly)
in which he “speed o jus ice” is associa ed wi h he ac ha God will espond wi h
me cy in he end (“when he Lo d’s me cy s ikes”), bu which is a single manda e, bu
his ime wi h he emphasis on me cy: “TERRIBLE SPEED OF MERCY”.
These a e ha d and in ense exp essions, in which he h ea is i s pe cei ed,
bu is inally uni ed wi h he lo e o God as he a he o me cy. I is his me cy ha
Ta wa e ecognizes in he end. I is Bu o d, a black cha ac e , who se es as he igge
o me cy, as was also he case in O’Conno ’s The a i icial nigge (1955).
The case o Achilles is simila : h ough his su e ing he p epa es, albei
unconsciously, o ha momen when an old man, P iam, ouches him in o de o bid o
him he pie y o conduc a bu ial, ha o his son Hec o . Achilles had sough o
desec a e Hec o ’s body, al hough wi hou success, because he gods ha e p e en ed
such an ou come. Thus, he ic im eques s o he execu ione – eminding him o his
absen a he – an ac o me cy, as i we e. He e esides he g ea ness o he Iliad: a he
end o he poem he cycle is comple ed and ange gi es way o se eni y:
34
Achilles
be e e en owa d he g ea gods! and ake
pi y on me, emembe you own a he .
Think me mo e pi y ul by a , since I
ha e b ough mysel o do wha no man else
has done be o e – o li o my lips he hand
o one who killed my son.
Now in Achilles
he e oca ion o his a he s i ed
new longing, and an ache o g ie . He li ed
he old man’s hand and gen ly pu him by.
Then bo h we e o e bo ne as hey emembe ed:
he old king huddled a Achilles’ ee
wep , and wep o Hec o , kille o men,
while g ea Achilles wep o his own a he
as o Pa oclus once again, and sobbing
illed he oom. (Il. 24.503-12. T ansla ed by R. Fi zge ald)
Muellne (1996, 133-68) explains a leng h ha Achilles’s ange is an exp ession
o iendship (philo es) o his g oup o e he es . A he end o he Iliad, wha inally
calms his ange is he ac o s epping ou om he con ines o iendship philo es
(φιλyτης) o his g oup, in iden i ying wi h P iam (1996, 174).
Th ough he cou se o O’Conno ’s no el, ange domina es as he engine o
e il, un il i u ns on Ta wa e himsel . I is an ange ha he sha es wi h his uncles, in
hose complex ela ionships be ween hem ha a e con inuously epea ed. Fo example,
when Mason bap ized he baby, Ta wa e , a a momen in which Raybe had le he
c adle una ended, shows a eac ion o an insul ing joy, while ha o Raybe is i s
one o being decei ed, hen o ange :
No e en ang y a i s , jus hacked.
Old Ta wa e had said, “He’s been bo n again and he e ain’ a hing you
can do abou i ” and hen he had seen he age ise in he nephew’s ace
and had seen him y o conceal i . (O’Conno 1988, 375)
And he con on a ion con inues wi h a hea ed a gumen in which he wo
s ong pe sonali ies a e se agains each o he , un il Raybe makes a ges u e o
commise a ion wi h a calmed oice and an ai o o ced unde s anding: “ eached ac oss
he able and pu his hand on he old man’s w is in o ges u e o pi y” (O’Conno 1988,
379). I is p ecisely he opposi e o he case o Bishop app oaching and ouching
Ta wa e be o e he d owns him, which ma ks he s a o he la e ’s inal p ocess o
con e sion, as P iam’s ac o ouching Achilles ma ks he end o his ange . I is impossible
no o ecall a simila ges u e in a sho s o y by Flanne y O’Conno , ha o he
g andmo he wi h he Mis i in A Good Man is Ha d o Find (1955).
La e on, when Raybe ecalls how a 14 he wen o see Mason, his ange is
desc ibed e y g aphically: “his is s clenched, ying o shou , ying o make his
35
adolescen u y come ou in clea sensible wo ds. He had only s ood he e sh illing,
‘You’ e c azy, you’ e c azy, you’ e a lia , you ha e a head ull o c ap, you belong in a
nu house!’” (O’Conno 1988, 430). I is an ange associa ed wi h esen men , in
conside ing ha Mason, a he han sa ing him, has des oyed his li e.
In he case o Ta wa e , his ange a ises abo e all in espec o Bishop and he
esponsibili y o bap ising him: “No hing i i a ed he boy so much as his” (O’Conno
1988, 379). I is again a ques ion o he con ol he seeks o e his own ac ions. This
scene o ms pa o a long lashback ending in a e u n o he p esen in which Ta wa e
is wi h Meeks, a he momen when o he i s ime in his li e Ta wa e sees and uses
a elephone. He calls Raybe ’s house, bu es ablishes a connec ion wi h Bishop, in
silence, bu “no a silence ha seemed o be emp y”. When he ealises who is a he
o he end o he phone, he momen is desc ibed like his: “The hea y b ea hing began
again as i in answe . I was a kind o bubbling noise, he kind o noise someone would
make who was s uggling o b ea he in wa e ”. In ending he call, Ta wa e is abso bed,
“as i he had ecei ed a e ela ion he could no ye deciphe ” (O’Conno 1988, 383). I
is a sub le an icipa ion o he subsequen bap ism by imme sion.
Bishop is e e yone’s ic im, a cha ac e who is mu e, silen , and in p inciple
passi e. In Chap e 6 we ind he only example o ange in him, when his a he Raybe
ecalls he momen when he ied o d own him, “The ace unde he wa e was w a h ully
con o ed, wis ed by some p ime al age o sa e i sel ” (O’Conno 1988, 418-9). This
migh seem a pe ec ly na u al eac ion, a ising om his ins inc o su i al, ye i
does no happen la e on when Ta wa e a emp s he same hing. Indeed, in his case
he e is an exp ess ac ion by Bishop o ouching him and, as he na a o explains, o
guiding him owa ds he wa e : “ he child in he boa s ood up, caugh him a ound he
neck and climbed in o his back” (O’Conno 1988, 462). I illus a es ha Bishop wan s
and needs o be bap ised.
In all his he e is a unning i al y which unleashes ange . Ciuba (2007, 126) has
add essed his using Gi a d’s heo ies o mime ic desi e (1977, 152), in which he
implici ly equa es Ta wa e wi h Achilles, explaining ha “Ta wa e seeks wha Home
e ms kudos, he glo y o he demigod ha comes om ic o y in compe i ion”. Thus,
Ciuba a gues ha i is a o m o glo y sough a he cos o o he s and wi h he aim o
keeping i o e e . The boy may seem like an an i-p ophe , bu he is imme sed in he
same kind o iolence as ha o his g ea -uncle: “D i en by mime ic desi e o iolence,
Ta wa e would ou -Elijah Elijah” (Ciuba 2007, 126).
In addi ion, his escape o he ci y can be seen as ha ing i s basis in his desi e
o Raybe ’s ecogni ion o his ebellion agains Mason, which in his ega d is
Ta wa e ’s model. We a e p esen ed, hus, wi h a iangle in which one o he elemen s
wan s o bea ano he h ough compa ing himsel o he hi d. When Ta wa e ells
Raybe ha he has bu ned he body o his uncle, he la e ’s joy makes Ta wa e eac
(“The boy’s ace da kened. His exp ession ha dened un il i was a o ess wall o keep
his hough s om being exposed”, O’Conno 1988, 388), some hing ha Raybe is
obli ious o, los in d eams o his idealised image o Ta wa e . Bu hen Bishop en e s
