SDMB Seminar™ #1: The Iliad (Spear-Thrustingly Serious Discussion Thread)

Cafe Society
21

If I may be permitted to ask a question or two about the text, although RAGE is the obvious theme of the Iliad, I’m interested in the notion of honor. So my questions are:

Who is the most honorable among the major characters in the Iliad, and why?

As Margo and others have pointed out, Agamemnon is often a dick, sometimes a coward, and occasionally a leader. Why is he the leader of the Achaians?

No fair answering “By right of birth,” or “By divine providence.” The question is, why is this deeply flawed character accepted as the leader by the rest? Is it because of his flaws for some reason, or because of other more positive traits. And if the latter, what are they?

22

In my opinion, Hector is the most honourable. He is fighting in defence of his city and family. He did not cause the quarrel and I believe urges that the cause of the quarrel be remedied (that is, that Helen should go back to her husband). Unlike most of the other characters, he is a good family guy who loves and is loved by his wife; the scene at the gate is one of the few genuinely pogniant ones in the Illiad. Even his enemies honour him (Ajax gives him his girdle) - the mistreating of his dead body by Achillies is an exception!

Medieval chronoclers recognized that Hector was the most honourable; he’s the only character from the illiad to be named as one of the so-called “nine worthies”:

23

Thoughts: on the shield of the end of chapter 18: This was one of my favorite sections, probably because it broke my expectations. I’d never read the Iliad until now, and had assumed that it was a dry work with a broad timeline, narratively, like, oh, Gilgamesh or something. So while reading it, the detailed, human-scale pace of the narration and vividness of metaphors really surprised and delighted me. Things like the descriptions of how, exactly, someone was being wounded, and in what order, and the color of the mud and such. . . I guess I’d assumed that pace of narration was a modern thing. And then this suddenly super-detailed, dilated meditation on the decoration of a shield seemed so Virgina Woolfe or Nicholson Baker or something, but here it is in the Bronze Age. How awesome.
So while I was thinking earlier about the shield as an opportunity for the storyteller on whatever evening to get creative and let his freak flag fly. . . on rereading that section, it really seems to do more than that, though. I’d been initially delighted because of the impossible, maybe “divine” detail of this decoration-- like the most delicate little dollhouse that you run into in dreams, where the detail gets infinitely tiny.
But now I think about what that little vignette serves at that point in the story. It really provides a lot of imagery about the community’s life outside of war-- farming, civic life, et cetera. Is it a “this is what all this fighting is about” reminder? Like a microcosmic glimpse of life in general, of which war is part? I tried to read back through it to see if there was an overt “moral” but it seemed sort of neutral on the face of it. Any thoughts?

On honorable figures. . . I couldn’t help but feeling the most sympathetic towards Hector, and Patroclos. On the other hand, various figures seem to be received within the text as honorable for various actions; I’ll have to look when I have a moment and see what, outside my own reactions, is tagged as “honorable”. “Honorable” does often verge on “dick,” however (especially in times of war?), so perhaps Agamemnon and/or Achilles easily qualify, in terms of ‘saving face’ or ‘obligation’ or ‘tit for tat’ and ‘what’s done’ or ‘soldierly’ or ‘brave’. . . Paris would be stretching it, though. As far as I know, the most honorable in Bronze Age terms might be he who performs sacrifices just right.

24

Good points - my own post was “who has traditionally been considered most honourable, and would be considered honourable by our standards”; this may not be the same as “who the reciters of the Illiad when it was composed thought was honourable”. I suppose the only evidence for the latter is the text itself … thought I would still say that, within the context of the story, Hector takes it, as others within the story think of him as honourable (though doomed).

25

I think though, that Homer carries over a lot of the Mycenaean stuff too even when he doesn’t quite understand it. I really can’t do it justice, but The Trojan War by Barry Straus goes into this in pretty good depth.

I haven’t read Keegan in a while, but just the fact that Homer includes chariots at all I see as a nod to the Mycenaean period as much as his own time.

26

Yup, that’s more or less my impression - that Homer knew of chariot-fighting, but not how it was actually done.

I’ll check out the Straus book.

27

(BTW, not to rush things, but what are we reading next? Aeschylus?)

28

Bored already? :smiley:

The Odyssey is next on the St. John’s list.

29

A couple of thoughts:

First, I don’t think the blank slate idea means you have to abandon any knowledge about the book. It means you don’t simply absorb a lot of Famous Proffessor’s ideas and the repeat them. It focusses the debate on the book itself, not on what Shmendrake thinks of Goldblatt’s interpretation of the Illiad. But it doesn’t mean that we have to ignore that the Illiad was written a long time ago for a society very different than our own, in a different language, and was a performance piece rather than a novel.

It might help to think of a pop song translated into a language so alien that all it’s meter is lost, and spoken, or read, rather than sung. What would you make of the repetitive chorus or the little verbal fill ins? They’d probably seem strange and pointless.

Reading the Illiad I tried to imagine it aloud, being read in a portentious voice full of doom and ancient wisdom.

I think a lot of the Illiad speaks to a very poweful and ancient place inside us, a place of pride and violence. You can see a lot of the tropes of the Illiad repeated in modern culture, especially pop culture, which–unlke “serious” culture–isn’t afraid of atavism. Take the gathering of armies in Book 2. A lot of modern readers understandably find this boring and repetitive. But you can see this same idea repeated over and over in modern pop culture: A listing of the heroes with all their feats and histories and powers. Think of some action movies, where a good chunk of the movie involves the hero gathering up his crew, and the crew gets a little scene to reveal their individual virtue. See especially The Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven, or the remake of Ocean’s eleven, among others. Also the NFL, where players are introduced with a mention of their college and a mention of notable stats and awards. Also, obviously, superhero comics.

The tension of the Illiad is the tension between the joy of violence and the horror of violence. It’s an action story, but it’s not just an action story. Homer has his bad asses tear through the crowd of lesser enemies, in passages meant to excite, but when achillies or Hector or Diomedes kills someone, Homer tells us about that person, where they came from, and how fearful, painful and undignified their death was. This is what makes the Illiad a much deeper work than a lot of the violent tales which are its children.

Another tension in the Illiad arises from the brutal determinism of it all. While the heroes are bad-asses capable of bending others to their will, reducing them to objects, they are also pawns subject to relentless fate and the capricious will of the Gods. The Gods control men, not with the benevolence and wisdom of the God of Christianity, but by whim caused by the most trivial slights and favors. Hera and Athena hate Troy not because Troy is unjust but because Paris slighted them personally. I think in a way the Gods represent the random fucked-up things that happen to us. There’s no great plan, just the capricious whims of vast and powerful forces. And for all his power Achillies knows, knows for a fact, that he will be killed before the walls of Troy.

Sorry this was a bit rambling and not really responsive to previous posts. It’s just some stuff I was thinking about while re-reading the poem.

30

I like this metaphor or touchstone or whatever a lot.

The gods are strange. It’s a lot like… . I suppose that while at least the idea of Christian culture is that God made man in his own image, with the Greeks it’s clear that they made their gods in their own image. These are really terribly human gods-- petty, horny, bitchy, catty, meddling little gods. Really the only difference between them and humans seems to be the immortality thing.

31

No one has any thoughts about Agamemnon?

32

Good old Agamemnon was a clever little fellow which is why he was leading the coalition against the City of Ilium. It was he who convinced all of them to honor and defend whomever Helen picked for her husband. Some have accused him of cowardice, he wouldn’t go and personally take Briseis from Achilles as he had promised, but on the other hand he never seemed to shy away from fighting the Trojans.

I’ve read the Iliad three times and I’ve never found it boring. Repetitive yes, how many times do I need to hear that Thetis has glistening feet, but boring? Never. The Iliad even manages to ask questions that are still relevant today. When Achilles complains that he is far from home fighting an enemy that did him no harm I imagine there might be some U.S. troops making the same complaints today.

Marc

33

Agamemnon is another tension. He’s the King and everyone has to respect him, but, as you say, he’s clearly unworthy. He’s not tough like Achillies, brave like Diomedes, cunning like Odysseus, or wise like Nestor. He’s just there. It’s one of the many amazing things about the Illiad that the leader of the Acheans is one of their least worthy fighters.

I really don’t know what to make of this. My Idealistic side says that it’s a first step towards democracy, a realization that the King may be unworthy of rule. But of course achillies would make a lousy King as well.

34

I think honor has very different meanings to Achillies and Hector. For Achillies, honor is personal. He is a fighter unto himself, so powerful he can single-handedly turn the tide of battle. For him honor is about what he deserves and his loyalty to himself trumps loyalty to anyone else. Even Patrocles is his loss, not his country’s. He’s capable of behaving benvolently to to others–witness his fair treatment of the messengers who come to take his girl to Agamemmnon–but this is when they show him awe and respect. Achillies is all about imposing his own virtue–or power–on reality. He is not bound by laws or duty.

You don’t see this anymore, at least not as something that’s held up as a model. I have to say I did think of the feud in the Lakers awhile ago, when Shaq and Kobe wouldn’t work together, as each was leaching glory from the other. But OUr military is now predicated on duty and teamwork. There isn’t anyone like Achillies, who is a self-sufficient demigod on the field. There probably never really was.

Hector is more sympathetic to a modern reader. A powerful fighter who revels in glory, he also seeks peace. He fights, not for himself, not for his glory, but for his city. This is something we understand and approve of, but not the narcissitic beast or god that is Achillies.

35

Here’s my question: which of these different conceptions were considered superior in the Iliad itself?

We know that in the Iliad, when the two meet in battle at last, Achillies triumphs. Does this triumph represent a triumph of the divine (but horrible to us) principle of virtue as individual excellence in battle, over the human (and sympathetic) principle of virtue represented by Hector?

To my mind this has something to do with how the gods are portrayed. There is seemingly no notion that the gods have to be fair or just (as indeed, the OT god isn’t particularly, either, though for different reasons). To one who took the existence of gods seriously, this may simply have been a reflection of reality - the world isn’t a particularly just place. The “good guy” doesn’t always win - sometimes he ends up with his corpse dragged by its heels around the walls of his home city.

There are at least three reactions to this realization - to curse the gods for their fickleness, to simply assert that those who win are favoured of the gods - that what is “good” is might itself; or to view fate as inextorable.

36

Achilles and Hector are a bit more alike then people think. When Hector is standing on the wall with his wife Adromache and their son Astyanax he makes a plea to the gods for his son but not for safety or peace. No, he makes a plea that Astyanax grows to be man who is an even better warrior and wins more glories than his father. Given what we know of how the Greek world measured honor what would that mean for Astyanax? It means Astyanax would have to go out a kill men, take their treasures, and take their women to practice their crafts in his household. The only real difference between Hector and the invaders is that he’s on the defensive.

Hector on the wall is one of my favorite scenes in the Iliad. My favorite part is when Astyanax won’t stop crying until his father removes his helmet. I’m not the only one who noticed it but it suggest to me that while Hector is geared for war he is some kind of monster who is not part of civilized life. Once his helmet is removed he becomes a man again and can enjoy civilized life.

Marc

37

That’s a good question. I’m not sure if the triumph of Achillies over Hector represents anything more than the triumph of one fighter over another. I don’t know if there’s a higher ethical point being made. It does show that if you’re going to defend your city, you’d better know how to fight. All your virtues won’t save you. And even then it’s really up to the will of the fickle whimsical gods.

I agree with Mgibson that I drew to sharp a distinction between Achillies and Hector. Hector is “man-killing Hector,” and revels in the joy of battle as much as Achillies, stripping the armor from Patrocles and trying to carry off the body. And Achillies can be courtly and compassionate as witnessed during the funeral games and the final scene with Priam. However one difference is that Hector will do his duty to the city, while Achillies isn’t ashamed to be a whiny bitch, sulking in his ships while is fellow Acheans are nearly defeated.

Again I’m not a cholar or anything. I can’t even read greek. These are just my thoughts.

38

It interesting because I never really thought of Achilles as whiny bitch, mercurial to be sure, but not a whiny bitch. Frankly, Achilles takes more from Agamemnon than I would. Everyone knows that the Greeks absolutely need Achilles to win, and yet Agamemnon disrespects him. Last I checked, when my success or failure is totally dependent on someone else, I’m going to respect them. Plus, Achilles isn’t in it for the Greeks, he was in it for himself. Hell, there was no such thing as “the Greeks” anyway. (In fact, I’ve read that inter-Greek warfare following the Trojan War may have caused the collapse of Mycenaean civilization, not a Dorian invasion.) Its true that in a sense, Achilles needed Agamemnon to get the glory he wanted, but that doesn’t mean that he should let a petty dictator walk all over him.

39

Hector would have sucked up the insult and fought. The Acheans were nearly going under. And even after Agammenon apologized and sent an embassy to Achillies with a very generous offer, Achillies still wouldn’t help his friends. Agammenon was an unworthy leader but Achillies strike imperiled his friends. “Whiny bitch” was probably too flip.

40

Yeah, I couldn’t sympathize much with Achilles, personally. Someone takes his wife (because he caused (although possibly rightfully) the loss of someone else’s) and his people pay with many many lives (from his refusal to join the battle). And Hector OTOH has more of a sense of civic-mindedness. . . but is the one who gets killed. But perhaps since in the story cycle Achilles will also die soon (right?) the hearers of the time wouldn’t have seen this plot point as so much of an injustice, as in the end they BOTH snuff it while we’re subject to a historically arbitrary finale in the version we read which affects the tone and apparent moral of the plot.
If I were directing the re-make, though, Paris would totally have to die in the end, in some humorous cathartic manner to the cheers of the audience. HE comes off as a total pansy, and was possibly the only reason I found myself rooting for the Achaians instead of the Trojans who seemed like perfectly reasonable guys.