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

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=MichaelQReilly]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Whiny bitch may be too strong, and Achilles was certainly pushed into his actions by Agamemnon, but it’s exactly what I thought of Ares in book 5 when he goes running to Zeus after Athena speared him while she was riding with Diomedes. I pictured that scene playing out with Francis from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure as Ares: “But DAAAAD you let her do anything she wants! She messed up my battle charge! Its just! Not! Fair!”

That scene mirrored the earlier one of Achilles spilling his guts to Thetis to me- Achilles is capricious and willful in the same way that the gods are- there seems to be a distinction between this and Agamemnon’s stubbornness.

Thinking more about what makes Agamemnon his own special sort of dick- he goes back on his word, or uses double-talk more than any other character I can think of. In the matter of Chryseis- to her father he dishonors her- basically says he’ll make her his bitch- but then when he realizes he was wrong and he’ll have to give her up, sudden

:rolleyes: Achilles might be a sulky bitch, but he says what he means and if he has to go back on it later he acknowledges what made him change. I do agree with what the other posters have said about Hector- both that he is honorable, and about how wrapped up his identity is in war and killing. I think that there is an important distinction to be made between honor and morality here- one can be honorable without being so great morally, and vice/versa (in the context of the Iliad) Moreover, the gods seem to be amoral- they have fondnesses or bitternesses toward each other and various mortals and act on them but seem to have no problem turning against even the most conscientious worshiper if it suits their whims.

For me this points to Malthus’ third option- view fate as inexorable. Neither honorable or moral actions guarantee victory or success for a mortal, but chance misfortune or fate can unseat even the mightiest fighter. Railing against the gods does no good- at best they’ll ignore you, and at worst you’re even more screwed than before- you can’t hope to talk omnipotent beings into morality. So , what does that leave? fate is inexorable, and being a ‘good person’ won’t help you win, yet honor is still prized. I think this is a pretty sophisticated worldview, in a way- you must do right (what constitutes right is another question) without a payoff in this world or the next.

42

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
And Achillies can be courtly and compassionate as witnessed during the funeral games and the final scene with Priam.
[/QUOTE]

Achilles didn’t really show any compassion to Priam. Thetis, with her glistening feet, came by and admonished Achilles for not agreeing to ransom Hector’s body to Priam. Achilles finally relents because it is the wish of the gods, Zeus in particular, that Hector’s body is returned for proper honors and, hey, you can’t really fight the gods.
Achilles even threatens to kill Priam if he continues to “vex” him.

He only gives up the body and gives time for Hector’s funeral because that’s what the Gods want. On the other hand, his rage is so great that he’d be willing to kill Priam in spite of the wishes of the Gods.

Marc

43

[QUOTE=capybara]
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).

[/quote]

Let’s consider Achilles point of view a bit more critically. He’s been away from home for many years and is not doubt stressed. Actually, I’ve heard some argue that he might be suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome but I don’t know if I’d go that far. Achilles does the bulk of the fighting, compared to Agamemnon, yet it is Agamemnon who gets the lion’s share of the booty. What next?

Agamemnon is forced to give up Chryseis but demands another woman from one of his men because his pride demands that he not be the only one left without his due. Achilles tells Agamemnon that it would be wrong of him to take the prize of another to compensate for the loss of Chryseis. This pisses Agamemnon off and he says that he’ll take Briseis from him as compensation.

Achilles didn’t just whine like an old woman. He grabbed his sword and was ready to cut down Agamemnon when Pallas Athena swoops down from heaven, grabs him by his hair, and says “Knock that shit off”. When Athena tells you not to kill someone you damn well better not kill him.

So far as Briseis goes she was not his wife. He won her by dint of arms though he loved her as he would a wife. I think that’s one of the reasons why Achilles was so angry that Agamemnon would come and take her. He’s far from home, he’s been fighting for years, Agamemnon takes the lion’s share of the booty, and finally Agamemnon also takes from him the woman he loves. How would you feel?

Keep in mind that the Trojans are the ones on the defensive. We don’t have that much opportunity to see the invaders sense of civic mindedness because they area away from home.
Marc

44

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Achilles didn’t really show any compassion to Priam. Thetis, with her glistening feet, came by and admonished Achilles for not agreeing to ransom Hector’s body to Priam. Achilles finally relents because it is the wish of the gods, Zeus in particular, that Hector’s body is returned for proper honors and, hey, you can’t really fight the gods.

Achilles even threatens to kill Priam if he continues to “vex” him…He only gives up the body and gives time for Hector’s funeral because that’s what the Gods want. On the other hand, his rage is so great that he’d be willing to kill Priam in spite of the wishes of the Gods.
[/QUOTE]

This is a little harsh. If those four lines were the only thing Achilles said to Priam I’d agree, but the prior 100 lines are a model of empathy, and Achilles does invite Priam to share a meal with him after the body is loaded up.

Thetis (Achilles mother, another endearing touch meant to arouse the hero’s pity) did tell him the gods required him to give the body back, but (1) Achilles was already sorrowful and mourning before her visit–probably because he had learned that beating a dead Trojan did little to assuage his feelings about the dead Patroclus, and (2) the gods only ordered him to give the body back, not to weep with the aged king, share a meal and allow the lavish funeral. It’s a little hard to read the XXIVth book as anything but the awakening of compassion in Achilles, an emotion that is the polar opposite of the rage that drove most of his actions in the first XXIII. And, as it turns out, the only possible remedy for the guilt he felt in his friend’s death:

45

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
This is a little harsh. If those four lines were the only thing Achilles said to Priam I’d agree, but the prior 100 lines are a model of empathy, and Achilles does invite Priam to share a meal with him after the body is loaded up.

[/quote]

Perhaps, but the rage is always bubbling just beneath the surface.

Mainly Achilles is doing this because he was told to do so. His rage is so strong that even when commanded by Zeus himself his anger might get the better of him and he’ll kill Priam. I’d say that the biggest kindness Achilles shows Priam is allowing him 12 days to bury Hector. Of course part of that might be because the he knows the Gods want Hector to be buried with all the proper honor due to him.
Perhaps Achilles recognizes that Priam mourns for his son as he himself mourns for Patroclus but I don’t think it’s a strong motivating factor in his treatment of Priam.
Speaking of which. According to the Iliad just what are Greek values?

Marc

46

I agree Achilles is not instantly transformed to compassion in the final book–that would make the scene unbelievable. But he clearly sublimates his rage and takes steps to avoid having it drive his actions. He certainly doesn’t do this grudgingly, and the frequent allusions to Patroclus in the book are a measure of empathy we haven’t seen in Achilles previously.

I think the question regarding Greek values is an excellent one. IMO the oral tradition behind the poem is key to answering the question. Homer’s genius was in taking stories that had been sung for generations (stories which reflect a certain “older” set of values) and stringing them together to create a subtler motif (one that reflected values that were more difficult to express in the tradition). To put it glibly, Homer’s skill as a poet is at least in part a product of judicious editing.

The “older” values are quite obvious: Loyalty to tribe, valor in battle, respect for authority, the list goes on. What interests me more is how Homer organizes the story to reveal flaws in the great heroes reflecting these traditional values. In Achilles’ case, he seems to be saying that strength of arms is not an absolute virtue; unchecked it can lead to tragic results that leave the protagonist looking ugly and feeling unfulfilled.

Homer finds a higher value in self-control, and argues that mercy is an indispensible element of humanity. I don’t think the sophistication and radicalness of that notion–considering the age in which it was expressed–can be overestimated, and for me this is the reason I prefer the Iliad to the Odyssey.

47

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
This is a little harsh. If those four lines were the only thing Achilles said to Priam I’d agree, but the prior 100 lines are a model of empathy, and Achilles does invite Priam to share a meal with him after the body is loaded up.

Thetis (Achilles mother, another endearing touch meant to arouse the hero’s pity) did tell him the gods required him to give the body back, but (1) Achilles was already sorrowful and mourning before her visit–probably because he had learned that beating a dead Trojan did little to assuage his feelings about the dead Patroclus, and (2) the gods only ordered him to give the body back, not to weep with the aged king, share a meal and allow the lavish funeral. It’s a little hard to read the XXIVth book as anything but the awakening of compassion in Achilles, an emotion that is the polar opposite of the rage that drove most of his actions in the first XXIII. And, as it turns out, the only possible remedy for the guilt he felt in his friend’s death:
[/QUOTE]

I agree with what you said, but I also think that a lot of what is happening in this scene is that Achilles and Priam are commiserating their respective doom. Achilles had realized that the glory he dreamed of wasn’t quite all its cracked up to be. His rage moves him to kill Hector, and now he realizes he doesn’t have much left except for his own death. Priam, meanwhile, has lost his son and knows that Troy is probably screwed. Its like for a moment they realize that they have a whole lot in common and can weep about it together.

48

I’d still call Achillies compassionate towards Priam. It’s true that he does threaten Priam at one point, but after that Homer tells us that Achillies was worried that Priam would lose control if he saw his son as he was, and so ordered his servants to make the body presentable. Achillies was worried that if Priam lost control he too would lose control and “break the laws of Zeus.” I agree with MichaelQReilly that Achillies sees himself in Priam, both doomed men who’ll lose everything. But isn’t that what compassion is, seeing another’s common humanity?

I have to say, re-reading the Illiad and having this discussion I’m struck by how complex the characters are. I missed that in my earlier readings.

49

[QUOTE=capybara]
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?
[/QUOTE]

The ‘microcosmic’ aspect really struck me, too. especially how, in the Fagles translation, at least, the people that Hephastus forges are described as existing in their own right. For example, at line 629, “he forged a fallow field”, but then on the next line “across it crews of plowmen wheeled their teams, driving them up and back…” I got the impression that Hephastus touched off each scene, but then the little men and women went about their business, filling in their activities naturally. Is the world in the shield yet another layer of reality?

Veering off a bit, what about the more general question of armor throughout the story? Taking the armor from a slain man seems to be as important as making the kill- in some of the headier fighting chapters I imagined each of the big bad fighters with an entourage of buddies in his wake, just to carry the armor of all the enemies he slays. To my modern eyes, this seemed distasteful at first- picking the dead clean seems like a job for scavengers or camp followers- not fighting men of honor. Not to break the rules, but it made me think of the mercenaries that Thornton has to ride with in The Wild Bunch “Hey- I got his boots!” “No- I saw 'em first” “That’s a black lie!”

But it’s obviously more than that- right? Just like Achilles’ shield isn’t just a hunk of metal to keep the arrows off, and

[QUOTE=MGibson]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Does wearing armor confer the state of being a warrior? And by stripping it off and carrying it away you change your enemy’s status after death? There is a distinction drawn between taking the armor and defiling the body- especially for the dead man’s friends.

ps- I think it’s getting on time to start a reading thread for the Odyssey. If no one objects I’ll do it tomorrow. That doesn’t mean this thread has to die, of course! Also, I think somebody else should take a turn with the eventual discussion thread- I’ll leave it open when I start the reading thread and whoever calls it first can have at it.

50

Also- Maeglin, I just noticed your location in another thread- that must smart a tad.

51

[QUOTE=The Lovely Margo Lane]

Does wearing armor confer the state of being a warrior? And by stripping it off and carrying it away you change your enemy’s status after death? There is a distinction drawn between taking the armor and defiling the body- especially for the dead man’s friends.

[/quote]

Well, yeah wearing armor does confer the state of being a warrior but the scene I’m talking about has nothing to do with stripping armor. While in armor, or at least while wearing his helmet, Hector’s son was afraid of him. Being a warrior, symbolized by wearing the helmet, represents the monster that men become when they gear up for war. This theme is carried out when, clad in armor, Hector is searching for his wife and is offered wine by his mother. Wine is a staple of civilized life and something he could not partake of while armored and dirty. Though that certainly isn’t the reason Hector gives her.

The irony is that their civilization seems to require warfare. Note the shield Achilles is armed with when fighting Hector. It has all sorts of images of civic life.

Marc

52

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Well, yeah wearing armor does confer the state of being a warrior but the scene I’m talking about has nothing to do with stripping armor. While in armor, or at least while wearing his helmet, Hector’s son was afraid of him. Being a warrior, symbolized by wearing the helmet, represents the monster that men become when they gear up for war. This theme is carried out when, clad in armor, Hector is searching for his wife and is offered wine by his mother. Wine is a staple of civilized life and something he could not partake of while armored and dirty. Though that certainly isn’t the reason Hector gives her.

The irony is that their civilization seems to require warfare. Note the shield Achilles is armed with when fighting Hector. It has all sorts of images of civic life.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

Sorry- I was unclear- I was trying to connect a bunch of different thoughts about armor in to a single post. I didn’t mean to suggest that there was a direct connection, just that your point about Hector’s armor got me thinking.

53

[QUOTE=The Lovely Margo Lane]

Veering off a bit, what about the more general question of armor throughout the story? Taking the armor from a slain man seems to be as important as making the kill- in some of the headier fighting chapters I imagined each of the big bad fighters with an entourage of buddies in his wake, just to carry the armor of all the enemies he slays. To my modern eyes, this seemed distasteful at first- picking the dead clean seems like a job for scavengers or camp followers- not fighting men of honor. Not to break the rules, but it made me think of the mercenaries that Thornton has to ride with in The Wild Bunch “Hey- I got his boots!” “No- I saw 'em first” “That’s a black lie!”

But it’s obviously more than that- right? Just like Achilles’ shield isn’t just a hunk of metal to keep the arrows off, and

[/QUOTE]

I think this is another place where the Bronze Age nature of the work really shows through. I’m drawing on Keegan again, who characterized Bronze Age battle as a series of individual contests fought to showcase the warriors’ skills. I’d imagine that your enemy’s armor would be the best trophy to display your prowess.

54

OK, but why not a smaller trophy- like just the helmet, or even a physical one, like, say a head? What is it about the armor as a whole that is so potent?

55

[QUOTE=The Lovely Margo Lane]
OK, but why not a smaller trophy- like just the helmet, or even a physical one, like, say a head? What is it about the armor as a whole that is so potent?
[/QUOTE]

I think that the very difficulty of the feat - stripping a corpse of its armour on the field of battle and carrying it off - is part of the attraction. There are I remember scenes where a dead warrior fights over the body of a buddy to prevent this from happening.

In short, posession of armour means not only did you kill this warrior, you also fought off all his buddies. You must be one hell of a bad-ass.

Plus, don’t forget that in this time period armour was above all extremely expensive - bronze being treated more like a semiprecious metal, on top of which armour being just about the height of expensive craftsmanship. (In later ages armour made out of iron or steel may be costly but the material was only a tiny fraction of the cost, compared with bronze).

56

[QUOTE=The Lovely Margo Lane]
OK, but why not a smaller trophy- like just the helmet, or even a physical one, like, say a head? What is it about the armor as a whole that is so potent?
[/QUOTE]

Warfare isn’t just about having a trophy it’s about attaining wealth. Armor is very expensive and even if the warrior doesn’t keep it he can pass it down to the men under his command.

Marc

57

MGibson has it right. That suit of armor represents a fantastic amount of wealth in the Bronze Age. Not just the work of the craftsmen who produced it, but simply the bronze itself was worth a fortune.

And so a suit of armor separates the aristocrat from the commoner. Only landed aristocrats can accumulate the surplus wealth to afford the armor. And aristocrats maintain their power by giving out wealth to their followers, and they gather wealth through the produce of their lands, and through warfare.

58

Another value the Greeks had was that of generosity. There are many examples throughout the Iliad where generosity in the form of gift giving is displayed with perhaps the funeral of Patroclus being the biggest example.

Marc

59

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Another value the Greeks had was that of generosity. There are many examples throughout the Iliad where generosity in the form of gift giving is displayed with perhaps the funeral of Patroclus being the biggest example.

Marc
[/QUOTE]
*
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes*
“I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts.” (Virgil, Aeneid Book II)

(Sorry, the above Marc quote just made me smile and think of the latter quote. I’m following this thread intently, as its been a few years since I’ve read the Iliad and taken Latin, and am more familiar with the Odyssey and the Aeneid. Please forgive my intrusion.)

Could we consider Achilles and Priam (about Hector’s corpse) the biggest display of generosity? As that is a generosity that transcends Cultures even, and not just the understanding of Greek to Greek, but a gift from one human being recognizing the humanity and grief of another human being

60

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Another value the Greeks had was that of generosity. There are many examples throughout the Iliad where generosity in the form of gift giving is displayed with perhaps the funeral of Patroclus being the biggest example.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

Indeed, generosity as a cardinal virtue is characteristic of proto state level societies, as it forms the whole basis of honour and prestige. A chief is one who hands out gifts (though of course this requires that he have gifts to hand out). The plot of the Iliad revolves around Agamemnon’s failure in this respect.