Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Discussion of the events of Book 1.

Good morning, January 4th, 12:54.

I return to The Iliad wondering where the pleasures are. I'm exactly the sort of person who should love The Iliad to death but doesn't. I've loved the stories since I eight and used to read my parents copy of Bullfinch's Mythology . I love Plato and wrote a senior thesis on "The Gorgias". I love the tragedians, particularly Sophocles. I took classical Greek for a year and loved it -- unfortunately my last year and let my career get in the way until I'd forgotten what I'd learned. I recently started the Fagels translation of the Odyssey and like it more than I did Fitzgerald.

So for me this reading is about literary pleasures and where they are.

So I'm curious where people find the fun.

_____

Rereading Book I, I'm intrigued by something that I don't think every struck me before.

The only two mortal women are Chryseis and Briseis, and only the former has a speaking part and it's brief.

And yet, so much of the Olympian story is about female goddesses.

The background story has Eris, the goddess of discord, throwing a golden apple into the feast with "for the fairest" inscribed on it. But who's the fairest? Zeus, no fool, wants nothing of the decision-making and it's delegated to Paris, who has been fair in the past.

First Paris is supposed to judge the beauty of the goddesses, then in a later variant their beauty naked, and finally he chooses among bribes.

The bribe he chooses is Helen.

But so we have invasion of Troy -- all as the result of woman -- and yet while women are portrayed with power on Olympus, they have none on earth.

It's seems odd to me to imagine a world where females have power in heaven or rather Olympus and none on earth.

Admittedly, this takes place on the battlefield.

But still.

____

I'm also intrigued by a model of heroism that seems all about power and nothing about courage. Achilles takes on a tragic stature later, but not here.

Patrice wrote: "I didn't know Helen was a bribe. I thought Paris chose Aphrodite and that was his downfall. He was overwhelmed with love for Helen. How was Helen a bribe? My memory may be failing me."

He DID chose Aphrodite...but all three of the goddesses had promised him a bribe. Aphrodite promised him the most beautiful woman in the world. Which was Helen. That Helen was already married to Meneleus was not an overriding concern. Subsequently, (background stories vary) either Paris disabused the hospitality of Meneleus AND kidnapped Helen, or, Paris disabused the hospitality of Meneleus ... and Helen went with Paris "willingly," ie, supposedly due to the intense attraction for Paris that Aphrodite made her feel.

Oh, oh, oh! I can't make it back to my computer until this afternoon. Sadness! But I'll be back this afternoon with bells on. Have a delightful morning discussion!

Patrice wrote: "The priest of Apollo, begging for his daughter back. Bringing gold and pleading for his beloved daughter.
It can bring tears to your eyes, he is so helpless. And like all helpless people he turns to heaven for help.
But look how he loved and valued his daughter. Just as any father today would.

I haven't read any background material this time around. These are just my own personal reactions, for what they are worth, ."

Patrice, I enjoyed reading your reaction. I am a first time reader and you have given me a lot to think about. Thank you.

I especially like your comment about Chryses.

I'm intrigued by the shifting ways in which power dynamics play out. Even in the first few chapters, we have everyone angling in various ways for their own ends, or manipulated by others for theirs. Chryses prays to Apollo, Apollo sends a plague, Agammemnon and Achilles argue, Agammemnon takes Briseis, Achilles withdraws his troops, Achilles complains to his mother, his mother calls in a favor with Zeus, Zeus machinates to conceal his motives from Hera, Hera badgers Zeus, Zeus manipulates the Acheans, Athena manipulates everyone . . .

Nowhere is it clear where power truly lies. The gods can be manipulated by humans and by each other and they can betray their promises, or at least appear to. The nominal leader of the Achaean armies is not clearly the strongest character- Achilles can out-muscle him and Odysseus can out-think him; everyone vies to most effectively manipulate the troops, their own and others'.

I think I'm tuned to this wavelength because I've been following the US Republican primaries. We complain about the corruption in current politics, but they basically haven't changed much in 3000 years, have they?

Patrice wrote: "Thanks for clarifying Adelle. It can get complicated, keeping all of the facts straight. I never thought of Helen as a "bribe" as much as the gift of Aphrodite. But I can see how a "gift" can be..."

Helen is considered a bribe also because (Greek myths say) Aphrodite was not the most beautiful of the three goddesses, Hera was - so Paris was not at all objective in his choice. By the way, Hera offered Paris political power and armies in exchange for choosing her and Athena wisdom and skill in military arts.

Rosemary wrote, "Nowhere is it clear where power truly lies."

I'm not sure we don't know where the power truly lies, but it is constantly challenged.

I'm not sure because Zeus is clearly the most powerful of gods -- he is stronger than all of them together -- and there is a moment of terror when he warns Hera. Unlike the old "Honeymooners" show -- "One of these days, Alice, POW, right in the kisser" where we know Ralph will never touch her -- and so does Alice -- Zeus might well act on his feelings and Hera knows it. Look at the response.

He spoke and the ox-eyed lady Hera was
frightened
and went down and set in silence wrenching her heart to
obedience..
and all the Uranian gods in the house of Zeus were troubled.

-- Lattimore

The thunderer spoke, nor durst the queen reply;
A reverent horror silenced all the sky.

- Pope


But Hera, the Queen, her eyes wider was terrified.
She sat in silence. She wrenched his will to his.
And throughout the halls of Zeus the gods of heven
Quaked in Fear.
And throughout the halls of heaven all

- Fagels

Among the mortals, it is tricky. Agamemnon clearly has the power although Achilles is great warrior. One on one, it would not be much of a contest. But it's not one on one. That's clear because Agamemnon threatens to come to Achilles tent to take Briseis which a large number of men.

The interesting question is the support of the troops for Agamemnon's position, one of, I believe, Achilles complaints.

Why IS Agamemnon the leader? (Wouldn't that logically fall to Menelaus, who is the victim?) There's probably a straightforward answer to this that someone knows -- like he has the largest kingdom and the most men -- I just don't know it.

To what extent do the men have power? They do persuade Agamemnon to return Chryseis -- but not to keep him from taking his compensation in Briseis. In fact they don't try -- perhaps because they have nothing to gain whereas stopping the plague was very much in their interest. Is this simple persuasion or does Agamemnon sense a mutiny.

This is also interesting. Here the soothsayer is comfortable enough with Achilles offer of protection to explain that Agamemnon must return Chryseis. But Achilles' power doesn't extend to being able being to protect himself from the contingent of men Agamemnon would gather to take back Briseis.

So while I do think the ultimate sources of power are clear -- Zeus and Agamemnon -- I'm not sure from where Agamemnon derives his power.

Patrice wrote: "I didn't know Helen was a bribe. I thought Paris chose Aphrodite and that was his downfall. He was overwhelmed with love for Helen. How was Helen a bribe? My memory may be failing me."

See the article on the Judgment of Paris which I posted in the background thread. According to that myth, yes, Helen was the bribe that Aphrodite, goddess of love, offered Paris to choose her. Hera reportedly offered him wealth and political power (kingship over all the known world) and Athena offered him wisdom and prowess in war. He chose Helen and awarded the golden apple to Aphrodite.

That said, it's not clear whether Homer knew this myth. There is a vague possible reference to it late in the Iliad, but scholars disagree on whether that shows that he knew it, or whether later mythmakers picked up on this and created the myth to explain why the goddesses picked the sides they did.

The other question which mythology isn't clear on is whether Helen was abducted or whether she went with Paris voluntarily (was seduced by him). We can discuss when we get to Helen which we think Homer believed.

Bill wrote: "It's seems odd to me to imagine a world where females have power in heaven or rather Olympus and none on earth."

It's worse than that. They not only have no power, but they are sometimes treated more as beasts than people, as we see from Chryseis and Briseis getting swapped around with no concern at all for what they might want, and even more by Agamemnon's willingness to sacrifice his own daughter, Iphigenia, to propitiate the gods -- even the Hebrew god relented when Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, but Artemis demands the death.

Bill wrote: "It's seems odd to me to imagine a world where females have power in heaven or rather Olympus and none on earth."

It's worse than that. They not only have no power, but they are sometimes treated more as beasts than people, as we see from Chryseis and Briseis getting swapped around with no concern at all for what they might want, and even more by Agamemnon's willingness to sacrifice his own daughter, Iphigenia, to propitiate the gods -- even the Hebrew god relented when Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, but Artemis demands the death.

An addition to the comment on the treatment of women: this is only one of the things we will have to deal with as we read the Iliad, being willing, I hope, to understand that Greek values differed greatly from ours in several respects, and being willing to judge the characters and their actions in the context of their society and its values rather than ours.

Bill wrote: "So while I do think the ultimate sources of power are clear -- Zeus and Agamemnon -- I'm not sure from where Agamemnon derives his power.
.."

I'm not sure, but it may be that Mycenae was simply the most powerful polis in the region. Historically, this seems to be the case.

Rosemary wrote: "I'm intrigued by the shifting ways in which power dynamics play out. ...Nowhere is it clear where power truly lies. The gods can be manipulated by humans and by each other and they can betray their promises, or at least appear to. ..."

You highlight one of the major differences between the Greek theology and later Western theology. To the Judeo-Christian worldview, God is eternally good, is fair, is honest, keeps his word, etc. To the Greeks, the gods were vengeful, quarrelsome, petty, vain, but also honorable and loving at times. They pretty much had all the human virtues and vices, in spaces. They ate, they drank, the copulated, they bore children, just as humans do. And as you note, their political intrigues aren't that much different from what we see today.

Patrice wrote: "That's interesting Adreea, I never heard that Aphrodite was not the most beautiful. "

The myth doesn't say that she wasn't the most beautiful; indeed, I think you're right that most mythology says that she was, bribes aside. But nonetheless, she obviously wasn't any more interested in a fair and open contest than the other goddesses were. If it had been a fair and open contest she would probably have won anyhow, but they all decided to put a finger on the scale, and hers was the heaviest finger.

Bill wrote: "Among the mortals, it is tricky. Agamemnon clearly has the power although Achilles is great warrior. One on one, it would not be much of a contest. ...
Why IS Agamemnon the leader? (Wouldn't that logically fall to Menelaus, who is the victim?) There's probably a straightforward answer to this that someone knows -- like he has the largest kingdom and the most men -- I just don't know it."

The relationship between Agamemnon and Achilles is interesting. Achilles is clearly the greater fighter, though Agamemnon is also clearly no slouch as a warrior. Agamemnon is the leader of the forces. But it isn't a unified Greek army he's leading; there was no such thing. Rather, it was a large number of independent city-states, each with its own king, come together to fight Troy.

Perhaps the best modern comparison is with the Allied forces in World War II. Although France, Britain, and other European countries were the main aggrieved countries, Eisenhower was selected as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces. But there were many independent countries which contributed forces to the allied cause, including not only the US and England but France, Poland, Belgium, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Greece, Mexico, and a number of other countries. These were all independent nations with independent armies (or as in the case of France, armies in exile), but they set aside their sovereignty to unite under one Supreme Commander.

It's not obvious that Eisenhower was the greatest fighter of them all. Montgomery, de Gaulle, and Patton, for example, would each probably have claimed the role of Achilles to Eisenhower's Agamemnon. And any one of the allies could have withdrawn from the alliance any time they had wanted to, just as Achilles had the right to withdraw the Myrmidons from the Greek alliance.

Eman --

1)

I am totally clear about the Greeks being different. One of the interesting things about the Greeks was that in some ways they're so much like us, and in other ways, not at all -- and keeping the differences straight is not easy. We're so tempted to project our own perceptions, thoughts, and feelings into them.

I wasn't curious about the way women were treated -- I know that Ancient Greece wasn't a society famous for beliefs in women's rights (although I'm not sure what major ancient society was).

I was curious about the power they had on Olympus.

2)

Interesting. Monty, de Gaulle, MacArthur and Patton all had egos to manage, and Eisenhower was the one did it best, if I recall (from reading, I wasn't there. :-) ) Of course, the American senior military officer was Marshall -- Eisenhower worked for him.

But in WWII everyone was directly threatened. Some of the various expeditions, like the first one against Iraq, might be more of a case in point.

Also, there are parallels between the God of the Biblical narrative and the Greeks. I don't want anyone to feel I'm stepping on his or her religious beliefs, but the God of Biblical narrative has a quick fuse ("I am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other gods before me") and it's not clear that Hebrews were monotheistic at the time of the Exodus (later, absolutely). This is the conclusion of some Biblical scholars -- not my own interpretation.

But back to Homer...

Patrice wrote: "Good points Bill. But I think it's clear that the humans are no match for the gods who hold ultimate power. The humans battle it out, the gods battle it out but humans cannot battle it out with th..."

I suppose I'm thinking relative to Judeo-Christian theology. A Greek might upset one god but be beloved of another. Therefore, it was possible to play the gods off of one another --- Paris is a good example of this. You might also offend one god by being too devoted to another. It creates an entirely different dynamic.

Further, yes, Zeus reigns, but always in the back of his (and everyone else's) mind must be the fact that he overthrew his father, Cronos, to get there (and Cronos overthrew *his* father), so the power of the Greek gods wasn't as immutable as it is when we think of God today. Just a totally different thing . . . and that's what I like about it! The Abrahamaic God isn't nearly so dynamic a character (probably why Milton made Satan his protagonist, but I digress . . . )

Bill wrote: "But in WWII everyone was directly threatened. Some of the various expeditions, like the first one against Iraq, might be more a case in point. "

The real origins of the Trojan war are hotly debated by scholars, but the theory that the whole thing was to get Helen back is pretty tenuous. The more likely cause, at least IMO, was that Troy, which by its location controlled the entrance to the Black Sea, on which Greece's ability to feed itself depended (Greece has very little arable land; it depended on the fertile areas around the Black Sea as well as other areas to grow the grain to support the Greek population. Threatening that trade route was akin to Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to modern economies. Plus, the Greeks had settled much of the coastline of what is now southwestern Turkey, and Troy may have threatened those settlements.

It's not really relevant to the Iliad, of course, but it may (or, if I'm wrong, may not) be an interesting point that Homer adopted the theory that the war was really fought over the noble cause of recovering the stolen wife of a single Greek king, and not over much more important but mundane economic issues.

Patrice wrote: "Didn't Agammemnon have a great fighting force than Menalaus? I think Menalaus turned to his brother because he had a stronger army. "

That was certainly part of it; the other part may have been an aspect of the ages-old principle of calling on "big brother" to take on the bullies for you.

One point which is both obvious and easy to miss is that "The Iliad" is not the story of the Trojan War. There is very little of the Trojan War here -- neither the beginnings nor, interestingly the ending. We have no Trojan horse. But we do have Achilles coming to terms, in a way, with his anger(s). It explains, in a way, why the narrative ends before the fall of Troy.

The Odyssey is the story of Odysseus from the outset, andra polutropon (a clever (many-turned) crafty man.)

But with the Iliad, the subject matter is the anger, rage, unbridled emotion of Achilles THAT's the story.

And the immediate result is the success of his mother in propitiating Zeus, and the deaths of many Achaians.

It is also the anger of a man with little to lose. Achilles is not going to have a long life, and he knows it. It's not up for dispute.

Amanda wrote: "All I could think about were poor Chryseis and Briseis and how they were traded like cattle. It's made me pretty prejudiced against Achilles and Agammemnon from the start. "

It's easy to be upset with some of the things that the characters in the Iliad, both Greek and Trojan, took for granted. But I think we need to keep in mind that this was the culture in which they were raised, that for them this is just the way the world was, that they were behaving properly in terms of the culture they were immersed in. I expect that if we were to time travel to 2,500 years from now and talk to people reading contemporary literature from today, we would find aspects of our present culture which would disgust and appall them.

Patrice wrote: "Bill, you are right! This is about anger! Everyone is angry at everyone else."

But it's a bit more than ordinary anger. As Vandiver points out, the Greeks had several words for anger,but the one chosen by Homer as the opening word of the Iliad, μῆνιν, was almost always associated with the gods and represented divine anger, or as I think even better rage (Fagles, Johnston) or wrath (Murray). That Homer uses this word instead of any other available Greek word I think would have had two impacts on the Greek audience. One, it would have made clear that this was no ordinary anger, but towering fury. And second, that there was something different about Achilles, that he was not just another ordinary human, but recognizing that he was half-god by blood and was somehow set apart from ordinary men.

Patrice wrote: "Also, does anyone know why Homer uses different terms for the Greeks? Is it a matter of syllables? I'm sure someone has written a thesis on this. "

For one of our Greek experts, does Homer use these different terms himself, or is it a choice of translators, and if Homer does, do you know a reason?

I think it will help clarify the situation between Achilles and Agamemnon if we examine a couple of key concepts of Greek military practice. (I'm going to break this up into several posts for convenience.)

First, the Greeks were not paid soldiers, but they were citizen soldiers. The reward they expected from their Trojan adventure was not, as modern soldiers get, a paycheck, but only the booty they were able to gain from sacking and looting Troy and the other cities they sacked along the way.

There are several terms/concepts it may us to examine briefly.

One is the Greek concept time (tee-may). We have no real equivalent concept in English. time is usually translated as honor, but it is not as we think of honor. time represents the awards given to a soldier by his fellow soldiers from the booty of a victory in battle. The better you fought, the braver you were, the more time you were awarded. It was a direct measure of the respect and reward you received for your endeavors.

When we think of honor, we think of it as something elastic. If I get an award of honor for some great deed, whether military or otherwise, I have done, that doesn't diminish the pool of honor available to reward you if you also do a great deed of valor or courage. The amount of honor available under our concept of honor is not limited. But when a city is sacked, there is only so much time to go around. It's a zero sum game -- if I get more, you necessarily get less. As Achilles says, all the booty was distributed after the last victory, there's no more to go around.

So the Greek soldier fights for time both because it's a material payment/reward for going into battle, but also because the amount he gets shows the level of respect he is awarded by his fellow soldiers.

When Agamemnon takes Achilles's time, he does two very nasty things. First, he takes away Achilles's material reward for his heroics, so that Achilles has fought for nothing. Second, he takes away the measure of honor that Achilles received and disgraces him in the eyes of the other warriors. It's like tearing the medal off the chest of a soldier.

It is difficult perhaps for us to understand, since our culture doesn't work that way, just how serious an affront that was.

Continuing on the concept of time, Vandiver notes that cultural anthropologists recognize two main types of cultures: the shame culture and the guilt culture.

In the guilt culture, which is what our culture basically is, your self-worth depend primarily on what you think about yourself. It's the classic self-esteem that was the buzzword a few decades ago, or as Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in This is My Story, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Or, as Henley wrote, "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." This whole approach to life is ingrained in us.

But the Greek culture was a shame culture. Your value depended not on what you thought about yourself, but on what others thought about you. If others respected you, then you had self-respect. If others didn't respect you, then you had no self-respect and no way to achieve it. You were the product of what others thought about you.

When Agamemnon took away Achilles's time, he took away Achilles's self-worth. Achilles couldn't say "well, it doesn't matter what he thinks about me, I know I'm still the greatest warrior," because his culture didn't let him think that way. He was disgraced, he was devalued, his whole sense of self-worth was challenged.

One other important concept is that of kleos. kleos is normally translated reputation, or fame, or glory, but literally it means "what is said about you, what is spoken aloud about you." There is clearly a link between time and kleos because the more time you get, the more you will be talked about.

In a pre-literate culture, the only way your memory can survive you is if people keep talking about you, if bards keep singing about you. If you die, there are no written records of your life for people to learn about you. No history books, no newspapers or magazines, no biographies, no family Bibles, no headstone on your grave. If people don't orally pass on stories about you, you are totally gone as though you had never existed. I am able to dabble in family genealogy only because there are written records for me to consult; birth certificates, parish registers, newspaper reports, books they have written or are mentioned in, privately printed family records, census records, etc. If there had never been anything written about my ancestors, if I hadn't been told about them by my family I would have no idea who they had been what they had done, it would be as though they had never existed.

So if you wanted to be remembered, if you wanted to live on after death, you had to accumulate kleos, to have people talk about you, to have bards sing about you. Otherwise, you are gone without any possible trace or any possible memory, people will see a grave marker and have no way of knowing who lies there.

Soldiers fought to gain kleos, to be remembered by the poets, to be talked about and therefore kept alive for future generations. No kleos, nobody talking about you after your death, meant total obliteration of your life and existence.

Bill wrote: "Rosemary wrote, "Nowhere is it clear where power truly lies."

I'm not sure we don't know where the power truly lies, but it is constantly challenged.

I'm not sure because Zeus is clearly the most..."

While Zeus is theoretically the most powerful of the gods, at the same time there are ways the other gods can out maneuver him or challenge his power, and though I suppose he can pull rank, the other gods are not always beholden to be completely submissive to him and can force Zeus into more or less a compromise with them. So there is always a certain amount of power struggle between the gods themselves.

As Zeus himself got control via war with the Titans, I think he is aware of the fact that his own position can be challenged if he does not take care to try and appease the other gods, war among the gods is possible, so just as with a human king in which he on one hand theoretically has all the power, on the other hand he knows his position might be put at risk via rebellion and so it behooves him to sometimes concede power to those whom are beneath him. Zeus must do this too with the gods, he must keep the other gods appeased so at times he must submit to thier demands.

As I was writing the last few posts, it occurred to me that there is a lot of similarity between modern gang culture (or at least as it was a few decades ago in the gangs of New York, I'm not up on the newest gang culture) and Homeric warrior culture. For a gang member, to be "dissed" is a mortal insult. To take away another person's "woman" (sorry for the sexism, but that's how they think!) is a mortal insult. The bravado, the mano-a-mano, seem to me central aspects of both modern gang culture and ancient Homeric warrior culture.

Have we really not progressed beyond that in 2,500 years?

Everyman wrote: Have we really not progressed beyond that in 2,500 years?.."

Personally I beleive the idea of "civilization" is just a facade or an act of self-denial. Humans are animals, and so like any animal, no matter how we clothe ourselves human nature is what it is and will always operate on primal instinct on a certain level.

After all the Roman Colosseum as merely been replicated with more modern methods of expressing the same aggression and enjoying the witnessing of such violence. (Football, boxing, MMA Ultimate Fighting, Violent Video Games, Action Adventure Movies)

Everyman, Patrice

Thanks for the gloss on μῆνιν .

Homer uses different words the Greek forces: Achaians most commonly, Danaans second, and Argives third.

He doesn't use Hellenes (Greeks) because that word and that concept is still in the future.

As for the names, I don't think we have a perfect idea of what each represented.

_____

Everyman,

I think Agamemnon does one third thing.

He deprives Achilles of his prize, he deprives him of his honor, and he deprives him of a woman Achilles has come to care for personally. If there's a question of that in Book I, it's clear by the language he uses to describe the deed in Book IX, which I'll hide but isn't meaningfully a spoiler (view spoiler)[ "he has taken and keeps the bride of my heart", and "Are the sons of Atreus alone among mortal men the ones/ who loves their wives? Since any who is a good man, and careful,/loves her who is his own and cares for her, even as I now/loved this one from my heart, though it was my spear that /won her."
These are from Lattimore. (hide spoiler)]

Is it important? Clearly to Achilles.

In fact, there is an irony here that Agamemnon nearly destroys the Greeks by stealing another man's woman (if not his wife), when it is to avenge stealing a woman that brings them all here in the first place.

μῆνιν

Everyman -

On some earlier points, a war may be fought for many reasons and be multi-determined or overdetermined.

The theft of Helen may have been catalytic -- assuming we believe she existed, etc. People look for excuses.

Everyman wrote: "...being willing, I hope, to understand that Greek values differed greatly from ours in several respects, and being willing to judge the characters and their actions in the context of their society and its values rather than ours...."

I think this is very important, Eman. In reading The Iliad, it is easy to glibly say "human nature" hasn't changed across the centuries, and certainly we can cite evidence for that view, but on the other hand, just possibly...

Some of us have been struck on another board by how 25-year olds, looking back to just the inter-war period (WWI-WWII) tend to project current day assumptions onto human interactions. Does that in any way imply human nature has changed? I don't know, but I think it does warn us of the dangers of projecting our assumptions unto another age.

An example that comes to mind is the role of hospitality. The evidence seems to me is that one still prevails in some parts of the world (e.g., Afghanistan?) in ways that are quite alien to us as Americans. But, one can ask, is that human nature? Then, so what is "human nature"?

Everyman wrote: "...It's not really relevant to the Iliad, of course, but it may (or, if I'm wrong, may not) be an interesting point that Homer adopted the theory that the war was really fought over the noble cause of recovering the stolen wife of a single Greek king, and not over much more important but mundane economic issues..."

Are you saying sort of like WMDs? (Don't need to answer, I'm being sarcastic -- but, more seriously, what reason will motivate and deploy the resources?)

Patrice wrote: "Bill, you are right! This is about anger! Everyone is angry at everyone else."

Homer tells us it is about the anger (or wrath or rage or ..., depending on one's skill in capturing the Greek nuances) of Achilles in his opening lines.

Not sure what that says about the significance of the anger of the others.

The opening power play that struck me on this reading was:

"For nine whole days he {Apollo] shot his arrows among the people, but upon the tenth day Achilles called them in assembly—moved thereto by Juno [Hera], who saw the Achaeans in their death-throes and had compassion upon them. Then, when they were got together, he rose and spoke among them."

http://pd.sparknotes.com/lit/iliad/se...

In today's terms, this strikes me as a power play on the part of Achilles. Shouldn't calling such a parlay been the prerogative of Agamemnon? Do we know whether, in the military ethos of the Greeks, this would have been considered up-staging? If it was, could that have affected Agamemnon's choosing to claim Briseis?

Three days or nine or 2 weeks, does it matter to the role Achilles is assuming?

Patrice wrote: "That's an interesting point Lily. Could be..

But what I'm wondering about is this business of 9 out of 10 days, just as the war had gone on for 10 years.
I read somewhere that they didn't mean th..."

I think I have heard the same thing as well, that it was just an expression for a long time and not necessarily literally meaning 10 years.

Patrice wrote: "What I love about the Iliad, this time around:

l. I think I like this translation better, I'm reading the Lattimore. I think I read the Fagles last time.

2. I've always heard that the Iliad was..."

I finally have a chance to sit down and start reading through the posts. I see many of the points you list rather differently. Hope discuss some of those with you when we are a few books farther into the Iliad. I would find it interesting to learn your "why"s.

AT 8Erika wrote: "Patrice wrote: "The priest of Apollo, begging for his daughter back. Bringing gold and pleading for his beloved daughter.
It can bring tears to your eyes, he is so helpless. And like all helpless p...I especially like your comment about Chryses.
"

I, too, very much appreciated your comment about Chryses. Very nicely put.

At 52, Lily wrote: "The opening power play that struck me on this reading was...

In today's terms, this strikes me as a power play on the part of Achilles. Shouldn't calling such a parlay been the prerogative of Agamemnon?"

I see it differently. I see it not as a power play on the part of Achilles, but as an example of what a poor leader Agamemnon was. The men are dying of the plague and the air is thick with the smoke of their corpses being burned on the beach. Who is concerned about the men? Achilles. Who is trying to find the answers as to why the plague is afflicting the Achaeans? Achilles.

Silver wrote: "While Zeus is theoretically the most powerful of the gods, at the same time there are ways the other gods can out maneuver him or challenge his power, and though I suppose he can pull rank, the other gods are not always beholden to be completely submissive to him and can force Zeus into more or less a compromise with them. So there is always a certain amount of power struggle between the gods themselves. "

That's right, and we'll see more of this as the poem goes on.

One thing that's interesting; Homer is the only Greek writer I know of who reports (creates? Or is the muse singing through him actually reporting what's happening? That would be perhaps what his original audience would say) conversations and interactions among the gods to anything like the level he does. I can't think of another epic which gives such an intimate picture of the gods interacting until Paradise Lost (using the angels as Homer uses the gods, and his angels are perhaps more akin to the Greek gods than God is, since they argue, deceive, lie, manipulate, and all those things that the Greek gods do). The mythology does include many stories of gods interacting, but I don't recall any which are at this level of detail.

Bill wrote: "In fact, there is an irony here that Agamemnon nearly destroys the Greeks by stealing another man's woman (if not his wife), when it is to avenge stealing a woman that brings them all here in the first place."

Absolutely. And it seems to me, at least, that Agamemnon shows significantly more interest in his own needs than those of the forces he is leading. His priorities seem to be wrong.

He obviously isn't much into delayed gratification. He is promised great prizes for waiting until Troy is sacked to replace his time, but no, he needs to replace it now, at huge cost to the forces he is responsible for leading.

He makes two major errors, in my opinion, which cause harm to the Greeks. First is refusing to exchange Chryseis for the rich ransom from a priest, which dishonors the gods as well as being selfish and in the end counter-productive since he not only has to give her back for no ransom but also has to send sacrifices with her. Then in grabbing Briseis.

Is there any justification for these actions from one whose primary responsibility was to the Greek forces as a whole?

Everyman wrote: One thing that's interesting; Homer is the only Greek writer I know of who reports (creates? Or is the muse singing through him actually reporting what's happening? That would be perhaps what his original audience would say) ."

That is interesting, I haven't thought of it before, but you may have a point there. Funny Paradise Lost was one of the first things that popped into my head before I had completed reading your post.

I remember when we were reading The Oresteia during the court scene with the gods, it struck me as interesting that it was not considered something akin to blasphemy for men to put words into the mouth of the gods, and to actually portray them as characters, and presume to speak for them so to speak and know their mind. Though as you mentioned about it may have been considered as some divine inspiration from the muses in which Homer is only acting as the vessel imparting the words passed down to him.

One of the things which I love about Greek mythology is how human their gods are. I know the idea of man being created in the image of God is a Christian idea but it seems the statement could be more accurately applied to the Greeks. I love the way in which the gods scheme among themselves, and scheme with humans, and have all these little conflicts and power struggles. They are like the biggest dysfunctional family. I love the fact that they are flawed and they are neither "good" nor "bad" they can be both benevolent or malevolent depending upon their mood that day or what they want.

Silver wrote: "I love the way in which the gods scheme among themselves, and scheme with humans, and have all these little conflicts and power struggles. They are like the biggest dysfunctional family."

Boy are the ever! And lots more to come as the Iliad progresses; we've barely scratched the surface of disfunctionality!

Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Also, does anyone know why Homer uses different terms for the Greeks? Is it a matter of syllables? I'm sure someone has written a thesis on this. "
"

Homer generalizes from specific Greek tribes to the Greeks as a whole. The Argives (from Argos) were commanded by Diomedes, but Homer frequently refers to the Argives to mean the Greeks all together. Same thing for Achaeans (from Phthia in southern Thessaly) commanded by Achilles, who were also called Myrmidons or Hellenes. But Homer often refers to Achaeans when he means the entire contingent of the Greeks. And this is most likely for poetic reasons -- the words scan differently and he presumably uses the term that best fits the meter.

Patrice wrote: "I wonder if all the words Lattimore translates as "angry" are the same?"

The short answer is no, and probably for the same reasons as above. The first line is extremely important however, and the first word is not chosen arbitrarily. (We saw this is the Republic as well, where the first word was katebEn -- "I went down.") But in addition to mEnis Homer also uses the word cholos (probably cognate with choler) and also thumos, which in the Republic was translated as "spiritedness." Sometimes the word is verbal (frequently participial) and the English "anger" is both appropriate and convenient because it can be either a noun or a verb. Context shades the meaning, and translators might choose anger or passion or rage where they think it best describes the emotion. This is where looking at different translations can be very useful. If you have a specific line in mind I can take a look at it and give you my take on it.

Everyman wrote: "But it's a bit more than ordinary anger. As Vandiver points out, the Greeks had several words for anger,but the one chosen by Homer as the opening word of the Iliad, μῆνιν, was almost always associated with the gods and represented divine anger, or as I think even better rage (Fagles, Johnston) or wrath (Murray).."

The next instance of mEnis (after the first word of the poem) is in reference to Apollo's anger, which seems to corroborate Vandiver. If I get the chance I'll go through the rest of Book 1 and see where else it crops up. Could be interesting.

Everyman wrote: Boy are the ever! And lots more to come as the Iliad progresses; we've barely scratched the surface of disfunctionality! "

This is my first time reading The Iliad, and as you pointed out we have only just begun, but to address a question posed by Bill earlier, as to where people find the fun in the reading, for me one of the high points of enjoyment comes from the interaction of the gods.

Homer in the Odyssey says sing in me -- andra moi enneppe -- but is that a conventional invocation so that singing "in" and "inspiring" in our sense are not different?

Bill, at Post 35. "Anger" Other posts addressed this already. LOL. But I want to add my 2 cents.

"Rage--Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles" (line 1, Fagles).

I love that line!

Vandiver, in her lecture, says that the word used for the anger of Achilles (menis) is "normally used only in reference to the gods."

And I read somewhere else (?) that this word for anger/wrath is used in the Iliad ONLY when describing the anger of Achilles.

Here's my thinking:

In Fagles, Achilles is repeated described as "godlike Achilles" (154).

We know, in fact, (well, within the parameters of the Iliad), that Achilles' mother is a goddess.

Achilles knows this too.

His mother has told him of his two possible fates: long, dull life in the countryside back home...and obscurity, OR, a short life with great honor.

"You gave me life, short as that life will be,
so at least Olympian Zeus, thundering up on high,
should give me honor--but now he gives me nothing." (417-420 Fagles)

So now Achilles, having fought his heart out for all these years is to have neither life NOR honor???

And it's worse than that.

I don't know how much Thetis has told her son, but they do seem to have a remarkably close relationship...so maybe she told him...Homer's audience would [maybe] have known...even if she hadn't told him, the audience would have been sympathetic...realizing the immensity of what had been taken from him...and if his mother had told him, Achilles' rage would understandable be beyond the anger of ordinary men.

Because Achilles was supposed to have been a god.

Achilles himself may have brought this up with the lightest of touches. At line 470 he says to his mother,

"Time and again I heard your claims in father's halls,
boasting how you and you alone of all the immortals
rescued Zeus.....you rushed to Zeus, dear Goddess....quickly ordered ... Briareus... [who is] stronger than his father."

So Thetis, Achilles' mother, with the help of a creature "stronger than his father," saved Zeus...Zeus who overthrew HIS own father. Oh, the irony.

Flashback to background story. Thetis had been pursued by Zeus and Poseidon. But when they learned that the child of Thetis was destined to be "stronger than his father," they no longer wanted to marry her and arranged for Thetis to marry Peleus. (somewhat against her wishes.) And! to keep everything tied together, it was at the wedding of Thetis and Peleus that the apple was thrown and Paris "judged" Aphrodite the most beautiful woman and was "gifted" Helen.

Had Thetis not married Peleus, then very likely Helen wouldn't have ended up in Troy with Paris. And had Thetis married Zeus, then Achilles would have been more powerful than his father [Zeus]...and Achilles would probably have been the cheif god in Olympus. Which would make it appear that Achilles has lost an awful lot.

A Poem:

This the assembly of the Blessed Ones remembered,
When Zeus and glorious Poseidon
Strove to marry Thetis,
Each wishing that she
Should be his beautiful bride.
Love held them in his grip.
But the Gods' undying wisdom
Would not let the marriage be,

When they gave ear to the oracles. In their midst
Wise-counselling Themis said,
That it was fated for the sea-goddess
To bear for son a prince
Stronger than his father,
Who shall wield in his hand a different weapon
More powerful than the thunderbold
Or the monstrous trident,

If she wed Zeus or among the brothers of Zeus.
"Put an end to this. Let her have a mortal wedlock
And see dead in war her son...."
Isthmian 8.29-40 [Pindar]

from Fagles, line 6: "and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end."

I'm reading the Fagles translation and really enjoying it. This is my first time through The Iliad.

What struck me in this first couple of books is the immature behavior of the gods. Apollo's hubris (among others') is really what starts the conflict.