Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We meet the Trojans, and see how sympathetically Homer treats them. We meet Helen. There is the sensible proposal to settle this one-on-one, let Helen's two husbands (for Paris has been called her husband) duke it out, and let everybody else go home. But Aphrodite intervenes and prevents this simple solution (and gives us the interesting episode of Paris and Helen).

What do you make of Helen's character and role in this book?

One of the things which I am finding quite interesting in my reading of this book is the interactions between men and the gods. It is not quite what I would expect. In spite of the great influence the gods have in the their lives, and their acknowledged power, it seems people do not altogether fear the gods, and in fact at times seem to like to taunt them.

There is an unexpected liberalness in the way in which they speak to the gods. In 2nd book there was the example of Agamemnon choosing to act contrary to the dream which Zeus had sent to him, and in this book I was at first surprised at Helen's conversation with Aphrodite.

When Aphrodite first bids Helen to come to the bedside of Paris, Helen first refuses the request of the goddess and in doing so speaks to her rather crossly. Then when faced with the threat of the wrath of Aphrodite she eventually is cowed into obedience. Perhaps men are like petulant children to the gods?

I was also quite surprised by the scene between Paris and Helen. I think that is interesting that in spite of how patriarchal Greek society was, and how much women were generally forced into positions of submission to men and given little to know power, being generally looked down upon, yet Greek literature often seems to create rather strong female characters.

I was impressed with Helen having this almost warrior like sense of honor herself, in her shame at the disgrace of what seemed to her eye (as I presume she was not aware that Aphrodite intervened in saving him) the cowardice of Paris and actually demands of him that he should return back to the field. Though perhaps part of this is driven from her own desire of simply wanting a final end to the water whatever that outcome might be.

I rather liked how Homer brought forward the fact that the same event can be viewed from two very different perspectives:

"When the South Wind showers mist on the mountaintops,
no friend to shepherds, better than night to theives--" (Fagles 3.10-11).

Events which will reveal how much Achilles is needed...those same events will harm Achilles' fellow soldiers.

And there's Paris: "a joy to our enemies, rank disgrace to yourself" (Fagles 3.57) or "Ruin for your father and all his realm; joy for our enemies" (Lattimore).

The Scaean Gates

As Everyman pointed out, a part of the pleasure of this poem would have been that most of the listeners already knew the poem, and almost certainly already knew the story. (Which, it is thought by some scholars, is why Homer could downplay parts of the story, and he could alter some details of the story....but he could not change the main events...)

And oh, does Homer well understand the power of emotions in Book 3. He's pulling on the heart strings.... Foreshadowing.

..."And they soon reached the looming Scaean Gates" (Fagles 3.174)

"....men of good counsel...
these were seated by the Skaian gates" (Lattimore 3.146)

"...the old man told his men to yoke the team at once.....
and both men drove the team
through the Scaean Gates..." (Fagles 3.309+)

Isn't your heart sad already?

Paris is painted as the guilty party:

Hektor, the greatest Trojan warrior: "Would to god you'd never been born, died unwed. That's all I'd ask" (Fagles 3.45).

And the men of Troy hate Paris too. "all of them hate him like death, black death" (Fagles 3.534). Did they hate him when he first brought Helen to Troy? Or did they initially see his possession of Helen and the treasure as time for Troy? Did their approval only turn to hatred when the Argives, etc., beached their long-beaked boats on the sandy shores south of Troy?

But they fight for their own. Hektor fights, though he despises Paris. The Trojans fight for him..."Not that they would hide him out of friendship" (Fagles 3.532). The gods hold with their own, too. Info from Book 4: (view spoiler)[ Reminding one another that one owes some loyalty to one's own: "I am a god too. My descent the same as yours--crooked-minded Cronus fathered me as well" (Fagles 4.66). Is it because of Oikos? That the men are fighting as clans? The gods are as a clan as well? (hide spoiler)]

Priam, I believe, holds Paris responsible...guilty. One-to-one combat has been arranged to determine guilt.

Priam: "home I go to windy Iliam, straight home now.
This is more than I can bear, I tell you--
to watch my son do battle with Menelaus
loved by the War-god, right before my eyes.
Zeus knows, no doubt, and every immortal too,
which fighter is doomed to end all this in death"
(Fagles 3.359+)

I believe Priam knows too. Knows Paris is doomed...because Paris is guilty. Cannot bear to see his guilty son killed by Menelaus.

And then ... Paris does lose ... "Guilty!" ... but spirited away...by Aphrodite, who I can only guess is turned on by violence and voyeur that she is...like some twisted tyrant who films S&M promo flicks...threatens Helen...Helen "shrouding herself in her glinting silver robes...went along"....What a great phrase. The shroud. Helen feels herself dead inside...

Adelle wrote:And the men of Troy hate Paris too. "all of them hate him like death, black death" (Fagles 3.534). Did they hate him when he first brought Helen to Troy? Or did they initially see his possession of Helen and the treasure as time for Troy? Did their approval only turn to hatred when the Argives, etc., beached their long-beaked boats on the sandy shores south of Troy? "

This is one of the things which I never understood about the story. Being that all of Troy disapproved of what Paris had did, why than did they support him and risk their lives, their city, their own women and children to fight for his disgraceful cause. Why did they not simply force Helen to be returned, or send Paris and Helen into exile leaving them to fend for themselves in their own shame?

Paris is clearly in the wrong in this situation and the Trojan's themselves acknowledge his guilt, so why do they carry on with this 10 year war in his defense?

I think, because in kidnapping or seducing Helen, sailing away with the beautiful, much-desired wife of a powerful Greek, AND the treasure, Paris---and through him, Troy---acquired great time. And it seemed to be a safe bet. What were the odds that the Greeks would manage to unite and come after her and the treasure?

And, too, once the deed was done....why, there's absolutely no way to undo it....not without losing tremendous time....not without losing face, losing prestige, losing honor... LOSING! (Mmmm....there I am....quoting Charlie Sheen.)

Even if...strike that...even though he's guilty....he's one of their own. Also, his shame would be there shame. And the shame would only come from having to RETURN Helen and treasure. There is no shame in his (in Paris) having stolen her.

Adelle wrote: "I think, because in kidnapping or seducing Helen, sailing away with the beautiful, much-desired wife of a powerful Greek, AND the treasure, Paris---and through him, Troy---acquired great time. An..."

I thought it must have had to do with some question of honor.

When the book is done, I'll link you to a parady.
There is that line: "Have you no honor????"

I was struck by a passage Priam spoke. (Fagles 3.about 195):

Helen was either been kipnapped or seduced.
And Priam says to her, "I don't blame you. I hold the gods to blame." It had never occured to me to blame Helen. Usually, when one says to another, "I don't blame you," it's because there COULD be a case made for blaming that person...as in, "even though the passengers were injured while you were driving (which would imply at least a modicum of responsibility)...it was the other driver's primary fault." Priam, here, doesn't say anything along the lines of "it's not your fault," he says, "I don't blame you"

...which means, I think, that he's saying that if the gods weren't there to blame, then he would be blaming her. Nary a mention of Paris's part in all of this.

Another instance of external physicality equating with station in life. Just as we could tell that Thersites was worthless rabble from his appearance, so to we can tell (or Priam can) that Agamemnon is a noble:

"Many others afield are much taller, true,
but I have never yet set eyes on one so regalo,
so majestic....That man must be a king!"
(Fagles 3. about 305)

Helen shortly thereafter describes him as "both a mighty king and a strong spearman too"

Are we meant to re-think our opinion of Agamemnon?

Sigh. Even though I've come --- reluctantly --- to understand the complete disregard for women... It's true, they can't fight---and the ability to fight is all important to the very survival of the community; yes, they can weave, but slave weavers could be picked up in raids; they can bear children, but they'll bear children whether they want to or not;

So... the wishes and inclinations ... the value (generally rated as worth 4 cattle) ... of women is rather negligile---understandably so.

Still....I was stunned at Priam....because Priam, when he calls to Helen, uses terms of endearment ("dear child")... so I started to think that he cared about her as a person...and maybe he did---but only as a female person...

At Fagles 3. about 212-225:

Helen says to Priam, "if only death had pleased me then, grim death, that day I followed your son to Troy.....now I can only waste away in tears... whore that I am!" 'Her voice broke' Her pain is heartbreakingly obvious.

And Priam's response?

Helen's lament was as nothing to him. His entire emotional connection is with Agamemnon's army. And not, mind you, from a strictly military point of view, as in, How can I defend against this army? Rather, his response reveals his admiration, perhaps...almost envy of Agamemnon:

"Her voice broke, but the old king, lost in wonder,
cried out, 'How lucky you are, son of Atreaus,
child of fortune, your destiny so blessed!

Look at the vast Achaean armies you command!"

Then, oh, excuse me, Helen-about-to-cry, who is that man, and who is that man.



I was surprised, too, when the potential peace conference between Antenor and Odysseus/Menelaus was referenced...(Fagles 3. about 245) I wondered why Priam hadn't attended that conference. Perhaps if Priam himself had participated, a peaceful solution might have been achieved. [Well, except that it couldn't have been because the gods willed the eventual outcome... And they didn't will peace.)

Adelle wrote: "I was struck by a passage Priam spoke. (Fagles 3.about 195):

Helen was either been kipnapped or seduced.
And Priam says to her, "I don't blame you. I hold the gods to blame." It had never oc..."

I myself always presumed that Helen was in part culpable in what happened. I did not think she went altogether unwilling with Paris but that she had in fact loved him and was not taken altogether against her will. Though perhaps it was Aphrodite's doing in charming her to feel lust for Paris. But she does not seem very eager or wanting to be returned to her husband. Though perhaps that is because now she fears to live with him with the shame that would be upon her. But I think she does love Paris and was to a degree willing to runaway with him.

Silver wrote: "." And Priam says to her, "I don't blame you. I hold the gods to blame." It had never oc..."

Silver wrote: I myself always presumed that Helen was in part culpable in what happened. I did not think she went altogether unwilling with Paris but that she had in fact loved him and was not taken altogether against her will. Though perhaps it was Aphrodite's doing in charming her to feel lust for Paris. But she does not seem very eager or wanting to be returned to her husband. Though perhaps that is because now she fears to live with him with the shame that would be upon her. But I think she does love Paris and was to a degree willing to runaway with him. ..."

I can see that as a valid reading. Supposedly, there are alternate stories, but yes, I, too, think that in Homer's version, that Helen wasn't kidnapped, but went wirh him more-or-less willingly.

Save that...it was the doing of the gods. Or, if not the gods, then Paris. I have no way of knowing whether or not Paris planned to make off with Helen....I suspect he might have, seeing as she had been promised to him by Aphrodite. So, I'm thinking that he probably journeyed there to Sparta with the express intent of seducing Helen and taking her to Troy. Certainly Helen, not having previously met Paris, wouldn't have contacted him and lured him to Sparta.

Then, too, i can't see the wife of Menelaos aggressively going after Paris and seducing him. Mmmm... But perhaps....just maybe it was her....

You know, one of the background pieces I had read said that women in the east (which would have included Troy) hwere held in higher esteem than women at the time in Greece...and yes, we can see that women weren't highly valued by the Greeks (i know...this was a war scene...but Clytemnestra didn't seem to hold power when Agamemnon returned home.). Priam spoke respectfully to Helen... Perhaps --- on her own or under the influence of aphrodite....perhaps Helen DID seduce Paris, believing that her life would be better in Troy...and that her husband wouldn't come after her.

Interesting....initially I had just assumed that Paris was at fault, but you've brought me round to seriously, seriously considering differently.

Regarding not being eager to return with Menelaos....perhaps whether she was abducted or whether she went willingly, perhaps the Greeks would have viewed her guilt the same....like in some cultures a women who is raped is guilty.

Silver wrote: "This is one of the things which I never understood about the story. Being that all of Troy disapproved of what Paris had did, why than did they support him and risk their lives, their city, their own women and children to fight for his disgraceful cause."

Great question.

I don't have a specific satisfactory reasons. But some thoughts.

Paris was the son of the king. History is replete with the children of kings getting away with everything under the son. Heck, look at the sons of rulers in parts of the world even today (North Korea being a prime example). Even when the sons of rulers do bad things, can the people effectively oppose them?

And, let's remember, according to one legend (maybe, though, not known to Homer), Helen was a gift of Aphrodite, so rejecting Paris for bring back Helen would be an insult to Aphrodite, wouldn't it?

And then, there is Priam himself:
As far as I’m concerned,
it’s not your fault. For I blame the gods.
They drove me to wage this wretched war
against Achaeans.

I'm not sure any of these are truly satisfactory. One fascinating thing, as Adelle noted, is how differently Helen is treated from the way we saw women treated in Book 1. Is this a a Trojan-Greek thing? Did the Trojans not treat women with the same disdain that the Greeks do? Or is Helen just different (much as Paris Hilton gets away with stuff that would land any other woman in much more serious trouble)?

There are a few things in this book that don't really make sense when we consider that this is year 9 of the war. Homer, who I have read elsewhere was incorporating incidents from a wide range of historical legends and earlier epics into his work, seems to me to have been drawing incidents that would have taken place much earlier in the war and moving them here for dramatic impact.

For example, if there was to be single combat resolving the conflict, why on earth wait until after nine years of warfare and clearly many, many deaths on both sides? Shouldn't this have happened much sooner? And if it were to be proposed this late in the conflict, wouldn't it have been the Greeks, who had been assailing Troy unsuccessfully for nine years, who would finally have said enough is enough, let's settle this once and for all so we can either win or go home, rather than the Trojans, who had so far proved that Troy was impregnable, who would have proposed it?

Two, surely Priam would have had Helen point out the Greek warriors long before this. Clearly they're still on good terms, even after nine years or warfare over her. The idea that it's only after nine years that he finally says to Helen "my dear, please tell me who all these Greeks who have been killing my men for nine years are" seems silly to me.

It would be expected for both of these things, and particularly the identification of the Greeks, to have taken place long ago.

That said, though, they're wonderful incidents and images, and I delight that Homer included them even though they might not make logical sense placed at this point in the struggle. It makes clear that Homer isn't trying tell strict history as we think of it, but is weaving many elements into a tapestry of grandeur, beauty, and pathos.

Adelle wrote: " I wondered why Priam hadn't attended that conference. Perhaps if Priam himself had participated, a peaceful solution might have been achieved."

Maybe because Hector is the chief of the Trojans? (2.816). Priam is clearly the respected elder and father of many, but he appears to be, um, past his prime.

Adelle wrote: Then, too, i can't see the wife of Menelaos aggressively going after Paris and seducing him. Mmmm... But perhaps....just maybe it was her"

I do not really see Helen as the aggressor in the seduction, but though we do not know if in fact she ever truly loved Menelaus, we do know it was an arranged marriage in which she was not given a choice. So I can see that the arrival of Pairs declaring his own love for her, may very well have affected Helen and perhaps with the help of Aphrodite bewitching her, she agreed to run away with Pairs. And in a world in which women were so suppressed, maybe there was it's own appeal in the idea of the adventure of breaking free from her husband and running off with this heroic young man.

Also in the Pope translation in Book II, if I recall it is in Athena's speech to Odysseus, Helen is referred to as being an adulterous wife, which is a term that does seem to suggust her being equally guilty, and does not make her sound very much like a simple victim.

Adelle wrote:Regarding not being eager to return with Menelaos....perhaps whether she was abducted or whether she went willingly, perhaps the Greeks would have viewed her guilt the same....like in some cultures a women who is raped is guilty.

I think there is some evidence that suggests held that view at least to some extent, in considering the myth of Medusa, whom formerly was a priestess of Athena, when she was raped by Poseidon in Athena's temple. When she cried out for Athena's protection, Athena blamed her for the disgrace of her temple and as punishment transformed her into a monster and banished her.

Everyman wrote: "There are a few things in this book that don't really make sense when we consider that this is year 9 of the war. Homer, who I have read elsewhere was incorporating incidents from a wide range of..."

I did a bit of snooping around on this issue, thinking about what Patrice said earlier about "nine years" possibly being a rhetorical device of some sort.

According to Cunliffe's lexicon the term enneOros can mean 1. Nine years old, or 2. Apparently (the number being taken as a round one) conveying the notion of full maturity, well mature, full-grown.

Walter Leaf's commentary on the Greek text (1902) cites a use of enneOros in the Odyssey (19.179) wherein Crete is described as having 90 cities and where Minos ruled as king for 9-year periods.

...refers to nine-year's cycle or magnus annus of early Dorian chronology... From associations of this sort the word may have grown into a round number denoting full maturity. ...Herondas viii 5 calls long nights "nuktes enneOros," nine years (or days?) long.

So there is at least some backing for the idea that "nine years" means "after a significant period of time" or the like.

Silver wrote: "I do not really see Helen as the aggressor in the seduction..."

ah, 'tis true, 'tis true, we can't know for sure what the circumstances were. Homer never actually tells us. But I really like entertaining the idea the Helen might have had some choice ... some free will ... in her going to Troy with Paris. I don't like to think of her as a total pawn---though perhaps that is all that she is. And she is adulterous. The woman, after all, has two husbands. EDIT: or maybe one husband and a man she's living with...still, that would make her an adulteress.


She was the daughter of Zeus... so in growing up, it's not difficult to suppose that she always thought of herself as a little special...not your run-of-the-mill Greek girl.

If memory serves---and maybe it doesn't---you're mistaken about Helen not having been given a choice concerning her husband.

When we read Agamemnon the background reading was that Clytemnestra and Helen were sisters. Both daughters of Zeus and Leda. They married brothers: Clytemnestra married Agamemnon and Helen married Menelaos---and I'm fairly certain that the background information said that Helen chose Menelaus hersef from amongst her many suitors. It would seem that at one point she found him attractive.

And she didn't have to marry him for power, because in the case of both Clytemnestra and Helen, the kingdom came with the bride. Menelaus ruled; but he got the kingdom because Helen chose him.

Some of the background reading I've been doing suggests that this might have been a powerful reason for Menelaos to try to retrieve Helen.... since the kingdom came through her.... with her gone... his claim to the throne would have been considerably weakened.

Well. Now I'll have to see if I can still find the source material to back that up.

I wonder if Agamemnon is being a little disrespectful towards the gods at Fagles 3. about 340.

The two sides have just taken serious oaths...Agamemnon has called upon Father Zeus and Helios, and the gods "beneath the ground who punish the dead---whoever broke his oath---" to protect and oversea the validity of the oaths.

But then...it's as though he doesn't really trust the gods...to make the Trojans return Helen and the treasure and pay reparations ... for he says,

"But if Priam and Priam's sons refuse to pay,
refuse me, Agamemnon--with Paris beaten down--
then I myself will fight it out for the ransom,
I'll battle here to the end of our war."

Doesn't this seem to imply that Agamemnon believes himself to be more powerful than the gods? That he can make the Trojans do what the gods might not be able to make the Trojans do?

Bill, where might you be? I've come to miss you.

Adelle wrote:I don't like to think of her as a total pawn---though perhaps that is all that she is.

In a sense aren't they all pawns, men and women alike? This whole war was ultimately the result of the gods scheming, and they all have a hand in it, every step of the way.


Adelle wrote:If memory serves---and maybe it doesn't---you're mistaken about Helen not having been given a choice concerning her husband.
"

It has been a long time, I could very well be mistaken on that point.

I did some research on the background between Helen and Menelaos, and it seems to me that there are mixed feeling upon how much choice Helen really had in the matter and how much of the choice was in fact made be King Tyndareus. While some state simply that of her many suitors Helen herself choose Meneleous, others suggust that it was King Tyndareus who made the choice among them.

Silver wrote: "Adelle wrote:I don't like to think of her as a total pawn---though perhaps that is all that she is.

In a sense aren't they all pawns, men and women alike? This whole war was ultimately the resul..."

Yes

Silver wrote: "In a sense aren't they all pawns, men and women alike? This whole war was ultimately the result of the gods scheming, and they all have a hand in it, every step of the way.

..."

AH...but no. I don't think so. It seems to me, any way, this is how I'm reading the Iliad, it seems to me that ALMOST always, the men, the women, are pawns of the gods. And in all the major decisions, the gods have determined the outcome. Yes. I agree. However, it seems to me, or again, according to how I'm reading the book, in the instances where an individual is referred to as "godlike", I'm trying to find justification to read those passages as moments in which the individual described is NOT being controlled by the gods...that in those few instances, the individual is capable of free will.

Yes, the pre-determined "events" decreed by the gods will come to pass...but those few little moments in between... I do believe there are those instances when the characters act of their own volition...and are human. Such as the moment in which Helen speaks her mind to Aphrodite: "Well, go to him youself--... Not I, I'll never go back again.. It would be disgraceful to share that coward's bed once more" (Fagles 3. about 470). Surely the gods didn't prompt Helen to make such a speech. It was a moment when Helen was Helen... Free! Sorrowful; but freely speaking her own mind. And then....the goddess forced Helen back into being a pawn and back into the arms of Paris.

So, yes, mostly they are all pawns. Ah, but they have their moments. Maybe like us. We can't really control our destinies... too much has been pre-determined...who are parents are...how we are educated...what are basic health issues are...what we look like...lol...you know...the gifts of the gods... But the gods (and genes...and environment) don't control us completely. We have opportunities to exist as make some of our own choices... Sometimes they work out well for us.... sometimes they bring us sorrow... sometimes they lead us to our deaths... But at least, if we make the effort, we can be humans...making such choices as those we have control over.


(I'll have to see, of course, if this theory pans out over the course of the rest of the book.)

Silver wrote: "It has been a long time, I could very well be mistaken on that point.

..."

LOL...me, too! I'll see if I can find my notes.

Silver wrote: "I did some research on the background between Helen and Menelaos, and it seems to me that there are mixed feeling upon how much choice Helen really had in the matter and how much of the choice was ..."

You mean...another aspect of the Iliad surrounded by ambiguity??

Thomas wrote: "Adelle wrote: " I wondered why Priam hadn't attended that conference. Perhaps if Priam himself had participated, a peaceful solution might have been achieved."

Maybe because Hector is the chief of.. and Priam past his prime."

Very possible. We do see him, after all on the walls of Troy, having a woman name the warriors on the plain below. Nice point.

Adelle wrote: "You mean...another aspect of the Iliad surrounded by ambiguity?? "

I know that is shocking

Silver wrote: "Adelle wrote: "You mean...another aspect of the Iliad surrounded by ambiguity?? "

I know that is shocking"

;)

Adelle wrote: "Homer never actually tells us. But I really like entertaining the idea the Helen might have had some choice ... some free will ... in her going to Troy with Paris."

You would think that Paris would have had some trouble spiriting her out of a Greek palace without her consent (lots of people and guards around she could have yelled to alert) unless Aphrodite did one of her grab-the-body-and-transport-it-to-Paris's-ship deals.

Adelle wrote: "Doesn't this seem to imply that Agamemnon believes himself to be more powerful than the gods? That he can make the Trojans do what the gods might not be able to make the Trojans do? "

Or maybe he doesn't assume that the gods will act; they could perfectly well say "well, so the Trojans broke their oath, tough beans, we've got other fish to fry."

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Doesn't this seem to imply that Agamemnon believes himself to be more powerful than the gods? That he can make the Trojans do what the gods might not be able to make the Trojans do? ..."

It seems like Agamemnon has a history of challenging, or taunting the gods, or disregarding them. Maybe it is his own way of trying to assert his will, by intentionally rebuking them or acting contrast to what they say.

According to some versions of the myth, the reason why he had to sacrifice his daughter was because he killed a deer sacred to Artemis and than boasted about being a better hunter than she was. Now one would think that would be an immediate call for trouble.

And than there was this discussion in Book 2 relating to his deciding to do the exact opposite of what the dream Zeus sent to him told him to do.

I think he does like to try and assert his own power and authority. Maybe his spitting in the face of the gods is his way of proving to himself that he is not one of their pawns and that he can act according to his own will.

Of course the problem is in the end these decisions to have a way of catching up with him and ultimately making him have to suffer the consequences.

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Homer never actually tells us. But I really like entertaining the idea the Helen might have had some choice ... some free will ... in her going to Troy with Paris."

You would think ..." at 32. Excellent point.

Adelle wrote: " However, it seems to me, or again, according to how I'm reading the book, in the instances where an individual is referred to as "godlike", I'm trying to find justification to read those passages as moments in which the individual described is NOT being controlled by the gods...that in those few instances, the individual is capable of free will.

..."
..."

I'll be interested to see how your theory pans out! One thing I'm wondering about, vis-avis the epithet "godlike," is how gods appear to mortals. I'm not sure if anyone besides Achilles is called "god like," but I thought it was interesting that Athena appears to him in person. She grabs him from behind by the hair, and he turns to see her "grim, brilliant eyes." Sometimes the gods disguise themselves as familiar people -- as Iris and Aphrodite do when they appear to Helen. Athena appears to Odysseus in person, but he does not see her -- he only hears (and recognizes) her voice.

And regarding free will, I wonder how often the gods physically intervene to do violence to mortals. They encourage men to fight, and they physically intervene to save men, but I can't think of any instance so far where a god has physically manifested to injure a man directly. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's another thing I'll be looking for.

Thomas wrote: "And regarding free will, I wonder how often the gods physically intervene to do violence to mortals. They encourage men to fight, and they physically intervene to save men, but I can't think of any instance so far where a god has physically manifested to injure a man directly. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's another thing I'll be looking for.
"

Good question.

Another point when it comes to fighting: there are never any serious wounds. Nobody loses a hand or an arm or a leg but survives. It's either a minor flesh would (maybe cured by a god), or death. Nothing inbetween. Curious?

At 33 Everyman wrote: ".."

And we see the machinations of the gods in Book 4.

Everyman wrote: "Another point when it comes to fighting: there are never any serious wounds. Nobody loses a hand or an arm or a leg but survives. It's either a minor flesh would (maybe cured by a god), or death. Nothing inbetween. Curious?..."

Strictly conjecture: 1) More serious injuries would possibly/probaly result in death; 2) Tending to the wounded would slow down the pace of the story. Poetic license.

Thomas wrote: "I'll be interested to see how your theory pans out! ..."

I will be interested too.

The gods have free will. (I began to wonder: only the gods? or do the god-like have free will as well?)


Hera at 1. about 685: "She wrenched her will to his."

At 3.about 79: "whatever the gods give of their own free will"

At 4.about 50 [no spoiler] Zeus says "I gave you this, all of my own free will"

I'll be watching.

Everyman wrote: Another point when it comes to fighting: there are never any serious wounds. Nobody loses a hand or an arm or a leg but survives. It's either a minor flesh would (maybe cured by a god), or death. Nothing inbetween. Curious?
..."

Or perhaps the Greek considered those serious wounds as death.

I haven't had the chance to check with my other translation, but there are two things I'm curious about.

1. In the Rouse translation, Helen does indeed want to go back to Menelaos...."She longed for her husband of the old days."

and

2. I'm very curious on this one, Paris says to Helen about the outcome of the two in battle "This time Menelaos has won because Athena helped him." Is he really so stupid that he did not see the hand of Aphrodite helping him again and again???

At 17 Everyman wrote: "And if it were to be proposed this late in the conflict, wouldn't it have been the Greeks, who had been assailing Troy unsuccessfully for nine years, who would finally have said enough is enough, let's settle this once and for all so we can either win or go home, rather than the Trojans, who had so far proved that Troy was impregnable, who would have proposed it?

.."

This isn't a definive answer. I'll throw out here that some of the background information I read on the Trojan War suggests that, although Troy was impregnable (spelling?), that it was Troy that was actually in a more precarious position by the end of the war than the Greeks were.

The Greeks were sending out little raiding parties up and down the coasts all the time....gaining cattle, and treasure, and women, men to sell as slaves---thereby making a little more money for themselves.

Whereas the city of Troy was expending vast quantities of its treasure...Many people from the surrounding area had fled to within the walls of the city....they had to be fed... Troy had (according to what I've read) pay its allies to come and fight with Troy... (think Middle Eastern wars... Russia went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan... Even with the "coalition of the willing" the US was picking up most of the costs)

I think there is a reference later in the Iliad to the dwindling treasure of Troy.

So....it's possible that the Trojans believed they had to end this war before they were broke...and with Achilles out ... what better opportunity would they ever have?

Juliette wrote: "I haven't had the chance to check with my other translation, but there are two things I'm curious about.

1. In the Rouse translation, Helen does indeed want to go back to Menelaos...."She longed ..."

Can you give an idea as to whereabouts it states that?

Is it after the battle? Before the Battle?

Juliette wrote: "I'm very curious on this one, Paris says to Helen about the outcome of the two in battle "This time Menelaos has won because Athena helped him." Is he really so stupid that he did not see the hand of Aphrodite helping him again and again??? "

You know what they say -- denial is not a river in Egypt. To admit that he needed a woman to save him and persuade (force?) his wife to visit his bed would be quite a blow to his ego, wouldn't it?

Adelle wrote: "So....it's possible that the Trojans believed they had to end this war before they were broke...and with Achilles out ... what better opportunity would they ever have?
"

Your point about dwindling resources is good, but is there any indication that the Trojans knew of the quarrel and of Achilles sitting out the fighting? Or do you figure that this became common knowledge pretty quickly?

Juliette wrote: "I haven't had the chance to check with my other translation, but there are two things I'm curious about.

1. In the Rouse translation, Helen does indeed want to go back to Menelaos...."She longed ..."

I think this is 3.140. Lattimore translates this:

Speaking so the goddess left in her heart sweet longing
after her husband of time before, and her city and parents.

The goddess here is Iris, the messenger of Zeus. She appears in the guise of her sister-in-law, the wife of one of Priam's sons. She doesn't recognize Iris as a goddess. Helen is seen as a part of Priam's family, though her thoughts cast back to where she came from; she seems slightly homesick and shamed by what has happened to her. It's sort of a gentle scene.

It's interesting to contrast this with the scene after the fight, after Aphrodite saves Paris. Aphrodite appears to Helen as an old woman from her childhood in Sparta. (What is she doing in Troy?) But Helen recognizes her immediately as the goddess and speaks rudely to her, sarcastically almost.

Is it because Menelaos has beaten great Alexandros
and wishes, hateful even as I am, to carry me homeward,
is it for this that you stand in your treachery now beside me?
Go yourself and sit beside him, abandon the gods' way,
turn your feet back never again to the path of Olympos
but stay with him forever, and suffer for him, and look after him
until he makes you his wedded wife, or makes you his slave girl. Lattimore 3.403

Who speaks to a goddess like that!? This is not a gentle scene at all -- Helen is quite angry.

Based on these two scenes, I think it would be safe to say that Homer does not think Helen went to Troy willingly.

Everyman wrote: "You know what they say -- denial is not a river in Egypt. To admit that he needed a woman to save him and persuade (force?) his wife to visit his bed would be quite a blow to his ego, wouldn't it? ."

I think he's also saying that all is fair in love and war. Athena helps them a little, Aphrodite helps us a little. Now let's get cozy... It's remarkably nonchalant, isn't it?

Thomas wrote: "It's interesting to contrast this with the scene after the fight, after Aphrodite saves Paris. Aphrodite appears to Helen as an old woman from her childhood in Sparta. (What is she doing in Troy?) But Helen recognizes her immediately as the goddess and speaks rudely to her, sarcastically almost....

Who speaks to a goddess like that!? This is not a gentle scene at all -- Helen is quite angry.
"

I wondered at the time, and still wonder, whether Aphrodite knew that Helen recognized her, or whether Aphrodite assumed that Helen was talking as to her old I think nurse. The gods in Homer are not omniscient; they know a lot, but not everything.

Though I wonder, is it truly that Helen wishes to be with her husband and longs for him? Or is it only that she regrets all the misery, sorrow, death and war which has been caused by the hasty actions of running off with Paris and knowing that so much death and unhappiness is on account of her.

Her longing to be with her husband in times of old may simply be a longing for being in a time when there was not war and it may in fact be a reflection of her feeling guilt for being the cause of such despair and watching so many people die.

I would imagine that supposing she truly did love Paris, having to suffer through 10 years of war becasue of that love for him would be very trying and certainly make one regret such a thing and wish that they had never acted so.

Her anger towards Aphrodite may also be reflective of this, becasue it was Aphrodite meddling in her life which had led up to all this tragedy.

Regardless of what her feelings may truly be for both Paris and Menelaos she is in awareness that her relationship(?) with Paris has not caused her any happiness, and even if she did not love her husband overly much, she would have been better off if she had remained with him.

In addtion to the fact should the Greeks ultimately end up proving to be the victors of the war I would imagine her prospects would not look very well for her. As I am sure being returned back to her husband after 10 years of war, she would be made to feel very sharply her shame as well I do not imagine that Menelaos would welcome her back with very warms arms. Knowing how the Greeks viewed women I am sure she can imagine if she is restored to her husband she will be made to suffer.