Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Those gods again -- Hera isn't willing to let the Trojans off the hook, just giving Helen and some ransom back and saving their city. So she gets Zeus to send Athena to get the Trojans to break the truce.

And so the war continues, and we get our first taste of Homeric descriptions of fighting. It can get pretty gory, and there's a big temptation to skim over the most brutal of the conflicts, but there's a lot more going on here than just people whanging on each other, so I suggest not skipping over the fighting.

I keep getting the feeling that the gods are up there reading this story, as well as largely directing (writing?) it.

Laurele wrote: "I keep getting the feeling that the gods are up there reading this story, as well as largely directing (writing?) it."

That resonates with me. The gods..."gazing down on Troy" (Fagles 4.4)....."watching the dueling, So they take their pleasure" (Falges 4.9-10).


We have Hera proclaiming "the three cities that I love best of all are Aros and Sparta, [and] Mycenae with streets as broad as Troy's" and then adds, "Raze them......I will never rise in their defense" (Fagles 4.60-63).

Zeus says, "For of all the cities beneath the sun and the starry heaven dwelt in by men who live upon the earth, there has never been one honoured nearer to my heart than sacred Ilion" (Lattimore 4.44-46)...but tells Hera, do as you please.

It IS rather as though the gods viewed men as we view TV programs. Almost, as though thier own lives now bore them, and they take the sides of men below...perhaps as we take the sides of sporting teams...to engage us for the afternoon....but not to the extent that we're going to let it ruin our marriage. As Zeus said to Hera, "Well, do as YOU please. But in days to come don't let this quarrel breed some towering clash betwen us both..." (Fagles 4.43)

I wonder if, because the gods basically can't die, that they are fascinated with the deaths of men.

Adelle wrote: Almost, as though thier own lives now bore them, and they take the sides of men below...perhaps as we take the sides of sporting teams...to engage us for the afternoon....but not to the extent that we're going to let it ruin our marriage."..."

I think when speaking of war, the sports analogy is particularly apt. I could much see how watching the battle between the Greeks and Trojans would for the gods be akin to us watching a Football game. Though the gods have considerably more ability to influence the outcome and actually interact with the players to try to ensure the outcome they want prevails. Instead of being passive spectators.

I do often think that interfering and influencing in the lives of man is a form of entertainment for the gods, and a pass time. I imagine their lives, having immortality would grow a bit dull after a time so they need something to do, so why not stir up some trouble among those amusing mortals down there.

hmm I wonder, is it that they are fascinating by the death of men? Or is that they are incapable of comprehending the reality of death, so for them it does just seem like a game? And they do not consider the true heavy outcome and price humans must pay for their own gains and amusements?

Silver wrote: "hmm I wonder, is it that they are fascinating by the death of men? Or is that they are incapable of comprehending the reality of death, so for them it does just seem like a game? And they do not consider the true heavy outcome and price humans must pay for their own gains and amusements?.."

Or maybe the Gods consider the human lives to be comparatively worthless, and so the soldiers' deaths are little different than ants being killed by young boys with a magnifying glass on a sunny afternoon...

Adelle wrote: "It IS rather as though the gods viewed men as we view TV programs."

Except that any old god can step in and mess things up virtually any way they want to, it seems. More, perhaps, like improv theater where anybody from the audience can hop up on stage and tell a character what to say, push a character off the stage, throw a cloak of invisibility over a character and whisk them to somewhere else on the set, then go back to their seat in the audience and watch the actors trying to deal with these changes which are beyond their control and not part of their script at all. (Though they can also plead with audience members to do certain things for them or to other characters on the stage, bribe them, reward them for being nice. And all the while the audience members can be quarreling among themselves, asking each other for favors, directing each other go to onto the stage and do something, etc.)

When you think about it, it's just a total mess! Yet somehow Homer makes it all sound quite reasonable and even ordinary, doesn't he?

Jim wrote: "Or maybe the Gods consider the human lives to be comparatively worthless, and so the soldiers' deaths are little different than ants being killed by young boys with a magnifying glass on a sunny afternoon... "

A bit of incidental trivia: Myrmidon (Achilles' clan) literally means "ant-men."

Jim wrote: "Or maybe the Gods consider the human lives to be comparatively worthless, and so the soldiers' deaths are little different than ants being killed by young boys with a magnifying glass on a sunny afternoon... "

But there are certain humans that certain gods care greatly about. Thetis weeps for her son Achilles. Apollo was willing to take pains to avenge Chryses. Andromache seems clearly to care about Helen. And down the road we'll see Zeus deeply caring about a human. So it's not total indifference.

Thomas wrote: "..A bit of incidental trivia: Myrmidon (Achilles' clan) literally means "ant-men"

Nice connection.

Everyman wrote: "But there are certain humans that certain gods care greatly about. Thetis weeps for her son Achilles. Apollo was willing to take pains to avenge Chryses. Andromache seems clearly to care about Helen. And down the road we'll see Zeus deeply caring about a human. So it's not total indifference..."

Absolutely! So long as the human is on their good side, offering the proper respect, sacrifices, and prayers. Odysseus forgets to return one phone call to Poseidon and it takes him 10 years to get home! LOL!

Another thought is about what I'm assuming is the Greek view that death in battle is a glorious/heroic death, and so the questions Silver asks above should probably be looked at from that perspective as well. I haven't studied enough Greek history to back-up that thought, but it's what I intuit from my reading.

@Thomas - I'm suddenly remembering a pop song by Adam Ant!

at 8 Everyman wrote: "..But there are certain humans that certain gods care greatly about. Thetis weeps for her son Achilles. Apollo was willing to take pains to avenge Chryses. Andromache seems clearly to care about Helen. And down the road we'll see Zeus deeply caring about a human. So it's not total indifference. ."

Perhaps. I've read this post a number of times now, as I tend to review on the way to new postings...

And it occurred to me, yes, Thetis weeps for Achilles--but then...he IS half god...and he IS her son; Apollo could have, but very clearly did NOT, make any effort to avenge Chryses at the time of the affront; Apollo only stepped in and began plagueing (nice pun, eh?) the Greeks when Chryses reminded Apollo of all the offerings Chryses had made to Apollo---a bit of that trade/quid pro quo going on as in "if i have done things for you, Apollo, [and I have], then do this for me...punish the Greeks. I could be mistaken, but I don't see Apollo as actually caring for Chryses as a person; does Andromache care for Helen? i'll have to look into that one; and regarding the human Zeus cares for...I don't remember the details so I can ask as a first time reader: might the human that Zeus cares for be half god?

Adelle wrote: "and regarding the human Zeus cares for...I don't remember the details so I can ask as a first time reader: might the human that Zeus cares for be half god? "

Wait and all will be revealed. :)

Everyman wrote: "It can get pretty gory, and there's a big temptation to skim over the most brutal of the conflicts, but there's a lot more going on here than just people whanging on each other, so I suggest not skipping over the fighting.
..."

The gory part isn't what bothered me so much as that there were names thrown in that I didn't remember, or know and didn't know if they were Greek or Trojan, so I was a little confused. Also when everyone is a man, the pronoun "he" is really confusing, and I didn't get if the first "he" was doing the thing or the second "he", and sometimes it could be the third "he".

Juliette wrote: "...Also when everyone is a man, the pronoun "he" is really confusing, and I didn't get if the first "he" was doing the thing or the second "he", and sometimes it could be the third "he"..."

LOL! Hang in there, Juliette! Sometimes it matters and is worth the rereading of the rereading of the rereading.... Other times, like most of life, one sneaks in a fake or pass or two!

You can also yell for help here or see if your library has a copy of Malcolm Willcock's A Companion to the Iliad or something similar.

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "and regarding the human Zeus cares for...I don't remember the details so I can ask as a first time reader: might the human that Zeus cares for be half god? "

Wait and all will be revealed .."

;) Thank you, Karnac.

Just relistened to Book 4, and picked up a few things that I hadn't taken note of before.

When the gods are sitting in council, they debate whether to end the war or let it restart. Zeus suggests letting them all go home, but Hera upbraids him: "How art thou minded to render my labour vain and of none effect, and the sweat that I sweated in my toil,—aye, and my horses twain waxed weary with my summoning the host for the bane of Priam and his sons?"[Murray 26] Zeus then relents, but says "I too have yielded to thee of mine own will, yet with soul unwilling. For of all cities beneath sun and starry heaven wherein men that dwell upon the face of the earth have their abodes, of these sacred Ilios was most honoured of my heart, and Priam and the people of Priam."

So while it may be the will of Zeus that Troy fall, it is not his desire, but he is giving in to his wife.

Later, Athena gets Pandarus to fire at Menelaus the arrow that restarts the war. This is apparently the same Pandarus who is in the story (told separately by Chaucer and Shakespeare) of Troilus and Cressida, from whom we get the English word Pander. Not an earthshaking point, perhaps, but an interesting aside perhaps.

So whom is Pandarus pandering to (or for) in the Iliad? Athena? Or does the allusion belong only to T&C?

At Post 16, Everyman wrote "Later, Athena gets Pandarus to fire at Menelaus the arrow that restarts the war."

She does. I'll tell you, initially my take was that Athena "made" it happen. But on a third reading, I see that's not what transpired. Not directly.

She knew exactly which man she wanted to find, one that she could sway with thoughts of personal fame and gifts for himself...she went "hunting for Pandarus" (Fagles 4. about 104) and when she found him "Athena fired the fool's heart inside him" (Fagles 4.119).

I'm increasingly looking at the gods along the lines someone had mentioned earlier: that Paris chose Aphrodite's gift...perhaps because he was already inclined in that direction; Achilles held back his sword when Athena appeared to him...perhaps because he was already inclined to thinking beyond himself (like in calling a meeting to discover the cause of the plague); and perhaps Athena hunts down Pandarus, not because she can actually control a man, but because she knows which men she can influence...and knows which way they are already inclined...and then gives that little suggestive push...giving them a reason/excuse to act as they would have been inclined.

Two items in the next section are intriquing.

(1) "Then and there he unstrapped his polished bow,
the horn of a wild goat he'd shot in the chest
one day as the springy ibex clambered down a cliff.
Lurking there under cover, he hit it in the heart..."(Fagles 4.121+).

Now here is Pandarus,
"propping an end against the ground as cohorts
braced their shields in a tight wedge to hide him" (Fagles 4.132-133)

In earlier Books, Achilles kills with his sword, face-to-face, man-killing-man.

I'm wondering if the fact that Homer describes Pandarus "lurking under cover," shooting his bow from a distance, killing an animal

followed by a description of Pandarus hiding under the shields of his cohorts, shooting his bow from a distance, ....

Is Homer suggesting here??? that Padarus is less than heroic? that he's to be thought less of because he kills men the same way he would kill an animal??

Just a thought.

(2) "cohorts" Are there therefore a number of Trojans willing to break the Trojan oath? Or, are the cohorts men who had come to Troy with Pandarus...and that they thought of themselves more as the men of Pandarus then as the men fighting for Troy? And therefore were fighting for/supporting their own?

Was Homer making a humerous allusion to Menelaus's trouble with Helen?

Fagles 4.about 155:

The arrow flies at Menelaus.
Athena, "flicking it off your skin as quick as a mother flick a fly from her baby sleeping softly" (what an image)

"Athena's own hand deflected it down the belt,
where the gold buckles clasp and breastplates overlap.
The shaft pierced the tight belt's twisted thongs,
piercing the blazoned plates, piercing the guard
he wore to shield his loins..."

At first I had thought, "! Menelaus has been un-manned!"

LOVED the Agamemnon speech at Fagles 4.about 170-200.

"Dear brother--
that truce I sealed in blood for was death for you"

And I had thought it was all meant to comfort Menelaus: don't worry...."if Zeus's wrath does not strike home at once, he'll strike in his own good time"

I thought this was Agamemnon saying to Menelaus, "You will be avenged"

But then: it turns out that Agamemnon's concern is for....Agamemon:

"if you die now......and I go back to parching Argos in disgrace" your bones will rot here... and Trojans will walk over your grave...but they will me taunting me:

"Let Agamemnon wreak his anger so on all his foes!
Just as he led his armies here for nothing, failure."

It was Menelaus who kept his head:

"Courage. Don't alarm the men, not for a moment."
Also, I'm ok.

Lily wrote: "So whom is Pandarus pandering to (or for) in the Iliad? Athena? Or does the allusion belong only to T&C?"

You made me curious about that, Lily. Even though it appears that "pander" as we know it came to us through T&C, still, I can see how the name could have been taken from Pandarus...

Pardarus could be viewed as having taken that shot with his bow dishonestly (contrary to the oath the
Trojan side had sworn)...for money... to please Paris.

to steal or take dishonestly.

a person who caters for vulgar desires, esp in order to make money

to give someone anything they want in order to please them, even if it seems unreasonable or unnecessary -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"arranger of sexual liaisons, one who supplies another with the means of gratifying lust," 1520s, "procurer, pimp," from M.E. Pandare (late 14c.), used by Chaucer ("Troylus and Cryseyde"), who borrowed it from Boccaccio (who had it in Italian form Pandaro in "Filostrato") as name of the prince who procured the love of Cressida (his niece in Chaucer, his cousin in Boccaccio) for Troilus. The story and the name are of medieval invention. Spelling influenced by agent suffix -er. The verb meaning "to indulge, to minister to base passions" is first recorded c.1600. Related: Pandered; pandering.

At 13, Juliette wrote: ".The gory part isn't what bothered me so much as that there were names thrown in that I didn't remember, or know and didn't know if they were Greek or Trojan, so I was a little confused."

LOL. I have a difficult time with the names as well. After a few too many "the dark [comes] whirling down across [my] eyes"

Adelle wrote: "I'm wondering if the fact that Homer describes Pandarus "lurking under cover," shooting his bow from a distance, killing an animal

followed by a description of Pandarus hiding under the shields of his cohorts, shooting his bow from a distance, ....

Is Homer suggesting here??? that Padarus is less than heroic? that he's to be thought less of because he kills men the same way he would kill an animal?? "

Great questions. Yes, Athena knew her man, knew exactly who would be most susceptible to a suggestion that his personal fame and glory is more important than honoring the solemn oath made to Zeus. Certainly I think anybody who would break the oath seeking some personal glory is somebody Homer would want us to look down on.

With tongue-in-cheek smile at Bill, Homer seems to be telling us that it's not a moral thing to do. :)

Adelle wrote: "LOL. I have a difficult time with the names as well."

I think we all do. (But then, I have trouble with the names in the Begats in the Bible and with Dante, and even a bit with the Angels in Paradise Lost.)

(Wanted to get through Book 4 before moving on to Book 5)

That last half of Book 4. Agamemnon seems to be a competent leader. Praising some; frequently verbally scorning many; motivating his men. About 400+, Agamemnon goads Odysseus. He pushes Odysseus to anger.

Fagles 4.about 415:

"Seeing his anger flair, field marshal Agamemnon
smiled broadly and took back his taunts at once:
.....
.....
Come, we'll set these things to right later--



So I wonders....

Agamemnon is actually pleased that he's angered Odysseus. His actual purpose was to rouse anger. Might this be one of Agamemnon's management tricks? To push one of his "captains" to anger...to turn that man into a more motivated fighter?

Is it POSSIBLE?? that Agamemnon had deliberately pushed Achilles to anger, hoping to somehow then direct Achilles' anger in more ferocious fighting against Troy?

What makes me wonder is that "echo."

Agamemnon pushes his man to anger...
Then says, "come, we'll set these things to rights later"

Now look back at Book 1. At about 165. Agamemnon was scorning Achilles. And then he says, "Enough. We'll deal with all this later"

I don't know. Maybe it doesn't mean anything. But maybe...maybe Agamemnon's way was to make his men angry...to make them want to prove themselves...which, from Agamemnon's point of view, would make them more effective fighters... or more effective raiders who brought back cattle and treasure and women of which Agamemnon got a share.

??? There's just such an echo there. Just makes me wonder. But....maybe he pushed Achilles too far. Or maybe he pushed Achilles once too often.

???

-------------------------------

One last thing I noticed. It has to do with "echos" as well.

At about 4.535: "Abantes...rushed madly to strip his gear, but his rush was short-lived."

At about 4.550...the story of Simoisious..."he was short lived"

I thought I saw that phrase elsewhere in Book 4.

Every time Homer uses this phrasing, wouldn't the audience be reminded, over and over, that Achilles was "short lived"... they would remember that in their minds and keep it in their hearts. I think it an effective way for Homer to keep Achilles in the story...without actually mentioning Achilles by name.

Adelle wrote: "In earlier Books, Achilles kills with his sword, face-to-face, man-killing-man.

I'm wondering if the fact that Homer describes Pandarus "lurking under cover," shooting his bow from a distance, killing an animal

followed by a description of Pandarus hiding under the shields of his cohorts, shooting his bow from a distance, ....

Is Homer suggesting here??? that Padarus is less than heroic? that he's to be thought less of because he kills men the same way he would kill an animal?? "

In light of this it is interesting that Agamemnon spears Odius in the back as he is running away. I didn't think much of it at first, but it does seem less than courageous.

Thomas wrote: "In light of this it is interesting that Agamemnon spears Odius in the back as he is running away. I didn't think much of it at first, but it does seem less than courageous.




I agree with you.



at 5.about 45:

"the spearhead punched his back between the shoulders"

and then again at 5.about 60, 'though this time it is Menelaus spearing in the back:

"now Menelaus ... ran him through,
square between the blades as he fled ..."

Those Atreus brothers.

"

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I'm wondering if the fact that Homer describes Pandarus "lurking under cover," shooting his bow from a distance, killing an animal

followed by a description of Pandarus hiding under..."

Adelle, what is the meaning of 'moral'?

Everyman?

Bill?

Anyone?

Bueller?

At 28, Laurele wrote, "what is the meaning of 'moral'?

"
Mmm I have deleted my long answer. Seems too personal. I will just say that by 'moral' I don't mean "mores."

Adelle wrote: "Agamemnon is actually pleased that he's angered Odysseus. His actual purpose was to rouse anger. Might this be one of Agamemnon's management tricks? To push one of his "captains" to anger...to turn that man into a more motivated fighter?
"

I think that's very much a part of leadership in hand-to-hand combat. We still see it in modern football teams, getting the players riled up, challenging the players to their faces, to get them motivated to get out there and whip some ___.

Laurele wrote: "what is the meaning of 'moral'?"

As I use it, it means right living, making the right choices as dictated usually by a religion at least one edict of which is to place, at times, the interests of others not only equal to but sometimes ahead of your own.

In the period when I was reading theology, I was quite influenced by Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society in which he wrote that "Individual men may be moral in the sense that they are able to consider interests other than their own in determining problems of conduct, and are capable, on occasion, of preferring the advantages of others to their own."

I've been thinking a little about the end of Book 2 and beginning of Book 3 of the Republic, where Socrates criticizes Homer for his portrayal of the gods. He says, more or less, that the gods can only be the source of good. The capriciousness and trickery of the gods is not edifying, and so the poet must not be allowed to show them as such in the beautiful city. One of the instances that Socrates cites is in Iliad Book 4:

And, as to the violation of the oaths and truces that Pandarus committed, if someone says Athena and Zeus were responsible for its happening, we'll not praise him... 379e

Part of the argument is that Homer's gods are just plain bad role models. The people, especially impressionable young people, look to the gods for moral guidance, and Homer's depiction of the gods is, according to Socrates, "not a noble lie."

And further, they are harmful to those who hear them. Everyone will be sympathetic with himself when he is bad, persuaded that after all similar things are done and were done even by

"the close relations of the gods,
Near to Zeus, whose altar to patriarchal Zeus
Is on Ida's peak in the ether"

and

"In them the blood of demons has not yet faded."

On that account such tales must cease, for fear that they sow a strong proclivity for badness in our young. 391e

So it seems that at least Socrates thought Homer (and Hesiod, and Aeschylus) were teaching morality. Not the right way, of course, and not the (according to Socrates) correct morality, but a type of morality nevertheless.

Patrice wrote: "Am I the only one who sometimes sees the capriciousness of the gods as a more practical explanation of life than our own God? Seems to me that rewards and punishments, at least in this life, are n..."

It seems like Homer explains fate through the gods in a way that makes perfect sense -- it's a magical, unreasonable kind of explanation, but sometimes that's the only explanation that makes sense.

Patrice wrote: "It does make some sense that he had to do away with Homer entirely. He was moving towards one God, I think, like our own. A steady role model of moral goodness. "

I agree -- Plato is developing a monotheistic theology, slowly and carefully, expressed in the terms of a model, because it was certainly not in line with the accepted religion of the time.

Thomas wrote: "Part of the argument is that Homer's gods are just plain bad role models. The people, especially impressionable young people, look to the gods for moral guidance, and Homer's depiction of the gods is, according to Socrates, "not a noble lie."
"

But if the gods are only good, then one can't blame the gods when bad things happen, or when one does bad things. The Homeric concept of gods is much more convenient, since, for example, Pandarus can say (validly, suggests Homer) "it isn't my fault that I broke the truce, the gods drove me to it." With purely good gods, he would have to admit to deciding to violate the oath purely for personal gain.

Everyman wrote: "But if the gods are only good, then one can't blame the gods when bad things happen, or when one does bad things.."

A monotheistic explanation is a much more difficult sell in this regard. Theodicy is always a problem. But like Patrice, I think this was the direction Plato was going. I think we can also see in the Republic that Socrates was advocating truth over power, a criticism of Thrasymachus and the notion that "might is right".

This point of view doesn't fit in with the Homeric world very well, but there is one notable exception: Isn't Achilles' complaint against Agamemnon a case of might is not right? But at the same time the glory of war is most assuredly in might, not in justice. Achilles is in a quandary. He can't fight this injustice on his own power.

Patrice wrote: "What book might have wound up in Ionia? "

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "LOL. I have a difficult time with the names as well."

I think we all do. (But then, I have trouble with the names in the Begats in the Bible and with Dante, and even a bit with th..."

And with Dante, you get all these coming up again--Antenor, Aeneas, Helen and Paris, plus others, I'm sure, figure significantly in The Inferno.