Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Fierce fighting continues. With most of their major heroes temporarily out of action, either for reasons of anger or from wounds, the Trojans gain the upper hand, fighting to the very walls and, at least, breaching the wall, threatening the Greeks with total destruction.

There are some fascinating elements interspersed among the scenes of slaughter. The book is filled with marvelous similes. We have the incident of the omen of the eagle and the snake; the Greeks (and presumably Trojans) very much believed in omens. Then we have the very famous exchange between Sarpedon and Glaucon around line 310. It is the absolute definition of the Greek/Trojan warrior ethos. Of those to whom much is given, much is expected. We are rewarded with the choice meats, the choice lands, the choice wines, because we are the ones who stand in the front line, who bear the brunt of the fighting, who brave death the most. So let us now earn our right, and our glory.

And it ends with the fascinating comment that if I were immortal, I would not fight nor send you into battle. But since we must die, let us fight gloriously and either gain glory by killing others, or let others gain glory by killing us.

This is, I think, why the Iliad is often called a poem of death. Not because there is so much killing in it, though there is. But because death is the measure of the man. It is through death, and only through death, that immortality comes. Either we kill others and gain glory ourselves, or we die and give glory to those who killed us.

Everyman wrote: "We are rewarded with the choice meats, the choice lands, the choice wines, because we are the ones who stand in the front line, who bear the brunt of the fighting, who brave death the most. So let us now earn our right, and our glory.
..."
Unless Agamemnon decides he wants it for himself.

Juliette wrote: "Everyman wrote: "We are rewarded with the choice meats, the choice lands, ...
Unless Agamemnon decides he wants it for himself..."

Touche!

I noticed that line as well. That's the choice, yes? To kill and gain glory or to die and give it to others.

At least, that is the choice for heroes.

What's interesting to me is that Homer constantly shows himself alive to domestic pleasures -- but to be a man is to fight. Hektor in the scene with Andromache and his son wishes his son to be in battle.

But either way, the shortness of life looms over Homer -- even when we meet the old men.

The reaction I'd expected to have much earlier -- and was delighted I didn't, was delighted how much else I found -- is beginning to set in.

I'm ready for some books set in the women's quarters. Or a little drawing room comedy. Enough with the swords and the shields already.

I find the omens in this book quite confusing. Hector rejects Polydamas' interpretation of the omen at 12.195-250 -- an eagle in flight is bitten by its prey, a snake, and the eagle drops it at their feet. That seems to be a pretty clear indication that the assault on the wall will fail. But Hector has received counsel from Zeus (directly?) that they should attack. He disregards the omen, and basically tells Polydamas that his interpretation is that of a coward.

So Hector leads the assault and soon Zeus sends a dust storm to fog the Achaians' sight. The Trojans take this as an omen as well, but a good one -- Zeus is helping them.

So what's up with these omens? Does one trust the good ones and ignore the bad ones? Or will the ignored omen come back to haunt them?

Thomas wrote: "I find the omens in this book quite confusing. Hector rejects Polydamas' interpretation of the omen at 12.195-250 -- an eagle in flight is bitten by its prey, a snake, and the eagle drops it at the..."

Hmm that is an interesting question. I suppose in a way it is like one simply hearing what they want to hear. He does not want to accept an ill omen, and thus denies it and rejects listening to it, but will embrace an omen which speaks in his favor. I think this is reflective of human nature. One is less likely to want to listen to and believe bad news.

And perhaps the counsel of a god (Zeus no less) trumps a bad omen. So even if the omen seems to bode ill, when one has Zeus tell you to act contrary to that omen, you put your faith more in the god than the sign, and just presume, or hope that having the support of Zeus will supercede any bad omens.

I think what Silver says in 7 above is true.

I also think that living in a time (as opposed to a text) in which omens were common -- one couldn't help but notice they didn't always come true. So if the omen seemed to defy common sense, people may not have always rushed to act on it.

Didn't we see a parallel omen to the eagle and the snake earlier in the text? I feel as if we did, but I can't recall it.

On another note, in order to increase my dork factor from 'large' to 'extraordinary' while reading the Iliad, I've switched from Fagles' translation to Chapman's. Yes, he of Keats fame.

It's really quite lovely, and not nearly as obscure as I had feared. I had wanted to try a Homer that was a legitimate work of English poetry in its own right. I looked through both Pope and Chapman; Chapman won. I'll let you know how it goes.... I bombed out of the Canterbury Tales by tackling an English that was too much more my attention span at the time, and hope I have not doomed myself to a similar fate this time.

Rosemary wrote: "Didn't we see a parallel omen to the eagle and the snake earlier in the text? I feel as if we did, but I can't recall it.

On another note, in order to increase my dork factor from 'large' to 'ext..."

The eagle omen does sound familiar. I think it was mentioned before within the book (but I cannot recall which of the books)

Also I think interesting, a similar omen was referenced within the Oresteia

P.S. Chapman is the translation I have. Personally I found Chapman to be quite readable.

Well, we have Keats' sonnet. We'll look forward to yours.

Rosemary wrote: "Didn't we see a parallel omen to the eagle and the snake earlier in the text? I feel as if we did, but I can't recall it.

On another note, in order to increase my dork factor from 'large' to 'ext..."

In Book 8, when Agamemnon is trying to rally his troops:

He spoke thus, and as he wept the father took pity upon him
and bent his head, that the people should stay alive, and not perish.
Straightway he sent down the most lordly of birds, an eagle,
with a fawn, the young of the running deer, caught in his talons,
who cast down the fawn beside Zeus' splendid altar
where the Achaians wrought their devotions to Zeus of the Voices.
They, when they saw the bird and knew it was Zeus who sent it,
remembered once again their warcraft, and turned on the Trojans.
8.245 (Lattimore)

Not a snake though...

My sonnets are quite mediocre. [g]

Hey, what did everyone think of the description in the beginning of 12, of the gods destroying the Greek rampart? I thought of Babel but didn't get much further.

I was merrily reading along at the beginning of book 12 and got the greatest shock. Was it my imagination or did Homer tell us the ending of the story?! (Lines 10-16) Of course, we all KNOW the ending but who wants to hear it in the middle??? There have been times during the reading where outcomes are alluded to, but it is not so blatant and usually you get the impression that things could change with the will of the gods. Perhaps the Greeks didn't place as much importance on suspense as we do now, but I can't help feeling somewhat cheated. Or perhaps my knowing the outcome affects how I'm viewing this passage (ie. if I didn't know the outcome, would I still feel so strongly?) Does anyone have any thoughts (or illumination) about this?

Cleo wrote: "I was merrily reading along at the beginning of book 12 and got the greatest shock. Was it my imagination or did Homer tell us the ending of the story?! (Lines 10-16) Of course, we all KNOW the ..."

I have to so say that I have not had that problem, already knowing what happened has not bothered me in the reading of this book. There are so many other interesting things going on. I love seeing the interactions of the gods, and I am one of the rare few who do in fact enjoy the battle scenes. Perhaps part of it is the fact that I am an avid reader of Historical Fiction where I am often reading about things where the outcome is already known. So I am used to it, and so instead I look for other things in this reading, rather than just wondering about what is ultimately going to happen.

And even though I do already know how it ends, it is still fun for me to root for Troy and Hector and applaud when they have a good battle day and want them to win, even while knowing they will not.

Cleo wrote: "I was merrily reading along at the beginning of book 12 and got the greatest shock. Was it my imagination or did Homer tell us the ending of the story?! (Lines 10-16) Of course, we all KNOW the ..."

When I got to that place I thought SPOILER! and smiled. This is definitely not a book for worrying a lot about spoilers.

Huh! I never even thought of it as a spoiler.

As we even said at the beginning, we know who won the Trojan War. AND none of what he describes happens in The Iliad. The Iliad ends before the fall of Troy.

What interested me is Homer's need to gloss the absence of the wall. It's almost as though he expected the audience to know the geography and wonder where the wall went.

He's like a tour guide.

"We are now standing on the site of the great fortification built by the Achaians to defend their ships. Many of you may be surprised there's nothing here...but after, the fall of Troy, Poseidon..."

Bill wrote: "Huh! I never even thought of it as a spoiler.

As we even said at the beginning, we know who won the Trojan War. AND none of what he describes happens in The Iliad. The Iliad ends before the fall o..."

Yes I agree, I did not really take those lines as a spoiler, because I already knew such would happen, as well as the fact that Homer was telling the story with the presumption that the audience would know the outcome. His concern within the story is not to shock people by what the outcome of the war will be, because this is already widely known. He is telling the story of the war itself. How it was fought, the heroes of the war, the conflicts between gods and men, what happened in those final moments of the war.

No one is supposed to be like "What Troy looses, I never saw that coming."

Does anyone say, "Whew. The Jews got out of Egypt! I was nervous at the Red Sea."

Zeus spills the beans pretty badly in Book 8:

Mighty Hector will not relent from war
until he stirs Peleus' son to leave his ships,
the day the armies fight at the ships' sterns,
their bloody combat over fallen Patroclus. 8.475

Aw c'mon, Zeus! Dang it.

It reminds me of what someone else said in a discussion about a different book. It cannot be a spoiler if the author themselves want you to know it, and provide you with this foreknowledge within the text.

It only means that the outcome of the war is not what Homer expects the audience to focus upon, and is not what is considered important to the story. Not to say that the outcome wasn't important, but I think Homer is more interested in telling the how it happened, and not the what happened.

Also I could not help but think of the way in which signs, omens, prophecy were considered to be of such significance. In a way Homer revealing the end prior to its happening seems reflective of the fact that he is speaking of a culture that were often seeking to find out answerers to what was going to happen and how it was important to the Greeks to try and uncover clues to their futures, or to imagine they see signs giving them such knowledge, or that the gods reveal things to them.

They didn't have mystery books to read, so they read events.

This is just a random note, but I saw the movie "The Grey" today and there was a poem recited in the movie that made me think of "The Iliad"

Once more into the fray
Into the last good fight I'll ever know
Live and die on this day
Live and die on this day

Would it be a spoiler? The Trojans are not defeated in the time frame of the Iliad. In fact anybody depending solely on the Iliad for knowledge of the outcome of the war would have been disappointed. And Homer was describing old history- people would have known the outcomes. I think also, like Silver mentioned, in historical novels /drama we know the end outcome.
Also maybe this importance given to "suspense" ie not knowing the outcome of a story is very modern? The fact that it is termed a "spoiler". It's not really relevant, but an interesting speculation I notice this tendency among other people I know who are avid readers- half of them don't want to know about the plot and nobody wants to know about the endings. One of my personal idiosyncrasies is to read the ends of books first :(, specially murder mysteries:)., because I enjoy stories more that way- it's more about the language, characters, nuances-and people hoot when I tell them this.

Maybe it says something about our differences.

The oral epic was heard communally. If everyone already knew the story, hearing it together would pull them together as a group....a shared experience. Mmm...also, as there wasn't widespread literacy or copies available to read, the fact that many knew the story would enable them to retell it ro each other when there wasn't a singer of songs in their area. And the story, being repeated, would take on a lustre and glow ... Like when one carefully polishes and re-polishes a treasured piece of silver handed down (Nestor is constantly handing down.)

But I do think it would help knit the community together...not unlike how large swaths of America had yhe shared experience of watching the news each evening with Walter Cronkite.

We're a much more individual-focused society now. When we get our news we get it on our own terms... And in reading or watching a movie, Gerenerally, as there are so many stories available in so many formats, we want the experience of the details there for US... The surprise of the details is part of the experience...even if we are watching with others physically there.

In a way, because we have so many experiences (books, movies, news, etc), we tend to view them more as throw aways...we want the experience for ourselves...and then we have so many more to move on to.

I don't know.

I think Aparajita makes an excellent point. If you already know the ending, then you ARE much more likely to focus on language, character, etc.

Aparajita wrote: " I know who are avid readers- half of them don't want to know about the plot and nobody wants to know about the endings. One of my personal idiosyncrasies is to read the ends of books first :(, specially murder mysteries:)., because I enjoy stories more that way- it's more about the language, characters, nuances-and people hoot when I tell them this.

I am curious about this because I hear people make statements of this nature quite frequently, that they prefer to know what the ending is, or do not care if they know the ending so they can pay attention to other things than just worry about how it is going to end.

But must the two things be mutually exclusive?

It kind of makes of think of the saying "cannot walk and chew gum at the same time"

Is a person really rendered so consumed by not knowing what happened next that they are rendered incapable of paying attention to any other elements of the story? Cannot a person read without knowing the ending and still be perfectly capable taking in other aspects of the story?

Adelle wrote: "I think Aparajita makes an excellent point. If you already know the ending, then you ARE much more likely to focus on language, character, etc.

That's my feeling with serious literature. If the book is suspenseful, I'm liable to rush to find out what happens. So I'll read the plot summary. My interest is never the plot, per se, but the writing, the vision, the characters and the motifs -- probably in that order for most books.

With books I'm not likely to read too often, like War and Peace, I'm particularly liable to read very slowly. When you read War and Peace slowly, it's a serious investment of time. I don't want to waste it worrying about what happens next.

Also -- and this is tricky and I've said this before -- knowing what happens doesn't remove all suspense from a book. Each time I reread, King Lear I hope Cordelia makes it. I know she won't. I know Lear will arrive at her prison cell moments too late.

More generally, if suspense were so important to serious literature, where's the pleasure in rereading? Or seeing films more than once? The Bible may be a special case, but what about reading and rereading Shakespeare? Just knowing whether it's a comedy or tragedy gives you a very big hint of how it will turn out. And worse if it's a history -- the ending of Antony and Cleopatra is well known. How about the Jane Austen fans who have read Pride and Prejudice 12,872 times?

There are exceptions for me, if not for Aparajita. These are books when, if one removes suspense, there's not so much left. Mysteries are for me in that category -- it would rarely occur to me to reread a mystery.

Then there are books where surprise is a fundamental part of the experience -- and it would be a shame to miss it, at least the first time.

For example, Aparajita, have you ever read The Good Soldier? If you haven't, I wouldn't read the ending first -- the whole point of just the plot of the book is how you arrive at the resolution, not the resolution, and it's the rare case where the resolution is meaningless without the very careful build up. At least that's what I think. If you read it -- it's a very good book, both modernist and highly readable -- I'd be curious what you think knowing the ending in advance.]



My general point in the bast was not about reading but discussing. I think if you're discussing a book, it is useful to have the whole book in mind.

Silver wrote, "Is a person really rendered so consumed by not knowing what happened next that they are rendered incapable of paying attention to any other elements of the story? Cannot a person read without knowing the ending and still be perfectly capable taking in other aspects of the story?"

It seems to depend on the individual, Silver. And it's not just can one or can't one -- it's a matter of the degree to which one does it well.

Patrice,

But my point to Adelle was we read and reread Shakespeare as well as many other authors whose work hardly serve a ritual purpose. And which we read privately. Shakespeare is a great example. We reread knowing how it will all end.

Not only do we often know the Shakespeare play, we know the story it was based on (e.g., Antony and Cleopatra.

Bill wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I think Aparajita makes an excellent point. If you already know the ending, then you ARE much more likely to focus on language, character, etc.

That's my feeling with serious litera..."w

Ok, yes. There are books I enjoy re-reading. And then there are books like The DeVinci Code...which I read so fast to find out what was going to happen that I virtually skimmed...and I remember very few details.

And I expect, for the most part, the books you read at that rate aren't ones you want to spend time talking about.

Bill wrote: "And I expect, for the most part, the books you read at that rate aren't ones you want to spend time talking about."

:) Spot on, Bill. I LOVE the rush of reading them pell-mell and letting the housework hang....(but then....I love letting the housework hang regardless). But it's the rush I remember...not the details. So I wouldn't be capable of discussing such books. Only capable of strongly urging others to rush-read them too.

Patrice wrote: "So much talk of the Lycians, I got curious and found this in my notes:

Lycians migrated at the time of the collapse of the bronze age civilization. One of the "sea peoples" they went to Egypt and..."

I love that wording: "sea peoples."

So many various "little kingdom countries" there at wind-swept Troy; so many named individuals in action. I'm thinking if this were a movie, it would be The Longest Day: so many countries represented, so many big-name stars, and action, action, action all the time.

Patrice wrote: "So much talk of the Lycians, I got curious and found this in my notes:

Lycians migrated at the time of the collapse of the bronze age civilization. One of the "sea peoples" they went to Egypt and..."

Aren't the Achaians also (supposedly) one of the sea peoples? (I think they were called Ahiyawwa or something like that?)

What an action packed Book, eh?

I only jotted down notes at 3 or 4 passages.

On that first page,

[the Argives]"--they never gave the gods
the splendid sacrifice the immortals craved"
(Fagles 12.7)

And I think, "those poor Achaeans." If only there were some rules that would lay out when/and under what circumstances sacrifice should be made. If they had summoned Calchas, he might have advised them to make a proper sacrifice...but I don't suppose Agamemnon wants to see him---and the men know this.

Also, there might have been a lack of forethought. Just as Achilles and Agamemnon had been "quick" to anger in Book 1, here, too, we see how badly events can turn out when done in haste.

"And let us heap a single great barrow over the pyre,
one great communal grave stretched out across the plain
and fronting it throw up looming ramparts quickly" (Fagles 7.386).

Now, Homer doesn't say that the gods "deserved" a sacrifice, or that the Greeks should have provided a sacrifice to win the good will of the gods. He says the gods "craved" one....upset that now the fame of men might rival his own fame for having built a wall once. How absolutely mercurial! Even Zeus himself was initially exasperated with Poseidon, "Unbelievable! God of the earthquake, you with your massive power, why are you moaning so?" (Fagles 7.525)

{Are we to see a similarity here with Agamemnon? It wasn't that Agamemon "deserved" another girl. Agamemon already held the powerful position king. And yet...Agamemon didn't think Achilles had treated him right. He "craved"/demanded Brisies.}

The rampart. Maybe the Argives did feel that they had to get a wall built quickly to protect their ships should the Trojans leave Troy and make it to the Greek ships.

It's not as though they didn't take every opportunity they could to propitiate the gods. After---but not before...when they were acting quickly---they built the wall "they flung wine from their cups and wet the earth / and no fighter would dare drink until he'd poured/ an offering out to the overwhelming son of Cronus" (Fagles 7.555).

Also...what with this being Troy...the Dardanelles...one can't help but think of WWI...the bodies stacked in the trenches...the bodies used as ramparts.

Perhaps the Greeks, knowing that there was to be a truce to clear the fields of the dead, used this time to "quickly" throw up defenses built on the dead. Even though Homer doesn't say so, perhaps using the dead in this way was some sort of affront to one god or another.

Patrice wrote: "According to "In Search of the trojan War"
"In 1924 the Swiss Hittitologist Emil Forrer announced
that in a mysterious country called Ahhiyawa he had found the land of the Greeks--Achaia land, that..."

I love those historical (even perhaps possible/probable) tie-ins!

Lol! I forget who posted that remark about the boulders, but as I began reading Book 12, oh my! It was true! Boulders here, boulders there, boulders, boulders everywhere.

Aparajita wrote: "The Trojans are not defeated in the time frame of the Iliad. In fact anybody depending solely on the Iliad for knowledge of the outcome of the war would have been disappointed. "

There was apparently a long cycle of epic about the Trojan war, of which only the Iliad and Odyssey survive in any significant state, but we know about quite a few others from their being mentioned in other works.

I'm going to interrupt this thread, (and I beg pardon in advance for the OT) to say something I really feel at the moment.

As far as I'm concerned, this is one of the best groups (bar one)on GR, if not the best as far as depth of discussion goes. I don't really have time to actually contribute to the posts, but I tune in to the discussions whenever I have a free moment, and you guys absolutely rock!

This is an awesome discussion of the Iliad, I wish I had the time to be in here with all of you. However, even just reading threads like this one is enriching.

Although I have thought more highly of Achilles through the Iliad thus far, I have really liked Hector as he's been portrayed. However, here in Book 12, I'm finding he's dropping a little in my esteem. My thinking is that Hector's recent successes on the field have gone to his head. This being a Greek epic, I think...hubris?

I checked it out on wikipedia. I'm not sure that the concept of hubris existed as early as either Homer or Troy, but the description fit. Additionally, considering what will transpire in books to come, I found the wikipedia description most interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

But anyway, at Fagles 12.240, just after the scene in which the eagle (bird sign of Zeus) flung the snake down amongst the Trojan fighters:

"The Trojans shuddered to see the serpent glistening,
wriggling at their feet, a sign from storming Zeus.
And Polydamas stood by headstrong Hector, saying,
'Hector, you alwas seem to attack me in assembly,
despite my good advice.'"

[And from what I've read in background, militarily the advice of Polydamas WAS good advice. Troy's strength would have been in fighting a purely defensive war.]

Polydamas continues: "'Never right, is it,
for a common man to speak against you, King,
never in open council, and god forbid in war.
Our part is always to magnify your power.'"

{Might this be a bit of a shadow scene to that which Homer had given us in Book 1 with Thersites? Both Polydamas and Thersites--at least sometimes---can speak competently, can accurately appraise situations. Yet both might be resented or their opinions discounted due to their lower statuses?}

And Hector's reaction to Polydamas, a man who has in the past given sound advice, a man who seems to have some skill in reading and interpreting the signs of the gods?

"Hector wheeled with a dark glance: 'Enough, Polydamas!
Your pleading repels me now--
you must have something better than this to say.

But if you are serious, speaking from the heart,
[I love the implications of that line.]
the gods themselves have blotted out your senses.

{And Hector here, it seems to me, places the value of his own personhood above the value of good advice}

You tell me to forget the plans of storming Zeus,
all he promised me when he nodded in assent?
You tell me to put my trust in birds,
flying off on their long wild wings?"

Reading the next lines, it occurs to me that Achilles and Hector, both, believe that Zeus is backing them.

Achilles back in Book 9: "what do I need with honor such as that? / I say my honor lies in the great decree of Zeus."

Hector here in Book 12: "all he promised me when [Zeus] nodded in assent....put our trust in the will of mighty Zeus."

Zeus had nodded to them both. Neither knows what that nod will cost them personally.

I wondered, too, whether Homer wasn't here presenting Hector as somewhat impious. "Bird-signs!
Fight for your country--that is the best, the only omen!"

This strikes me as so very dismissive of such signs as Zeus might have sent via his own beloved eagle to warn the Trojans.

And then, once more, we see that overweening, immoderate side of Hector as he berates and threatens Polydamas:

"you lack the heart to last it out in combat--coward!

But if you hold back from the bloody foray here
or turn some other soldier back from battle,
winning him over--you with your soft appeals--
at one quick stroke my spear will beat you down,
you'll breathe your last!"

Is it the love of the battle? his recent astounding succcesses there? his knowledge that the Trojans, having taken to the field, only have this one opportunity to push the hated Argives off the beach? his fears for his family and their precarious position should the Trojans lose? something else?

Whatever it was....Hector's desires or needs overrode his usual concern for proper attention to what the gods might be saying.

Adelle wrote: "Although I have thought more highly of Achilles through the liad thus far, I have really liked Hector as he's been portrayed. However, here in Book 12, I'm finding he's dropping a little in my est..."

Hubris in the Greek sense is associated with insolence or outrage more than pride. It often refers to wanton violence, and frequently rape -- the focus is on insult and shame. The famous example in Homer are the suitors in the Odyssey. I'm not sure how the term evolved to mean "excessive pride," but that's a more modern understanding.

Here the word Fagles translates as "headstrong" means bold or confident.

None of which really addresses your excellent observations. I'm still not sure how to interpret that omen. Maybe the fact that Zeus is playing both sides -- for Achilles, an Argive, but also for Hector, a Trojan -- has something to do with it?

Adelle wrote: "Although I have thought more highly of Achilles through the liad thus far, I have really liked Hector as he's been portrayed. However, here in Book 12, I'm finding he's dropping a little in my est..."

I do not really see it as being so much as an act of arrogance or that he has become too full of himself, but I read it more as being in denial. He does not want to admit the possibility that they may loose. I think that he chooses to ignore the omen and write it off, not because he has come to think too much of his ability, but because he cannot bring himself to accept the possibility of the omen being true.

He believes he has the support of Zeus, and the Trojan's have been making progress in the war, which has already gone on for far too long now. As well he is fighting for more than the Greeks are. He has his own family to consider, in addition to all of Troy. He is not fighting purely for some notion of honor but for hearth and home. He cannot allow himself to believe that defeat his an option. He must convince himself that victory is within his grasp.

In his turning away the advice offered by Polydamas, I see it as Hector trying to convince himself that the omen is meaningless or has been wrongly interpreted.

Thomas wrote: "Adelle wrote: .."

First, thanks finessing the translations. I appreciate it.

Second, concerning Zeus vis-a-vis Achilles and Hector...

It's complicated. Mmm. I've noticed that Homer frequently uses the image of weaving (cloth, stories, more), so I'll use it as well. To me, it seems as though Zeus has access to a fifth dimension (fate) which he weaves into the lives of the Greeks and the Trojans; but we can only really grasp the four....so that fifth one keeps eluding our understanding.

It's not that the two nods contradict each other. They don't. Zeus will honor both. But on terms so very narrowly defined.

(lol...like that story...perhaps true, perhaps not...of the politician who, asked if he had had a twelve-year affair, was able to truthfully answer "no," because the affair had only been for, like, eleven years and 10 months. That's Zeus. His nods are technically true.)

I'm thinking...that since Zeus has this fifth dimension, fate, he CAN send a warning to the Trojans. Who knows, perhaps the gesture will appease some god sitting there on Olympus? But fate, that fifth dimension, is so woven in with the life of men that Zeus knows that somehow or other....perhaps Zeus doesn't know the exact details....but he knows the major strands of fate that will most certainly come about. And therefore Zeus knows that even if he sends a warning to Hector and the Trojans, that the Trojans will do something to negate this warning, and therefore certain fate will most certainly happen.

Thus, Hector disregards the omen, even going so far as to brush the Zeus-sent omen aside as not important as the cause of fighting for one's country. Insulting the gods. So he will be punished. It seems to me that Zeus somehow knows that Hector's forward advance will be stopped before the Trojans overpower the Greeks. But Zeus doesn't quite know how.

Well then...here's Hector...providing just the right reason for the gods to punish him... fate.

Silver wrote: "I do not really see it as being so much as an act of arrogance or that he has become too full of himself, but I read it more as being in denial. He does not want to admit the possibility that they may loose. I think that he chooses to ignore the omen and write it off, not because he has come to think too much of his ability, but because he cannot bring himself to accept the possibility of the omen being true..."

Denial. Yes, I can see that, too, as a very valid interpretation. Yes. Hector has so much at stake.

Well...because I live in the time and place I live in, I ignore bird signs myself.

However, Hector's culture, Hector himself, I think, does believe in Zeus and the gods and the signs of the gods. Hector himself has made prayers and sacrifices to the gods. So it seems to me that he either believes or he is a hypocrite. Actually, in this very scene, Hector has referenced his faith in Zeus. "Zeus nodded to ME.". Nothing rational there (leastways not from a modern perspective).

No, I can't see anyway of reading this scene other than as disrespect of the signs the gods send. ESPECIALLY as Hector raises his country higher than duty to the gods. That just has to offend some god somewhere.

I am agreeing more and more with Silver's take: that Hector has so much at stake...he feels he HAS to deny that this eagle/serpent sign might be a warning.

But what does it matter to the gods what his motivation might be? They don't care about motivation. Consider Posiedon back in Book 11. He didn't care WHY the Greeks didn't make him a splendid sacrifice..(like....maybe due to absolute fear that the Trojans would soon be there to slash them and spear them and kill them in all manner of bloody ways). He only cared that proper procedures hadn't been followed. Same thing here: he doesn't matter to the gods WHY Hector is dismissing the importance of bird sign.

As for interpretation, mmm, Polydamas might recognize that a sign might be important (just as an illiterate person might realize that a book might contain important information), but to access the meaning, an expert such as Calchus would probably have to be consulted (just as someone who can interpret the symbols [letters amd words] in a book would be needed to access the meaning in a book.)

At 54 Patrice wrote: "Adelle.."

Yes, Hector has heart. I do really, really like that about him.

But look how strikes out at Polydamas...when Polydamas is obeying HIS heart. Hector calls him deluded, belittles him as a fighter, calls him a coward, threatens to kill him.

Adelle wrote: "At 54 Patrice wrote: "Adelle.."

Yes, Hector has heart. I do really, really like that about him.

But look how strikes out at Polydamas...when Polydamas is obeying HIS heart. Hector calls him del..."


As the old expression goes "Don't kill the messenger"

I think the reason why Hector lashes out at Polydamas the way he does is because he is anger and frustrated with the new which Polydamas brings him. He cannot attack the omen itself, and so Polydamas represents something tangible that he can unleash his anger upon. He is projecting his wrath against the omen itself and the bad tidings it brings, upon the most available object.

He is placed within a highly stressful situation. While one could say that he should not have lashed out the way in which he does, and that was not the best way to handle the situation. I do not think that his striking out against Polydamas should be taken as a personal attack against him.

At 57 Silver wrote: " ...I think the reason why Hector lashes out at Polydamas the way he does is because he is anger and frustrated with the new which Polydamas brings him. He cannot attack the omen itself, and so Polydamas represents something tangible that he can unleash his anger upon. He is projecting his wrath against the omen itself and the bad tidings it brings, upon the most available object. "

I agree.

It's Agamemnon all over again. Angry at the facts. Therefore lashing out at Achilles.

Adelle wrote: "At 57 Silver wrote: "Adelle ..."

I agree.

It's Agamemnon all over again. Angry at the facts. Therefore lashing out at Achilles."

Yes I did think of that. It is interesting how many parallels and similarities there are looped throughout this book in the various incidents and interactions that happen.

Though I think one could argue that Hector at least is lashing out for more noble and rather less self-serving reasons than Agamemnon. And though Hector makes verbal threats he does not actually carry out any action against Polydamas, he just vents out his anger.

But immediately after Hector ignores the omen and censures Polydamas, Zeus sends a storm to blind the Greeks. Doesn't it appear that Hector is right to ignore the omen? Zeus is not offended in the least. That's what I find so odd about this episode...