Classics and the Western Canon discussion

This is one of the longer books of the Iliad, and while it might at first seem to be nothing but fighting, I found a lot going on that drew my attention and interest. Among other things, I found some wonderful similes in the book.

The fighting rages on, with Hector, still protected and strengthened by Zeus, spreading widespread death among the Greeks. The wall is breached, the gate smashed, but the Trojans don’t have everything their way. While several of the leading Greek fighters are wounded, so are most of the preeminent Trojan fighters, either killed or wounded and sent back to Troy.

Zeus, satisfied to have brought the Trojans to the wall, turns his eyes away from the battle, and Poseidon takes advantage to come to aid the Greeks. While he can’t stop Hector, he prevents total chaos. (This incident is yet more evidence that the Greek gods are not omnipotent, which is also noted at 521 where Ares is unaware that his son Ascalaphus has just been killed.)

I also love the “trash talking” between some of the fighters: for example, Menelaus taunting the Trojans at 620, Hector to Ajax at 824, and many others. Modern athletes didn’t invent trash talking!

My heart was touched for the fighters by the following passage at 340 (Johnson translation), which reminded me strongly of the passage in King Lear
“As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods,
They kill us for their sport.”
Not exactly sport here, but many on both sides are dying because of the conflict of the gods.

As troops moved up tightly bunched, men’s eyes went blind
in the blaze of glittering bronze, glaring helmets,
finely polished body armour, gleaming shields.
It would take a hard man to find joy in the sight
of all that suffering and show no trace of sorrow.

Then two mighty sons of Cronos, at cross purposes,
made painful trouble for those mortal warriors.
Zeus wanted victory for Hector and his Trojans,
to give swift Achilles glory—not that he wished
Achaea’s army to be totally destroyed
in front of Troy, but he did want to honour Thetis,
and her great-hearted son, as well, Achilles.
But Poseidon moved around among the Argives,
urging action, coming out in secret from the sea,
angry that Trojans were destroying Achaeans,
and incensed at Zeus. Both gods had a common father—
the same family, too—but Zeus was older and more wise.
So Poseidon avoided giving any overt help.
He did his work in secret through the army,
in human form, urging men to fight. So these two
looped the cords of powerful war and deadly strife
around both contending armies, then pulled them taut,
a knot no one could undo or slip away from,
a knot that broke the limbs of many fighting men.

I was really hit by Poseiden's words around 110:

But even if Agamemnon is completely to blame
For all this, because he dishonored Achilles, . . . .

One of the things which I found most interesting was the sort of power struggle that seems to emerge between Zeus and Poseidon. We have Zeus clearly backing the Trojans, and we have Poseidon clearly backing the Greeks.

It makes me think of an earlier discussion that was brought up about the gods as to where the power truly lies. While on the one hand Zeus is the Kings of the gods and the supreme power, yet knowing how this war will end, I wondered what does me mean or say that it seems as if in a way Poseidon out musseled Zeus?

The side that Zeus had supported during the war ultimately ends up loosing, while Poseidon's team so to speak takes the victory in the end.

While reading this book, I could not help thinking about that.

Patrice,

Yes. The idea is that Achaians will be defeated to the point where they will have to acknowledge that winning is impossible without Achilles.

Patrice wrote: "Laurele wrote: "I was really hit by Poseiden's words around 110:

But even if Agamemnon is completely to blame
For all this, because he dishonored Achilles, . . . ."

Laurele, could you say some m..."

It didn't shock me, Patrice, but I saw Poseidon saying in two lines the thing that some of our readers have been saying all along about who is most to blame for the protracted war.

Patrice wrote: "But was Zeus' goal to have the Trojan's win or to win glory for Achilles? I thought the latter. He was doing Thetis a favor. "

He does play both sides a bit. While on the one hand he has promised Achilles his glory, on the other hand he also has a great and genuine love for Hector. I do not know if his support for Troy, is truly a complete sham.

But I was also considering how this would be perceived by those whom would not know all the intrigue and maneuverings among the gods. To the people fighting the war themselves don't know all that the gods are planning or all their motives for what they do. Perhaps Achilles might know the truth because of Thetis.

But I wonder what it would do to the Zeus's image if it is perceived outwardly by others that Poseidon had the better of him? For those that do not know it was all a part of some grander scheme. The Trojan's genuinely believe in the support of Zeus.

It would give the appearance to those that are not in the know, that having Zeus support you, does not in fact get you much and that Team Zeus, lost to Team Poseidon.

Zeus is clearly on the side of Troy, but he has given up defending them because it's just too much trouble, evidently, to deal with Hera. I forget the book, but it's explicit, the lines where Hera is says, to the effect, you can destroy my favorite cities -- just let me have Troy. (If you assume Homer knew the story and it wasn't made up to explain Homer, then losing the apple was just too much for her.)

The confusion is merely that Zeus for the moment is giving the edge to the Trojans in order to make them understand that Achilles is essential to the cause.

I don't know how clearly we will ever understand the emotions and ideas of Homeric religion.

To some extent, it's seems everything is attributed to Zeus in pretty much the same way we say it's God's will, or athletes thank God for winning a baseball game, which always made e wonder just how interested God was in baseball.

On the other hand, they seem to attribute particular catastrophes to neglecting rites for a particular god, for example, in the story of Meleager.

As for Zeus and Poseidon, the gods quarrel. Zeus seems to me in the situation of a strong parent with a lot of difficult children. He's stronger than any of them, he could truly make their immortality painful, but he doesn't want to. He doesn't want to live on Olympus alone.

Short of that, he's going to have squabbling and people going behind his back. It's a question of how much he'll put up with.

These gods are not omniscient. You can do things behind their backs.

Bill wrote: "Zeus is clearly on the side of Troy, but he has given up defending them because it's just too much trouble, evidently, to deal with Hera. I forget the book, but it's explicit, the lines where Hera is says, to the effect, you can destroy my favorite cities -- just let me have Troy. "

That's right. He would prefer that Troy prevail because they have always made good sacrifices to him, but he's not as committed to protecting Troy as Hera is to destroying it, so he will let her prevail, and take it out somewhere else.

As flies to wanton boys . . .

Yes. King Lear. I read it first when I was sixteen and every since it's been on the top of my list of favorite pieces of writing.

My favorite lines, by the way, are

Gloucester: Let me kiss that hand!
Lear: Let me wash it first it smells of mortality.

King Lear is more grim than The Iliad, though. They don't merely pull the wings off the characters. Sometimes they give them glory. Sometimes pleasure. And in any event, life is short.

This seems to me a natural and fundamentally honest way to look at the universe, particularly if a scientific world view is well in the future, and the mythopoeic (Frankfurt) is in full force and one is less interpreting than seeing.

I think the viewpoint that despite the irrational there are "good reasons" for things -- we don't know them, God does -- is a very late idea, far later than "The Iliad."

As is the response that there is no God. I don't think that is a possible response at this time either.

Bill wrote: I think the viewpoint that despite the irrational there are "good reasons" for things -- we don't know them, God does -- is a very late idea, far later than "The Iliad."

As is the response that there is no God. I don't think that is a possible response at this time either.

I think it's very possible that the book of Job predates The Iliad.

Patrice wrote: "Line 128

locking spear by spear, shield against shield at the bse, so buckler leaned on buckler, helmet on helmet, man against man,

Sound like the birth of the phalanx."

I remember seeing a mention of phalanx at some point as well, which I thought was a little odd with all the focus on man-to-man combat. But we know the fighting must have been close. Deiphobus misses his mark and hits someone else, not once but twice.

Laurele,

There's uncertainty about the date of the Book of Job -- it's at least 5th century. How much older is uncertainty. From what I can gather, the J stand (Yahwist, Jehovistic -- the strand where God is called Yahweh) only dates to the eighth century. There's also the problem of that we're talking about the writing of oral tradition -- and who knows when things occurred.

But it's not relevant. It's not about an absolute date in World History. It's about the time in cultural development of individual cultures.

An interesting line at 672:

With Zeus inattentive, Hector did not learn
that slaughter was under way west of the ships --

This explains why Poseidon is able to turn the tide. Zeus is having a snooze somewhere. But the lines also imply that Zeus communicates with Hector directly, which is really interesting. If this is the case, it's no wonder that he has no time for bird omens.

Speaking of which, there is another bird omen at the end of the book. Like the one in book 12 it appears as Hector is momentarily stopped in his advance, and it is also favorable to the Greeks.

As with everything else, it's speculation. Take almost any position, someone will support it. As for the date of the Bible, it's always a question of what you're dating. I picked the J strand because I think it's the oldest. Nothing changes faster than the dating of ancient events. It's hard to keep up.

It's a little like predicting the future from the entrails of a goat. it's a tricky business.

When you're predicting the past, it can be even trickier.

Thomas,

Yes, and Poseidon from the beginning decides to keep a low profile, he's disguising himself as one of the Achaians rather than reveal himself as a god so as not to attract the attention of the Zeus.

Patrice wrote: "Vandiver says that achilles is the only person who gets to have a choice in his fate. In this book, someone is told that he will either die after along and painful illness or in battle. He choose..."

I think he was slated to suffer the same fate either way -- to die in battle at Troy or of plague at home. I guess that's a choice, but Achilles certainly had a better set of options.

Thomas wrote: I think he was slated to suffer the same fate either way -- to die in battle at Troy or of plague at home. I guess that's a choice, but Achilles certainly had a better set of options.."

Yes, it is pretty much a choice between death and death. So I wonder did he really have much of a choice in his own fate? Either way he was fated to day, and while that could be sent essentially that is the fate of everyone, but as a warrior and a young ambitious man of that time growing up in the culture he did, who would acutally choose death by illness over glory? The "choice" it seems was curtailed.

Laurele wrote: "I was really hit by Poseiden's words around 110:

But even if Agamemnon is completely to blame
For all this, because he dishonored Achilles, . . . ."

Like you, I found that a very interesting passage.
From Fagles (13. about 125+):

"thanks to our leader's weakness...
And what if it's all true and the man's to blame--
lord of the far-flung kingdoms, hero Agamemnon--
because he spurned the famous funner Achilles?
How on earth can we hang back from combat now?

Heal our feuds at once! Surely they CAN be healed...

where's your pride, your soldier's sense of shame?"

I thought this passage was a double indictment of Agamemnon.

1) Since this is Poseidon, a god, speaking, I give weight to his statement that Agamemnon bears most of the responsibility for the current situation: "our leader's weakness" (Agamemnon is the leader); the strong, strong implication that "it's true...the man's to blame" (again, referencing Agamemnon).

2) Since Poseidon is disguised as a mortal, he's very probably still taking the form of Calchas. Two aspects to keep in mind here, I think:

A) If the men believe these words are coming from Calchas, then the words have particular weight because Calchaus is the preist; and

B) If a "man" of any position is speaking these words, in the very heart of this hard-fought battle, then in making these statements he's not telling the Argives opinions that would be "new" to them. Because...in the heart of battle, it would be a bad time to suddenly tell the fighting army that they're in this position because of their leader. No, I think we have to draw the conclusion that this opinion (that the fault lies with Agamemnon) is widespread...that there has been talk in the ranks for sometime.

Better to address this, get it out in the open, interject the idea that Agamemnon and the Argives must appeal to Achilles ("Heal our feuds at once! Surely the CAN be healed"), and THEN, with the *truth (Agamemnon's guilt; the possibility of Achilles coming back in to fight if the feud is healed) ... THEN rallying the men to fight on.."where's your pride, your soldier's sense of shame".... to hold their ground...(because, although not spoken of directly, the thought/hope is there that Achilles might return and heal the army).

* This truth comes closer to being acted on in Book 14. Nestor, seemingly the only man who might be capable of convincing Agamemnon, is the closest thing the Greeks have to a realist. "But I am off to a lookout point to learn the truth" (Fagles 14.9).

The truth is the Greeks need Achilles.

Poseidon/Calchas/Psychology:

This bits kinda cool, I think:

(Fagles 13. about 65+)

Poseidon is there in the Argive camp having taken "the build and tireless voice of Calchas." He's encouraging Ajax and Ajax. (What a GREAT word, yes? encourage: to fill with courage.) "...call up your courage, no cringing panic now!"

If you read this as "true," as though Poseidon and the other Olympian gods are true... like the Greeks believed,

then you have Poseidon/Calchas saying, " But the two of you, if only (those if/then statements are so very, very meaningful) ... if only a god could make you stand fast yourselves.....and command the rest of your men to stand fast too--, then you could hurl him [Hektor] back from the deep-sea ships."

And since Calchas here is Poseidon, then "Calchas" here IS a god. And he IS making the Ajaxes to stand fast. Therefore, the Argives WILL be able to hold off Hector.

But if you read this disbelieving in the Greek gods---yet beleiving that the Greeks believed in the Greek gods, it's fascinating from a psychological perspective.

Because in that case, it really IS Calchas who speaks to Ajax and Ajax. And Ajax, desperate for a positive sign from the gods, thinks he sees one.

He speaks persuasively to the other Ajax:

"Ajax, since one of the gods who hold Olympus,
a god in a prophet's shape, spurs us on to fight
beside the ships--and I tell you he's not Calchas,
seer of the gods who scans the flight of birds...

The tracks in his wake, his stride as he sped away--
I know him at once, with ease--no mistaking the gods.
(Ajax, saying in effect, "Believe, believe, believe.")

And now, what's more, the courage inside my chest
is racing faster for action..."

And Ajax convinces Ajax:

"And Telamonian Ajax joined him, calling out,
'I can feel it too, now...
the power rising within me...'

So they roused each other...

And he (Calchas) rushed to refresh the spirits of the rest of the embattled Argives, "dead on their feet from the slogging work of war," "weeping freely."

And it was Ajax and Ajax--encouraged by Poseidon in the shape of Calchas, or by Calchas who they believed to be a god--who stopped Hector.

(Mmmm. I lost all my italics, and bolds, and underlines when I moved this post from 14 to 13.)

At 11 Silver wrote: But I was also considering how this would be perceived by those whom would not know all the intrigue and maneuverings among the gods. To the people fighting the war themselves don't know all that the gods are planning or all their motives for what they do. Perhaps Achilles might know the truth because of Thetis.

."


I know that Bill and others addressed this already. (I really appreciated the observation that as the Greeks didn't have "science" to explain things, that events were explained through "gods." Someone once said that "magic" is simply science that hasn't been explained yet.)

I just wanted to add a little... since I found Silver's remarks about perception interesting. And, maybe with that in the back of my mind, I found something that seems to explain that aspect.

mmm...even when one has "a nod from Zeus," some sort of postively interpretted sign that Zeus is backing some endeavor... it's usually not specific. Yes, the Greeks know from Zeus that they will take Troy after a long, long time...IF...they continue to read subsequent signs correctly.

But often it looks as though the men only ask Zeus to help them....without spelling out each and every detail... It seems to be a little like ... If one wanted to travel from NYC to LA...and said to Zeus....please get me a train ticket...and then...oh, happiness...Zeus gets you a train ticket....BUT...maybe the ticket only gets you as far a Chicago...

Like Silver noted, Achilles seems to know through Thetis that he will get the honor he has asked for -- though he doesn't know what it will cost him.

Hector thinks that he has the backing of Zeus. And he does---to a point---because, yes, Zeus is using Hector as an instrument to ensure that Achilles get honor.

And some part of Hector is aware that he can't be sure of Zeus. Perhaps some part of him is aware that he should have paid attention to Polydamas regarding the eagle/serpent sign.

Hector declares:

"They cannot hold me off any longer, these Achaeans,
not even massed like a wall against me here--
they'll crumble under my spear, well I know,

IF the best of the immortals [Zeus] really drives me on" (Fagles 13.about 180).

"If"

I found the passage that describes to what extent Zeus is backing Hector.

Fagles 13. about 400:

"Zeus willing a Trojan victory, Hector's victory,
lifting the famous runner Achilles' glory higher,
but he had no lust to destroy the whole Argive force
before the walls of Troy--all the Father wanted
was glory for Thetis and Thetis' strong-willed son."

Patrice wrote: "So Cassandra, the Cassandra of prophecy, was Priam's daughter? A princess turned slave? This puts a whole new angle on it for me. Agamemnon brought a princess home to his wife. Not good."

Why not good? Was it better to intend to bring home a priest's daughter he clearly expected to bed (he specifically said as much)? And didn't he say that he had 20 other slave women in the camp he was presumably also going to take home?

Adelle wrote: "Poseidon/Calchas/Psychology:

This bits kinda cool, I think: ..."

A lovely analysis of the fact that in this case, at least, it matters not whether there actually was the god Poseidon speaking in Calchas's voice or whether it actually was Calchas whom Ajax either truly believed or pretended to believe was a god to give more credence to the encouragement.

Very prettily done.

Yes. Homer's world is not monogamous if you could afford slaves.

What is interesting is that we don't see male slaves on the battlefield, even doing menial labor. It's not as though Greek society didn't have male slaves. Were they not to be trusted on the battlefield? Were the only slaves they had in camp those they captured -- and so the men were enemies not to be trusted? And what about pregnancy and kids? I think Lily pointed out that perhaps they were sent home or elsewhere -- but even the transportation is never mentioned.

Thank you, Everyman. I credit Homer. He knows people really well... and he writes real good. :-). I have been so very pleased with this read. Doesn't seem to matter what transations are being quoted, the Iliad just reads wonderfully. AMAZING to me that it was written so many, many centuries ago.

Bill wrote: "Yes. Homer's world is not monogamous if you could afford slaves.

What is interesting is that we don't see male slaves on the battlefield, even doing menial labor. It's not as though Greek society..."

That's true. I appreciate Patrice's take...that having come from Sparta--some of them, the Argives would know that slaves could be a two-edged sword: useful AND dangerous. But my thinking is that the absense of slaves...especially male...is perhaps for dramatic purposes. Even the non-hero men fighting fiercely...they don't get much press either. It seems to me if you don't have "a name" you're not worth mentioning in Homer's Iliad.

I think both points raised are valid. Although let's not forget that the Spartan situation was long after the Trojan war, and even quite a while after Homer, so I'm not sure that would specifically be relevant to Homer's thinking about the Trojan war situation.

But it seems to me that in the few mentions of the raids outside the fighting at Troy, the Greeks are basically killing all the men and just enslaving the women and children. After all, those men who survive the raids are warriors who have just been actively fighting the Greeks to defend their homes. Would you, if you were a Greek, trust such men behind you with weapons in their hands? You want to kill them all to make sure they don't come after you to seek revenge. And probably many of those cities were in some sense allied with or friendly with the Trojans; the Greeks wouldn't have raided cities friendly to them. That's another reason to eliminate all the potential future enemies.

The Romans did successfully incorporate captured people into their armies, but they were a much more structured, trained, disciplined army, not just a loose group of fighters running around the battlefield able to engage anybody they met, whether friend or enemy.

But I also agree that there's a dramatic aspect to it. Homer only wants to write about known warriors with known families, not nameless slaves from unknown places and parentage. I suppose some of the nameless ones that Hector slaughters in his day of valor could have been slaves, but I think Homer wants to focus on the people who will be listening to and learning from his story being sung, and those won't be the slaves. I mean, there were plenty of slaves in the South and Caribbean during the 19th century, but I don't know of a single work of literature which gives them prominence and lets them engage in acts of glory.

at 43 Everyman wrote: But it seems to me that in the few mentions of the raids outside the fighting at Troy, the Greeks are basically killing all the men and just enslaving the women and children. After all, those men who survive the raids are warriors who have just been actively fighting the Greeks to defend their homes. Would you, if you were a Greek, trust such men behind you with weapons in their hands..."

Agreed. Angry armed men behind the lines would be bad. But behind the Greeks is the ocean. And...we know from the Iliad itself that the Greeks frequently refrained from killing this or that Trojan whom they had defeated in battle, allowing the defeated man's families to ransom that man. Granted, that re-armed man, when next he appears on the field, won't be behind the Greeks, but in front. But the fact that the Greeks were willing to ransom their foes for money....also their eagerness for plunder-- such that Nestor himself has to admonish them in the middle of a fierce battle, "Leave off plundering now; fight.".....the prevelance of the "trade" language in their speech....leads me to suppose that the defeated men not killed outright in battle are shipped off to Lesbos or some other trading island and sold there as slaves.

Patrice wrote: "So Cassandra, the Cassandra of prophecy, was Priam's daughter? A princess turned slave? This puts a whole new angle on it for me. Agamemnon brought a princess home to his wife. Not good."

(Cassandra has other evils coming her way when Troy falls, but it's not touched on here in the Iliad. I thought I would post that information AFTER we finish reading the Iliad.)

I thought that Homer had said so much here between the lines. Very sad for Troy.

Idomeneus, fighting with the Argives, is "fierce as fire."

Fagles 13.420+:

"And there, grizzled gray as he was, he spurred his men,
Idomeneus ramping amidst the Trojans, striking panic.

He finished Othryoneus, a man who'd lived in Cabesus,
one who had just come at the rousing word of war
and asked for Priam's loveliest daughter, Cassandra-
with no bride-price offered--

but Othryoneus promised a mighty work of battle:
he would rout the unwilling Argives out of Troy.

And old King Priam bent his head in assent,
promised the man his daughter..."

Consider Othryoneus. He has no lineage listed. No "son-of" enhances his status. Sadly, I have to think that Othryoneus has no status.

Homer says he's "a man who'd lived in Cabesus." Nowhere. Everyman [not OUR Everman] must have lived somewhere...but Cabesus is nowhere...it's a nothing place...only a non-entity would have lived in Cabesus, I think. I mean...a man could have been BORN in a nothing-place and still have become a great man; but what great man would CHOOSE to live in a nothing-place?

And yet....with no worthy ancestors, no deeds of renown, seeming even without worthy battle skills...since after all, Idomeneus, a man "grizzled gray," manages to kill him without a struggle that was worthy of being described blow-by-blow.

Yet he asks for the Priam's daughter. Priam's loveliest daughter.

And oh my God. This is the line that about took my breath away... It felt like I'd been sucker-punched when I read it:

"with no bride-price"

Sadness. Sadness. No wonder Priam is "old" at the conclusion of this passage.

It's Priam's loveliest daughter. A nothing man from nowhere offering nothing for her but empty promises asks for her. "And old King Priam bent his head in assent."

There would have been zero chance of this happening 10 years ago! The man would never have dared even to have suggested such a thing. Just think how hard up Priam and Troy must be for fighting men. How desperate must the situation be. My heart breaks for Priam.

Think, too, about the implications of the passage just a bit beyond:

"[Othryoneus] fell with a crash
as Idomeneus boasted, shouting over him, 'Bravo,
Othryoneus, bravo to you beyond all men alive!
If you can really keep your promise to Priam now,
who promised his daughter--..." (Fagles 13.434).

This would seem to suggest that the Argives have spies in Troy. The information of a promised wedding between Othryoneus and Cassandra likely wouldn't have been general knowledge in the streets.

Cassandra hasn't been married to him yet. She's still a virgin when she's raped later. Priam, I would think, wouldn't want to announce such a degrading wedding until and unless Othryoneus has fulfilled his part of the bargain. (Ah...another bargain.)

Therefore...the Greeks couldn't have learned about this from some low-level slave or peasant who they might have been able to capture. This information, I would think, was only known at the highest levels.

So...

It would seem to me that the Greeks have someone inside Troy itself, someone fairly high-level, a spy, who has been passing on information to them.

Image of Cassandra:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/i...

Adelle wrote: "So...

It would seem to me that the Greeks have someone inside Troy itself, someone fairly high-level, a spy, who has been passing on information to them. "

Certainly possible. (As we will see from the Odyssey, if we read it next.)

But also possible, I think, that it was just talked about on the battlefield. We've already seen that individual Greeks and Trojans can stop in the fighting to meet and greet before they either go back to their battle or decide not to fight. Since presumably Priam's consent to a marriage with his loveliest daughter without any bride price would have been a much talked about event within Troy, it wouldn't surprise me a whole lot if it were talked about either in the hearing of some of the Greeks or in a direct conversation.

But it could also have been a spy. Or at least a sympathizer -- there have been those in almost every war, haven't there?

Patrice wrote: "I know what it is. It's a demonstration of what it means to live in a world where might makes right.
When a man can't protect his own daughter, he is no longer a man. "

Which perhaps is why Nestor feels the need to continue joining in the battle where he can, because without that, as you say ...

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "So...

It would seem to me that the Greeks have someone inside Troy itself, someone fairly high-level, a spy, who has been passing on information to them. "

Certainly possible. (As..." how the Greeks knew.

Certainly if there was talk of the proposed marriage within Troy. But my position, my thinking, is that news of this proposed marriage would NOT be general knowledge. Still...just my opinion. Maybe Priam WOULD have announced it.

Adelle wrote: "Certainly if there was talk of the proposed marriage within Troy. But my position, my thinking, is that news of this proposed marriage would NOT be general knowledge. Still...just my opinion. Maybe Priam WOULD have announced it. "

Priam probably wouldn't have, you're right about that. But Othryoneus, I suspect, would have been trumpeting the fact that he, a virtual nobody from virtually nowhere, has been promised the king's loveliest daughter. Can you imagine him NOT boasting about this right and left?

Mmm. Now THAT I could believe. Good point. I'm still open to the possibility of a high-level spy, that perhaps Priam yet had enough power to negotiate with the groom-to-be that the betrothal wouldn't be spoken of until after ... the results were in. But I can easily, easily imagine Othryoneus telling people, even "in confidence" about the deal he had managed to pull off.

Patrice wrote: "And that heart rending nod, isn't that reminiscent of the priest of Apollo who begged for his Chryses back??
It's the same feeling i get, that helplessness. Total submission and victimization.
Ev..."

At this point, I had pretty much forgotten about Chryses. But yes, another father who cared about his daughter. So nice to be reminded that THAT aspect of human nature is much the same then as it is now.
Really nice post.

Adelle,

I know this goes against your grain, but I don't think Homer was worrying about these details and what they might imply the way you are. He was working at the end of the oral tradition combining lots of stories. This isn't realistic fiction. He wasn't working with a developmental editor.

I think sometimes, not all the times, Homer gave his main actors speeches or attitudes that propelled the plot forward and didn't worry whether this added up to a coherent character. I think this is the case BIG TIME with Agamemnon. To a lesser extent with Hektor.

More at the Book XIV discussion, #27.

What exactly are you saying, Bill? That you think that any meaning in the Iliad is strictly coincidental?

(I tried pasting a great photo of grain harvesting...then thought the better of it.)

Let me add to 55 above.

Bill wrote: "Adelle,

I know this goes against your grain, but I don't think Homer was worrying about these details and what they might imply the way you are. He was working at the end of the oral tradition combining lots of stories. This isn't realistic fiction. He wasn't working with a developmental editor.

..."

Mr. Bill, I've decided I'm willing to play. As it stands your statement ("but I don't think Homer was worrying about these details") is too general for me to respond to in any intelligent way. You tell me exactly which details I should disregard and why and I'll respond by the end of the week.

(I can't respond sooner. I'm again leaving the house for a few days and will only have internet on the phone. I can read there, but it's next to impossible to write more than a sentence or two on those things.)

"Mr. Bill, I've decided I'm willing to play."

I count on both of you to play nice. [g]