Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We come to the last week of our discussion of the Iliad. Time to open all the floodgates and get out any thoughts you've been reserving to this point!

Patrice wrote: "One theme that keeps popping out at me is persuasion.
I keep thinking of The Republic. Can a man be persuaded if he won't listen? What about physical force as "persuasion". Achilles is a stubbor..."

But I wonder by the end of this book if Achilles hasn't forgiven Agamemnon. Achilles takes the role of general in directing the funeral games, and Agamemnon sort of falls into the background. When Ajax and Idomeneus are arguing about the chariot race, Idomeneneus calls on Agamemnon to judge the race but Achilles intervenes, somewhat ironically:

Then the wrangle might have come to blows
had not Achilles intervened and said:
"That is enough of this angry dispute!
It is unseemly and could dispirit the men.
Save your fury for when it may do some good..."
23.490

Agamemnon doesn't show up until the very last lines, where Achilles doesn't even let him compete -- he simply gives him first prize out of respect. When Achilles re-enters the battle it seems like he is doing it to avenge Patroklos, not because he has overcome his rage at Agamemnon. But here, I'm not so sure. It almost sounds like Achilles has forgiven his old commander.

Patrice wrote: "The way Achilles mourns Patroklos, it struck me as a bit over the top. But then I thought, maybe this is a cultural thing? After all guest friendships and hospitality are considered sacred. Mayb..."

I found Achilles mourning for Patroklos to be off putting, I cannot now quite think of the water I want for it but a part of me could not help but to wonder if the rather over the top nature of his grief was not in part guilt driven? In considering that his friend was killed while he was too busy thinking about himself of sulking his friend gets killed in this war, and now he wants to act as if some personal injustice was committed against him. It is kind of like a day late and a dollar short. He is going to make a big show of his grief now that it is too late, but just maybe if Achilles had been fighting in the war all along his friend would not have been killed.

To me it also displays more of what I consider to be his childish behavior. While I can certainly understand his being upset that his friend has died, it is a war, people get killed in war, you kind of have to go into expecting that is going to happen. But of course this one particular individual getting killed he acts like it was some sort of personal vendetta. his best friend gets killed and he essentially throws a massive temper tantrum.

Patrice wrote: "That is great Silver. I think you put your finger on it. He is guilty as anything and he turns it around onto Hector and the Trojans, then he goes overboard in his mourning.

OTH, I do feel he..."


I do not deny there was sincerely in his grief, but once Hector was already dead, well there was no call for his treatment of the body, and it is just senseless lashing out. And while on the one hand even if had entered the war beforehand there is no guarantee that Patroklos would not have been killed on the other hand the very fact that he refused to fight at all I think he does bare some of the responsibility and guilt, fighting along side his friend would have done him more of a service than waiting until he was killed to avenge his death.

Patrice wrote: "The way Achilles mourns Patroklos, it struck me as a bit over the top. But then I thought, maybe this is a cultural thing? After all guest friendships and hospitality are considered sacred. Mayb..."

We are told, I think in Book 23 but maybe one of the other late books, that Achilles and Patrocles basically grew up together. I see their bond as very much like very close brothers. I don't think that Achilles's grief would be considered over the top if this were indeed his close brother; on top of that, there is also the guilt feeling that by lending Patrocles his armor and letting him go into battle, he, Achilles, was responsible for Patrocles's death. The combination of the very close relationship and the guilt of causing his death seems to me that it would be overwhelming.

I see the elaborate mourning and funeral games in large part as an attempt at guilt expiation.

Edit: I see that Silver came to the same basic conclusion. In which case, it must be right!

I loved the advice that Nestor gave to his son about the horse race, and how even if he doesn't have the fastest horses, his skill can overcome their greater speed.

As we get to the end of the book, Nestor is still my favorite Greek.

I was really impressed with how excellent a report Homer gave of the horse race. It was much more exciting than I had imagined it would be. Wonderful stuff!

War and sports. How much more testosterone could Homer have packed into the Iliad?

At 6650 Epeius says:

“Let whoever’s going to get
the two-handled cup step forward. For I say this—
no Achaean will beat me with his fists
and take this mule. I claim I’m the winner....

I’ll break apart the skin and crush the bones
of the man who fights me. Those close to him
had better stay here in a single group
to help him off, once my fists have thrashed him.”

Is this the origin of the "double dare ya" of my youth? [g]

@ 2 Patrice wrote: "One theme that keeps popping out at me is persuasion.
I keep thinking of The Republic. Can a man be persuaded if he won't listen? ... Achilles is a stubborn man. Time and again people try to persuade him to fight but he just won't listen"

I have to respectfully disagree on that one point. It seemed to me that Achilles listened most attentively to the embassy when they came to his tent to try to persuade him to fight. I just don't think that he thought they made valid arguments.

LOL. I know whereof I speak. Oft times my husband says to me, "You don't listen to me," and I have to respond, "I listened to you. But I don't agree."

@ 2 Patrice wrote: ".And it's odd. It is a comfort, in the sense that I did not cause this. I am not responsible.
But then it's not a comfort, I cannot control this.

.."

So true.

A question for one of our Greek scholars:

In Book 23, Achilles is going to sacrifice 12 Trojan youths on Patrocles's funeral pyre, and says he will

"cut the throats of twelve young Trojans,
splendid children, on your funeral pyre,
in my rage that you’ve been slaughtered.”

The question: is the word "rage" here in the Greek the same word as used in the opening sentence of the Iliad? Is this the same near-divine rage? Or is it a different word and therefore level for his rage?

We were told in Book 1 that his rage brought "pain thousand fold" on the Greeks. (Lattimore) But his later rage seems to have inflicted almost that degree of grief on the Trojans. Is Homer, by using the same word, equating the two rages? Or are they different words?

@ 10 Everyman wrote: We are told, I think in Book 23 but maybe one of the other late books, that Achilles and Patrocles basically grew up together. I see their bond as very much like very close brothers. I don't think that Achilles's grief would be considered over the top if this were indeed his close brother"



I agree. In addition, remember that the feelings of grief had been intensified by Achilles' mother [a goddess]:

"...Myrmidon soldiers mourning, and among them Thetis stirred /
a deep desire to grieve" (Fagles 23.about 15)

The deep sorrow of the soldiers and that of Achilles would, I would think, reinforce those feelings, deepen them... and Patroclus had been "the best man." Not the best soldier, but acknowledged, it seems, as the best man.

on top of that, there is also the guilt feeling that by lending Patrocles his armor and letting him go into battle, he, Achilles, was responsible for Patrocles's death.

I know you feel that way, and Silver and Patrice, it seems, as well. But I just don't get the sense that Achilles feels guilt about the death of Patroclus. Yes, he wishes that Patroclus weren't dead; but again, I just don't see anything like "guilt."

And if one's fate is one's fate...well, then that was the fate of Patroclus. So sadness on losing such a close friend, and anger at Hector {BECAUSE HECTOR WAS THE ONE WHO KILLED HIM}...but guilt...no.

Actually, Achilles even has reassurance from Patroclus. The ghost of Patroclus. Whether this was an actual ghost, or whether the image of one conjured up by Achilles' unconscious, the ghost is reassurring:

"Sleeping, Achilles? You've forgotten me, my friend,
You never neglected me in life, only now in death.
Bury me, quickly--let me pass the Gates of Hades" (Fagles 23.81)..."the death assigned from the day that I was born"..... "Never bury my bones apart from yours, Achilles"

I see the elaborate mourning and funeral games in large part as an attempt at guilt expiation

I saw them more as a way to show proper honor to Patroclus, and also, as a shared, cathartic experience for the Achaeans.

from the internet: "Spiritual and cultural rituals have been known throughout the history to help people process collective stress situations, such as death or separation, or major life changing events like rites of passages, weddings, and such. Traditional societies have ceremonies of mourning, funeral rites, and curing rituals, which most often include cathartic activities, such as crying, weeping, drumming, or ecstatic dance."

Troy hasn't fallen yet. In addition to properly honoring Patroclus, Achilles and the Achaeans must mourn...and get the grief out of their systems...so that they can be emotionally and physcially renewed when they return to battle.

Adelle wrote: I know you feel that way, and Silver and Patrice, it seems, as well. But I just don't get the sense that Achilles feels guilt about the death of Patroclus. Yes, he wishes that Patroclus weren't dead; but again, I just don't see anything like "guilt." ."

Even in considering the close friendship between Achilles and Patroclus, and the fact that they grew up as brothers, Achilles reaction to his death, particularly the way he continues to take his anger out against the corpse of Hector seems above and beyond simple grief over the loss.

While to a certain extent his being angry and grieved about the death of his friend is understandable on the other hand, he died in war, the possibility that he may have killed should have been a given from the beginning. Hector did not kill Patroclus as a personal attack against Achilles, nor was his killing of him personal against Patroclus, it was an act of war. Achilles was hardly the first and only person to loose a friend and loved one here. But Achilles takes it personally. The extremeness of his anger and his continued lashing out, the fact that his grief is so infused with anger it gives the impression that his grief is driven in part by guilt. Not to mention the fact that in this particular circumstance it seems that feeling guilt would in fact be a rather natural human reaction. Regardless of whether or not one believes that Achilles is in fact guilty, I do think that the feeling of guilt would be a basic human emotion for anyone to feel within this particularly situation. It would almost be unnatural not to have at least a moments feeling of guilt.

His best friend was killed within a war that he himself refused to fight in. In effect he is the one who sent his friend into the war, while he sat back doing nothing. How could one not feel guilt?

@ 4 Thomas wrote: "Achilles takes the role of general in directing the funeral games, and Agamemnon sort of falls into the background..."

A good point. In a way, what Agamemnon had bristled at at the beginning of the Iliad --- that Achilles was acting too much like the leader: calling the priest to find out why there was a plague; taking control ... of the distribution of prizes... by pointing out there weren't any to distribute...--- is now obvious...and Agamemnon isn't disputing it.

Achilles now IS in charge: organizing the funeral games; delaying the evening meal until he was ready to authorize it ("But now let us consent to the feasting"); giving commands to Agamemnon ("And at daybread, marshal Agamemnon, rouse your troops / to fell and haul in timber"); "They hung on his words, complied"; instructing Agamemnon when to dismiss the troops; distributing gifts -- something the leader does -- from his own supply for the funeral games; etc.

As you say, Thomas, Agamemnon is very much in the background.

Look at the difference between the way in which Agamemnon and Achilles handled the distribution of prizes. Look at the generousity of Achilles.

Nestor's son came in 2nd--"not by speed, but by cunning"--he cheated. Achilles was "filled with pity" for Eumelus coming in 4th and wants to give him a prize. Note, he doesn't simply decree it. He tries to bring the men with him, to make it a group decision, in which everyone can feel good:

"The best man drives his purebred team home last!\
Come, let's give him a prize, it's only right--"

And there are echoes here of Book One.

Nestor's son: "Do you really mean to strip me of my prize?--"

And Achilles?

"He answered him warmly, winged words"...and gave the 2nd prize to Nestor son as was the offically correct thing to do, and he asked--he ASKED--an aide to bring a marvelous consolation gift for Eumelus.

@ 4 Thomas wrote: But I wonder by the end of this book if Achilles hasn't forgiven Agamemnon.

I don't think so. I think Agamemnon is nothing to him now one way or the other. His focus is elsewhere: games to honor Patroclus/ and a united army after to bludgeon the Trojans with.

Agamemnon doesn't show up until the very last lines, where Achilles doesn't even let him compete -- he simply gives him first prize out of respect.

You may be right, that Achilles gives him the prize out of respect. But somehow I don't think so.

I haven't seen Agamemnon do anything that would earn the respect of Achilles. No, it strikes me that this is a wise Achilles making good command decisons for his army.

Remember back at 490 (545 in Fagles), the Cretan captain, verbally wrangling with Ajax, wanted "to make Arides Agamemnon our referee--," adding, "you'll learn, don't worry, once you pay the price!"

I wondered a little if the Cretan {it's so fun to write that] hadn't advocated for Agamemnon to judge....because he was fairly sure that Agamemnon wouldn't judge fairly...ie, Agamemon might judge for the Cretan no matter what.

And Agamemnon's brother, Menelaus, got pretty hot under the collar about that horse. Those Atrides brothers have flaring tempers. All of us having read the last 23 chapters knows that. Imagine how well Achilles must have known.

Again, it seems to me that Achilles' first concern, his primary focus, is on honoring Patroclus. Serious arguments erupting on the grounds of Patroclus's funeral pyre would take away from that. Should there be serious discord, in future days to come the funeral of Patroclus wouldn't be remembered and talked of with high words and warm hearts, no, what would be remembered and spoken of would be the argument between Agamemnon, who might well claim to have won the spear, and Meriones, who might well have been the man who actually did deserve to win the spear.

It would seem to me that Achilles stepped in, not out of respect, but to smooth things out, to avoid a possible dishonor to the memory of Patroclus.

Fagles:

"but the swift runner Achilles interceded at once:
'Atrides--

{Not Atrides comma...like if Achilles were simply identifying him by his name. Atrides dash...as in interjecting...as in Achilles, refocusing on his true goal {Patroclus}, rethinks what he had been about to say.....and instead, Achilles speaks soothing words.

'Arides--well we know how far you excel us all:
no one can match your strength at throwing spears,
you are the best by far!

Take first prize and return to your hollow ships
while we award this spear to the fighter Meriones,
if that would pleas your heart [oh, so soothing]'

And Agamemnon the lord of men could not resist."

@ 3 Patrice wrote: ".This guy does everything over the top. He loves, he hates, he mourns, he fights, never half heartedly. ."

Great-hearted Achilles. Yes.

@ 8 Silver wrote: "I do not deny there was sincerely in his grief, but once Hector was already dead, well there was no call for his treatment of the body, and it is just senseless lashing out.

..."

But there was! There was! The more Achilles manhandles the body of Hector, the more shame accrues to Hector. The dogs will eat Hector. The shame to Hector. His family can't properly bury him. The shame to Hector. And shame to the Trojans. Hector won't be able to journey to Hades. The shame to Hector. The more shame to Hector the more glory to Achilles. And Achilles went to Troy for glory.

And Achilles isn't under any restraint regarding Hector's body. Remember back in Book 22, Hector swore, with the gods themselves as his highest witnessess--"I swear I will never mutitlate you--merciless as you are--.......I will give your body back to your loyal comrades." "Swear you'll do the same."

But Achilles did NOT swear. There is no oath to restrain his actions.

The more shame to Hector the more glory to Achilles. And Achilles went to Troy for glory. He's going to die, and die soon, if he dies without the glory he was promised, then he's forgotten.

And look! Two- Three-thousand years later.... Achilles hasn't been forgotten!

Adelle wrote: "@ 8 Silver wrote: "I do not deny there was sincerely in his grief, but once Hector was already dead, well there was no call for his treatment of the body, and it is just senseless lashing out.

..."

Just because the action will bring him greater glory, does not mean that it is called for, and it certainly is not necessary to fulfil his revenge for the death of his friend.

His refusing to take the oath, and his desecrating the dead body of his opponent proves shows him to be in a rather dishonorable light, and the fact that he would continue to debase Hector's body just to heap more glory upon himself shows him as being wholly self-serving. It also does make him appear rather child-like.

Hector is the better man.

Adelle wroteAnd look! Two- Three-thousand years later.... Achilles hasn't been forgotten!
It seems ironcialy his plan has backfired somewhat, as while it is true he has not been forgotten, but nor has he succueded in wiping out the memoery of Hector, but rather it was his own actions agasint Hector that has served to keep Hector's own memoery alive, and so in the end, Achielies had not robbed Hector of all of his own glory and honor.

@ 20 Silver wrote: "Hector did not kill Patroclus as a personal attack against Achilles

But actually, you know, he did. Because, Hector went after Patroclus precisely because he believed him to BE Achilles.





Not to mention the fact that in this particular circumstance it seems that feeling guilt would in fact be a rather natural human reaction. Regardless of whether or not one believes that Achilles is in fact guilty, I do think that the feeling of guilt would be a basic human emotion for anyone to feel within this particularly situation. It would almost be unnatural not to have at least a moments feeling of guilt.


I kinda have to side with Bill on this one.

Grief, anger, sadness. Shame. Yes. But from what I've been able to read, this was NOT a guilt-based society. People didn't feel guilt. They didn't have the capability of feeling guilt. Bizarre, isn't it?

Supposedly---and the Iliad seems to reflect this---that was a shame-based society: the characters are frequently thinking...I can't do such and such because I would be shamed--other people would think badly of me.

It was not a guilt-based society---that is, no character ever thinks "I would feel badly"---because ... somehow... so different from our culture... they didn't have the internal concept of themselves that way.

They didn't feel guilt ... because they were incapable of feeling guilt.

Such at least is my understanding. But weird, eh?

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/gr...

http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/sha...

Silver wrote: "Hector did not kill Patroclus as a personal attack against Achilles, nor was his killing of him personal against Patroclus, it was an act of war. Achilles was hardly the first and only person to loose a friend and loved one here. But Achilles takes it personally. "

It's hard to read about Achilles' extreme emotions without thinking of current events -- the senseless killing of Afghan civilians by an American soldier came to my mind immediately. We expect soldiers to follow a code of conduct, to obey their leaders and respect chain of command. But the pressures of war and the trauma of battle are sometimes too much for the human psyche to bear. I think it's reasonable to expect soldiers who watch their friends die in battle to be unreasonable. War is personal, which is one reason why Homer names the combatants so specifically when they fall. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Homer is anti-war, but he vividly describes the human consequences of war, one of which is a kind of insanity which afflicts warriors. Achilles is special, but I think in this regard his human qualities are more important than his heroic ones.

@ 26 Silver wrote: ".Just because the action will bring him greater glory, does not mean that it is called for, and it certainly is not necessary to fulfil his revenge for the death of his friend.

But....that was the whole point of his giving up a long life...that was the whole reason he went to Troy...for glory. And Hector fully intended to shame Achilles to the extent he could. 'Cept he wouldn't have abused the body because he made that oath.

His refusing to take the oath, and his desecrating the dead body of his opponent proves shows him to be in a rather dishonorable light, and the fact that he would continue to debase Hector's body just to heap more glory upon himself shows him as being wholly self-serving."

But of course he was self-serving. To get as much personal glory as he could. Those were the rules he was playing by. That's where he lived.

Maybe Hector should have made sure that Achilles would swear the oath before he swore that oath himself. But he didn't. Therefore Hector was constrained by an oath and Achilles wasn't.

Adelle wrote: "@ 26 Silver wrote: ".Just because the action will bring him greater glory, does not mean that it is called for, and it certainly is not necessary to fulfil his revenge for the death of his friend. ..."

I just think that he goes beyond what would be required to fulfill either his glory or his vengeance. And his actions were dishonorable, oath bond or not, just because one does not swear an oath does not excuse all of their behavior and how they choose to conduct themselves.

Adelle wrote: "It was not a guilt-based society---that is, no character ever thinks "I would feel badly"---because ... somehow... so different from our culture... they didn't have the internal concept of themselves that way. "


I ought to die now. I lent my friend no aid
to prevent untimley death far from home
when he needed me to protect his life.
I should never see my fatherland again.
I failed to save not only Patroclus,
but also countless Greeks that Hector killed
while I sat here, a useless weight on the earth,
I who am easily best of all the Greeks
in battle... 18.97

Is this not guilt?

Thomas wrote: "Adelle wrote: "It was not a guilt-based society---that is, no character ever thinks "I would feel badly"---because ... somehow... so different from our culture... they didn't have the internal conc..."

Nice passage!

Patrice wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Silver wrote: "Hector did not kill Patroclus as a personal attack against Achilles, nor was his killing of him personal against Patroclus, it was an act of war. Achilles was hardly t..."

Yes I agree, I thought that the intervening of the gods (I think it was Zeus or Apollo) was proof that Achilles actions were looked down upon and not approved of, but I could not recall if that actually happened in this book or the next so I did not mention it here.

Adelle wrote: "@ 10 Everyman wrote: We are told, I think in Book 23 but maybe one of the other late books, that Achilles and Patrocles basically grew up together. I see their bond as very much like very close bro..."

I'd like to add to this (even though I haven't finished reading the next 18 posts). At the very beginning we discussed the society and how putting the idea of guilt the way we see it may be a mistake. I don't believe that Achilles feels guilt, I don't think he's capable. I do wonder if he's a bit of a manic depressive.

Did Achilles refuse to take the oath of Hector's or was he just not present? I thought he was off licking his wounds when that event happened therefore he didn't really have the option of taking the oath.

Also, wasn't there a large battle over Patroclos' body between Hector and the Greeks? Didn't Hector want Patroclos' body in order to lord it over Achilles? How was Patroclos' body treated? Regardless, Achilles hearing of it from Antilochos....

"Bad news, my lord prince! Patroclos is dead, they are fighting for his body, only his body, for the armour is lost---Hector has it!" (beginning of book 18).

I'm no soldier in war, but that's a little personal to me, Hector takes his armour and now wants Patroclos' body...

Achilles has really defiled many other bodies before Hector's by tossing them in to the River without giving them chance for proper burial.

And given what we know about Agamemnon, without the oath, is there any one of us that really thinks that Agamemnon wouldn't have done the same as Achilles with Hector's body?

Everyman wrote: "In Book 23, Achilles is going to sacrifice 12 Trojan youths on Patrocles's funeral pyre, and says he will

"cut the throats of twelve young Trojans,
splendid children, on your funeral pyre,
in my rage that you’ve been slaughtered.”

The question: is the word "rage" here in the Greek the same word as used in the opening sentence of the Iliad? Is this the same near-divine rage? Or is it a different word and therefore level for his rage?
"

The term here is χολωθείς, a passive participle from the root word cholos, which is I think the more common word for anger in the Iliad. The verb means "to provoke to anger," so here I think it means simply "being angered" or maybe just "angry."

But it is not μῆνιν, the first word of the Iliad. The Perseus Project has a really neat statistics utility that lists all the occurrences of a word in a text, and going through the references it looks like μῆνιν always refers either to the anger of a god, or to Achilles' anger at Agamamenon. Interestingly, the word is not used for Achilles' anger at anyone or anything else -- just Agamemnon.

Juliette wrote: "Did Achilles refuse to take the oath of Hector's or was he just not present? I thought he was off licking his wounds when that event happened therefore he didn't really have the option of taking t..."

It is true that Hector does keep the body of Patroclos body, but it does not seem to go into detail as to the treatment of the body, and it does not seem as if Hector rampaged himself against the body of Patroclos quite in the same way that Achilles does with Hector.

In addition it seems to me that while Achilles laments the death of his friend he seems to bemoan more over the fact that Hector has his arms than over the fact that Hector has the body of his friend.

When Achilles is first given the news, after his lamentation over discovering the death of his friend the next words out his mouth are about Hector riding around bearing his arms. He does not seem to express any particular concern over the fact that Hector is in possession of the body of Patroclos.

The very fact that his friend was killed is a grief to him, but after that it seems as if the loss of his arms aggrieves him more than the loss of the body of his friend.

Silver wrote: "Even in considering the close friendship between Achilles and Patroclus, and the fact that they grew up as brothers, Achilles reaction to his death, particularly the way he continues to take his anger out against the corpse of Hector seems above and beyond simple grief over the loss. "

That's my feeling also. It's just so over the top, especially sacrificing twelve totally innocent boys on the funeral pyre. To me, there's something more going on than even the deepest grief could justify.

Thomas wrote: "Agamemnon doesn't show up until the very last lines, where Achilles doesn't even let him compete -- he simply gives him first prize out of respect. "

Hmmm. Or is this a piece of sarcasm, a wet fish across the face? "You're so pitiful that you can't win a prize honestly in any athletic contest, but I'm so generous I'll give you a prize anyhow."

And Agamemnon doesn't have the decency to refuse it because it's unearned. But what are unearned honors worth? Is it in the movie Dead Poet's Society (maybe I'm getting it totally wrong, but it's in some book or movie) that a boy is out of the blue awarded First Prize in something and is asked something like "there, don't you feel better" and the answer, of course, is no because I didn't earn it. Sorry I have no firmer recollection of where it came from or the details, but the incident struck a nerve with me. Isn't being awarded a prize you didn't earn somehow even worse than not winning any prize at all?

Thomas wrote: "I ought to die now. I lent my friend no aid... 18.97

Is this not guilt? "

Excellent point. Though I'm not positive it's guilt rather than remorse and grief. If there is a difference.

Patrice wrote: "Then there was the preservation of Patroclos body too.
and Patrocolos condemning achilles for "neglecting" his body in death. Homer is setting up this parallel.
Showing us the importance of how the body is treated after death to make it clear that Achilles is doing something very wrong.
"

Yes. And there is so much talk throughout the Iliad of leaving bodies to be eaten by dogs and birds as a terrible desecration.

Even today, we view the proper treatment of the body as very important. Look how the Marines have a very strong tradition of never leaving a Marine's body on the field. Look how outraged both sides in the Afghan war have been by the mutilation or mistreatment of the bodies of enemies. Look how we will risk lives to recover bodies of people who have drowned in rivers or floods, or in the bowels of sunken cruise ships. This is a 3,000 year old (or longer) principle, isn't it? And one that, as you say, Achilles, in his anger and grief, violates in the most extreme terms, and would succeed in violating had not the gods intervened to preserve the body of Hector (as they had for Patrocles).

Thomas wrote: "The term here is χολωθείς, a passive participle from the root word cholos, which is I think the more common word for anger in the Iliad. The verb means "to provoke to anger," so here I think it means simply "being angered" or maybe just "angry."

But it is not μῆνιν, the first word of the Iliad. "

Thanks, Thomas. I love it when, at particularly important points, we can get past the weaknesses of translation and to the actuality of the way Homer used his language.

Oh my goodness! What happened here?

@ 17 Thomas wrote: ".Is this not guilt?

.."

Oooh, Thomas, first I thought, “This could be good!”


LOL, The unabridged version of the Iliad has so much for me to forget! I had forgotten about that passage. Oh, you, making me go back and read and re-read. LOL. OK…I probably owe you a “Thank you” for helping me get a better grip on the book. LOL. I own the book. And by the time I finish, I will “own” the story.

You are saying that that passage has convinced you that Achilles felt guilty? Or are you asking me whether or not that passage makes ME think that Achilles felt guilty. It doesn’t. I don’t think he does feel guilt, but I’m willing to try to keep an open mind and let you try to convince me. Here’s my thinking: Here are the reasons I don’t that Achilles’ felt guilt. Long. (view spoiler)[


So I read your posted quote. And my initial reaction---[reaction; not thought, and I think that’s an important distinction]—is, “Hey, that seems like Achilles felt GUILT.” However, on re-reading that passage, on giving it some consideration, some thought, I find that it in no way persuades me to believe --- or even think – that Achilles felt guilt. Here’s my thinking: Here are the reasons I’m not persuaded that Achilles’ felt guilt.

(1) Regarding the quote you posted.

I ought to die now. I lent my friend no aid
to prevent untimley death far from home
when he needed me to protect his life.
I should never see my fatherland again.
I failed to save not only Patroclus,
but also countless Greeks that Hector killed
while I sat here, a useless weight on the earth,
I who am easily best of all the Greeks
in battle... 18.97

There is ambiguity aplenty in those lines. Nothing actualy says "guilt." It's implied---and it's only implied to us because we are guilt-based people. There's even less implication of guilt in the Fagles translation [see below towards the bottom of this post]. I don’t see Homer telling us there is any guilt. Only sad, sad observations on what has transpired.


I think my initial reaction, that this passage showed Achilles feeling guilt, was based on the fact that my culturalization(sp?) has taken place in a guilt-based society. Therefore, in situations in which I would feel guilt---whether that guilt is deserved or not [more later]---I imagine that the person I’m viewing would have the same sort of feelings that I do…that that person, too, would feel guilt---whether it was deserved or not.

Yet in reading the Iliad, I have yet to seen a clear example anyone with guilt. (We could look into Helen, and I would argue against “guilt” feelings there, too. She says she a slot or something like that. And in the eyes of the others [shame-based, not guilt-based] and therefore in her own eyes, she IS a slot because she is living with Paris while her husband still lives. And, after 10 years of war she’s probably been called a few names there in Troy: shame/ not guilt.)

What I have seen, repeatedly, are examples of the heroes’ thinking in which they consider whether to fight or play it safe. And their thinking is not an internalized “Would I be a ‘bad’ person if I run away?” not “Would I condemn myself as ‘bad’ if I run away?” No. Actually, it hasn’t ever seemed that the heroes have internal conversations. Rather, what they seem to have are more like “thinking out loud” conversations. And over and over the heroes are thinking/saying, “If I run away or don’t fight, I won’t die,” and then they have the counter-action thought, “If I run away the OTHERS [shame-based thinking] --- including even WOMEN with their trailing gowns---will think … that I’m a coward… that I am shameful.”

And then, too, I know I’m reading a translation, but if there were a Greek word from Homer’s time that corresponded to “guilt,” wouldn’t the translator have conveyed that concept to us? We read that the characters feel “grief,” but we never read that they feel “guilt.”

{Even when a person feels guilty, it doesn’t mean that he deserves to feel guilty. A mother goes shopping and leaves her children home with a reliable sitter and maybe the house starts on fire, and afterwards she says, I feel so guilty…if I had been home maybe this wouldn’t have happened. And everyone tells her, there is no reason for you to feel guilty, you didn’t do anything wrong, you didn’t know what was going to happen, it’s not your fault. It could have happened anytime. I don’t think Achilles has anything to feel guilty about either. He didn’t know what was going to happen. And it was fated to happen so he couldn’t have done anything about it anyway.}

{Some might say of the Founding Fathers, “They should feel guilty, because if they had just rolled over for the British and if they hadn’t insisted on being treated like men with the same rights as men in Britain, then all these Americans wouldn’t be dead…And you should never stand up for anyone or anything principle that that might be important to you if there is any, any chance that someone else will get hurt….it would be better for Jefferson, Washington, etc. and for their descendents to be human doormats than to take a chance that someone might get killed.”

That, I think, is somewhat analogous to the argument that Achilles should have fought for the Achaeans even though he didn’t think they were treating him right. We don’t condemn Washington and Jefferson. We praise them. We hold them as honorable men willing to stand up for what they believed in. So I don’t think Achilles should feel any guilt from that perspective either. His rights had been fundamentally violated. His very worth had been negated. All he was asking for was acknowledgment of his worth.}

2) The whole time concept. It’s not what you think of yourself, or how you view yourself; it’s how the OTHERS think of you, or see you. How the others see you is what defines your worth...and how they define you is how YOU define you.


3) I think the very fact that oaths are so prevalent and so important is because there ISN’T a concept of guilt. A man’s word isn’t good enough. Because there’s no concept in the man of guilt over breaking his word.

There MUST be an oath to make sure the man’s words are true. There are other examples but even right here in Book 23 we see Nestor’s son basically cheating. And cheating is OK if it gets you the win and you don’t have to swear that you weren’t cheating. You could say it was just an accident, or you didn’t mean to…and it doesn’t make you feel guilty.

That’s why Menelaus shouts after Nestor’s son, “You’ll never take the prize unless you take the oath!” (Fagles 23.491). Nestor’s son knows that he [Nestor’s son] cheated. But he still insists that he should get his prize. Because he "won" 2nd place. By hook or by crook, it doesn’t matter if he can lie about the reason. No guilt.

But Menelaus calls him on it, saying You fouled my horses. Did you do it on purpose? “Come, stand in front of your team and chariot…..lay your hands on their manes and swear y the might god who grips and shakes the earth that [that] you never blocked by chariot—not by deliberate foul.”

And Nestor’s son Antilochus knows what this means. And he “backed off quickly.” He says that he would give Agamemnon ANYTHING he might want, ‘anything but fall from your favor all my days to come and swear a false oath in the eyes of every god.” .

I think examples like this show that there isn’t a concept of guilt.

Where was I? Oh. The lines that Thomas posted. I see them indicating grief; not guilt. “I ought to die now”
Remember: a few lines earlier, Achilles is reacting to learning of the death of Patroclus. Not a word about guilt. But such deep, deep sorrow. “but what joy to me now? My dear comrade’s dead-- loved as I love my own life --- I’ve lost the will to live.” He says he has NOTHING to live for but to kill Hector. His mother, weeping, tells him that when he has killed Hector, then his own death will come “at once—“.

And Achilles interrupts her at that “at once—“ He avers, “Then let me die at once,” because that will mean that hated Hector is dead.

’Then let me die at once’—
Achilles burst out, despairing—‘since it was not my fate
To save my dearest comrade from his death! [no guilt; just facts].

Look,
A world away from his fatherland he’s perished,
Lacking me, my fighting strength, to defend him. [no guilt; just facts].

But now, since I shall not return to my fatherland…
[because I’m focused and I’m going to kill Hector and then be dead myself]

nor did I bring one ray of hope to my Patroclus [no guilt; just a fact]
nor to the rest of all my steadfast comrades [no guilt; just the fact]

countless ranks struck down by mighty Hector—[no guilt; just a fact]

No, no, here I sit by the ships…
A useless, dead weight on the good green earth—[no guilt; no will to life]

I, no man my equal among the bronze-armed Achaeans, not in battle [a fact Agam would not acknowledge….although if Agmn had acknowledged it, there would be far fewer Achaeans dead---although of course they would be dead because it was their fate]

…only in words that others win. [no guilt; perhaps regret; an “if only” situation”…If only he could have been better with words he might have been able to convince the embassy, and thus Agamemnon, that he [Achilles] had been gravely wronged….and then Patroclus might not have been killed. Although of course he would have been, as Achilles knows, because it was his fate.]


Enough…. Done is done.” [I don’t see any guilt there. Not wallowing. Let's get on with the business of killing Hector.]

And he says he’ll go meet that murderer head-on, that Hector.

Well, I have a post or two for Patrice, etc, and then I must away.

(hide spoiler)]

@ 36 Patrice wrote: and I think I've a bit in response to #39.

@ 36 Patrice wrote: Throughout the poem Homer has been even handed
Adelle: What do you mean by that statement? Please explain.


Regarding Hector ASKING for that oath, maybe Hector was pretty sure that he was going to lose that battle with Achilles and wanted to make sure that his body (the body of Hector) would be respected. I don’t see him respecting the body of anyone else. There was in fact a huge battle fought over the body of Patroclus. The Trojans wanted to desecrate it and the Achaeans were trying to get the body so that it wouldn’t be desecrated.


Patrice wrote: I think Achilles may want to shame Hector in this way but instead he shames himself.” Adelle: Do you really think so? I just don’t see it that way. I think if anything his overwhelming grief for Patroclus might have deranged him a little. If you judge Achilles actions by ancient Greek standards, he never took an oath to not dishonor Hector, so his behavior is not abhorrent. Also, the more demoralized the Trojans are about the treatment of Hector, the better the chances of the Achaens finally defeating them. Which is their goal. If you judge Achilles’ actions by today’s standards, then his lawyer files an insanity defense and we don’t condemn people for actions for which they are not competently responsible for.

@ 39, Juliette. Achilles specifically refused to take the oath. Book 22, about line 300. Hector and Achilles face-to-face. Hector: “Now kill or be killed! / Come, we’ll swear to the gods, the highest witnesses-- / the gods will oversee our binding pacts. I swear / that I will never mutilate you – merciless as you are -- / If Zeus allows me to last it out and tear your life away. But once I’ve stripped your glorious armor, Achilles, / I will give your body back to your loyal comrades. / Swear you’ll do the same.”

And Achilles responds, “Hector, stop! / You unforgivable, you… don’t talk to me of pacts. / There are no binding oaths between men and lions-- / wolves and lambs can enjoy no meeting of the minds—“



Mutilation. Done by both sides when they had the opportunity.

When the soldiers had the chance to mutilate the bodies of their enemies--- and hadn’t taken an oath otherwise – they did so. In Book 16, about 640, Glaucus was sore concerned for the body of Sarpedon. Glaucus wanted to quickly get control of the body, lest the Myrmidons dishonor the body.

If the Myridons dishonored the body of Sarpedon, the dishonor would be on Glaucus and the other Trojans: “Cringe with shame / at the thought they’ll strip his gear and maim his corpse.”

Patroclus himself, “the best of the Achaeans,” has no qualms about physically dishonoring the bodies of his enemies. Book 16, about 650. “If only we could seize his body [the body of Sarpedon] / mutilate him, shame him, tear his gear from his back / and any comrade of his who tries to shield his corpse.”

Hector promised Patroclus no honorable funeral when Patroclus, speared through the bowels and dying on the ground, was at his feet: “…you, / the vultures will eat your body raw!” Those were the words of Hector. And then “he planted a heel against Patroclus’ chest, wrenched his brazen spear from the wound, and kicked him over”

And what did noble Hector do then? He tore the remaining armour off Patroclus, he “tugged hard at the corpse, / mad to hack the head from the neck with bronze / and drag the trunk away to glut the dogs of Troy”

I hardly see Hector as the better man. In fact, I don’t. Achilles is the man I admire. Hector is the man I am ashamed for, ‘though I suppose he was acting as a man of his time would act.

Adelle wrote: "Oh my goodness! What happened here?

@ 17 Thomas wrote: ".Is this not guilt?

.."

Oooh, Thomas, first I thought, “This could be good!”


LOL, The unabridged version of the Iliad ..."

An interesting analysis, Adelle. I'll try to look at the Greek this weekend to see if there are any subtleties that I'm missing, but I'm afraid I can't accept your interpretation that Patroklos's death just "happened" and that Achilles feels no sense of involvement. I would accept that it was only grief if Achilles played no part in Patroklos's death, but he does, and he admits as much. He is in some sense responsible for Patroklos' death because Patroklos would not have died if Achilles had been there. He wasn't. That was Achilles' decision -- his anger at Agamemnon took precedence over his love for Patroklos. Certainly he feels grief, but it's more than that, because he holds himself responsible.

That said, I think Achilles is extraordinary for having a sense of guilt. It is not something we see in the Iliad anywhere else that I can think of, but Achilles is different. He is not a normal man for his time.

This is probably going out on a limb, but I think what Homer is describing is the evolution of moral character. I think he's showing a shift in the nature of character from a social system of honor and shame to one that has an individual basis, one that recognizes individual conscience. This is why Achilles can sit by his ships and stay out of the battle without feeling shame. I think this is also why he feels guilt when Patroklos is killed -- he holds himself responsible. He has a conscience, something only an individual with the strength to stand outside society and defy his leader can have. This is a new deal. A big deal.

@ 52Thomas wrote: "” Well, I'm on that limb with you because I see Achilles as an evolved or evolving character, too.

Now, you wrote, "I would accept that it was only grief if Achilles played no part in Patroklos's death, but he does, and he admits as much".

Where is that? So I can try to see where you're coming from. Darn. More re-reading.

Adelle wrote: "
@ 39, Juliette. Achilles specifically refused to take the oath. Book 22, about line 300. Hector and Achilles face-to-face. Hector..."

Der! I totally forgot about that, I had the scene of Hector declaring the oath in front of the Achian army from a few books back stuck in my head and couldn't see clearly to the scene between Hector and Achilles.

Thanks for reminding me.
Now I have to go back and find out why it's a big deal that Achilles refuse to take the oath, I know I wouldn't have.

patrice wrote: Achilles is full of self-recrimination. Guilt .."

Sorry, Patrice, I just don't see it. I don't see self- recrimination. I only see Achilles acknowledging the obviious.

Patroclus is dead. An emotionless camera/robot could see that just as easily.

Achilles wasn't on the field. An emotionless camera/robot could see that just as easily.

Obviously, then, Achilles did not prevent P from being killed. An emotionless camera/robot could see that just as easily.

Those are the facts. You interpret self- recrimination. But you are reading between the lines, yes? Where does Achilles SAY "it is my fault." In fact, he says almost the opposite. He says of Patroclus "it was his fate to die here far from home". ( qoute from memory...but that s the jist of it. Fate.)

Then, too-- Some here have characterized the emotions of Achilles as over-the-top. Homer has spoken of Achilles great love, his deep grief, his godlike anger, his raging anger... But Homer gently nuances whatever guilt feelings Achilles might have?????? It's not reasonable. Every other emotion of Achilles is big as life and twice as bold. If achilles guilt, I believe, his guilt, too, would have been big as life, it would have been active guilt, prowling round like a lion; it wouldn't have been some mewling kitten guilt hiding so deeply that we have to read between the lines to catch a glimpse of what we think "might" be guilt there in Achilles.

Or so it seems to me. Just my take.

Patrice wrote: "Adelle wrote: "@ 36 Patrice wrote: and I think I've a bit in response to #39.

@ 36 Patrice wrote: Throughout the poem Homer has been even handed
Adelle: What do you mean by that statement? Pl..."

Thanks, Patrice. Thank you. I was an idiot...a blind one... I misread and thought you had written that Hector was even handed... And I was wondering, gee, how does she mean that? LOL...oh, Homer. (imagine emoticon with embarrassed red cheeks here.)

It seems as thought the original argument is that guilt is what is causing Achilles to behave "over the top" with his treatment of Hector's body.

While I've never fought in a war, from what I've read of historical battles (look what happened to Richard III *cringe*), especially from that time period, I'm still not seeing his actions as over the top. But let's say I did, and lets say I buy into the idea of Achilles feeling guilt (and I do like the point of evolution of society, so I'm more open to this guilt thing). I don't think his actions stem from guilt but from pride and anger.

Patrice wrote: "Adelle, you said something about "by ancient Greek standards". I'm left wondering, how do we know what those were?

As for oaths, we have oaths today too. Yes, they are considered sacred. But ..."Our everyday lives aren't determined by oaths. Why would the Greeks be any different?

That was my point. Sorry I didn't make it more clearly. My point was that OUR everyday lives are not determined by oaths precisely because we are a guilt-based culture and we tend to feel guilty when we lie or cheat. I used the example of Nestor's son, A, cheating Menelaus out of 2nd prize, because, were it to have happened today, one would think that there would have been a point where Menelaus would simply have ASKED A(Nestor's son) "Did you cheat? Did you do that on purpose?).

But because the Greeks weren't internally guilt-based, Nestor's son wouldn't have any bad feelings, no guilt, about lying. The point, remember, was time...having others see all the prizes you have...and it doesn't really matter how you "earn" them....it's almost "no holds barred" wrestling....just "win."

So Menelaus KNEW that if he simply asked nestor's son, "did you do that on purpose? Did you cut my chatiott off on purpose?" that nestor's son would lie, "oh, no, i didn't do that on purpose"--even though he dd---and he wouldn't feel any guilt because the Greeks didn't feel guilt.... They only felt shame.

That's why Menelaus yelled after him, We'll make you take an oath...
And nestor's son is all no, no, no, no oath...take the horse...because, you know, he knew he had cheated....

One of the differences between then and now is that then the oath takers were so aware that if they broke their oaths, the gds WOULD punish them. Again, if you're slaughtering an ox and swearing may my blood and guts and brains pour out on the ground, too, if I am lying....well, you got a real graphic image to bring the point home.

Today, I suspect, when people take oaths, the oath represents a more intense guilty-feeling if you are lying...internalized. Most people, today, when they take oaths, don't visualize the gods actually, physically slaying them in this life.

That was my point. That the Greeks used oaths precisely because they didn't have a internal concept of guilt or self-recrimination.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

patrice wrote: Achilles is full of self-recrimination. Guilt .."

Sorry, Patrice, I just don't see it. I don't see self- recrimination. I only see Achilles acknowledging the obviious.

Patroclus is dead. An emotionless camera/robot could see that just as easily.

Achilles wasn't on the field. An emotionless camera/robot could see that just as easily.

Obviously, then, Achilles did not prevent P from being killed. An emotionless camera/robot could see that just as easily.

Those are the facts. You interpret self- recrimination. But you are reading between the lines, yes? Where does Achilles SAY "it is my fault." In fact, he says almost the opposite. He says of Patroclus "it was his fate to die here far from home". ( quote from memory...but that s the jist of it. Fate.)

Then, too-- Some here have characterized the emotions of Achilles as over-the-top. Homer has spoken of Achilles great love, his deep grief, his godlike anger, his raging anger... But Homer gently nuances whatever guilt feelings Achilles might have?????? It's not reasonable. Every other emotion of Achilles is big as life and twice as bold. If Achilles felt guilt, I believe, his guilt, too, would have been big as life, it would have been active guilt, prowling round like a lion; it wouldn't have been some mewling kitten guilt hiding so deeply that we have to read between the lines to catch a glimpse of what we think "might" be guilt there in Achilles.

Or so it seems to me. Just my take.

Juliette wrote: "Adelle wrote: "
@ 39, Juliette. Achilles specifically refused to take the oath. Book 22, about line 300. Hector and Achilles face-to-face. Hector..."

Der! I totally forgot about that, I had the s..."

Ha ha. So much in this book. Who can remember it all? I will remember bits and pieces. I will remember that I didn't think too highly of Agamemnon.

'Though I am sure that the story, written from Agamemnon's pov, could be very different.

@ 68 Juliette wrote: "...I don't think his actions stem from guilt but from pride and anger. "

Mmm...I shall think on that. I have been thinking "great sorrow"... But.....the Iliad begins Sing Muse of the anger of Achilles....maybe it's still anger that is driving him....

Maybe sorrow incapacites one? Maybe sorrow needs to be converyed to anger before one can take action? Achilles has lost his friend AND his armor?

I shall ruminate on that.

Patrice wrote: "Adelle wrote: "patrice wrote: Achilles is full of self-recrimination. Guilt .."

Sorry, Patrice, I just don't see it. I don't see self- recrimination. I only see Achilles acknowledging the obvii..."

It's not, I think, that I'm seeing something you don't see.
It's more that you are "seeing" something I don't see.

I used the robot because a robot can only see what is there to see.
There is no guilt in the Iliad that a robot could see...an impartial robot who only sees what can be seen.

Because Homer never mentions guilt ... Guilt would have to be something that the reader projects into the story, or interprets for himself...there is no guilt obvious.

Now guilt might be there. But I don't find it.

Again, every other emotion of Achilles has been large, and has been clearly spelled out by Homer? And I have to ask my myself, IF Achilles felt guilt, then why wouldn't Homer say ANYTHING about it?

But that's just me. For me, neither the book nor any of the posters here have been able to point out any guilt or show me solidly what from the text convinces them their is guilt.

Mostly, it seems the posters here say, of course he would feel guilt. But how does the Iliad itself support that view?

Everyman wrote: "I loved the advice that Nestor gave to his son about the horse race, and how even if he doesn't have the fastest horses, his skill can overcome their greater speed.

As we get to the end of the boo..."

That speech of Nestor is amusingly parodied by Ovid in his Ars Amatoria. He translates the Greek word for skill, "techne," into "ars" and says that by skill (repeating it in the same way that Nestor used it), one can become an experienced lover. If nothing more, it shows the way in which so many of the Iliad's famous speeches were known intimately be educated Greeks and Romans.

Adelle wrote: "Sorry, Patrice, I just don't see it. I don't see self- recrimination. I only see Achilles acknowledging the obviious.
"

Achilles calls himself "a useless weight on the good land." How is that not self-recrimination? (Please don't say this is just a fact or you will unstring me at the knees. :)

I think we are at an impasse here, so I should probably just let it go. I don't think Homer is going to give us "GUILT" in flashing lights with an arrow pointing at Achilles. It would be unseemly. On the other hand, I simply can't accept the "robotic" reading. This is poetry. I think we have to use our hearts as well as our minds as instruments of understanding.