| |
|
Although gods can act like heroes (Ares, in particular, obviously enjoys playing at being a warrior), I don't think they can be heroic.
A few thoughts on heroism.
Implicit within the idea of heroism is mortality. Achilles makes this clear when he spells out that he could have stayed at home and been fated to live a long life. Then again, Achilles is a special case, and that life would come to an end anyway.
Sarpedon points out to Glaucus that there is no way to ensure immortality just by not turning up to battles, and adds that their readiness to fight and die is why the Lycians give them pride of place at the banquetting table and the best cuts of meat.
Interestingly, this is not entirely because they are champions and protectors of their people. The Lycian interest is not served by having their best men go off and die at Troy, a fact often picked up on when allies of the Trojans die by a comment on how their family far away mourned them. They are honoured not because of what they fight for but because they fight - because it is *heroic* to do so.
So what makes a hero? Well, first up, Greek and Trojan are organised along timocratic lines - whoever has the most honour is in charge. Therefore the man with most honour is the most "noble", or the "greatest". Uncle Friedrich is very interesting on the use of adjectives in Ancient Greek.
Honour (time) is connecte to the abstract idea of "excellence" (arete), which is like but unlike the Latin "virtus", meaning "possession of the manly virtues". Honour, in terms of how you are treated, can be seen as an instantiation of your arete.
So, I would suggest that one of the central debates of the Iliad is what actually constitutes excellence, and what is honourable, and this debate begins in the first book.
Excellence in battle is clearly one measure of heroism, but by no means the only one. Elsewhere, people are accorded respect for their ability to compete in various sports, their capacity to speak in the Assmebly (Diomedes, as an excellent fighter and an excellent speaker, can be seen as something of a model of heroism), and, of course, their wealth and power.
And it's here that we hit a fundamental problem. As leader of the Achaian forces, Agamemnon has to be able to command respect. If he is deprived of one fo the manifestations of the honour he is accorded - Chryseis - his ability to command respect is reduced. So, by taking Briseis, he effectively sets up a conflict between the value of a hero with wealth and soldiers to back his claims to preeminence, and that of somebody who exemplifies the individual virtues. If it were just a question of who is hardest, bravest etc, Achilles would obviously win, but the fact that they are both kings and base their claims to honour on this as much as on personal qualities makes a difference.
Agamemnon in Book 9 makes his offer and (although Odysseus and Aias cleverly don't repeat it, IIRC) adds that Achilles should accept this as Agamemnon is the greater *king*. And this is something Achilles fundamentally cannot do - the issue here is not Briseis (and he may claim to love her as a wife, but makes it clear in Book 9 that he has never thought of marrying her), but whether Agamemnon's nobility entitles him to take her.
Note that this argument is never resolved - when Achilles "reconciles" with Agamemnon, he brushes the matter aside as no longer relevant - he is moving beyond the codes of heroism and nobility as he is moving beyond being strictly speaking human or indeed strictly speaking alive.
Add to that the fact that other characteristics apparently unconcerned with martial valour or the strength of one's armies can also be seen as worthy of honour - Paris' "gifts of Aphrodite", Achilles' ability to run fast at track meets, Patroclus' kindness and way with a cocktail shaker - and things get yet more complex. I would propose that anything self-defining is honourable when done well; in general, lying and cheating may be seen as "dishonourable", but because Odysseus has it as his schtick and does it well it is in his hands admirable.
So, heroism can be seen as the possession of a variety of personal or societal advantages and the willingness to deprive oneself of all of them through an early death, even when that death benefits nobody. By which logic, immortal entities can by definition not be heroic.
Thoughts? |
|
|
