BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


THE ILIAD (Book Club)

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Ierne
12:44 / 05.02.02
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...– Haus

...because Agamemnon is the greater *king* merely in material terms, not in terms of character – and Achilles makes this very clear in his stupendous "TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT!!!" rant in Book 9. Two examples:

Book 9 Section 330:

...From all these we took forth treasures, goodly and numerous,
and we would bring them back, and give them to Agamemnon,
Atreus' son; while he, waiting back beside the swift ships,
would take them, and distribute them little by little, and keep many.


In any warrior culture a leader is respected for hir generosity; this is, bottom line, how s/he keeps all those soldiers fighting – by gifts, money and food. here Achilles accuses Agamemnon of being a cheap bastard, not just in his particular case (Briseis) but in general. Quite an insult!

Sections 335-340
...Yet why must the Argives fight with the Trojans?
And why was it the son of Atreus assembled and and led here
these people? Was it not for the sake of lovely-haired Helen?
Are the sons of Atreus alone among mortal men the ones
who love their wives?...


Here he accuses Agamemnon of hypocrisy; Why get upset if Paris takes your brother's woman when you took MINE? What's the fucking point of fighting– you're no better than he is!

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. – Haus

He reconciles with Agamemnon because Patroclus has been killed, no? So the issue is "no longer relevant" because Patroclus is far more important to Achilles than Briseis – or Agamemnon.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:16 / 05.02.02
Hmmmm...but, as you say yourself, "warrior culture". While Achilleus is sitting out the battle by his ships, and certainly if he returns to Phthia, Achilleus is not being a warrior, and as such has no status. As Diomedes says eventually, if Achilleus will not fight then there is no point worrying about Achilles - because unless he fights he is valueless. See also Phoenix's response to Achilleus, where he says that he was told to raise Achilleus as a doer of deeds and a sayer of things - ie one who fights in battle and speaks in counsel. Basically, for as long as he refuses to fight or attend the counciuls of the Greek kings, he's screwed.

Plus, the deal was that the Trojans do well until such time as the Greeks make recompense and acknowledge his value. There are two main schools of thought on this one. The first is that by rejecting the embassy Achilleus is behaving irrationally because of his anger at Agamemnon, and the death of Patroclus is somehow a punishment for refusing to see sense. The other is that this is clearly not recompense but just a sweetener package for backing down, and he perceives that - although Odysseus skips the "For he should submit to the greater king" part, he picks up on it when he suggests that Agamemnon offer his daughters to "some higher king" (not sure, but I think the word he uses is basileuteros - more kingly - will check when I get home).

I think another interesting point is why the other kings do in fact stick around, since Agamemnon is so tight. One answer might be that his claims to leadership and thus the lion's share of treasure are generally accepted, another that Achilles may be exaggerating in his anger. Or another, wich is mentioned less often and stands outside the main narrative, is that they swore to. In fact, Achilles is pretty much the only king there, IIRC, who did not swear to uphold Menelaus' marriage to Helen, and when Agamemnon appears to release them from their vows in Book 2 there is a mad dash to the ships. I think it may be a symptom of our non-warrior culture that we even entertain the idea that people follow Agamemnon through choice or compulsion, rather than because it is impossible for them not to. Otherwise Odysseus would probably be off in a flash...

(Plus, if we want to step out of the immediate text for a second, Aggers did sacrific his daughter to get them there. Dude's hardcore)

As a thought topic, is the distinction of "character" and "material terms" a product of our culture rather than the one that created the Iliad. Achilles is described as "swift-footed", Agamemnon as "leader of men" (or possibly in the Hammond "shepherd of his people) - that is who he *is* as much as what he does. Just a thought.

As for "godlike" Paris, adjectives in Homer is a fascinating topic, but a fairly involved one - did I say that already?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:24 / 05.02.02
[We have moved on slightly from this, so apologies for muddying the thread, guys, but I wanted to post this in case it is relevant at some stage]

Just thinkling that if Achilles is removed from the warrior context when he is sitting out - is he still a hero? Is Agamemnon still a hero when he returns to Clytemnestra & gets done in (out of the text here)... is Paris only a hero when he leaves Helen and returns to battle? Is heroism dependent on - not just mortality, all humans are mortal - but immanent mortality...
 
 
Ierne
13:37 / 05.02.02
It is very true that both Agamemnon and Achilles suffer by giving in to their inflated sense of self instead of looking at the bigger picture and what their responsibilities are as leaders.

I think it may be a symptom of our non-warrior culture that we even entertain the idea that people follow Agamemnon through choice or compulsion, rather than because it is impossible for them not to. Otherwise Odysseus would probably be off in a flash...– Haus

Also true. One's word or oath, once given, could not be taken back without losing honour. And many was the time when oaths were given due to lack of choice in a given situation.

Also wanted to respond to an earlier point:

...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.– Haus

Such a death would benefit the perpetuation of a warrior class as a lifestyle. True, the reality is that most warriors get perks for their service, as I previously mentioned. But there are lots of ways to make money and get stuff; there has to be more incentive to get these people out there killing and dying. Hence the concept of great honor through dying young in battle, which persists into the modern era. As transparent as the concept is, it's still very seductive to a lot of unthinking people.

Which brings me to Odysseus: I wonder if his sneakiness and slyness is characterized as such by Homer because his intellect and survival instinct goes against the paradigm of "good warriors die young in battle"?

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Ierne ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:46 / 05.02.02
I'm not sure that anyone *wants* to die, except possibly Achilles, young or old. They just accept that the possibility exists. There's certainly very little beauty in death - especially if Meriones is around. It's punctured gall bladder this, kebabed nipple that with that boy.

Odysseus, in a funny sort of way, reminds me of Paris. In the sense that he is never portrayed as anything other than a highly competent warrior (although he does turn tail at one point - very wise move), but his priorities lie elsewhere. I'm not a textua scholar, I fear, but there is a belief that Odysseus is a character from a different and earlier mythology, so his behaviour and attitude are not just unusual but out of synch with the rest of the Achaians...
 
 
Persephone
11:57 / 06.02.02
Just winding some things up in my head...

quote:Ierne said:Agamemnon is the greater *king* merely in material terms, not in terms of his character

Yes, that’s right and that’s obvious to you and me. But you’re going too fast! In the world of The Iliad, “honor” (material) is supposed to be tied to “excellence” (spiritual); they should be inseparable, if all is right with the world. Okay okay okay... so you have to get yourself in the mindframe where you really believe that... close your eyes if you have to... okay now, open your eyes, LOOK AT AGAMEMNON. Something is not as it should be with Agamemnon... See now when I do that, I get a sensation of the world falling away. That’s so fun! It works for your 19th century novels, too; so when Mrs. Elton calls Jane Fairfax Jane instead of Miss Fairfax, you go “No she di-in’t!” Whee.

quote:Kit-Cat said: On the other hand Agamemnon’s death is not really that of a hero, is it - killed under his own roof rather than at war.

By now you know I’m playing with the words “honor,” “excellence,” and “heroism.” To me, the thing about Agamemnon (as above) is that he has somehow subverted the strong connection between honor and excellence.

But then I would say that his "honor" does not connect to heroism for him, perhaps because his honor is ill-earned. Agamemnon is neither excellent nor heroic, and it tells in his death. Not only at home, but naked in the bath.

Which leads to...

quote:Kit-Cat said: ...if Achilles is removed from the warrior context when he is sitting out - is he still a hero? Is Agamemnon still a hero when he returns to Clytemnestra & gets done in.... is Paris only a hero when he leaves Helen and returns to battle.

I think the thing to do here is to tease apart the qualities of excellence and heroism. Perhaps heroism is a kind of applied excellence in battle. But there are other excellences that don't have anything to do with battle. Odysseus is a good example, because you can imagine him out of battle in a way that you cannot imagine Achilles. Odysseus's willingness to battle, however, is a separate quality from his ingenuity.

So yes, I do think that heroism is specific to death as Kit-Cat has suggested. I might not say "immanent" death, but perhaps active engagement with...

I would be fascinated to hear more about adjectives in Homer, but I'm weird that way.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:15 / 07.02.02
That's pretty much what I meant about Agamemnon's death - that it indicated that he was not heroic... glad I wasn't the only one!

What did people think of the relationships between the warriors?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:34 / 11.02.02
Come on, chaps - I refuse to believe that none of you have any thoughts on this matter (admittedly I am not posting any here because I have to leave the office five minutes ago, but I will do so tomorrow morning).

Relationship between Achilles and Agamemnon? between Odysseus and Agamemnon? Hektor and Paris? Paris and Menelaos? Achilles and Patroklos?

Why should Helen feel guilty about being the cause of the war when Paris apparently feels nothing of the sort?

Age? The differing roles of Nestor and Priam?

Coooom on....
 
 
Cavatina
21:05 / 11.02.02
I've dragged m' feet in finishing the book, I'm afraid. And I've had to squeeze it in between reading several other things; so I don't feel that I've taken it in very well.

For what it's worth, I'll say that I was curious about the nature of the relationship between Patroklos and Achilleus which is portrayed as intense and strong; each is said to be a 'dear friend' to the other. But if music be the food of love, it doesn't play a communicative part in what might be said to be the most intimate moments which Achilleus and Patroklos spend in each other's company (p. 137). Achilleus uses music only to give himself pleasure, in a sort of autoeroticism:

"They [the heralds] ... found Achilleus giving pleasure to his heart with a clear-voiced lyre... . He was delighting his heart with this, and singing tales of men's glory. Patroklos alone sat opposite him in silence, waiting for when Achilleus would end his singing."

And Patroklos is so much kinder, more amiable, compassionate and perceptive than Achilleus, as we see when he tends Euryplos' wound in Book 11, and when he cries 'warm tears' before Achilleus at the beginning of Book 16. But I didn't see him as effeminate.

Even in his grief, Achilleus is repellent for example, his horrifying statement to the dying Hector,

"I wish I could eat you myself, that the fury in my heart would drive me to cut you in pieces and eat your flesh raw, for all that you have done to me."

Here, it is pride and anger, rather than love and loss which appears to drive Achilleus.

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Cavatina ]
 
 
Cavatina
21:26 / 11.02.02
And I might as well add that both of them appear to treat women only as objects of exchange and pleasure:

"And Achilleus slept in the corner of his well-built hut, and beside him lay a woman he had bought from Lesbos, Phorbas' daughter, beautiful Diomede. Patroklos lay down on the opposite side. He too had a woman lying beside him, the fine-girdled Iphis - Achilleus had given her to him when he took steep Skyros, the city of Enyeus." (p.149)
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
21:33 / 11.02.02
Well, what else would you use a woman for? Or, more precisely, what else would you use a woman for in the Achaian camp, which is ultimately sterile and undomestic. How about the Trojan women - Hecuba, Helen and Andromache? How are they treated?

(Sorry for brevity - must rush off for haircut)
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
21:34 / 11.02.02
Yes... though I did get the impression from Briseis' lament over Patroklos that he had at least been kinder to her than the other Achaians.

I definitely agree with you that Patroklos is not effeminate in the slightest.. perhaps the relationship between Achilleus and Patroklos is so strong because they have complementary characters?
 
 
Cavatina
21:50 / 11.02.02
Yes, I'd forgotten about Briseis' comments: 'Patroklos, more than any the pleasure of my poor heart ... ' and 'And so I weep endlessly for your death. You were always gentle.' (p 318).

Such are the passages that led me to think of him as amiable. It is probably an attraction of opposites.
 
 
Persephone
12:06 / 12.02.02
I only felt that there was a relationship between Achilles and Patroclus, and even that questionable. The other Achaians I could see in relation to each other, but not "relating" to each other.

I wonder, is there a proper way to read the relationships in this story? E.g., Hector and Paris... are you to see them as archetypes, and is it ridiculous to try to look at them as real-people brothers (which you might do, say, if you were acting Paris: you might invent some backstory involving Paris pulling Andromache's pigtails when she was a girl, being a tagalog to Hector, etc.)?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:15 / 12.02.02
No, I don't think it ridiculous - there's that bit where Hektor goes to find Paris and basically gives him a huge dressing-down for lounging about when he should be fighting; that struck me as being rather elder-brotherly. Compare and contrast with Agamemnon and Menelaos, who seem to have a more equal relationship (and I do think relationship is appropriate for those two) - though roles are slightly reversed there in that Agamemnon is ghastly, whereas Menelaos seems all right, if a bit of a cipher.
 
 
Persephone
19:12 / 12.02.02
Oh good, I'm glad you said that. I generally always teeter between reading a text as personally relevant to me and trying to experience the thing as written (if that's at all possible).

Menelaos--yeah, cipher. Is there any backstory on him?

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Persephone ]
 
 
The Monkey
19:27 / 12.02.02
In addition to personal and archetypal readings, there's also lookiong at the Iliad as a body of work embedded in a sort of larger Hellenic philosophy and worldview...
I find myself, whenever reading this work, bouncing between the three and finding satisfaction with bits and pieces from all of them. Any one of the three alone wouldn't be satisfying.
 
 
Persephone
19:31 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by [monkeys violating the temple]:
there's also lookiong at the Iliad as a body of work embedded in a sort of larger Hellenic philosophy and worldview...


Say more!
 
 
The Monkey
19:35 / 12.02.02
Hmm.

How does it affect things if we look at Menelaus as Spartan and Agamemnon as Athenian?
I was thinking of this in terms of archetypal readings, and wondering if, in a way, their character traits reflected a sort of Hellenic archetype of their respective kingdoms.

Menelaus: bit of a brick...forthright, stolid, low-verbal,very straightforward. tough

Agamemnon: a bit manipulative...less of a warrior, more of a diplomat/talker, and looked down up for this. alright fighter, but really only sort of occupies the middle ground.
 
 
The Monkey
20:13 / 12.02.02
Persephone,

Will think about what constitutes "more."

Hellenic Greece really, isn't my area, so I don't have the bibliographic skills to back up anything I claim...were this, let's say Hindu epics, I could run up for ages.
As is, I'm kind of teetering, but I'll try...anyone who knows better please chime in.

1.
he relationship between the presentation of "fate" and "doom" in The Iliad, as compared with the work/theory of Stoic philosophers.
I know fuck all about the Stoics, and thus

2.
Ideals of masculine conduct and social interaction. In a way, I'm curious about how the characters and their activities might break down in terms of Hellenic archetypes [dubiously locatable in philosophy].

2a.
Specificly, I'm always find the Achilles-Patroklus diad fascinating relative to Greek acceptance of male-male coupling simultaneous with heterosexual activity, ie as presented in documents like the Phaedrus and the Symposium.
It's not homosexuality as we construct it today. It's more like a man pairs off with younger man so that they can share masculine things together...women being incapable of appreciating the former.

2b.
Warrior ethics and honor: specifically the realm of the liminal and transgressing. Odysseus and Diomedes are who I think of specifically, and to a lesser extent Paris.
In a way, I'm sampling from Trickster imagery.
Odysseus is "cunning" and "clever." This is often presented as a useful, but not entirely respected, trait. The Trojanb Horse embodies this. Diomedes is chaotic...I have a less successful case for this, but he somehow seems a transgressor, especially when he, for example, attacks Aphrodite. That the two cooperate on the camp raid seems somehow significant.
Paris I would analyze relative to gender relations, and his presentation(?) as liminal, if not patholgical, because of his behaviors. He is the only male character that associates more with women than other men.
Note that he also kills Achilles with a bow, from the walls of Troy, not in single combat...as all of the other major deaths occur.

2c.
The hierarchy of head, heart, and stomach: Plato's Chariot and the valuation of "Reason" over "Emotion" over "Desire." How does the presentation of "honorable" action fit relative to the matrix of Reason and Fate? How do the characters fit into this schema of the three intellectual principles, and how does the fate of individual characters swing in the balance relative to their degree of the three.
I think in the Iliad, there are both positive and negative examples: characters who live (and die) well through honor and reason, and characters who suffer, or are doomed to suffer in epilogue, because of their failings on these counts.
I'm thinking in particular of
--Paris, who dips his entire nation into the shit over a woman, then refuses to give her up while everyone is massacred. Epilogally, Paris dies horribly, and dishonorably, struck by an arrow poisoned with the venom of the Lernean Hydra.
--Agamemnon, who nearly hamstrings his army by seizing a woman from their best warrior. Who is murdered in the bath by his wife's lover.
--Achilles, who in spite of being the perfect warrior, is perpetually driven by rages and passions and insults. In at least one epilogal myth, he is killed below the walls of Troy because he was wooing a Trojan princess.

This is all just theory, so agree or disagree. I've got so more concrete thoughts on the gender-relation patterns and how they relate to the above, but I need to go eat and do homework. Leaving the field...
 
 
Persephone
23:48 / 13.02.02
Very tantalizing... I wonder if Homer is encouraging the reader/listener to think about the characters as "Hellenic archetypes" by the device of the catalogue of ships?
 
 
The Monkey
23:56 / 13.02.02
Arrrggghhh.

This is where my limited recall fails me...
[clutches hand over temple, crumples into nonexistence, making a sort of "thhbbt" noise the whole while....]

Please elaborate....

[ 14-02-2002: Message edited by: [monkeys violating the temple] ]
 
 
Cavatina
23:56 / 13.02.02
Posted by the now no doubt newly shorn (racing tadpole?) Haus.

"How about the Trojan women - Hecuba, Helen and Andromache? How are they treated?
(Sorry for brevity - must rush off for haircut)"

Haven't had time to go back through the text to respond to your question, but it does seem that portrayals of marital relationships lack the intensity found in descriptions of the attachment between father and son, or between male friends. Even in the exchange between Hektor and his 'excellent wife' Andromache in Book 6, it seems that Hektor's attachment to his baby son is more important. And significantly the episode concludes with his injunction to Anromache:

"No, go back to the house and see to your own work, the loom and distaff, and tell yor maids to set about their tasks. War will be the men's concern ..." (p.103)

Of course women could be powerful in the home, particularly as they had control of sons.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
10:01 / 14.02.02
I think that Monkeys has offered us a lot of interesting roads to go down, but feel I should weigh in with one fairly important caveat.

There is no such thing as a "Hellenic philosophy and worldview". The Iliad was probably largely composed or collated somewhere in the seventh century BC, probably somewhere on the Ionian Coast, probably referencing heroic myths from several centuries earlier (the Mycenaean period, which is suggested by much in the book, most obviously that the leader of the expedition is the king of Mycenae). The assumptions about Athens and Sparta which you are making simply didn't exist in the same forms at this point.

Also, Menelaus *isn't* tough. He's tougher than Paris in a donnybrook, sure, and he's exceptionally brave, but Agamemnon is constantly worrying about him - Book 4 and Book 10, and the men of the Achaians pray that he does not get picked for single combat with Hector, on the grounds that he would be toast. If anything, Menelaus is a good man whose sense of responsibility for being part of the cause of this whole ludicrous thing makes him put himself about more than his abilities justify. Agamemnon is a far better fighter. Note also that Athens has its own representative there, Mnestheus of the loud war-cry IIRC.

Also, I would propose another reading of Diomedes. Far from being transgressive, Diomedes is the hero who does everything basically *right*. When he is given instructions by a deity, he follows them. When he is called upon to fight, he fights, and waits to criticise his leader until the next council meeting, when it is permitted. While Odysseus is stealing the horses, he kills the Thracians. Odysseus deceives Dolon, Diomedes kills him. He's efficient, functional, talented, knows his abilities, attractive and clever but not over-complex. No wonder Athena likes him. And she also likes Odysseus, but for slightly different reasons - he and Diomedes compliment each other precisely because together they posses pretty well every virtue necessary for the modern hero - youthful vigour and experience, courage and cunning, fixity of purpose and versatility in achieving that purpose, offensive brilliance and defensive solidity (Odysseus is best-known among actions in the open field for his stand over the body of Achilles, although Ajax complains in Ovid's Metamorphoses that he actually warded off the Trojans, while Odysseus just ran away with Achilles' body), directness and persuasive speech...
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
10:58 / 14.02.02
Backstory on Menelaus.

Menelaus is a descendant of the house of Atreus, a bad lot who never really came good until (inevitably) Athena got involved. To understand the air of sorrow that hangs around him, knowing the history is very useful. I think Men. sees the curse of the House of Atreus unfolding before his eyes as men die because of his woman problems, and feels an intense responsibility, hence his attempt to sort things out once and for allk in Bk. 3. Note also that this story comes from the beginning of the war, as does a lot of the beginning of the Iliad...

The house begins with Tantalus, who was on first-name terms with the gods, but decided to test their omniscience by cooking and serving up his son Pelops at a feast of the Olympians. Nobody was fooled, except Demeter, who eat the poor boy's shoulder.

Tantalus ends badly shortly thereafter (very shortly thereafter - the wheels of Zeus grind quickly and they grind exceeding small), and Pelops is reconstituted, sans one shoulder (cheers, Demeter), which is replaced by ivory. Not generally a terrible lot, Pelops wins the hand of Hippodamia through deceit and conquers great swathes of Southern Greece, renaming it the Peloponnesus. When Myrtilus, his co-conspirator, asks for his reward, he throws him into the sea, and receives his curse.

Said curse seems a bit shit, as Pelops has many strapping children, intermarrying them with the powerful dynasty of Perseus in Mycaenae. Two of these, Atreus and Thyestes, are sent to rule Midea, a city in the kingdom of Sthenelus (I think but am not sure that this is the grandfather of the Sthenelus who is Diomedes' right hand in the Iliad).

Now, when Eurystheus, the fellow who set Hercules his tasks, was finally killed by Iolaus (Yes, that Iolaus), Thyestes and Atreus, his cousins, became co-kings of Mycenae, at this point the preeminent city state. A very complicated series of events follow. In short - Thyestes is exiled by Atreus, who then finds out that Thyestes was shagging his (Atreus' wife). He invites Thyestes back, kills his sons and serves them up as a meal of reconciliation. Them having revealed that Thyestes has eaten his own sons, he exiles him again.

Thyestes unknowingly rapes his daughter. Never mind. Atreus, meanwhile, falls out of love with his adulterous wife, leaves her and shacks up with (ta-da) Thyestes' daughter. She bears Thyestes' child, attempts to kill it but the wain is saved by Atreus, labouring under the belief that the kid *is* his son.

You can see where this is going, can't you? Aegisthus, the son (not, IIRC, that Aegisthus, who is his son and thus Agamemnon and Menelaus' cousin) kills Atreus and restores Thyestes to the throne, briefly before it is seized in a rather fatal manner by Agamemnon and Menelaus.

This is one reason why nobody can ever remember which is king of Sparta and which is king of Mycenae.

Anwyay, Menelaus. Not much to say. Less storied brother of Agamemnon. Chosen by Helen at the great convocation of heroes at the court of Tyndareus, and as such one of the four people most directly involved in the beginning of the Trojan War.

Later, Paris arrives on a goodwill mission from Troy (Paris is a flighty type - spends a long time being a shepherd as well), having been promised Helen by Aphrodite (who, lest we forget, was competing for a golden apple thrown by Eris at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the parents of Achilles. God, I love that). Menelaus has to go away on a military mission, and returnds to find Helen and Paris gone, thus violating not only his wife but also his guest-friendship (xenia - this is a big, big thing. See Glaucus and Diomedes).

Now, fortunately Odysseus, in order to prevent war breaking out between the Greeks over who got to shag Helen (answer: Paris), brokered a deal whereby everybody agreed to unite against anyone who failed to respect the ultimately victorious suitor's marriage. This is why it is important to have any contract you write examoned by a third party, as it meant that despite his best efforts he was summoned to Troy, along with everyone else.

Menelaus fights with valour if no great competence at Troy, is lost at sea on the return journey, wrestles Proteus, and ultimately retrieves Helen (arguably - Stesichorus and subsequently Euripides claim that she was never there at all, but that's another story). Declining the chance to kill her, he instead reconciles and returns to Sparta. It's my fond belief that this act of forgiveness is what saves his side of the family from the horrible consequences of the curse of the house of Atreus.

Well, that and being married to a godess.

Anyone want to hear my "Helen is a Godess" theory?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
10:59 / 14.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:



Also, I would propose another reading of Diomedes. Far from being transgressive, Diomedes is the hero who does everything basically *right*. When he is given instructions by a deity, he follows them. When he is called upon to fight, he fights, and waits to criticise his leader until the next council meeting, when it is permitted.


Maybe this is why I have mixed feelings about Diomedes. On the one hand, Diomedes, if you look at actions in the book, is clearly one of the best, if not the best, Achaian fighters. Doesn't he beat down Ares, for god's sake? He's constantly saving the Achaian's bacon in battle. But Diomedes, it seems to me, doesn't have much of a character. He's neither a tragic figure like Achilles, a blowhard like Agamemnon, the wise old Nestor (who incidentally seemingly gives some real poor advice to his son in the chariot racing scene), etc. He's just Diomedes who kills people. Not interesting, just powerful. It seems that if Diomedes was such a great hero and man of war, there should be more depth to his character, but he's pretty flat. He gets all the cool battle sequences but nothing much more. Even the Aiantes get more characterization that Diomedes.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:24 / 14.02.02
Yes, I'm interested. Is this in any way tied in with the way that Odysseus seems to be part of another story cycle (cf close relationship with Athene)?

I'm reading the Odyssey at the moment, and it certainly throws the importance of guest-friendship into relief. (Also I cannot believe how much it influenced other travel narratives - I have never made the connexion with Gulliver's Travels before, how stupid am I?)

...but anyway, in the Odyssey, Menelaus is shown as a great and generous king with enormous riches (Telemachus is pretty gobsmacked by his palace), and he does seem to have avoided the curse - he says, I think, that he came back from Egypt too late to have to avenge Agamemnon because Orestes had already done so. Thanks for the backstory, Haus - bloody hell.

As for Diomedes, I think 'rightness' (for want of a better word - that sounds too prissy) *is* his character.

The Trojan women... I think the women in the Iliad function as a sort of chorus - they deliver the eulogies over the dead. I think marital relationships aren't a great part of the Iliad because of the context (principally), and actually disagree with you, Cavatina - I think the scene with Hektor, Andromache and the baby shows the strength of the relationship between the adults as well as the importnace of the father-son relationship. Perhaps it is that the relationships are located in slightly different spheres... I don't know. I was touched by the part where Andromache is going about preparing a bath for Hektor's return from battle, unaware that he's already been killed, and by her grief and her eulogy for him (that was the bit that amde me cry...).
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:41 / 14.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Kit-Cat Club:
Yes, I'm interested. Is this in any way tied in with the way that Odysseus seems to be part of another story cycle (cf close relationship with Athene)?


Sort of, in that they involve bits of other mythic patterns which are submerged in the Iliad...essentially, as you know, is the daughter of Leda, as was Clytemestra (no "n"), as were Castor and Pollux, the dioscouri. One of the dioscouri was the son of Zeus, and thus divine, one the son of Tyndareus and mortal. Clytemestra is clearly mortal, because she gets killed. Helen, on the other hand is....odd.

First up, she appears to know, or suspect, that they are in a story, or more exactly a song. Second up, she recognises Aphrodite, although she is in disguise, third up, in the Odyssey she makes herbs for Menelaus and co. which send them stright to sleep without bad dreams, IIRC. And, and I'm not sure if this is also in the Odyssey offhand, but she is described is wandering around the Trojan Horse perfectly mimicking the voices of the wives of the Greek heroes, whom she would never have met.

As I say, there's something funny about Helen....

(btw, the story is IIRC that Menelaus stormed into her bedchamber, ready to kill her, but as they struggled her breasts became exposed and, try to form, he forgot everything and spared her)

Oh, and errata - if I said above that Aegisthus was the son of Aegisthus, then I forgot to correct that. On reflection, the killer of Atreus and the killer of Agamemnon (arguably) are I think the same person.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:52 / 14.02.02
The bit about the voice mimicking is in the Odyssey (4, 275-85ish)... there's also a bit where Telemachus and Peisistratus are about to leave Sparta and there is an omen, and Helen is able to interpret it while Menelaus is still fishing for an answer.
 
 
Cavatina
11:57 / 14.02.02
Yes, her preparation of the bath is poignant. I also found that section very moving; it left me with a pit in my stomach. The image of Andromache, standing on the wall, staring down at Hektor being dragged in front of the city is unforgettable. "Black night covered over her eyes, and she swooned backwards, and the spirit breathed out of her."

But while Andromache's loyalty, admiration and love for Hektor are beyond question, I still have the feeling that there is some derogation of women and domesticity on the part of the warriors. But I need to go back over it. My reading was very piecemeal.
 
 
Persephone
19:34 / 14.02.02
Kit-Cat, what translation of the Odyssey are you reading? Do you think this thread can be stretched into an Odyssey discussion as well?

Haus, that was all awesome. Can you recommend texts?

Re: Diomedes, one thing that I missed in this Iliad proper is the story of Troilus and Cressida--that was in the kiddie Iliad I used to have. Interesting that Diomedes, this paragon of a man, is very sternly warned by Apollo not to mistake for one moment that he is a god. So yes, I think there is a rather complete statement in Diomedes id est How high can a man go? This high.

Cavatina, I tend to read the women re: how they are put in their places, alongside the men and gods, who also have specific "places" that they're restricted to. Men can't just range around wherever they please. The Achaians can't just sail away, though that's their hearts' desire. Hector's place is not inside the palace, and it's such bad form for Paris to be in the bedroom, etc.

But that does make me think, what about female gods? Ares no match for Athena, for example.
 
 
The Monkey
01:11 / 15.02.02
I recognize, Haus.
I guess it's more fun as an intellectual exercise than necessarily a good way of reading the text.
I personally suspect the Iliad, having existed indeterminantly as recited epic before being wirrten down, experienced a kind of intellectual encodation and coalation to generate the form we're all used to. I'm extrapolating this idea form the better-documented process of examining the formation of the Indian epics the Ramayana and Mahabharata, and in particular a short piece by R K Narayan entitle Ten Thousand Ramayanas.
And if I get my details wrong--sorry guys--it's actually been awhile since I've read the Iliad.

I'm fuzzy on my Greek myths, but generally isn't Ares something of an ass? Has he every actually been on the ball? Somewhere I picked up the idea that he somehow embodies the brutal and stupid aspect of vioence, while Athena has purview over the strategic and more "clever" aspects of war...

[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: [monkeys violating the temple] ]
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
07:02 / 15.02.02
Persephone - it's the Rieu translation, revised by his son, Penguin Classics. It's cheap over here, and Haus recommended it... there is a Hammond translation, but it cost more and I am poor.

It's very different in feel to the Iliad, and I don't think that's just the version I'm reading it in. It's a lot more jolly (even though the events it describes are pretty horrendous and everyone in the books is suffering right up until the very end), and a lot more diverse. It is, however, fascinating and gripping, and provides a great deal of background context for the Iliad - such as what the Achaeans' palaces were like, how the guest economy worked, where leaders got their wealth and what they were expected to do for their people. It's great.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
07:09 / 15.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Persephone:
So yes, I think there is a rather complete statement in Diomedes id est How high can a man go? This high.


That's an exceptionally good way of summarizing it; whereas Achilles bursts the bounds of humanity - his war-cry has physical force, his eyes blaze and he stands alone, without divine assistance, against a god, albeit only a river-god...
 
 
Cavatina
08:08 / 15.02.02
Originally posted by Haus:

"Anyone want to hear my "Helen is a Godess" theory?"

That's a very interesting take on Helen, Haus. In Book 3 'offspring of Zeus', 'child of Zeus' - is repeated a few times. There are also the words of the wise elders of the Trojans as they sit on the tower:

"No shame that the Trojans and the well-greaved Achaians should suffer agonies for long years over a woman like this - she is fearfully like the immortal goddesses to look at. ..."

And, as you say, she also quickly recognises the supposedly disguised Aphrodite and accuses her of trickery. Historically IRL, also, weren't Helen and her brothers worshipped as gods in Sparta?

A problem for your interpretation though is that, as Homer depicts her in The Iliad, Helen is so guilt-stricken in her consciousness of all the harm that she ('bitch' and 'hateful creature' as she calls herself) has caused, that she seems entirely human. She may have been capriciously goddess-like initially, when simply pursuing her own whims and desires in regard to Paris, but in Troy - in her conversation with Priam (who interestingly exonerates her from blame), in her slighting words to Paris, and again in her lament for Hektor - she is given a human complexity which I found quite surprising. I guess this is because previously I'd encountered her story or myth only intertextually, as in Marlowe's
'Helen, whose beauty summoned Greece to arms.
And drew a thousand ships to Tenedos'
or in other writings.

In some reworkings of the myth she is even denied the status of having been the primary cause of a ten year war. For example, Miles Burrows in his poem, "Economics" takes the line of 5th century Thucydides that the Greeks fought the Trojans not over a woman but to extend their political and economic domination over the eastern Mediterranean world.

She certainly is a strange and enigmatic figure.

[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: Cavatina ]
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply