Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The Iliad

Week 1: March 13 through March 19
Pages 77 through 144 (I am not including the intro in this part of the reading, but feel free to read it at any time.)


Book one: The Rage of Achilles
Book two: The Great Gathering of Armies
Book three:Helen Reviews the Champions

I read this before the Odyssey read, so I won't probably remember what happens in each section, but I look forward to the discussion!

The second half of Book 2, the Catalog of Ships, is sometimes skimmed by modern readers, which is understandable, though I find it fascinating to imagine all these people from disparate regions coming together.

And I think it's useful to remember that Greece was not a unified country at the time, but was a region of many independent city states which fought against each other more than they united against a common enemy (that did happen, but not often). So the term "the Greeks" is more like "the Allies" in World War II, where a group of independent countries all contributed troops to a common military campaign but otherwise remained completely independent nations.

It is also, perhaps, useful to remember that the Iliad was not originally a written document, but was an oral work, with singers traveling around to various cities or courts to entertain by singing the work, usually over a series of days or evenings. Each city visited would want especially to hear stories of their heroes and fighters, so I can imagine the singers adapting portions of the Book 2 catalogue to emphasize the contributions of the cities they were in at the time. But it was also important for them to tell the full story of those who went, because in a preliterate society, which Greece was at the time the Iliad was being composed and sung, that's the only way that the information could be passed to the next generation. There were no textbooks or workbooks or written records; if you didn't hear it, you didn't know it.

Here's a map of the area of the Trojan war which may help show where many of the combatants came from

Thank you so much Everyman! Wonderful information. I certainly wish I knew more about the greek history time period.

When I was leading a discussion of the Iliad some years ago, some -- many -- even most -- readers' initial reaction was that Achilles was completely over-reacting, that he was just being a petulant little boy.

I think it helps understand his position better if one understands a bit about the beliefs and motivations of the time.

Several factors I think are important.

For one, Greek soldiers weren't paid. They went out for two reasons. One, for the booty they could get from raiding along the way, and particularly slaves they could get by defeating a city. Chryseis and Briseis were captives not from Troy, but from raids that the Greeks had undertaken probably as a break from the war, going out to get food or money or more slaves to support their tent city there on the shores of Troy. They had spent ten years there, and obviously had to get food and probably replacement weapons somewhere else and bring it in. But basically, that's a primary reason they went to war -- booty and slaves. So when Agamemnon demanded that Achilles give up Briseis, he was demanding that Achilles turn his paycheck over to him.

Second, and more important I believe, is that soldiers fought for kleos. That's a difficult term to translate, but it was a central concept for the Greeks, usually translated as fame or glory, but literally meaning, as I understand it, what is said about you. Greece at the time of the Trojan war was a pre-literate society. There were no written records. No obituaries, no journals, not even a gravestone to tell the story of a person who died. The only way in which a soldier was remembered was by being talked or sung about in the epics sung by the bards. If you weren't sung about, you ceased to exist. Imagine what we would know about George Washington if we had no written records of any kind to tall us about him. No books, no newspapers of the time, no journals, no pay slips, no nothing. All we would know would be what had been handed down orally from generation to generation. Therefore, to be sung about was critical for a Greek hero -- everybody died, there was nothing special about dying, but it was dying gloriously that mattered so that you were remembered in song for future generations and weren't just buried and forgotten. So the respect of your peers was essential to a Greek soldier. Being insulted by Agamemnon by having his booty taken away was, in the language of the modern street, to be "dissed," and on the streets of American cities to diss somebody is a good way to get killed. Much the same here. Agamemnon was dissing Achilles in a big way, and it is really to Achilles's credit that he didn't just take out his spear and run him through on the spot. And if Athena hadn't intervened to stop him, he probably would have.

It may not make a lot of sense based on the ethics and principles of modern readers, but I think it makes perfect sense, and that Achilles was totally justified in his response, based on the principles and mores which governed the life of a Greek hero.

As Everyman said, it is interesting to think of these many Greek armies coming together against a common enemy. I've often wondered what the real reason was behind the siege of Troy that would unite people in such a huge way. The story of Menelaus, Helen, and Paris makes for good telling, but hardly seems the stuff of World War.

Plus, It's amazing that the siege went on for ten years. That seems an excessively long time for these guys to be away from their farms, families, and kingdoms. A long time to leave these things in the hands of wives, sons, stewards. (Of course, we know from The Odyssey that this did not go well for either Agamemnon or Odysseus.)

Finally, it's interesting to me that of the few pieces of written literature which made it through time intact, so many were connected in some way to this event. The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, the Orestes plays. It must have been an extraordinary event for its times.

I found the opening chapter very difficult to listen to, and not due to the thousands of names of long dead soldiers.

The treatment of women as objects to be won, used , exchanged and demanded (treated as an object or payment) really irked me. And I know that this was how women were treated in Ancient Greece, but that does not make such behavior right. In my country, women are still subject to multiple abuses and rights violations, perhaps that was why this chapter got to me.

When we read the Odyssey, I felt a measure of pity for Agamemnon, subject to betrayal and murder by an unfaithful wife. Now I feel he deserved such an end at the hands of a woman.

Renee wrote: "As Everyman said, it is interesting to think of these many Greek armies coming together against a common enemy. I've often wondered what the real reason was behind the siege of Troy that would unit..."

I was under the impression that the Greek armies had had multiple reasons to attack Troy and that the kidnap of Helen gave them a much needed excuse.

Yes! It's painful to hear the treatment of women in wartime. There's a play called The Trojan Women which tells the ultimate fate of the women we meet in The Iliad. It is so wrenching that I don't know how the Greeks saw it performed without sobbing inconsolably for days afterwards.

Also, Agamemnon is even less sympathetic a character when you know about his daughter, Iphigenia, whom he sacrificed so the gods would allow the Greek ships to have the winds they needed to embark for Troy.

That play sounds interesting Rene, but I can imagine heart breaking.

Yup, no sympathy for Agamemnon...

Renee wrote: "Also, Agamemnon is even less sympathetic a character when you know about his daughter, Iphigenia, whom he sacrificed so the gods would allow the Greek ships to have the winds they needed to embark ..."

Classy guy.... :(

Renee wrote: " I've often wondered what the real reason was behind the siege of Troy that would unite people in such a huge way. The story of Menelaus, Helen, and Paris makes for good telling, but hardly seems the stuff of World War. "

I suspect the real reason was the reason for most wars -- economic. Troy controlled the access to the Black Sea, where much of the grain that fed Greece was grown. Were they interfering with that trade, or threatening to? Also, Troy was a very wealthy city, whereas most of Greece was not (Athens excepted because of its silver mines). Lots and lots of booty there.

These are just speculations on my part, I have no historical basis for these thoughts. But I don't think human nature has changed that much in the past 3,000 years.

Renee wrote: "Also, Agamemnon is even less sympathetic a character when you know about his daughter, Iphigenia, whom he sacrificed so the gods would allow the Greek ships to have the winds they needed to embark ..."

I actually feel a little sympathy for Agamemnon. Not a lot, but a little. Here thousands of men and hundreds of ships were there on his shore waiting for him to lead them to war, and he knew (and what the seers said back then was knowledge, not mere belief) that there they would stay until he sacrificed Iphigenia.

If General Eisenhower had been told on June 3, 1944, that the D-Day invasion would not take place until he had sacrificed his daughter, and if that had for some reason been a real and ironclad condition -- no sacrifice, no invasion of Europe ever -- what might he have done? He was willing to sacrifice many thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen in this expedition -- could he say no to one young woman?

Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.

Good point about the economics, that is always an underlying cause of international conflicts, if not the primary reason.

I don't know about the Eisenhower analogy, but I see what you're getting at. It's the idea of valuing lives of many over the few, but that's the debate in any decision.

Alana wrote: "Good point about the economics, that is always an underlying cause of international conflicts, if not the primary reason.

I don't know about the Eisenhower analogy, but I see what you're getting ..."There is a sharp contrast here. Agamemnon is looking to mobilize troops to attack Troy for personal gain. He seems selfish and corrupt, so much so that he will sacrifice his own child to achieve those ends. I do wonder though about the perceived value of a girl- child, would he have sacrificed a son.

Eisenhower was motivating troops to attack an aggressor responsible for wide spread genocide, murder and destruction. I can not imagine that he would need to sacrifice a child to achieve that.

Lisa wrote: "Agamemnon is looking to mobilize troops to attack Troy for personal gain. He seems selfish and corrupt, so much so that he will sacrifice his own child to achieve those ends. ."

I think that's perhaps a bit unfair to Agamemnon. It wasn't, I think personal gain any more than was normal for any military action of the time. This wasn't all that much about him, I suggest: He had been selected the leader of all the Greek forces, which was a challenge because there was no unified Greece then, but a large variety of separate, independent city-states who needed skill to keep unified, and any one or more of whom could have decided to pull out and go home any time. They were marooned in port, and the troops were getting restless. The only way to pull things together was to get going, and he had been told by a source which was equivalent to the best intelligence of the day (and any successful military leader must listen to the best intelligence he can obtain) that the only way to get on his way was to sacrifice his daughter to satisfy the goddess.

By our modern standards, his decision seems horrendous, but by the standards he lived by, it was I suggest not only appropriate but necessary. And after all, commanders in all wars have sent their troops (and in most cases throughout history, not always volunteers but often draftees) on suicide missions when the military situation required it.

I suggest that by the standards under which he lived, and in the judgment of his society, his decision could be considered heroic, and if he had chosen not to proceed he would have been considered a failure and even a traitor to his cause.