Forums » Reading Corner » Read Thread

Hello friends, 

Sorry for my lateness. I was unexpectedly busy yesterday. Here are the discussion questions for Book 2.  As always, answer some, none or all of my questions, and feel free to pose your own. 

***

What implications might there be to Zeus’ sending a false dream to Agamemnon? 

Book 2 is full of agricultural imagery.  Homer even describes mastery over animals as a characteristic function of human beings (“the men who master horses”, line 1). How does Homer present man’s relationship with animals? 

Odysseus tells one of his men: “you must not be frightened like a coward or a peasant” (line 224). What might this tell us about the intended audience of the poem, and about Homeric notions of class more broadly? 

Aggamemnon says: “go eat your dinner and prepare for Ares” (line 462) to his men. Other translators render this line differently. Michael Heumann chose to render this line as “Now let each man go to his meal and then prepare for battle” (p. 52 of Heumann translation). What might be the significance of Emily Wilson’s choice to make reference to the deity Ares, as opposed to the general occurrence of battle? 

What's up with all these names? Why might Homer include a giant list of peoples in attendence of this mythic battle?

***

In this book, we find the Catalogue of Ships, a lengthy interlude wherein Homer describes all of the warriors who have travelled to Troy to be a part of Agammemnon's army. It is followed by a similar Catalogue of Trojans. 

Bruce Heiden has argued that the Catalogue serves to elevate the common soldiery up to the levels of heroes. Individual troops are not named because it would be impossible to list that many within the confines of epic poetry, but the Catalogue distributes ordinary men and heroes in a surprisingly democratic fashion. The cohorts who have come to Greece seem to receive introductions as dramatic and showstopping as their godlike commanders, which represents a real departure in style from much of the epic. 

Heiden, Bruce. “Common People and Leaders in ‘Iliad’ Book 2: The Invocation of the Muses and the Catalogue of Ships.” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 138, no. 1 (2008): 127–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40212077. (If you want a .pdf, send me your email or Discord handle) 

1. Zeus sends a false dream to Agammnon because has to fulfill his promise to Thetis since she saved him during the revolt of Poseidon and the other gods.

I think an interesting implication of Zeus's choice to use dreams to manipulate the situation is that, for now, gods don't try and directly interfere. The gods play a background role, often manipulating events and pulling the strings behind the scenes. Zeus also doesn't want to risk the wrath of Hera, even though he is the king of the gods, he still prefers Hera to be happy so he sends a dream to Agamemnon. Interestingly enough, he chooses the form of Nestor, who as we've already discussed ad nauseam, is the Acheans' most trusted advisor. So, if Nestor gives the go ahead, then surely it must be ok to start the invasion, right?

This dream strategy also plays on Agammemnon's arrogance, as he sort of feels that he's favored by Zeus, so victory is therefore imminent. Another implication is how we see the Gods start taking clear sides, which escalates the conflict. Another implication is that no matter how tough you are, how smart the decisions you take are, ultimately, when the gods conspire against you, your fate isn't in your hands. I think Homer is trying to say something about the capriciousness of the divine, and how one day, you might feel that things are going your way, but then things suddenly change.

3. The significance of the Emily Wilson translation using the proper noun "Ares" itself instead of a more vague and general word "battle" is that it foreshadows Ares himself fighting one of the Achean heroes in battle, hand-to-hand. From what I can remember, Ares is the only god to fully fight an Achean, hand to hand, no holds barred fight. Also, by using a god's name, Emily Wilson is hinting at the fact that the battlefield is also a place for gods to take out their political rivalries, frustrations with each other, on the opposite side that their divine enemy chooses to support. So, the Trojans and the Acheans are both chess pieces for the gods to play around with. Maybe Emily Wilson's translation also makes the battle feel more brutal and terrifying, because "battle" is impartial, but when you personify it as "Ares", it seems to have actual personality traits that match Ares's.

4. Homer makes a giant list and catalogue of all the various people present to heighten the tension. This shows that it's not just 2 city states fighting, but rather, some of the greatest powers in their time warring. I guess by also listing out all the heroes, and telling us things about them, it makes the conflict seem more tense. Even though we know that the Acheans win the Trojan War because of pop culture diffusion, this roll call shows us that there are great men on both sides. In a way, the roll call serves the purpose of showing the reader that the war could go either way, because the Trojans don't lack might. Without divine intervention or interference, it's unclear to say which way the war could have went. Maybe this also shows how much little the humans in the Illiad control their destiny, because even with all that might, all that power, and all those heroes, Troy still couldn't save itself. I think I might be overreading into this, but in any case, I enjoyed the roll call because it was cool to see all the different names, even if it did get dry.

I *love* teaching Book 2 because right away you have to deal with the catalog, and people just aren't used to reading stuff like that now.  Same thing when I teach Arthurian literature and you get pages and pages of names and who smote whom in what looks like the driest possible fashion, list-like.  But to me, what's so important is that we remember the orality of the poem and the audience of the poem.  If you're from Pleuron, and you hear about Thoas's 40 ships,  you are on your feet like when the comedian says "anybody here from Brooklyn?  Let me hear you!" or whatever.  This is a story about you and your ancestors and where you are from, and it has been chronicled and remembered.

I would guess that the audience listens to this list of names and numbers as raptly as my grandfather listened to a list of sports teams and scores for ten minutes on the radio, which to my young ears was the most boring possible entertainment imaginable.

Thanks for sharing this - this was a helpful way to view that section! What a way for the speaker to connect with the audience.

It's also kind of fun that these names are listed as if relayed from the Muses themselves. "Now tell me, Muses, who have your houses high on Mount Olympus, for you are goddesses and you are here, and you know everything, and you see it all, while we can only listen to the stories - we have seen nothing and do not know. Who were the lords and leaders of the Greeks?"

And the little descriptions! I'm thinking of the bit where it says "from Phthia, Trechis, Alope, and Hellas, where women are most beautiful." I can imagine girls from that region winking at each other like "yes queen! You know it!"

Summary:

So Zeus is chilling on Mount Olympus feeling bored and so he thinks to himself, "I know! I'll fuck with the mortals! That always cheers me up!" So Zeus sends a dream to Agamemnon basically telling him, "Hey, you should totally attack Troy right now. Don't worry. All the Gods have got your back, so you're definitely going to win. Pinky swear!"

Then we get a very long and detailed description of the dream that Zeus decides he's going to send to Agamemnon. Then Agamemnon has the dream... And we get a very long and detailed description of the dream that Zeus sent to Agamemnon. Then Agamemnon summons his council and says, "Hey guys! You won't believe this dream I just had!" ... Then he gives a very long and detailed description of the dream that Zeus sent to him. So, back to back, we get three descriptions of the same dream that are pretty much word for word exactly the same. Homer likes his repetition.

Anyway, even though Agamemnon believes that the Gods are backing him and that he'll definitely win if he attacks Troy, he for some reason decides to tell his soldiers, "Changed my mind. Don't want to fight Troy anymore. Pack your bags, boys! We're going home!" ... But... He's not actually giving up. He just told his soldiers that they're giving up because... He wanted to test their courage or something? I cannot for the life of me figure out the logic behind his plan.

Anyway, because Agamemnon told his soldiers to pack up and go back to Greece, the soldiers start... Packing up to go back to Greece. Which, of course, he is very upset about! How dare these soldiers actually do what he told them to do? Do they have no loyalty at all?

So Odysseus steps in and says, "Hey guys! Come back! Just because Agamemnon literally ordered you to pack up and leave doesn't mean he actually wants you to pack up and leave! It's like when your girlfriend tells you she doesn't want anything for her birthday. It's a trap! Do not listen to a word she says! Get that bitch presents and a cake and throw her a fucking surprise party with tacky hats and balloons and shit!"

So, this guy Thersites says. "I kind of just want to go home... I mean... You do realize that we foot soldiers are being slaughtered by the thousands clearing a path for you, while you "heroes" just rush in at the last minute to swing your swords around and call dibs on all the food, bitches and treasure?" ... So, of course, Odysseus beats the shit out of him and everybody laughs.

Agamemnon sacrifices an ox to Zeus. Zeus accepts the sacrifice, but crosses his fingers behind his back as he accepts it. Syke!

And then Homer just kind of... Lists names for half an hour. Literally, half an hour... Of names... Lots and lots of names.

Analysis:

Homer REALLY likes names.

Yeah, I thought Agamemnon's whole test was pretty stupid. He sounds exhausting.

Sorry for the late reply! I'm going to wait to read responses till after I've posted. 

 - I enjoyed the bit where Thersites goes off on Agamemnon and Odysseus hits him with a stick for it till he cries. 10/10 Entertainment and just a lil ominous? I noted that their main complaint with this guy is that he seems to open his mouth exclusively to cause trouble, and apparently he is very ugly to boot lol. In this bit, he seems to think the fight they're going towards is more about Agamemnon than anything else. I wouldn't say Thersites is entirely right, but I like his boldness in bringing up the personal conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles about their trophies and how it relates to the situation at hand. Then Odysseus silences "that rude windbag" via percussion and everybody cheers :)

-Zeus sending Agamemnon the false dream makes me think of the United States' Manifest Destiny & expansion into the Northern American continent(my memory of this bit in history is a little foggy, so forgive me/correct me if I fumble it up. Also, I'm ragging on my own country here). From what I remember, the United States considered their expansion divinely inspired,and didn't give much regard to how it impacted the indigenous peoples already living there ... they were just in the way, fallout, a problem to be swept aside. So millions of people were devastated (lost homes, lives, way of life, dehumanized, etc) while U.S. folks were just chasing the dream.

Now, Agamemnon has woken up and he seems to have this God-given commission to go fight. Since Zeus has done this as a solid to Thetis, it's hard to know all the impact this fight will have, other than just the intended one. As Agamemnon chases his dream, so to speak, I'm very interested to see what else may happen as a result.

 - Humans and animals seem to have a pretty clear business relationship in this work ... I haven't much observed companionship between men and animals outside of that. 

 - I did notice that leaders and common soldiers were delivered the same message very differently. The class distinctions are clear ... Thersites is also "put in his place" when he decides to criticize his betters. Odysseus's rebuke wasn't just about the nature of the rude comments, but also about how Thersites is too lowly to speak of his leaders at all. In fact, those of lower strata are kinda just background characters ... Breises is led away but given no dialogue, common soldiers are yelled at and struck but their stories aren't really explored. Makes me think the intended audience is likely more for upper-class, wealthy people, ruling class, or warriors ... people who might see themselves in Achilles' or Agamemnon's shoes and identify with conflicts over honor, property, reputation, and legacy (but also people who may view the working class as less important to the story).

 - I really enjoyed how Wilson used the reference to Ares, rather than just war. It makes it so much more personal! One sees Ares' name and can visualize Ares anticipating the men as they anticipate him. One can visualize the men tightening saddles and sharpening weapons with the influence of the god - as though red embers of his being sweep amongst them while they prepare! It enmeshes the greek gods with the material world so seamlessly, and reminds the reader how connected the pantheon is to each part of life. From the river to dawn rising to war brewing to the wisdom of careful thought ... divine persons have their hands in all of it. 

 - I liked hearing about Thamyris bragging so hard that the Muses just came down and destroyed him. "They mutilated him and robbed him of godlike song and forced him to forget the lyre." Reminds me of the story of Arachne. One does not simply challenge the gods. 

I have a question: is the the theme of the Iliad anti war? I haven't read it so maybe that's a dumb take, but it sounds like it spends a lot of time setting up these glorious heroes only for everything they do to end in negative things and pointless destruction.

I don't think that's a dumb take at all. That's actually a really insightful and intelligent question to ask. I never even considered it that way, so that is a really interesting perspective. I'd love to hear Gower's or Malk's thoughts on this.

We'll be in a better position to talk about this when we're done, of course, and it's sort of a question you can hold in the back of your mind as you read every book--but I think even more interesting is to break that question up into smaller pieces:  what's the epic's attitude towards the concept of individual heroism versus the overall might of an army; material reward versus acknowledgment of one's valor; glory eternal in death versus humble but forgotten life, and so forth. 

The simple concept "War" is only scratching the surface of the values this epic pushes on as hard as it can to see how much it can bear.

Because Homer is astonishingly subtle, this epic is never going to give you an answer.  Like Beowulf, the answer is both yes and no--being "anti-war" makes no sense in this world.   But at the same time, the utter waste of it all hovers around the edges.  Glory and treasure makes meaning, but Beowulf's treasure ends up buried uselessly in the ground.  Beowulf is great, but Homer is the master.  And the different characters are going to come to different realizations, conclusions, epiphanies, turns, rejections and so forth throughout this book (and in the Odyssey too). 

Homer is too cagey to be pinned down like this, and the Iliad doesn't have a specific un-subtle point of view that you can just point to and feel like you've captured it.  You have to ride that wave throughout, and it's incredibly powerful, and if you are reading carefully, you will feel how heavy he has weighed the scale in both pans.

A1: The Greek will win, eventually, but the conflict will drag on for a long time. The gods interfere constantly during the Trojan War, and Zeus is inclined to please his daughter who asked for Achilles' pride to be avenged. Having proud Agamemnon be the major driving force for gathering up the Greeks only for him to be humiliated when he leads them to a future slaughter will drag his name and his family through proverbial mud. Many Greeks will die, but Agamemnon will live, die and languish in the Underworld forever connected to doomed hubris. The so-called "Best of the Greeks" will always be remembered as the fool who led his countrymen and allies to one of the most grueling wars of all time.

As for what lying implies, it means that the pantheon has agendas. Only the virtuous and protected are truly safe from the will of the gods. As many myths and legends already show, cross any of the gods for any reason and you're usually screwed. Apollo may have forgiven the Greeks for the outrage against his loyal priest, but so long as Agamemnon pursues vainglory, he will continue to fall into the traps of fate laid out by the gods who will punish him for his hubris.

A2: Mastery of nature is a common theme of these stories. Men under the gods must show dominance over the land in order to give sacrifices to the gods or to show skill and virtue over a world that would destroy them if given the chance. Nature can be brutal. Of course, there are characters who have companionship with animals (Odysseus has a dog), but it seems more common that animals are regarded as symbols of status. Agamemnon is a horse-lord, showing that he has wealth, status and power (horses for chariots, chariots for warfare, warfare for spoils, and so on).

A3: Those seeking stories for escapism certainly don't want to live their lives as peasants or beggars. Quite naturally, the virtuous and strong have their character reflected in wealth and power right? If you can rise above others and distinguish yourself with glory, do it. What else have you got to live for than to give yourself over to fate and hope that the gods will bless your efforts?

A4: Each god is defined by his domain, and Ares is certainly defined by battle. Evoking the name of Ares brings up a more romantic image of preparing to participate in bloody conflict and receive eternal glory through it. "Prepare for battle" isn't a bad line, but "prepare for Ares" paints a more descriptive image through narrative implication.

A5: Tedious though it is for us to read it, giving all these names gives a great impression of scale. This isn't just a war. This is THE WAR. Everyone is getting involved, and listing out all the different locations gives Homer a chance to call out regions from all over the world that he knew. Listeners could get excited seeing references to their homes. "Hey, he's talking about our ancestors! He mentioned some heroes of the past that we're connected to!" Both sides of the conflict are detailed and possibly could have inspired listeners to take sides during the narrative and root for their favorite characters or groups.

I thought the list of the people and ships and what not to be pretty interesting. The way I interpreted its inclusion was that it elevated the story from a cool story to something that could be seen by its audience as an oral history. It also makes the whole war seem more epic, because you are being told that it's not just the commanders and main characters of the poem that are worth talking about.
I also like Wilson's choice to refer to Ares in the translation because it makes the battle sound epic and almost ceremonial or sacred, which fits well for a war that is ultimately between the gods themselves.

Hello friends, 

Sorry again for my lateness. Because this has happened two weeks in a row, I am revising our schedule to "every other weekend", not "every other Saturday."  

This is, by a quick Google search, apparently the shortest book of the Iliad. However, it is undoubtedly one of the most impactful. Paris' and Menelaus' duel acts as basically a second inciting incident for the plot. Additionally, we get to see some of the dynamics going on in the city properly: namely, that Paris is kind of cringe and fail, and is almost universally detested by his countrymen.

One theme I want to draw attention to in this chapter is ritual friendship or guest-friendship. Essentially, this was a religious obligation in ancient Greek society that, among other things, strictly forbids hostility between host and guest. Guest-friendship was an incalculably important idea in Greek polytheism. In Book 6, Diomedes and Glaucus refuse to engage in hostilities because their grandfathers had been guest and host, which lets you know that this is a theme being intentionally invoked by the author. Paris' cuckolding Menelaus isn't just him being immoral: it's a violation of religious obligation. 

Also, clock the foreshadowing about how they call upon the gods to punish a violator of the oath. 

As always, feel free to answer some none or all of the following discussion questions. 

Paris still gets the appellation "godlike", despite his plain inferiority to the other characters. What might be up with that? 

In Book 3, we finally get a look at a character of central importance. What do you think of Helen of Troy, so far? What does her attitude about her circumstances seem to be? 

In the Homeric worldview, death is a grim and unenviable fate. The condition of the deceased seems to be extremely unpleasant, based on Achilles' cameo in the Odyssey. Can Paris be blamed for not wanting to die? Is fleeing an activity solely reserved for cowards? 

Also, you guys are going to love Book 4, it's super violent. 

One thing I want to just point to, although I suppose we'll get there if we ever get to the Odyssey:  It's not 100% clear to me that the world of the dead is unpleasant, exactly.  It's just nothing.  Not punishment, not rewards, for the vast majority of folks, even great heroes.  It's not even clear to me that they are aware of all that much or have much sense of self or ability to articulate things (until they are given the sacrifice of blood). 

I don't want to get too much into the Odyssey here, but at any rate, I think the fear of death has to go hand in hand with the fear of dying in a shameful way, or with a net negative of glory ( κλέος ); I just read Book 3 of the Iliad to my kids, out loud, and they agreed that Paris was done dirty by Aphrodite by being denied the opportunity to go out fighting, as humiliating an experience as that would have been.  He wasn't fleeing at the end there!

I think his conduct was not brave. While it is true that Aphrodite whisks him away, his immediate impulse is that he wants to have sex with his wife:  which, while fair and understandable, is not the disposition of a man who is upset that he has been denied his heroic end. Also, I bring up fleeing in the hopes of making everyone look like a great big hypocrite when a beloved character does the same.

I  do think that there probably was a trans-Mediterranean idea that the underworld is generally unpleasant. It comes up a *lot* in ancient Near Eastern literature: famously in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but also the earliest substrates of the Hebrew Bible, where "the pit" (שאול)  is frequently described as a pretty awful and dismal place. 

The Odyssey characterizes the underworld as a "place without joy" (Book 11, Line 96, Wilson translation), and Achilles claims he would "prefer to be a workman, hired by a poor man on a peasant farm, than rule as king of all the dead" (11, 490-491). While that's not inconsistent with a state of nothingness, I think it's more consistent with a state of misery and frustration, especially considering as all of the shades are still very much concerned with their worldly affairs (that they are now powerless to influence). 

I read that scene a bit differently in the bedroom; this is a scene in which Paris is deeply under the influence of Aphrodite, and it's not clear to me that he has a lot of choice over what he's doing there.  Aphrodite whisks Paris into the bedroom, places Helen before him, and this is happening.  As far as I see, Aphrodite never leaves that room.  And that makes sense to me, in that Aphrodite both is a goddess with authority over sexual passion on the one hand and on the other hand, actual sexual passion itself:  there's sexual passion in that room. 

It's not a great look for Paris, to be sure, but we can also see the deep tension and friction between Helen and Paris and even so, they are smashed together by forces much larger than them like someone experimenting while playing Barbie and Ken.

As far as a place without joy regarding the underworld, I think that is right--it's a place marked by absence.  No joy, but I don't believe any torment either.   And as far as the shades concerned with worldly affairs--correct me if I'm wrong, but I *think* that's only after they drink the blood and are recalled to their selves--before than they are described in more bestial terms.  (We totally should not be discussing the middle of the Odyssey here.)

Paris still gets the appellation "godlike", despite his plain inferiority to the other characters. What might be up with that?
I just assumed this meant he was hawt and imposing and was designed to contrast against his behavior.
In Book 3, we finally get a look at a character of central importance. What do you think of Helen of Troy, so far? What does her attitude about her circumstances seem to be?
I feel bad for Helen. She literally has a goddess threatening her and telling her she has to be with Paris even though she knows that just perpetuates the conflict, and maybe things could have been ended if Paris did what he was supposed to do and gave her back to her family. She also told King Priam that she loves him too, so she seems to care about both her old family and new family.
In the Homeric worldview, death is a grim and unenviable fate. The condition of the deceased seems to be extremely unpleasant, based on Achilles' cameo in the Odyssey. Can Paris be blamed for not wanting to die? Is fleeing an activity solely reserved for cowards?
Taken on its own, Paris can't be blamed for not wanting to die. However, if he was going to flee, he should be blamed for not conceding defeat and making good on his deal instead of going back home and being horny while people are dying because of him. He is willing to let other people die for something he himself is unwilling to die for, and that is cowardly and shameful.

I think Daji is right about Paris - he's pretty, but otherwise doesn't come off as very impressive. However, beauty is powerful. Sometimes the sheer beauty of a person is enough to sway wills and turn tides. The concept of beauty itself has had ravenous effects in this work for sure - the contest of fairness with the golden apple, and Helen being selected as a bribe prize (and it works).Some of the older Trojan counsel advisers even suggest that Helen should be sent away, before she may "bring about catastrophe for us and our children in the future." 

I think Helen has had a wild ride. I wonder how much notice she got about being Paris' reward for choosing Aphrodite in that contest. I'm noticing she doesn't feel too highly of herself - calling herself hateful, a dog-face, wishing she'd chosen a painful death over leaving with Paris. Her attitude seems pretty grim. She definitely doesn't like Paris, from the way she scolds him, and she's frustrated enough that she's actually arguing with the goddess Aphrodite when summoned to be with Paris. She's aware, too, of the death and war already happening because of the conflict surrounding her. 

I'm struck by this irony: so many people desire to be beautiful, and yet it has landed Helen in a horrible situation. Aphrodite's gifts for beauty and sensual satisfaction are all around her and Helen is still terribly miserable.

It leads me to wonder what could happen if Helen decided to defy Aphrodite after all. Aphrodite has promised a painful death and terrible legacy as well - would the raging war still continue on the same? What if she made it back to her first husband? Would the Greeks still demand retribution - whether as compensation, or would they want blood?

Why is Paris getting appellation of "godlike"?

My interpretation of this was that in addition to his comely physical features, he also got the title because of how he's favored by the Gods. After all, Paris is the sole reason for the entire war. His actions started the whole war, so maybe the word "godlike" could be applied in that sense, since a god is someone who causes large-scale events around them and initiates lots of domino effects, something that Paris certainly has done.

In Book 3, we finally get a look at a character of central importance. What do you think of Helen of Troy, so far? What does her attitude about her circumstances seem to be?

Above all else, she seems kind of stuck. I empathize with her because so far she's been like this mythical lady, this beauty with the face that launched a thousand ships but now we're getting to know her as a person. She definitely curses Paris and regrets his actions, yet at the same time also acts as a Trojan now. We feel like she's been thrust into these events without her agency and there's a lot of self hatred laced in there. She's also rather bold to criticize Aphrodite.

In the Homeric worldview, death is a grim and unenviable fate. The condition of the deceased seems to be extremely unpleasant, based on Achilles' cameo in the Odyssey. Can Paris be blamed for not wanting to die? Is fleeing an activity solely reserved for cowards?

Yes, Paris can be blamed. He has a responsibility to all these people who are protecting him from the consequences of his shameful actions. I do not like him so far. Also, No fleeing an activity isn't solely reserved for cowards, but you have to look at the context. In the future books of the Illiad, we'll see several instances where people flee and they obviously aren't cowards since the odds are rigged as hell, but it varies. In this context, yes Paris is being cowardly and spineless.

Also, Paris is very self-aware of who he is and what his limitations are. When I read the Eagles translation for the first time, this fact struck me as odd, because I expected him to be this shallow asshole who acts recklessly and selflishly without much depth so when I actually read the Illiad that struck me as surprising. But I liked it.

@hetero_malk I enjoyed the Hannah Roisman supplementary article you linked to in the first discussion post. Do you have any more of those supplemental articles to read through for this section? Having read through the source material, I really want to read through some more interesting articles like that one.

Answer 1: In my opinion, "godlike" seems to refer to some characteristic of a person that exceeds above everyone else in that respect. Paris is "godlike" in his appearance and attractiveness above all other men, at least those relevant to the story.

Answer 2: Helen is certainly a victim of her own choices. Choosing infidelity against a king isn't exactly the wisest thing to do. But, as the narrative shows, she's clearly remorseful and would make attempts at resolution if possible. However, it seems that Helen's infidelity to Menelaus is more of an excuse to go to war than it is the actual cause. As others have pointed out, she's trapped. She does seem to have some resistance to a goddess' meddling and only complies with Aphrodite after being threatened, which shows some character at least.

Answer 3: He can certainly be blamed, but I give him credit for proposing the duel and actually trying to make up for his previous cowardice. He's willing to actually put his life on the line after being confronted by Hector, and what would you do if you had fight against the King of Sparta? I think some Trojans started to look more favorably on Paris's and might have mourned him if he had died in that duel. But, Paris and Helen get snatched by Aphrodite. I don't think that it was admirable for Paris to just have sex with Helen in that situation and not try to immediately go back to explain the strange intervention, but I would imagine that if he had left the bedroom Aphrodite would have threatened him to stay there like how she coerced Helen.

Still, Paris is a victim of his actions. Some could say it's fate being influenced by the gods, but Paris still had a choice to not steal another man's wife while a guest to a fearsome king. He's far from the most admirable character. I could imagine fleeing being reframed with respect to a character like Odysseus, but that's because of his wilely nature. Paris flees purely out of fear. Considering how bleak the afterlife is, I suppose it's no wonder no one wants to die. However, if Paris had acted honorably from the start, the war never would have happened, and it's hard not be disgusted by that.

Hold the phone. Bluey Cup went willingly with Paris??? I had to go and look this up and sure enough some sources say this was the case - evidently, she had fallen in love with him. But I'm also seeing that some interpretations imply abduction occurred, or that Aphrodite fudged things somehow. If anyone has more information on this, I'd be much obliged. 

From what I understand, Helen did go with Paris willingly, but only because Aphrodite used her magical Goddess powers to give Helen a big, hard, lady boner for him.

Another note on "god-like"--that's  θεοειδης  here, which is the sort of "godlike" which has also been translated as "very attractive" and is also applied to other people like Agamemmnon and Odysseus.  I probably wouldn't spend a *ton* of time thinking about that particular epithet as far as how much information they give us about the characters in question.

Summary:

So the Trojans are getting ready to fight the Greeks, and Paris, the one who started the whole war by stealing Menelaus's bitch, steps forward and says, "Fear not citizens! Hope has arrived! For I am here! And I shall save the Trojan people by challenging the Greeks to single combat! Send your greatest warrior against me! I shall fight for my bitch!" Then Menelaus (said bitch's former husband) steps forward and says, "Yo." Paris looks up and, realizing that Menelaus is an Andre the Giant sized mother fucker, he nopes right out of there.

Hector, the hero of Troy and Paris's brother, notices Paris hiding somewhere in the back.

"Paris!" groans Hector.

"Paris isn't here!" Paris mutters, putting on a high pitched, squeaky voice.

"Paris, no," Hector tells him off firmly. "You can't challenge the Greeks to single combat and then hide behind your soldiers and hope they go away. Now get your pansy ass back to the front and fight for your bitch!"

Paris says, "Fine!" and sulkily makes his way back to the front lines.

So, there's a Goddess called Iris, who wants Helen to watch the fight. So, she disguises herself as Paris's sister Laodice, then she goes to Helen and says, "Hey, your ex husband and your toy boy are about the have a punch up. Go watch."

So Helen, the paramount bitch, the sippy cup with a picture of Bluey on it, goes to watch the fight and sits next to Priam, Paris's father and the King of Troy. So, Priam asks Helen, "Hey, who's that fitty down there?" Helen says, "That's Agamemnon." Then Priam asks Helen, "Who's that fitty next to him?" Helen says, "That's Odysseus." Then Prian asks Helen, "Who's that fitty next to him?" Helen says, "That's Ajax." This goes on for awhile with Helen identifying multiple fitties.

So, the duel begins. Menelaus slaps the shit out of Paris, but Aphrodite still has a soft spot for Paris since he dubbed her with the title of smexiest of all the Goddesses. So, before Menelaus can kill Paris, she just kinda yoinks him out of there and plops him down in his bedroom. Goddesses can do shit like that. Then Aphrodite goes to Helen and says, "Hey, Paris is in his bedroom. Go pork him." Helen says, "But I don't wanna!" Aphrodite says, "Pork him or I'll be mad." So Helen goes and porks him.

Meanwhile, back on the battle field, Agamemnon says, "Hey, getting a Goddess to magically yoink you out of the fight is cheating. Menelaus wins!" And all the Greeks clap.

Analysis:

I think Priam might be gay.

Questions:

Q: Paris still gets the appellation "godlike", despite his plain inferiority to the other characters. What might be up with that?

A: I always assumed "Godlike" just meant "Well fit"

Q: In Book 3, we finally get a look at a character of central importance. What do you think of Helen of Troy, so far? What does her attitude about her circumstances seem to be?

A: Personally, I would've preferred a sippy cup with a picture of SpongeBob.

Q: In the Homeric worldview, death is a grim and unenviable fate. The condition of the deceased seems to be extremely unpleasant, based on Achilles' cameo in the Odyssey. Can Paris be blamed for not wanting to die? Is fleeing an activity solely reserved for cowards? 

A: Well I don't blame him for not wanting to die. I do however blame him for stealing Menelaus's bitch, thus starting a war that killed thousands upon thousands of Greeks and Trojans who also didn't particularly want to die, so kind of hard to have any sympathy for him.

Hello friends, 

We've now read four books of the Iliad. This is where the carnage begins. Lots of good stuff in this chapter: battle, bickering gods, Agamemnon being mogged by his subordinates, getting speared in the head so hard the spear fully penetrates your skull, etc. 

I'd also like to draw your attention to the work of poetry Memorial, by classicist and poet Alice Oswald. It is, essentially, an extrapolation of the common Homeric trope of eulogizing a character who has just been killed. As you've now seen, when someone is slain, there is often a brief discourse about their biography and ancestry. Which minor character who gets instantly eulogized is your favorite, this chapter? 

Here, we see again another instance of the gods intervening. To keep the war going, Athena influences the "mindless mind" of Pandarus (133), telling him to take the shot against Menelaus. Hilariously, she also deflects the arrow away from his vital organs. Are concepts like "agency" and "free will" operative here?

Emily Wilson's style has been called conversational, casual, and plainspoken. How does that affect your reading experience? Are there any particular lines that are un-flowery that struck you as particularly moving? Did any feel jarring or out of place? 

There is an exchange where Agamemnon scolds Odysseus for not being yet mobilized, and then walks back his comments almost immediately. Who has the right of it? Is the audience meant to take a side in their dispute, or is this a matter of intentional ambiguity? Is Agamemmnon a diplomatic leader for not wanting to "scold or blame [Odysseus]" (477) or is he, in fact, a little bitch? 

There are several instances in this book of people fighting over the arms and armour of deceased warriors. What might that tell you about the political economy of the elite landowning warrior classes being depicted? How does plunder factor into their understanding of manhood, glory, and martial prowess? 

As always, the questions are just a starting point. Answer some, none, or all. Keep an eye on Diomedes, who will be centrally important in Book 5 (and badass). 

Summary:

So, Zeus watches the fight between Menelaus and Paris and agrees, "Yep, Menelaus wins! Paris needs to give back the bitch and all the Greeks can go home."

Hera says, "Awhhhh! But I wanted to see a battle!"

Zeus says, "But Troy is a really nice city, my dear."

Hera says, "But I really, REALLY wanted to see a battle!"

"But it's my favourite city!" says Zeus.

"BAAAAATTLEEEEE!" whines Hera.

"Fine," groans Zeus. "But the next time I get bored, I get to destroy one of your favourite cities!"

"Deal," says Hera, "You can have Sparta. Those sexy, shirtless men are nice to look at and all, but it's all a bit homoerotic for my tastes."

"Fair enough," says Zeus. "Let the battle commence!"

So, Athena disguises herself as a Trojan soldier and sneaks into the battlefield to cause some mischief. She whispers to the soldier Pandarus, "Hey, you know what would be a REALLY good idea? If you just shot Menelaus right now. That way, Paris would be the default winner, the Greeks will all go home, and you totally, definitely will not start a war that will completely destroy the entire Trojan army." Pandarus sees absolutely no flaw in this plan and takes the shot. Athena likes Menelaus though, so she deflects the arrow so that it only hits his belt.

Menelaus falls to the ground, bleeding. Agamemnon cries out, "Noooo! Menelaus! Curse those treacherious Trojans! I shall take my revenge by destroying the city of Troy! I shall slay their men and take their women and treasure for my own! Brave, brave Menelaus! You shall not have died in vain!"

"Um, I'm not quite dead, sir," Menelaus chimes in.

"Well... You shall not have been mortally wounded in vain," says Agamemnon.

"I think I could pull through, sir,"

"Oh, I see."

"Actually, I think I'm alright to come with you."

"No, no, sweet Menelaus! Stay here, I will send help as soon as I have accomplished a daring and heroic battle in my own particular..."

"Idiom, sir?"

"Idiom!"

"No, I feel fine, actually."

"Farewell, sweet Menelaus!"

"... I'll um... I'll just stay here then, shall I, sir?"

And the battle finally starts.

Antilochus kills Echepolus... Oh no! not Echepolus! Then Agenor kills Elephenor... Oh no! Not Elephenor! Then Ajax kills Simoeisius... Oh no! Not Simoeisius! Then Antiphus kills Leucus... Oh no! Not Leucus! Then Odysseus kills Democon... Oh no! Not Democon! Then Peirous kills Diores... Oh no! Not Doires! Then Thoas kills Peirous... Good! I never liked that guy anyway.

Analysis:

This chapter had lots of blood and gore and shit. I like blood and gore and shit. ^_^

Q: As you've now seen, when someone is slain, there is often a brief discourse about their biography and ancestry. Which minor character who gets instantly eulogized is your favorite, this chapter?

A: That one guy who got stabbed in the nipple.

Q: Are concepts like "agency" and "free will" operative here?

A: ... I mean... Kind of? Pandarus didn't have to shoot Menelaus. But Athena definitely singled out the class dunce for a reason. It's like giving a toddler a machine gun and telling them to "have fun".

Q: Emily Wilson's style has been called conversational, casual, and plainspoken. How does that affect your reading experience?

A: Has it? I've never read any other versions of the Iliad, so I have nothing to compare it to... Only thing that really stands out to me is, is there a single character in the story who isn't "Godlike"?

Q: There is an exchange where Agamemnon scolds Odysseus for not being yet mobilized, and then walks back his comments almost immediately. Who has the right of it?

A: I... Have no idea. From what I remember of the scene, Agememnon walks up to Odysseus and says, "Hey, Odysseus! Why aren't you ready for battle?" Odysseus says, "But I am ready for battle!" And Agememon says, "Oh... Never mind then." And that's the extent of the conversation. There's nothing I remember to suggest whether or not Odysseus was actually ready to fight or not, or to suggest why Agememnon singled him out for a scolding, so... I guess... If Odysseues was ready for battle then Agememnon was right to backtrack, and if he wasn't then Agememnon was a little bitch.

Q: There are several instances in this book of people fighting over the arms and armour of deceased warriors. What might that tell you about the political economy of the elite landowning warrior classes being depicted? How does plunder factor into their understanding of manhood, glory, and martial prowess? 

A: When your soldiers will literally stop fighting mid battle to loot the armour from their enemies corpses, you should probably consider investing more into the armour budget.

A: When your soldiers will literally stop fighting mid battle to loot the armour from their enemies corpses, you should probably consider investing more into the armour budget.
Real.

That moment where the veil is peeled back, and Diomedes can see the gods and goddess out there on the battlefield is at the same time overwhelming--there's Aphrodite and Apollo right there, doing things, manipulating events--and sort of homely.  Aphrodite is right there!--and you can stab her.  And she goes crying home to daddy.

Same sort of thing where Ares gets put in a time out (as my daughter called it when we were reading it together).  The fact that Ares is right there on the battlefield is awe-inspiring until you see that he's just sitting there.  That kind of stuff is whiplash-inducing, and I love it.

As far as Agamemmon's little parade goes, he sure could learn a lot from, like King Henry V on the night before battle, walking among his troops to inspire them.  On the other hand, Agamemmnon does have an impossible job.  He's not a king among his subjects, he's a king among peers, and he can't give orders or make comments without jockeying for status.  So in spite of Agamemmnon constantly getting moment where he looks terrible, I can't imagine how he wouldn't look terrible.  He can't do nothing, but anything he does is going to piss off Odysseus or get a snarky comment from Nestor.  Maybe Ideomeneus would be ok with it.

 

Something else I was thinking about was how part of what this chapter does is replay the catalogue of ship from the previous book--we get Agamemmnon walking by, noting all of the very most important Greek warriors, just making it crystal clear who our main characters are.

The catalogue of ships sort of flattens the hierarchy out--everyone, both the famous heroes and the not famous heroes, get their moment.  But in this book, the spotlight really points out the main Greek heroes as distinct from the rest.

I think it is terrible that the gods keep intervening to cause more bloodshed when there was a chance for things to have been settled. However, I interpreted the "mindless mind" of Pandarus as him being stupid. His commanders had come to an agreement (regarding the duel), and there was no fighting going on at that moment, but he was easily convinced that they would totally want him to shoot Menelaus. If they wanted to specifically shoot and kill Menelaus, someone would have ordered such or done it when he was out dueling or something. So he does have responsibility for his actions.

I'm not really sure why I would have cause to take a side between Agamemnon is a little bitch for walking back his comments towards Odysseus in this chapter. It seemed like a pretty normal interaction of misunderstanding and Agamemnon wanting to urge Odysseus to battle -- not actually make him mad. It was good for Agamemnon to diffuse the situation rather than start more petty infighting when there is a literal battle going on.

They don't *want* things settled.  Athena and Hera (to name two who have specific grudges) are not going to settle for anything less than Troy being razed.  The war has to go on.

It's because Paris didn't vote for them as smexiest Goddess, isn't it? :p

Yeah, and it's terrible and sad :(

Sorry for my lateness!! Going to post before reading all the other lovely comments.

 - I think agency is still in here, but I wonder if having a "mindless mind" means that Pandarus perhaps didn't have a very strong will to begin with - hence why he makes a good tool for the whims of the gods. It was funny that Menelaus told a very upset Agamemnon, "Don't worry babes, I was saved by my accessories." 

 - I liked the lines 140 through 150, as it describes the bleeding of Menelaus like staining ivory. It makes me think of when I used to dye fabric (just in a five-gallon bucket, nothing fancy) but the way the dye moved through the water was billowing, gorgeous. To visualize the spilling of blood in this way brings a tragic, macabre beauty to the scene. 

 - Looks to me like Odysseus was still getting things together, and also trying to follow a set protocol - they hadn't heard the cry of war yet, they were waiting on a Greek battalion, etc. Even Homer describes them as standing still, though they were not cowards. I'm finding chaos and confusion communicated in this scene ... technically, a battle shouldn't have happened after the solo combat, and they didn't get Helen back! It appears as though these men are trying to make sense of a rube-goldberg born of the gods. I do think that making the audience take sides and argue would continue to engage them in the story, and make them emotionally invest in the characters, which is clever.

 - I feel like any renowned warrior would hate the thought of someone else wearing their armor after death - especially someone of lower station. Especially if a warrior is known by a particular piece of armor or weaponry ... It's an extension of their reputation. Any warrior might be known by his shield, sword, gun, etc. To see it taken from them in death further rubs salt in the wound of their loss. 

 - Fun to see Eris (Conflict) enter the scene! Yay!

 - Lots of references to nipples in this section. 

Hello friends, 

We've now completed five books of the Iliad. Slowly, surely, we are making our way through. Sorry for this buzzer beater discussion post, but I'm incredibly busy this month. Accordingly, this discussion post is going to be an abbreviated one; I need to study and work. 

This book features two instances of a mortal man wounding a deity. Zoe Stamatopoulu argues that this is how Homer constructs the idea of a heroic generation; Diomedes is, essentially, representative of the larger-than-life capabilities of his generation. Check out the article if you're interested: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26572880.

This week, I also have an article to offer by Tamara Neal about the poetic use of bloodshed in the poem. Give it a read: https://doi.org/10.1086/505669.  I'll draw your attention to p.28, where Neal writes: 

"Ares, however, is an exception to the convention that the gods have no
desire for 'nourishment.'  He is said, explicitly, to have an appetite; for
instance, he is formulaically described as “insatiate of war” 

This book, we also see more from the god Ares. Homer depicts him as basically despised by everyone: gods and men. What do you think of that? Is there a sense in which he is the most "human" of the Olympians? 

 

No worries, hetero_malk! Thanks for keeping this book club going. 

 - I wasn't able to open the first link. The second I may open later. 

 - Ares does appear to have an appetite. When Pandarus attempts to spear Diomedes, Diomedes tells him that Ares will drink his blood. 

 - Diomedes is quite impressive in this section, but he gets a lot of help from Athena. She gives him counsel, helps him distinguish between gods and men, and even helps steer his weapons. Oh, and she helps him pick up a rock.The gods are capable of quite a lot on their own, but it's fun to see what can happen when they team up with humans. I liked how when Hera complains to Athena that the Greeks aren't doing so well, she responds "ok let me suit up" so that she can give Diomedes a pep talk about how to be Ares's biggest problem. Then it works!

 - Of course Ares is despised. Both the gods and the humans want war, but war is still awful - just as death and bloodshed are awful. A god literally embodying these things is really only loved by the bloodthirsty and warlike. It's also fascinating to me that the negative fallout of war is attributed to Ares. The destruction, loss of life, the violence ... since war itself is deified and has a face, people can simply blame him for the evil things that war does. He IS war. 

 - I do think Ares has things in common with humans. He has appetites that get him and others into trouble, sometimes fatally. He gets used - If Hera desires a battle, how could Ares not be involved? and of course, humans get used by the gods all the time. Finally, I see Ares getting held accountable for his actions more than I see it for other gods. Zeus, Hera, and Aphrodite all get upset by his violent appetites. Similarly, humans will also be vilified for particularly heinous acts, if found out. But the other gods don't seem to be held with the same scrutiny. Eris starts a problem among the goddesses with an apple (though to be fair, Eris starting a problem is just Eris being Eris), Aphrodite bribes a judge with someone else's wife and starts a war, then she steals said judge to save him from fighting his own battles. And yet, not much is said hardly at all about all of it! Even upon Aphrodite yoinking Paris, the resulting frustration and anger isn't truly directed at her.

This was a fun chapter to read. Lol, Zeus responds to Ares's complaining with "Shut up, I hate you. Go see the nurse."