I chuckled when Aphrodite goes to Olympus to complain about her wound. They are vicious up there, especially Athena with her “aw, did your gold bracelet prick you?” remark.
Mind blown, as my image of deathless gods did not include flesh and blood in need of healing. I had always thought of them as like shape shifting non-transparent ghosts. I will need time to wrap my head around this.
The inclusion of the defeated did not really convey the tragedy of the battle so much as glorify it. I think we may try to impose our sense of tragedy onto it. To me the tragedy is not the goriness of the moment but the anguish of those left to deal with the aftermath (granted that may come later on? First timer here…)
I think the naming of the slain man’s family members and/or a one sentence history helps to highlight the tragedy of the death. When a parent or sibling is named I think of that person at home facing an agonising wait to hear what happened to their loved one
Yes naming family members does remind you that there are families left behind, but I guess to me it’s done in a way to tell the families these men died with bravery and honor in an important task of the gods, rather than “what a waste, they died in this senseless event” kind of way… in other Homer is no pacifist (duh, obviously, Chris L. 🙄).
Your explanation of aristeria as a convention in ancient epic poetry was interesting and helpful. Needless to say, it appears in full force in Book 5.
I also appreciate the explanation of the listing of minor characters who are killed. They're a bit challenging to read for the modern reader, but I can understand how they could have been localized to make the tale even more engrossing for listeners in ancient times.
Beyond the detailed descriptions of wounds inflicted in combat, the language and similes used to describe chariots, armaments, gathering of the gods, etc., adds to the tension and anticipation of action to come. One feature that continues to resonate with me is Homer's brief but eloquent descriptions of death, such as the line you quoted at the beginning of your essay. That may have something to do with my age 😉.
I think that Freud would have a field day with this. Agamemnon berates Diomedes for being a poor excuse for the son of Tydeus, after which Diomedes goes on a rampage which includes not only male mortals, but both female & male immortals (the ultimate mom & dad?).
On a completely different note, it seems that Helen reincarnated in your neck of the woods just a few short decades ago, Matthew
It’s fascinating how The Iliad blurs the line between human and divine. I am not academic enough to work this out, but does Diomedes' defiance make him a true hero or a dangerous, reckless one?
The fact that Homer named so many insignificant players throughout the epic is something that struck me in this chapter, too, for the same reasons. Even though this war is huge, reading these names was a stark reminder of how individual it truly is. He even gives some context to some of their deaths, like who they left behind and mourned for them.
Interestingly, I didn't read Diomedes as heroic this time around, even though he's clearly intended to be interpreted as such. Maybe it was the framing of how he attacked Aphrodite as she was trying to protect her son. That rather made my blood boil. After that, it coloured all his other slaughters.
I had the same reaction to Diomedes' actions. I had to read this chapter twice to get to some sort of understanding. I guess I had expected the Aechaens to be painted in a rather more flattering light, since I thought the Greek public was supposed to identify with them. I'm not so naive as to think the late-Bronze Aechaens, or the later, 8th-century Greeks, held the same moral values as us, but from any possible viewpoint the Aechaens in this chapter are a war-hungry, blood-thirsty bunch, blindly seeking revenge and glory, spurred on and (all too easily) manipulated by scheming Gods who chose to support them out of less than noble motifs. Being human, pre-modern or not, it should be much easier to sympathize with the plight of the Trojans, who at least show some human traits while fighting to defend their city, and thus their wifes and offspring. The Aechaens show no such identifiable traits, apart from their many grudges, their pride and resulting lust for revenge and their ability to be handsomely duped by the Gods. Likewise their immortal aids: Athena and Hera accuse Ares of lying and scheming, but we are well aware that it is only the former two who used deceit to further their ends. It makes me wonder whether heroes like Diomedes and Achilles were really used to set an example or aristeia or moral excellence, or whether it is the opposite: their hubris, anger and lethal blindness for the suffering they perpetuate is meant to deter the listener from imitation instead of setting an example of aristeia? It surely doesn't match the aristeia of later Greek philosophers. What are your ideas about this, Matthew? Am I hopelessly romantic or naive? Will the Greek heroes become more identifiable later on in the epic? (By the way, thanks for your initiative which gives me the opportunity to finally close-read and thus better understand – and hopefully finally complete reading – this epic!).
Firstly, I love the images you include in your essays. The way that visual art and literature interact and inform our understanding of each is always really interesting.
How we perceive various characters in literature is informed by how society depicts them. There is a good analysis of the evolution of Helen’s character through the ages in Bettany Hughes’ book on her - which I highly recommend for archeological background on the Iliad etc.
In relation to heroism vs hubris - I am not sure that a lot of the time there is a difference. I think that for heroism not to have an element of hubris it needs to be private and not in seeking honor or glory - so it would be hard to find in the epics.
I still struggle with the “god(ess) made me do it” excuse/ reason which pervades the Iliad - when others and not the hero have to bear the burden of the consequences of the hero’s actions. But that applies to more than just the Iliad.
I’m curious about the trope of the goddesses concealing their characters in a mist or in their “glimmering dress” as they spirit them away. It happened with Paris and now Aeneas.
This list of names reminds me of the Vietnam memorial. We have a Veteran's memorial in our small town of 800. It has the names of people who fought or were of service. We have those memorials for the people to remember - Homer had his epics to for the people to remember.
Michael, I am had a tough time reading this chapter. This is really basic, but to me, this is John Wick 4; I can’t follow the story for the killing (and the names!). Next chapter is starting out tough too. What’s the point? I have zero background in mythology-maybe that’s a hindrance.
I chuckled when Aphrodite goes to Olympus to complain about her wound. They are vicious up there, especially Athena with her “aw, did your gold bracelet prick you?” remark.
It was knowing her as the “coward goddess” that got me
Mind blown, as my image of deathless gods did not include flesh and blood in need of healing. I had always thought of them as like shape shifting non-transparent ghosts. I will need time to wrap my head around this.
The inclusion of the defeated did not really convey the tragedy of the battle so much as glorify it. I think we may try to impose our sense of tragedy onto it. To me the tragedy is not the goriness of the moment but the anguish of those left to deal with the aftermath (granted that may come later on? First timer here…)
Great summary and perspective!
I think the naming of the slain man’s family members and/or a one sentence history helps to highlight the tragedy of the death. When a parent or sibling is named I think of that person at home facing an agonising wait to hear what happened to their loved one
Yes naming family members does remind you that there are families left behind, but I guess to me it’s done in a way to tell the families these men died with bravery and honor in an important task of the gods, rather than “what a waste, they died in this senseless event” kind of way… in other Homer is no pacifist (duh, obviously, Chris L. 🙄).
Your explanation of aristeria as a convention in ancient epic poetry was interesting and helpful. Needless to say, it appears in full force in Book 5.
I also appreciate the explanation of the listing of minor characters who are killed. They're a bit challenging to read for the modern reader, but I can understand how they could have been localized to make the tale even more engrossing for listeners in ancient times.
Beyond the detailed descriptions of wounds inflicted in combat, the language and similes used to describe chariots, armaments, gathering of the gods, etc., adds to the tension and anticipation of action to come. One feature that continues to resonate with me is Homer's brief but eloquent descriptions of death, such as the line you quoted at the beginning of your essay. That may have something to do with my age 😉.
I have always loved the concept of aristeia. Thank you for writing about it - there is much wisdom within it.
I think that Freud would have a field day with this. Agamemnon berates Diomedes for being a poor excuse for the son of Tydeus, after which Diomedes goes on a rampage which includes not only male mortals, but both female & male immortals (the ultimate mom & dad?).
On a completely different note, it seems that Helen reincarnated in your neck of the woods just a few short decades ago, Matthew
https://mariazoccola.com/?page_id=620
Thanks again for your insights & guidance through this multifaceted epic!!
It’s fascinating how The Iliad blurs the line between human and divine. I am not academic enough to work this out, but does Diomedes' defiance make him a true hero or a dangerous, reckless one?
The fact that Homer named so many insignificant players throughout the epic is something that struck me in this chapter, too, for the same reasons. Even though this war is huge, reading these names was a stark reminder of how individual it truly is. He even gives some context to some of their deaths, like who they left behind and mourned for them.
Interestingly, I didn't read Diomedes as heroic this time around, even though he's clearly intended to be interpreted as such. Maybe it was the framing of how he attacked Aphrodite as she was trying to protect her son. That rather made my blood boil. After that, it coloured all his other slaughters.
I had the same reaction to Diomedes' actions. I had to read this chapter twice to get to some sort of understanding. I guess I had expected the Aechaens to be painted in a rather more flattering light, since I thought the Greek public was supposed to identify with them. I'm not so naive as to think the late-Bronze Aechaens, or the later, 8th-century Greeks, held the same moral values as us, but from any possible viewpoint the Aechaens in this chapter are a war-hungry, blood-thirsty bunch, blindly seeking revenge and glory, spurred on and (all too easily) manipulated by scheming Gods who chose to support them out of less than noble motifs. Being human, pre-modern or not, it should be much easier to sympathize with the plight of the Trojans, who at least show some human traits while fighting to defend their city, and thus their wifes and offspring. The Aechaens show no such identifiable traits, apart from their many grudges, their pride and resulting lust for revenge and their ability to be handsomely duped by the Gods. Likewise their immortal aids: Athena and Hera accuse Ares of lying and scheming, but we are well aware that it is only the former two who used deceit to further their ends. It makes me wonder whether heroes like Diomedes and Achilles were really used to set an example or aristeia or moral excellence, or whether it is the opposite: their hubris, anger and lethal blindness for the suffering they perpetuate is meant to deter the listener from imitation instead of setting an example of aristeia? It surely doesn't match the aristeia of later Greek philosophers. What are your ideas about this, Matthew? Am I hopelessly romantic or naive? Will the Greek heroes become more identifiable later on in the epic? (By the way, thanks for your initiative which gives me the opportunity to finally close-read and thus better understand – and hopefully finally complete reading – this epic!).
Firstly, I love the images you include in your essays. The way that visual art and literature interact and inform our understanding of each is always really interesting.
How we perceive various characters in literature is informed by how society depicts them. There is a good analysis of the evolution of Helen’s character through the ages in Bettany Hughes’ book on her - which I highly recommend for archeological background on the Iliad etc.
In relation to heroism vs hubris - I am not sure that a lot of the time there is a difference. I think that for heroism not to have an element of hubris it needs to be private and not in seeking honor or glory - so it would be hard to find in the epics.
I still struggle with the “god(ess) made me do it” excuse/ reason which pervades the Iliad - when others and not the hero have to bear the burden of the consequences of the hero’s actions. But that applies to more than just the Iliad.
I’m curious about the trope of the goddesses concealing their characters in a mist or in their “glimmering dress” as they spirit them away. It happened with Paris and now Aeneas.
This list of names reminds me of the Vietnam memorial. We have a Veteran's memorial in our small town of 800. It has the names of people who fought or were of service. We have those memorials for the people to remember - Homer had his epics to for the people to remember.
Michael, I am had a tough time reading this chapter. This is really basic, but to me, this is John Wick 4; I can’t follow the story for the killing (and the names!). Next chapter is starting out tough too. What’s the point? I have zero background in mythology-maybe that’s a hindrance.