Wonderful. I haven’t read The Iliad for nearly 40 years; I read it when I was doing Classics A Level. On Tuesday I bought myself a new translation and I am looking forward to re-reading with new insights.
So excited to have you here Bea. I read it years ago as well and then reread it last year and now reading it again. I am discovering new things each time.
I read it for GCSE Classical Civilisations 32 years ago. Always meant to reread now I'm an adult so this slow read has come at just the right time. I've got the Wilson version as I adore her approach to translation
Excellent I am reading the Emily Wilson translation of the Iliad this month so this is very helpful - great insights. Was a Classics major so remember plodding through the original! Still have my text with translations!
Question: were the gods “from” different nations (i.e. Apollo a Trojan god and Zeus a Mycean god), or were they common to all, albeit playing favorites apparently?
Also, I didn’t catch the nuances of the prizes, er, women on my read, so I appreciate the context. I do wonder how much of the later tradition is just apologetics for what we’d today call human trafficking? Or in the words of the poet Ice-T, “Pimpin’ ain’t easy.”
Hi Chris. Not got any answers but good to see you’ve kept your War & Peace cat. If you’re still looking for ninjas, I’m not sure you’re going to find them in ancient Greece anymore than in 19th century Russia
Was Simon able to locate any ninjas for you in 19th century Russia? Although ninjas in togas would be kind of cool. I went looking online for any references to ancient greek ninjas and all I could find was some odd fan fiction.
Chris, great question. The pantheon was common to all of the Greek territories. However, each city-state had its own preferences. The worship of specific deities varied significantly depending on the region. Athena was strongly connected to Athens, Apollo to Delphi, Poseidon with the seafaring regions, etc... So they all knew of and had the gods in common but there was definitely some favoritism going on.
Since these poems are myth rather than history, it is hard to know what has been embellished or glossed over at times. What is certain is that throughout history women have been chattel to be bargained with at the whim of men, especially during times of war. One merely has to look at modern wars to see that not much has changed unfortunately.
Thanks again for starting this book club, Matthew. As I think I mentioned before, I am reading Caroline Alexander's translation, which was the first done by a woman. She also wrote an book on the Trojan war: The War That Killed Achilles: The True Story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War https://g.co/kgs/xDTs3jV
I have read The Iliad a few times over the decades, and my respect for Achilles, which initially was quite low, just grows and grows. For me, One of the most important topics raised by this first chapter is the relationship between military leaders/kings and their armies, /countryman. Agamemnon is clearly a jerk, but I suppose he is the king. However, I think that Achilles makes the crucial opening argument with his speech about how the Trojans never bothered him, and basically all of the folks that are going to be fighting and dying or doing so more or less as a favor to Agamemnon and Menelaus. Favor isn't quite the right word for it, but I think you get the idea. So the question for me is what does a good leader owe his followers? Whatever it is, Agamemnon is clearly falling short.
Fantastic summary. I appreciate the references to those works of art. I’ve searched up each of the ones referenced to help visualize what went on in that book.
I resonate with your final point on the humor present in this one. I found a few of the rants that Achilles/Agamemnon went on to be quite amusing. Agamemnon getting angry at the prophet was my favorite:
“You prophet of disaster! Your words have never done me any good.”
I guess even back then it was common to reject what you didn’t want to hear.
Fun to read your thoughts on how, despite its age, THE ILIAD still applies to our lives, Matthew! Especially the bit about the humor, with humans running to their “parents”. That’s something that was beaten into us back in my Greek Mythology class at NYU, how “human” the deities are 😂 - in contrast to many faiths today
Thanks, Michael. I find it intriguing that human nature hasn't changed much in a few thousand years. Besides being able to draw parallels with our lives, these are just fun stories.
Loved it. Very disappointed they’re not making a second season - also read a review by a Greek myths scholar which said it did a great job of staying true to the myths. The combination of Jeff Goldblum and Russian oligarch outfits was a mastery of casting and costuming.
Disclaimer: I'm not an historian of the English language; I'm a literature scholar with twelve graduate hours of study in Old and Middle English. I know just enough about etymology and the old Philology to be dangerous. What follows is an educated guess--that's all.
-----
There's this old theory--it's largely abandoned now and I don't know exactly why--once held by Old Testament scholars that the Philistines were Greeks who'd been blown off course on their return from Troy in the same weather system that created the occasion for Homer's 'Odyssey.' In the early 2000s I studied with Daniel Master, then a freshly minted Harvard Ph.D. in Archaeology, who, despite being very young, had by then had the opportunity to head the dig at Ashkelon, a major Philistine city during the period covered by the OT book of Judges. At that point Master was studying amphorae and armor to investigate the theory. Also, the opening stanza of 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,' begins, "When the siege and the assault had ceased at Troy/ And the fortress fell in flame to firebrands and ashes," (trans. Tolkien 23) and recounts the founding of Britain by Brutus (the Roman). These two phenomena suggest there was a great deal more mobility in the ancient world than we tend (or at least, than I once tended) to assume.
This morning, after reading your post, Matthew, I chased down an intuition I've had for a while: our English word "kill" came from the story of Achilles. After all, if in the 1200s the 'Gawain'-poet was writing about Brutus and the founding of Rome (see Virgil's 'Aeneid') and making reference to the fall of Troy, it's likely that he was familiar with the story of the wrath of Achilles. And as Tolkien believed, every word is a story. So why couldn't "kill" be a truncated reference to Achilles or his behavior?
There's no etymological silver bullet--some words are just lost to the aeons of the past--but following the philosopher Roderick Chisolm, we might say there's at least "some proposition in favor" of the thesis that "kill" came from "Achilles." Consider the following from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED):
"kill" Etymology:
"If in Old English, its type would be *cyllan, conjecturally referred to an Old Germanic *kuljan, ablaut-variant of *kwaljan, whence Old English cwellan to quell v.1; but the original sense is against this. Known first in Layamon, and in southern texts, in form cüllen, küllen. In midland dialect normally kille(n), kill, the common form in Middle English; kelle is rare. The usual Scots form in 15–16th cent. was kele, keill, the vowel of which is difficult to account for. In Middle English the past tense and past participle varied between killed and kild; exceptionally the participle appears as kilt (compare spilt), now regarded as an Irishism, and sometimes used jocularly, especially in sense 6b."
The theory that "kill" comes from some lost Germanic word is complicated by the original sense of "quell" (if I'm reading this rightly), but if we look at the range of meaning for "quell" Achilles's deeds fit: "to put to death; to strike so as to kill"; "to strike down"; "to cause roots to die off or wither"; "to crush, overcome, subdue, oppress, or reduce to submission or silence"; "to put an end to; to extinguish"; "to diminish, abate, fail, or bring to nothing."
Not only does Achilles kill Hector, he "strikes" Hector "down," as it were, dragging Hector's body through Troy's dust. There's a ton of language in 'Iliad' referring to the city, it's culture, or its people as a tree, and thus to Aeneas as a "scion."
The structures of the various proto forms of "quell" are also interesting. Although the c in "cyllan" is sometimes exchanged for a k in later forms, it's noteworthy that earlier forms tend to include the c, which would have been associated with the Greek chi, "x." In ancient Greek, "Achilles" was spelled Ἀχιλλεύς--there's no kappa here; and kappa is normally the Greek letter that shows up as a k in English when English borrows from Greek. It's also worth noting that older forms of "quell" included an ending syllable--"cyllan," "cwellan," "cüllen"--and this syllable hung on even in some later forms: "kille," "kele," "kele." To some extent, we could write this off as a structural feature of Old English and Germanic (OE was a largely Germanic language) verbs, which had these endings and modified them to reveal the sense, case, of a given use of the verb in-text. But these later spellings preserve the ending e well into the late 1300s--long after English would have been Frenchified by the Norman Invasion (the Normans were Franks who invaded the at Hastings in 1066) and the old Germanic pronunciations, which would have sounded the final e as "eh"--"KILLeh" would have dropped out of use, at least among the literate upper classes.
The other connection worth noting here is the Latin "aquila," "eagle." The Romans referred to their standard-bearers as "aquilifers," "bearers of the eagle," because a legion's standard bore the shape of an eagle. (Here the Wikipedia entry is helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquilifer.) Note that in Latin, "aquila" means "eagle," but is derived from "aquilus," "swarthy" or "dark." "Aquilus" connoted nobility in Rome; but its range of meaning ("swarthy," "dark") evokes terms that are commonly applied to barbarians in the ancient world. (Sound like anyone you know from 'Iliad'?) The literal sense "eagle" was commonly associated with Zeus/Jupiter, as we see in 'Iliad,' who sent the eagle as a bird-sign of impending doom.
So then: were the Roman "aquilifers" a glorification of the wrath of Achilles, the culler, the metaphorical eagle whose presence on the battlefield portended the wrath of Zeus? It certainly fits. And finally, since we see that "quell" entered southern dialects of English, which is where the Romans, like the Saxons and Franks after them, invaded and settled, it's at least worth imagining that this image of Achilles was imported to England and became, over a millennium, our word "kill."
-----
To the extent this (semi-educated) guess is correct, our language is still haunted by the War at Troy, folks. Trauma begets trauma begets trauma; and humanity does not easily forget.
Lots of interesting stuff to digest here Aaron. Thanks for taking the time to share this detailed hypothesis. I am no expert in etymology but I have no doubt that you are on to something about the lingering impacts of history on language.
The thought I had was how women and children are treated in war time. And the anger one can feel from people being wiped out the face of the earth. I can see how wars continue with the same themes over and over again.
On an other note, I am really going to like this process of reading the Iliad. Now I want to go back and re-read the first book. Thanks for this wonderful opportunity.
Thanks Roberta and glad you are reading with us. The impact on women, children, families, etc... was a striking image in this first book. I think it is one of the many reasons these poems are so important culturally. They remind us of our past. Are we unable to learn from it? Are we doomed to continually repeat the same behaviors time and again?
Nicole, I am reading both as we go through this. I am using the Fagles as my source material since I am more familiar with it, but I love the Wilson translation for its language.
Wilson has not explicitly labeled her translation as "feminist," as far as I know. Still, she often emphasizes clarity, accessibility, and fidelity to the original text, informed by a nuanced understanding of gender dynamics and power structures.
Wilson is known for her sensitivity to how women are portrayed in ancient texts. She carefully brings out the complexities of female characters often reduced to stereotypes. Throughout the Iliad, we can expect her to carefully approach female characters like Helen, Andromache, and Briseis, emphasizing their agency, suffering, and perspectives in a male-dominated narrative.
Translators choose how to render certain words and phrases and Wilson seems to avoid outdated or misogynistic terms that previous translators used, opting for language that reflects the original meaning without reinforcing modern biases.
Without altering the core of Homer's epic, Wilson subtly illuminates the patriarchal systems and values embedded in the text, making them more apparent to modern readers.
It is worth noting that Wilson's translation will inevitably be compared to Robert Fagles’ or Richmond Lattimore’s versions, which were written in different eras and with different linguistic priorities. For instance, Fagles’ translation, while poetic and evocative, sometimes amplifies heroic masculinity, whereas Wilson’s approach balances this with a more critical view of the cost of war on all participants.
Hi - I am reading both and have tried to read both aloud - not a replicable experiment but my initial impression is the Watson’s sounds better when read aloud from a poetic resonance perspective. This is something she mentions in her Translator’s note as well.
I was interested in the parallel between Nestor trying to counsel Achilles and Agamemnon, and Hephaestus trying to make peace between Zeus and Hera, with all the reasonable advice falling on deaf ears.
Jenny, that is a great connection to make, and I think we will see it throughout our reading of this work. Homer draws a lot of attention to the futility of reason in the face of pride and emotion, the dynamics of power and authority, and the roles of mediators in conflicts.
Well done! Thank you for expanding the literary/artistic background— as a woman I was feeling some wrath myself reading this section! (and as a Christian I couldn’t help but ponder how unique our God is in working with His own wrath — a thought new to me but likely well-expounded somewhere else…)
Thanks Kim. Yeah, there are a lot of rabbit holes we could explore, especially when thinking about the nature of the divine and their relationship to us.
Thank you for creating this community. This feels like one of those things that fulfills the promise of the early internet: facilitating genuine human betterment rather than doom scrolling.
This is my first time reading The Iliad. I’ve always hit the first page and felt too intimidated to continue. But the impetus of reading it for this online book group helped me realize there’s a rhythm and accessibility that emerges quite quickly.
Some initial thoughts on Book 1:
This Agamemnon’s a real piece of work, huh? He reminds me of Morrissey in his ability to craft the perfect sentence to twist the knife. Taunting the priest with the image of her “slaving back and forth at the loom, forced to share my bed!” and the brutal put-down of his own wife, that he ranks Clytemnestra higher than her.
For a warrior, Achilles’ early statement on Troy sounds like that of every modern anti-war marcher: The enemy did me no wrong. “It wasn’t Trojan spearmen who brought me here to fight. The Trojans never did me damage, not in the least, they never stole my cattle or my horses, never in Phthia where the rich soil breeds strong men did they lay waste my crops.”
I was tickled by the early recap for any readers who’d sleepwalked through the first few pages: “You know, you know, why labor through it all?” says Achilles to his mom, then gives a quick recap to get us all on the same page.
On the mom front, poor judgement, no? If I were in Achilles' shoes, asking my mom for divine intervention, she'd probably tell me to 'calm down' instead of going full throttle.
This Achilles line feels like an insult Joe Biden would dish out: “Staggering drunk, with your dog’s eyes, your fawn’s heart!” I think I’m thinking of the ‘dog-faced pony soldier’ stuff.
Some questions I was left asking:
When Achilles calls a seer to tell us “why Apollo rages so,” does he already know why, and is seeking public confirmation to shame Agamemnon, or does he actually not know?
Is Achilles the only one who sees Athena? What does everyone else make of him talking into space if so? Will this be a recurring thing as gods interact with mortals?
David, thanks for the kind words and I am glad to have you here. You captured my goal quite nicely - genuine human betterment.
I read the Iliad years ago but whatever translation I was using was not very accessible and always frustrated me. This time around, with a bit more life experience under my belt, I have found several translations that are very readable.
You have some great insights here. I was surprised by how full of himself Agamemnon is. It seemed a little counter to what I knew of what the Greeks valued which was not only prowess in battle but also wisdom. We will discuss some of that in this week's reading regarding Odysseus. Agamemnon just seems like an entitled bully rather than a beneficent king.
I am also curious about the interaction with the gods. Is it something that happens within the mind? Are they visible to only a select few? Can everyone see these immortal beings flitting around the battlefield? We will see later on the story that Diomedes receives divine help to be able to see deities on the battlefield. So I think people may be able to see them but not realize they are gods? It is a great question.
Thank you for setting up and running the book club. The Iliad and The Odyssey have been on my reading list for last thirty plus years. I'd attempt it every once in a while but would have trouble following the story. My last attempt was last year. I bought a copy of The Iliad translated by Caroline Alexander. I got through book 4 before giving up. I was constantly confused as to who was talking and who was being talked about.
For your book club I decided to give the Emily Wilson translation a try. I've seen that it's very readable. After finishing the first book I agree. I wasn't as confused as to what was going on. It was much clearer to me. Last year I was understanding about 50% of the story. This go around I was at 85%. With your post closing the last 15% for me.
This has me excited for the readings and your helpful commentary through out the year.
Great to hear Shawn! Glad the book club is helpful. I think reading in community is a great way to approach some of the challenging books out there because multiple perspectives can help bring it to light. The Wilson translation is very good. I am glad you are enjoying it and glad to have you here.
It's interesting that the mortal women seem to lack agency, but the feminine gods do not. Zeus is supreme but Hera is feared and accommodated by him and Aphrodite is not passive either...the gods are more "real" in some ways. Will be interesting to see how things progress in Book 2 and forward.
And thank you Matthew...well-researched background. Will look for a way to save this, unless you tell me you intend to compile it and make it available later.
Once the year is complete, I might work to put them all in a PDF or something but for now you will be able to access everything at the link above for as long as this publication and Substack remain alive :)
First note, Wilson’s translation was so easy to read I felt a little silly for not reading it sooner.
I have read both years ago, The Song of Achilles and The Silence of the Girls (I think about the imagery of women jumping off of parapets very often), and it prepped me for this read very well.
After the first book I thought a lot about Achilles’s purpose in rage. With all of the different interpretations of myth I don’t know which is more moving. Was he angered for honour? Pride? Love? Or was he actually broken over giving god-level effort and being met with minuscule respect?
His conversation with his mother brings his mortality to the forefront and I can’t help but think how ironic it is for a son of the gods to be so burdened with his death.
Audrey, glad you are enjoying Wilson's translation. As I am reading it and Fagles side by side it is easy for me to see creative differences between the two. While I am primarily working from the Fagles this time around, in the future I think I will stick with Wilson.
You have some great questions here and hopefully we will get some answers as we go throughout the story. Glad to have you here Audrey.
When I have encountered Greek myths before I was always amused by the squabbling of Zeus and Hera. Zeus is the all powerful father god but then wait, along comes his wife to scotch his plans. Not like my original Christianity!
The divine squabbling is pretty funny. I am amused at how human their actions are at times. It is an interesting philosophical look at how deities personalities/traits mimic those of their people or do the people mimic the deities?
Wonderful. I haven’t read The Iliad for nearly 40 years; I read it when I was doing Classics A Level. On Tuesday I bought myself a new translation and I am looking forward to re-reading with new insights.
So excited to have you here Bea. I read it years ago as well and then reread it last year and now reading it again. I am discovering new things each time.
I read it for GCSE Classical Civilisations 32 years ago. Always meant to reread now I'm an adult so this slow read has come at just the right time. I've got the Wilson version as I adore her approach to translation
Excellent I am reading the Emily Wilson translation of the Iliad this month so this is very helpful - great insights. Was a Classics major so remember plodding through the original! Still have my text with translations!
Thanks Andrew! Glad to have you along. What is your impression of the Wilson translation so far?
Hi Matthew. Brilliant very direct and stirring while maintaining the rhythm of the original. Enjoying!
Question: were the gods “from” different nations (i.e. Apollo a Trojan god and Zeus a Mycean god), or were they common to all, albeit playing favorites apparently?
Also, I didn’t catch the nuances of the prizes, er, women on my read, so I appreciate the context. I do wonder how much of the later tradition is just apologetics for what we’d today call human trafficking? Or in the words of the poet Ice-T, “Pimpin’ ain’t easy.”
Hi Chris. Not got any answers but good to see you’ve kept your War & Peace cat. If you’re still looking for ninjas, I’m not sure you’re going to find them in ancient Greece anymore than in 19th century Russia
Spoiler alert Sarah!! 😨😂
Was Simon able to locate any ninjas for you in 19th century Russia? Although ninjas in togas would be kind of cool. I went looking online for any references to ancient greek ninjas and all I could find was some odd fan fiction.
Chris, great question. The pantheon was common to all of the Greek territories. However, each city-state had its own preferences. The worship of specific deities varied significantly depending on the region. Athena was strongly connected to Athens, Apollo to Delphi, Poseidon with the seafaring regions, etc... So they all knew of and had the gods in common but there was definitely some favoritism going on.
Since these poems are myth rather than history, it is hard to know what has been embellished or glossed over at times. What is certain is that throughout history women have been chattel to be bargained with at the whim of men, especially during times of war. One merely has to look at modern wars to see that not much has changed unfortunately.
Thanks again for starting this book club, Matthew. As I think I mentioned before, I am reading Caroline Alexander's translation, which was the first done by a woman. She also wrote an book on the Trojan war: The War That Killed Achilles: The True Story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War https://g.co/kgs/xDTs3jV
I have read The Iliad a few times over the decades, and my respect for Achilles, which initially was quite low, just grows and grows. For me, One of the most important topics raised by this first chapter is the relationship between military leaders/kings and their armies, /countryman. Agamemnon is clearly a jerk, but I suppose he is the king. However, I think that Achilles makes the crucial opening argument with his speech about how the Trojans never bothered him, and basically all of the folks that are going to be fighting and dying or doing so more or less as a favor to Agamemnon and Menelaus. Favor isn't quite the right word for it, but I think you get the idea. So the question for me is what does a good leader owe his followers? Whatever it is, Agamemnon is clearly falling short.
Fantastic summary. I appreciate the references to those works of art. I’ve searched up each of the ones referenced to help visualize what went on in that book.
I resonate with your final point on the humor present in this one. I found a few of the rants that Achilles/Agamemnon went on to be quite amusing. Agamemnon getting angry at the prophet was my favorite:
“You prophet of disaster! Your words have never done me any good.”
I guess even back then it was common to reject what you didn’t want to hear.
Nick, thanks for this. Yeah, there is quite a bit of situational humor which was surprising to me. Humans have been humans for a long time it seems.
Well I’m glad I got the gist of the story so far. Human nature is ever the same. And the gods are made in our image.
Lucy, glad you are here and following along. Your observations are spot on!
So true - I have just finished a book which argues that we can do no other but imagine gods in our image - God - a human history by Reza Aslan
Fun to read your thoughts on how, despite its age, THE ILIAD still applies to our lives, Matthew! Especially the bit about the humor, with humans running to their “parents”. That’s something that was beaten into us back in my Greek Mythology class at NYU, how “human” the deities are 😂 - in contrast to many faiths today
Thanks, Michael. I find it intriguing that human nature hasn't changed much in a few thousand years. Besides being able to draw parallels with our lives, these are just fun stories.
Agreed all around! 😃 As I like to say when teaching story in context of screenwriting, “the Greeks beat us to it.”
Parents not being on the same page also resonates. Although as much as I’d like to cast myself as Hera, I am reluctant to cast my husband as Zeus 😉
😂 Understandably, Diana! Have you seen “Kaos” on Netflix? Now all I see when it comes to Zeus is Jeff Goldblum 😂
Loved it. Very disappointed they’re not making a second season - also read a review by a Greek myths scholar which said it did a great job of staying true to the myths. The combination of Jeff Goldblum and Russian oligarch outfits was a mastery of casting and costuming.
Right?? I’m so bummed they pulled the plug, hoping another network will swoop in and give it a second life!
(There’s a Greek underworld/afterlife play on words there somewhere 😉)
Disclaimer: I'm not an historian of the English language; I'm a literature scholar with twelve graduate hours of study in Old and Middle English. I know just enough about etymology and the old Philology to be dangerous. What follows is an educated guess--that's all.
-----
There's this old theory--it's largely abandoned now and I don't know exactly why--once held by Old Testament scholars that the Philistines were Greeks who'd been blown off course on their return from Troy in the same weather system that created the occasion for Homer's 'Odyssey.' In the early 2000s I studied with Daniel Master, then a freshly minted Harvard Ph.D. in Archaeology, who, despite being very young, had by then had the opportunity to head the dig at Ashkelon, a major Philistine city during the period covered by the OT book of Judges. At that point Master was studying amphorae and armor to investigate the theory. Also, the opening stanza of 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,' begins, "When the siege and the assault had ceased at Troy/ And the fortress fell in flame to firebrands and ashes," (trans. Tolkien 23) and recounts the founding of Britain by Brutus (the Roman). These two phenomena suggest there was a great deal more mobility in the ancient world than we tend (or at least, than I once tended) to assume.
This morning, after reading your post, Matthew, I chased down an intuition I've had for a while: our English word "kill" came from the story of Achilles. After all, if in the 1200s the 'Gawain'-poet was writing about Brutus and the founding of Rome (see Virgil's 'Aeneid') and making reference to the fall of Troy, it's likely that he was familiar with the story of the wrath of Achilles. And as Tolkien believed, every word is a story. So why couldn't "kill" be a truncated reference to Achilles or his behavior?
There's no etymological silver bullet--some words are just lost to the aeons of the past--but following the philosopher Roderick Chisolm, we might say there's at least "some proposition in favor" of the thesis that "kill" came from "Achilles." Consider the following from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED):
"kill" Etymology:
"If in Old English, its type would be *cyllan, conjecturally referred to an Old Germanic *kuljan, ablaut-variant of *kwaljan, whence Old English cwellan to quell v.1; but the original sense is against this. Known first in Layamon, and in southern texts, in form cüllen, küllen. In midland dialect normally kille(n), kill, the common form in Middle English; kelle is rare. The usual Scots form in 15–16th cent. was kele, keill, the vowel of which is difficult to account for. In Middle English the past tense and past participle varied between killed and kild; exceptionally the participle appears as kilt (compare spilt), now regarded as an Irishism, and sometimes used jocularly, especially in sense 6b."
The theory that "kill" comes from some lost Germanic word is complicated by the original sense of "quell" (if I'm reading this rightly), but if we look at the range of meaning for "quell" Achilles's deeds fit: "to put to death; to strike so as to kill"; "to strike down"; "to cause roots to die off or wither"; "to crush, overcome, subdue, oppress, or reduce to submission or silence"; "to put an end to; to extinguish"; "to diminish, abate, fail, or bring to nothing."
Not only does Achilles kill Hector, he "strikes" Hector "down," as it were, dragging Hector's body through Troy's dust. There's a ton of language in 'Iliad' referring to the city, it's culture, or its people as a tree, and thus to Aeneas as a "scion."
The structures of the various proto forms of "quell" are also interesting. Although the c in "cyllan" is sometimes exchanged for a k in later forms, it's noteworthy that earlier forms tend to include the c, which would have been associated with the Greek chi, "x." In ancient Greek, "Achilles" was spelled Ἀχιλλεύς--there's no kappa here; and kappa is normally the Greek letter that shows up as a k in English when English borrows from Greek. It's also worth noting that older forms of "quell" included an ending syllable--"cyllan," "cwellan," "cüllen"--and this syllable hung on even in some later forms: "kille," "kele," "kele." To some extent, we could write this off as a structural feature of Old English and Germanic (OE was a largely Germanic language) verbs, which had these endings and modified them to reveal the sense, case, of a given use of the verb in-text. But these later spellings preserve the ending e well into the late 1300s--long after English would have been Frenchified by the Norman Invasion (the Normans were Franks who invaded the at Hastings in 1066) and the old Germanic pronunciations, which would have sounded the final e as "eh"--"KILLeh" would have dropped out of use, at least among the literate upper classes.
The other connection worth noting here is the Latin "aquila," "eagle." The Romans referred to their standard-bearers as "aquilifers," "bearers of the eagle," because a legion's standard bore the shape of an eagle. (Here the Wikipedia entry is helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquilifer.) Note that in Latin, "aquila" means "eagle," but is derived from "aquilus," "swarthy" or "dark." "Aquilus" connoted nobility in Rome; but its range of meaning ("swarthy," "dark") evokes terms that are commonly applied to barbarians in the ancient world. (Sound like anyone you know from 'Iliad'?) The literal sense "eagle" was commonly associated with Zeus/Jupiter, as we see in 'Iliad,' who sent the eagle as a bird-sign of impending doom.
So then: were the Roman "aquilifers" a glorification of the wrath of Achilles, the culler, the metaphorical eagle whose presence on the battlefield portended the wrath of Zeus? It certainly fits. And finally, since we see that "quell" entered southern dialects of English, which is where the Romans, like the Saxons and Franks after them, invaded and settled, it's at least worth imagining that this image of Achilles was imported to England and became, over a millennium, our word "kill."
-----
To the extent this (semi-educated) guess is correct, our language is still haunted by the War at Troy, folks. Trauma begets trauma begets trauma; and humanity does not easily forget.
Lots of interesting stuff to digest here Aaron. Thanks for taking the time to share this detailed hypothesis. I am no expert in etymology but I have no doubt that you are on to something about the lingering impacts of history on language.
The thought I had was how women and children are treated in war time. And the anger one can feel from people being wiped out the face of the earth. I can see how wars continue with the same themes over and over again.
On an other note, I am really going to like this process of reading the Iliad. Now I want to go back and re-read the first book. Thanks for this wonderful opportunity.
Thanks Roberta and glad you are reading with us. The impact on women, children, families, etc... was a striking image in this first book. I think it is one of the many reasons these poems are so important culturally. They remind us of our past. Are we unable to learn from it? Are we doomed to continually repeat the same behaviors time and again?
I wish I knew the answer to those questions. It sure seem history does repeat itself.
Is anyone reading both translations (Fagles and Wilson) to see the nuances in how the characters come across from a more feminist perspective ?
Nicole, I am reading both as we go through this. I am using the Fagles as my source material since I am more familiar with it, but I love the Wilson translation for its language.
Wilson has not explicitly labeled her translation as "feminist," as far as I know. Still, she often emphasizes clarity, accessibility, and fidelity to the original text, informed by a nuanced understanding of gender dynamics and power structures.
Wilson is known for her sensitivity to how women are portrayed in ancient texts. She carefully brings out the complexities of female characters often reduced to stereotypes. Throughout the Iliad, we can expect her to carefully approach female characters like Helen, Andromache, and Briseis, emphasizing their agency, suffering, and perspectives in a male-dominated narrative.
Translators choose how to render certain words and phrases and Wilson seems to avoid outdated or misogynistic terms that previous translators used, opting for language that reflects the original meaning without reinforcing modern biases.
Without altering the core of Homer's epic, Wilson subtly illuminates the patriarchal systems and values embedded in the text, making them more apparent to modern readers.
It is worth noting that Wilson's translation will inevitably be compared to Robert Fagles’ or Richmond Lattimore’s versions, which were written in different eras and with different linguistic priorities. For instance, Fagles’ translation, while poetic and evocative, sometimes amplifies heroic masculinity, whereas Wilson’s approach balances this with a more critical view of the cost of war on all participants.
Hi - I am reading both and have tried to read both aloud - not a replicable experiment but my initial impression is the Watson’s sounds better when read aloud from a poetic resonance perspective. This is something she mentions in her Translator’s note as well.
I was interested in the parallel between Nestor trying to counsel Achilles and Agamemnon, and Hephaestus trying to make peace between Zeus and Hera, with all the reasonable advice falling on deaf ears.
Jenny, that is a great connection to make, and I think we will see it throughout our reading of this work. Homer draws a lot of attention to the futility of reason in the face of pride and emotion, the dynamics of power and authority, and the roles of mediators in conflicts.
Well done! Thank you for expanding the literary/artistic background— as a woman I was feeling some wrath myself reading this section! (and as a Christian I couldn’t help but ponder how unique our God is in working with His own wrath — a thought new to me but likely well-expounded somewhere else…)
Thanks Kim. Yeah, there are a lot of rabbit holes we could explore, especially when thinking about the nature of the divine and their relationship to us.
Thank you for creating this community. This feels like one of those things that fulfills the promise of the early internet: facilitating genuine human betterment rather than doom scrolling.
This is my first time reading The Iliad. I’ve always hit the first page and felt too intimidated to continue. But the impetus of reading it for this online book group helped me realize there’s a rhythm and accessibility that emerges quite quickly.
Some initial thoughts on Book 1:
This Agamemnon’s a real piece of work, huh? He reminds me of Morrissey in his ability to craft the perfect sentence to twist the knife. Taunting the priest with the image of her “slaving back and forth at the loom, forced to share my bed!” and the brutal put-down of his own wife, that he ranks Clytemnestra higher than her.
For a warrior, Achilles’ early statement on Troy sounds like that of every modern anti-war marcher: The enemy did me no wrong. “It wasn’t Trojan spearmen who brought me here to fight. The Trojans never did me damage, not in the least, they never stole my cattle or my horses, never in Phthia where the rich soil breeds strong men did they lay waste my crops.”
I was tickled by the early recap for any readers who’d sleepwalked through the first few pages: “You know, you know, why labor through it all?” says Achilles to his mom, then gives a quick recap to get us all on the same page.
On the mom front, poor judgement, no? If I were in Achilles' shoes, asking my mom for divine intervention, she'd probably tell me to 'calm down' instead of going full throttle.
This Achilles line feels like an insult Joe Biden would dish out: “Staggering drunk, with your dog’s eyes, your fawn’s heart!” I think I’m thinking of the ‘dog-faced pony soldier’ stuff.
Some questions I was left asking:
When Achilles calls a seer to tell us “why Apollo rages so,” does he already know why, and is seeking public confirmation to shame Agamemnon, or does he actually not know?
Is Achilles the only one who sees Athena? What does everyone else make of him talking into space if so? Will this be a recurring thing as gods interact with mortals?
David, thanks for the kind words and I am glad to have you here. You captured my goal quite nicely - genuine human betterment.
I read the Iliad years ago but whatever translation I was using was not very accessible and always frustrated me. This time around, with a bit more life experience under my belt, I have found several translations that are very readable.
You have some great insights here. I was surprised by how full of himself Agamemnon is. It seemed a little counter to what I knew of what the Greeks valued which was not only prowess in battle but also wisdom. We will discuss some of that in this week's reading regarding Odysseus. Agamemnon just seems like an entitled bully rather than a beneficent king.
I am also curious about the interaction with the gods. Is it something that happens within the mind? Are they visible to only a select few? Can everyone see these immortal beings flitting around the battlefield? We will see later on the story that Diomedes receives divine help to be able to see deities on the battlefield. So I think people may be able to see them but not realize they are gods? It is a great question.
Thank you for setting up and running the book club. The Iliad and The Odyssey have been on my reading list for last thirty plus years. I'd attempt it every once in a while but would have trouble following the story. My last attempt was last year. I bought a copy of The Iliad translated by Caroline Alexander. I got through book 4 before giving up. I was constantly confused as to who was talking and who was being talked about.
For your book club I decided to give the Emily Wilson translation a try. I've seen that it's very readable. After finishing the first book I agree. I wasn't as confused as to what was going on. It was much clearer to me. Last year I was understanding about 50% of the story. This go around I was at 85%. With your post closing the last 15% for me.
This has me excited for the readings and your helpful commentary through out the year.
Great to hear Shawn! Glad the book club is helpful. I think reading in community is a great way to approach some of the challenging books out there because multiple perspectives can help bring it to light. The Wilson translation is very good. I am glad you are enjoying it and glad to have you here.
It's interesting that the mortal women seem to lack agency, but the feminine gods do not. Zeus is supreme but Hera is feared and accommodated by him and Aphrodite is not passive either...the gods are more "real" in some ways. Will be interesting to see how things progress in Book 2 and forward.
And thank you Matthew...well-researched background. Will look for a way to save this, unless you tell me you intend to compile it and make it available later.
Thanks Beth. All of the Homer articles are retained at this location:
https://matthewmlong.substack.com/p/the-iliad-by-homer
Once the year is complete, I might work to put them all in a PDF or something but for now you will be able to access everything at the link above for as long as this publication and Substack remain alive :)
First note, Wilson’s translation was so easy to read I felt a little silly for not reading it sooner.
I have read both years ago, The Song of Achilles and The Silence of the Girls (I think about the imagery of women jumping off of parapets very often), and it prepped me for this read very well.
After the first book I thought a lot about Achilles’s purpose in rage. With all of the different interpretations of myth I don’t know which is more moving. Was he angered for honour? Pride? Love? Or was he actually broken over giving god-level effort and being met with minuscule respect?
His conversation with his mother brings his mortality to the forefront and I can’t help but think how ironic it is for a son of the gods to be so burdened with his death.
A good week over all, thank you Matthew!
Audrey, glad you are enjoying Wilson's translation. As I am reading it and Fagles side by side it is easy for me to see creative differences between the two. While I am primarily working from the Fagles this time around, in the future I think I will stick with Wilson.
You have some great questions here and hopefully we will get some answers as we go throughout the story. Glad to have you here Audrey.
When I have encountered Greek myths before I was always amused by the squabbling of Zeus and Hera. Zeus is the all powerful father god but then wait, along comes his wife to scotch his plans. Not like my original Christianity!
The divine squabbling is pretty funny. I am amused at how human their actions are at times. It is an interesting philosophical look at how deities personalities/traits mimic those of their people or do the people mimic the deities?