I was wondering about Pandarus and whether he had a real choice. Was the inclination already within him? If he did resist, Athena would have moved onto another man. I want to believe humans have a choice but we are weak in our inclinations. Peace seems unattainable to me. And the gods are frustrating- they carelessly allow human suffering and destruction to their own ends. I’m not learned in mythology so thank you for your explanations. It was a brutal chapter because it seems hopeless for the human pawns in this ‘game of the gods’.
Lucy, you have keyed in on some great lines of thinking. I am not sure how choice works in the ancient world, something I need to look into. I feel like they should have the freedom to choose their destiny, otherwise it would be a form of pre-determination.
I certainly agree that humans are weak in many ways. We often give in to our base instincts. It shows that no matter how advanced our minds may be, our instinctive natures can often overpower reason.
I struggle with the psychology of war--like these guys have been battling for a decade, right? And if they just head for home in a truce, you ask yourself what was it all for? So the flipside is pure bloodlust so we can end it properly? But clearly they were looking for any excuse to finish the job... Agamemnon went around rallying the troops but he didn't need to do all that much arm-twisting did he, even with Diomedes. As far as the influence of the gods, they certainly go influence the key players/leaders, but the masses are all too eager to follow right along. Are there examples of mass revolt against a leader who was "chosen" by a god and then those masses get smited (smote?)?
Great question. I did a little digging on this and the only instance I can find of a real revolt of sorts was against King Creon in Antigone. But even in that case, the masses were not smote!
It seems, at least in the Greek tradition, that if the leader failed to keep people in line, i.e. lead, then the leader was punished by the gods for failing to live up to their expectations.
“The gods, driven by personal vendettas and whims, wield their influence with little regard for the human lives they manipulate” - This is one of the things I find most interesting about the Ancient Greek pantheon, and one of the things that was hard for me to comprehend at first, having grown up in a Christian context… The gods are so “human” in their conduct!
It is an intriguing line of thinking, that the deities of the ancient pantheons were so human like in their conduct. Then in the Christian tradition, god actually becomes man, yet remains untarnished by human fault. Quite the dichotomy.
Precisely! That’s so well said, Matthew. It took some mental gymnastics to wrap my mind around it all the first time, haha. Sharply observed, thanks for sharing!
So it turns out that translators get to pick the titles of the books since the original wasn't actually divided into separate books. So I will be looking forward to a future translation by you with these nuanced titles. :)
There is so much pride and ego in this chapter (and preceding chapters). Both gods, goddesses, and the humans have theirs. They want certain outcomes, and none of them want to "lose face," to use an east-Asian expression. Regardless of the cost, they're willing to do whatever it takes to get the result they want. The Greeks, after all, can't be seen to give up after all these years. Athena and Hera can't give in to Zeus. Zeus can't give in to women, etc. etc. That seems like an interesting theme to dissect.
Right, saving face seems to be more of a priority in many instances than the actual outcome of the war! In many ways, I have seen this play out in modern militaries. The human cost is seldom weighed in the face of the egos of those in charge.
This story is a classic because the frailties of the powerful, whether deity or human, are the same as they are now. How many lives have been lost senselessly throughout human history! While I am reading I feel like I am watching this war take place. There seems to be very little that a warrior can do other than be more ruthless than his enemy. The gods are controlling everything and they have resentments to settle. The fragility of the truce sounds like current news.
I think it is interesting to observe the inclusion of female characters among the gods. They are actively involved in the war in this ancient story. I am reminded of the suffragette’s, at least some of whom, thought that giving women the vote would end war. I’m glad that we finally won the right to vote but we’ve had horrific wars since then. Power seems to be an eternal issue.
Kate, this is a great point. Many philosophical lines of thought have reasoned that giving women positions of authority would soften the outcomes of conflict. It hasn't proven to be true. During my military career I observed the rise of women into the highest echelons of military authority. I believe that was a positive thing but it had very little impact on actual warmongering per se. Many of those senior female officers made their name by being leaders in combat situations either as aviators, captains of ships, etc...
The role that “honour” played in the ancient world as a motivator for action and suffering shouldn’t be underestimated. Honour is regularly invoked by all the characters as a motivator for violence. Some would argue that it still plays a major role in societies today .
Diana, this is an important point you make. Honor was and is a huge cultural motivator. I think of the Japanese during World War II and how even today honor is an integral part of their heritage.
Thank you for your reflections this week Matthew. The Gods certainly played a crucial role, surely it just can’t come down to Athena and Hera’s rejection by Paris? Though, they can be fickle as we well know. I feel Pandarus demonstrates how humans act without thinking far too often with consequences that far outweigh the initial reflex action.
This is spot on. Humans are often impulsive and driven by their base natures. I find it humorous that the gods are similar in Greek mythology. It almost feels as though the Greeks created a pantheon of gods with human foibles to excuse their own actions.
It seems the humans are mere pawns to the gods. I would think the humans would eventually get tired of them intervening and stop all the fighting. The gods just need to duke it out and leave the humans alone, IMO. But then there would be no Iliad.
Have to wonder though, if the gods left the humans alone, would they indeed be good and peaceful? 🤔 Or do the gods give them an excuse to give in to their darker urges?
Homer’s imagery used to describe battle makes the scenes more horrifyingly realistic. I think it’s interesting how a lot of his imagery is comparing elements of nature to the sides of the war. I am having a hard time taking the gods/their involvement seriously; I’m curious how the ancient Greeks would have taken all the talk about gods and their involvement in everyday life. Not believing in multiples of gods, and fickle, flawed gods at that, seems to be confusing a far from building faith in them.
Ego, vanity, and whim, all in full display in book 4, in both gods and humans. The destruction and pain wrought by these forces continue to be an inescapable part of life. Homer and the Greeks could cast blame on the gods, we have only ourselves.
As for the behavior of the gods, I thought line 88 sums it well: "Cronus with all his turning, twisting ways --"
I expected graphic gore in book 4, and it exceeded my expectations. The horrors of violence and mortal combat are made vividly compelling. On a somewhat lighter note, after reading book 4 I couldn't help but think that, to a certain extent, the Game of Thrones is the modern version of the Iliad.
Most telling in this chapter for me was the praise lept on Pandarus, the archer who hit Menelaus, by Agamemnon himself while standing next to his wounded brother: ‘An archer hit him, a good hand at the bow, some Trojan or some Lycian — all glory to him (…).’ Agamemnon, realizing Menalaus has only been superficially wounded, doesn’t seem to be very unhappy with the turn of events…. The incident saved him from returning home without the glory of having ravaged and pillaged hated Troy.
Returning after 9 years of fighting, only to come to the agreement of a truce, would never have set right with him I guessed. And he sure would never have been immortalized by an epic poem 😉.
Also, I wonder in what way the support of ‘rational’ Athena for the Achaeans/ Greeks and the support of ‘irrational’ Ares for the Trojans has influenced more modern, post-Renaissance ideas about the dichotomy between the ‘rational West’ and the ‘irrational East’.
It seems to me that the gods and goddesses don't really care about their humans. Maybe it's an analogy of how the higher ups in our government (or maybe any government) treat their humans.
Yes, I mentioned this in a reply to someone else as well that the gods seem to simply use the humans as a means to an end for their own whims. Power hasn't changed much.
I was wondering about Pandarus and whether he had a real choice. Was the inclination already within him? If he did resist, Athena would have moved onto another man. I want to believe humans have a choice but we are weak in our inclinations. Peace seems unattainable to me. And the gods are frustrating- they carelessly allow human suffering and destruction to their own ends. I’m not learned in mythology so thank you for your explanations. It was a brutal chapter because it seems hopeless for the human pawns in this ‘game of the gods’.
Lucy, you have keyed in on some great lines of thinking. I am not sure how choice works in the ancient world, something I need to look into. I feel like they should have the freedom to choose their destiny, otherwise it would be a form of pre-determination.
I certainly agree that humans are weak in many ways. We often give in to our base instincts. It shows that no matter how advanced our minds may be, our instinctive natures can often overpower reason.
I struggle with the psychology of war--like these guys have been battling for a decade, right? And if they just head for home in a truce, you ask yourself what was it all for? So the flipside is pure bloodlust so we can end it properly? But clearly they were looking for any excuse to finish the job... Agamemnon went around rallying the troops but he didn't need to do all that much arm-twisting did he, even with Diomedes. As far as the influence of the gods, they certainly go influence the key players/leaders, but the masses are all too eager to follow right along. Are there examples of mass revolt against a leader who was "chosen" by a god and then those masses get smited (smote?)?
Great question. I did a little digging on this and the only instance I can find of a real revolt of sorts was against King Creon in Antigone. But even in that case, the masses were not smote!
It seems, at least in the Greek tradition, that if the leader failed to keep people in line, i.e. lead, then the leader was punished by the gods for failing to live up to their expectations.
“The gods, driven by personal vendettas and whims, wield their influence with little regard for the human lives they manipulate” - This is one of the things I find most interesting about the Ancient Greek pantheon, and one of the things that was hard for me to comprehend at first, having grown up in a Christian context… The gods are so “human” in their conduct!
It is an intriguing line of thinking, that the deities of the ancient pantheons were so human like in their conduct. Then in the Christian tradition, god actually becomes man, yet remains untarnished by human fault. Quite the dichotomy.
Precisely! That’s so well said, Matthew. It took some mental gymnastics to wrap my mind around it all the first time, haha. Sharply observed, thanks for sharing!
I would have titled this book "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"
Good idea!
So it turns out that translators get to pick the titles of the books since the original wasn't actually divided into separate books. So I will be looking forward to a future translation by you with these nuanced titles. :)
You obviously don't need any more on your plate, Matthew, but it does raise the question of how much fun it would be to have a book naming contest.
There is so much pride and ego in this chapter (and preceding chapters). Both gods, goddesses, and the humans have theirs. They want certain outcomes, and none of them want to "lose face," to use an east-Asian expression. Regardless of the cost, they're willing to do whatever it takes to get the result they want. The Greeks, after all, can't be seen to give up after all these years. Athena and Hera can't give in to Zeus. Zeus can't give in to women, etc. etc. That seems like an interesting theme to dissect.
Each god wants to get their own way more than they care about the warriors.
Right, saving face seems to be more of a priority in many instances than the actual outcome of the war! In many ways, I have seen this play out in modern militaries. The human cost is seldom weighed in the face of the egos of those in charge.
This story is a classic because the frailties of the powerful, whether deity or human, are the same as they are now. How many lives have been lost senselessly throughout human history! While I am reading I feel like I am watching this war take place. There seems to be very little that a warrior can do other than be more ruthless than his enemy. The gods are controlling everything and they have resentments to settle. The fragility of the truce sounds like current news.
I think it is interesting to observe the inclusion of female characters among the gods. They are actively involved in the war in this ancient story. I am reminded of the suffragette’s, at least some of whom, thought that giving women the vote would end war. I’m glad that we finally won the right to vote but we’ve had horrific wars since then. Power seems to be an eternal issue.
Kate, this is a great point. Many philosophical lines of thought have reasoned that giving women positions of authority would soften the outcomes of conflict. It hasn't proven to be true. During my military career I observed the rise of women into the highest echelons of military authority. I believe that was a positive thing but it had very little impact on actual warmongering per se. Many of those senior female officers made their name by being leaders in combat situations either as aviators, captains of ships, etc...
The role that “honour” played in the ancient world as a motivator for action and suffering shouldn’t be underestimated. Honour is regularly invoked by all the characters as a motivator for violence. Some would argue that it still plays a major role in societies today .
Diana, this is an important point you make. Honor was and is a huge cultural motivator. I think of the Japanese during World War II and how even today honor is an integral part of their heritage.
Thank you for your reflections this week Matthew. The Gods certainly played a crucial role, surely it just can’t come down to Athena and Hera’s rejection by Paris? Though, they can be fickle as we well know. I feel Pandarus demonstrates how humans act without thinking far too often with consequences that far outweigh the initial reflex action.
This is spot on. Humans are often impulsive and driven by their base natures. I find it humorous that the gods are similar in Greek mythology. It almost feels as though the Greeks created a pantheon of gods with human foibles to excuse their own actions.
It seems the humans are mere pawns to the gods. I would think the humans would eventually get tired of them intervening and stop all the fighting. The gods just need to duke it out and leave the humans alone, IMO. But then there would be no Iliad.
Have to wonder though, if the gods left the humans alone, would they indeed be good and peaceful? 🤔 Or do the gods give them an excuse to give in to their darker urges?
Homer’s imagery used to describe battle makes the scenes more horrifyingly realistic. I think it’s interesting how a lot of his imagery is comparing elements of nature to the sides of the war. I am having a hard time taking the gods/their involvement seriously; I’m curious how the ancient Greeks would have taken all the talk about gods and their involvement in everyday life. Not believing in multiples of gods, and fickle, flawed gods at that, seems to be confusing a far from building faith in them.
Yeah, could have done without Leucus getting a spear to the groin 🥴😱
The imagery is quite something. Very descriptive. Makes me feel like I am watching that movie 300 which was so graphic in its depiction of violence.
Ego, vanity, and whim, all in full display in book 4, in both gods and humans. The destruction and pain wrought by these forces continue to be an inescapable part of life. Homer and the Greeks could cast blame on the gods, we have only ourselves.
As for the behavior of the gods, I thought line 88 sums it well: "Cronus with all his turning, twisting ways --"
I expected graphic gore in book 4, and it exceeded my expectations. The horrors of violence and mortal combat are made vividly compelling. On a somewhat lighter note, after reading book 4 I couldn't help but think that, to a certain extent, the Game of Thrones is the modern version of the Iliad.
Dan, thanks for this insight. The gods are quite focused on their own needs and the humans seem to only serve as a means to an end in most cases.
The Game of Thrones does make for a good modern corollary.
The SOUND of battle is what will stay with me from this chapter.
Yes! Homer (and the translators) do a superb job of making us feel as if we are in the midst of it all.
Most telling in this chapter for me was the praise lept on Pandarus, the archer who hit Menelaus, by Agamemnon himself while standing next to his wounded brother: ‘An archer hit him, a good hand at the bow, some Trojan or some Lycian — all glory to him (…).’ Agamemnon, realizing Menalaus has only been superficially wounded, doesn’t seem to be very unhappy with the turn of events…. The incident saved him from returning home without the glory of having ravaged and pillaged hated Troy.
Maurice, this is an interesting twist right? It seems Agamemnon is quite pleased that the enemy has taken this action.
Returning after 9 years of fighting, only to come to the agreement of a truce, would never have set right with him I guessed. And he sure would never have been immortalized by an epic poem 😉.
Also, I wonder in what way the support of ‘rational’ Athena for the Achaeans/ Greeks and the support of ‘irrational’ Ares for the Trojans has influenced more modern, post-Renaissance ideas about the dichotomy between the ‘rational West’ and the ‘irrational East’.
The gods don’t play fair, do they? Athena’s calculated interference makes me wonder—was Pandarus ever really free to choose? Another great piece.
Thanks Jon. I do sometimes wonder how much free will the humans had. Could they have told the gods to blow off?
It seems to me that the gods and goddesses don't really care about their humans. Maybe it's an analogy of how the higher ups in our government (or maybe any government) treat their humans.
Yes, I mentioned this in a reply to someone else as well that the gods seem to simply use the humans as a means to an end for their own whims. Power hasn't changed much.