The Platypus Reads Part XXVII
Thoughts after reading the "Iliad" to prepare a Greece unit for my students:
-Hector is a jerk until he's dead. He even advocates the exposure of Achaean corpses and then has the cheek to turn around and ask Achilles to spare his. He rudely ignores Polydamas' prophecies and fights outside the gate to save his pride knowing full well what it will cost his family and city. After he's dead, he becomes a martyr for the cause.
-Agamemnon has several moments of true leadership to balance out his pettiness. In this way, he's a haunting foil to Achilles: the two men are more alike than they want to acknowledge.
-We see that Achilles is the better man at the funeral games of Patroclos. His lordliness, tact, and generosity there give us a window into Achilles before his fight with Agamemnon and the death of Patroclos consumed him.
-Nestor is a boring, rambling, old man who's better days are far behind him, and yet every Achaean treats him with the upmost respect. And well they should, because Nestor, when he gets to the point, is wiser than the lot of them. A major point of the "Iliad" is that people are owed respect because of their position, regardless of their individual character or abilities. The scene where Achilles gives Nestor a prize at the funeral games since the man is too old to compete is particularly powerful.
-The rage of Achilles stems from his perdicament, not a woman. Achilles has the emotions, apetites, and powers of a god, but is doomed to live in a world of death and to die himself. Notice the image of him laying his "man-killing" hands on Patroclos' chest and grieving that his friend is dead. With all his power and rage, Achilles cannot defeat death.
-The deathlessness of the gods is their own torment.
-Achilles is the hero of the "Iliad" because he experiences a moment of true revelation when he gives the body of Hector back to Priam. Hector dies deceived, both literally and figuratively. I think Homer means for this to disturb us.
Comments
I hope you don't mind if I press you on this, but you sound like a Greek! I think you're too hard on Hector and too easy on Achilles.
Most powerfully, although the Iliad begins with Achilles, it ends with Hector: "And so the Trojans buried Hector breaker of horses". Surely this is meant to be deeply tragic? It seems to me that Homer expects us to respect Hector and mourn his death.
Hector does ignore Polydamas' good advice, and you can probably call that a character flaw. But can you imagine any Greek taking such advice? It seems to me that Hector is trapped more by the flaws of the Iliad's worldview than any personal deficiencies.
Also, in skimming book 22 I didn't see any mention of Hector's knowing that his actions would cause the downfall of Troy. Did I miss it? At any rate he does seem to have a premonition that Troy is doomed to fall - see his dialog with Andromache.
In contrast to Hector, who spends the entire poem fighting for his polis, Achilles spends it acting for no one but himself. In this he is like a god, as you say, but in a way that almost disqualifies him from any sort of virtue.
His act of compassion is touching, but I don't think it makes him a hero over against the jerk Hector (who has plenty of touching moments himself).
I don't disagree that Hector achieves heroic status by the end and has heroic qualities throughout. he's just a failed hero. Achilles' moment of respect for Priam would have little or no meaning if Hector was merely a jerk. The thing that struck me on this reading was how Hector's heroicism becomes more stark after his death.
I disagree with your read on Polydamas. A good Greek fears the gods and obeys them. Hector's hubris mirrors Patroclos' hubris when he opposes Apollo and ignores Achilles' warnings. Diomedes and the other Achaean heroes see it as no shame to turn and run from the Trojans when it becomes clear to them that the gods are favoring the Trojans.
In reference to book 22: I think it needs to be understood in light of his earlier comments to Andromache, as you said. Also, you get a pretty good idea from Priam and Hecuba's exhortations.
Think about it. Hector follows a downward trajectory. He begins fighting for his polis and slips into fighting fro his own kleos, and dies alone literally outside the polis. Achilles starts outside the community, fighting for his kleos, but comes back to it at the very end and begins to act like a gracious and humane prince.
The grand synthesis runs thus, I think: Hector is a failed hero who becomes apotheosed into a hero after his death. How that works, I'm not sure, but it seems to me what Homer's aiming at (so yes, we are meant to feel sympathy for him). Achilles spends most of the book as a jerk too, but he rallies in the end and re-enters the community with a new wisdom during the funeral games of Patroclos and in his dealings with Priam. The tragedy of the "Iliad" is that both men come to the same end,regardless of what they learned or failed to learn; both are doomed to die in a world without any greater meaning or hope.
Is that a bit clearer?
This is a good point. I have a lot to think about now... I think I need to re-read the Iliad. Thanks for the clarification and thoughts.
The result of his heroism is he is betrayed; none of the Greeks defend him from the wrath of the King. He almost takes a stand for himself, but obeys the gods and restrains himself from what would assuredly have been the destruction of Agamemnon. Since his polis has betrayed him, and honored a king who, rather than leading, grasps for his due, Achilles honors the gods and abandons his polis.
Here's the point: Achilles does sit on the side lines...but he was betrayed. He is the greatest hero of Greece, but the other kings wouldn't support him against the tyranical demands of Agamemnon, lord of men.
Contrast this with Hector, who is heroic, but flawed. He is Robert E Lee for Troy. A good man on the wrong side. His end is deeply tragic, not the least because if he would have used his heroic soul to give Helen back, Troy might have been saved. He fails his polis many times over, ultimately because his personal honor matters more than staying inside and avoided the enraged Achilles. He knows he cannot stand against Achilles...none can. Yet he goes to try; surely this is his final failure. Its the difference between courage and hubris. They lok very similar, but in Hector's case, it would have been the better part of courage to save his city and stay inside the walls.
I wonder if you can turn Achilles sulking into a heroic choice to follow the gods instead of Agamemnon. Sure he was betrayed for his heroism, but honoring the gods by abandoning your polis sounds like a contradiction to me. The gods did not tell Achilles to sit out of the fighting - in fact he has to beg his mommy to teach Agamemnon a lesson.
Regarding Hector, I wonder if there is a "wrong side". The sense I get from the Iliad is not that the Greeks are "right" and the Trojans "wrong" (though Homer does seem to favor the Greeks, I don't think it's b/c they have the "moral" cause). The sense I get is that it doesn't matter who is right or wrong - i.e. there are no virtuous wars, only virtuous warriors. And there are virtuous warriors on both sides of the conflict. If anything, I would say that for Homer the "wrong side" is just the "weaker side".
I think Jim's mention of "chaos and death" as the nature of reality supports this. One of the most puzzling aspects of the Iliad for me is that Homer completely withholds moral judgment on this in a way that I find incomprehensible - so I am never sure whether I am feeling what he means for me to feel or not.
Warfare in the late Bronze Age was always couched in terms of avenging a personal insult. Both parties appealed to the gods, and then duked it out to see who was right. This stems from an understanding of society that is essentially familial. The King is the "father" figure and his subjects are his children. Thus the rape of Helen is an insult to the Atride and the family of the Danaans. As long as the Trojans keep Helen, the Danaans are in the right no matter how many noble or "excllent" (arete) warriors the Trojans can produce.
The sense that the dynasty of Priam is outside the gods' favour is heightened in the "Iliad" by the constant reminders that Aeneas will replace them as ruler of Troy. Aeneas is more pious than the house of Priam, not in the virgilian sense, but in that he doesn't violate territorial and familial boundaries (Boundary violations were considered the height of impiety in Greek culture).
In sum, there's still a right and a wrong and a good guy/bad guy (though Homer is a great enough writer to keep this dichotomy far from simplistic) in the Homeric worldview, but they are unsettled and called into question by the inevitability of death and chaos.
I'm not sure you can support that from the actual text of the Iliad. Particularly, I think you move too quickly from "the rape of Helen is an insult to the Atride" to "the Danaans are in the right" too quickly. I don't recall any such moral language in the text itself. There is only arete and piety.
In fact, it was a goddess who gave Helen to Paris in the first place. And presumably Achilles' taking of Briseis in a raid was not "wrong". Those things just happen in Homer's world.
Also, this seems to bestow upon the gods more of a role as "arbiters of right/wrong" than they actually possess. They themselves aren't of one mind. Some side with Troy. Some side with Greece. Zeus himself seems mostly to want to stay out of it (cf. Thetis' plea for him to intervene for Achilles). The Achaeans certainly have more and stronger gods on their side. But I see this as an outworking of chaos and death (i.e., "the wrong side is the weaker side") rather than any sort of comeupance.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion, btw.
Also, while I see Homer appealing to standards of right and wrong to give weight to the story, I do want to make clear that I think he allows the "death and chaos" theme to at the very least significantly problematize it and at most to render it futile.
Does that help clarify a bit? I think, given the outside context, that Chris' argument carries some weight (How much is a good question!), but I also agree with you that "death and chaos" prevent us from reading the "Iliad" in terms of simple good versus evil. The sense of "comeupence" and "ruling by might" seem both to be present and indeed drive the moral drama of the plot.
Yeah, that clarifies, but I still think I disagree :-)
Anyway, thanks for inspiring me to re-read the Iliad. It's next up after N.T. Wright's Resurrection.
In response to Jim's first question: Yes, I think that Hector's death tells us something about Hector's worldview. I will try to get back to this in a moment.
Next, responding to Gabe's thoughts: While I agree that Achilles' sulking is hardly heroic, he is still the hero and his flaw (sulking) is at least somewhat understandable when we consider the offense he is being commanded to shoulder.
His immortality exists only in his name, and Achilles, great as he is, has managed to amass very little to his name by the time the Iliad starts. He's a great warrior, but without the prize its difficult to tell. He stands up to Agamemnon to protect his polis...and they betray him. He cannot strike, or risk the wrath of the gods. Ignoring the insult means Agamemnon wins...and while Achilles respects the gods, he will not tolerate Agamemnon. So he bows out...but even so will not entirely abandon his polis or the chance to be a hero...he stays and waits. This is not heroic, but then what hero is without a flaw? Achilles changes by the end of the Iliad, and even more so by the time we meet him in Hell in the Odyssey. His heart alters, and I think the Achilles of book 24 would not have made the same choices as the Achillies of Book 1.
I am convinced that there is a "right" and a "wrong" side in this conflict, which is a matter unrelated to the virtues of the heroes on each side. Troy is harboring Paris, and Paris has broken a sacred trust, that of the guest and the host. All could be settled if Paris were sacrificed. The will of the gods will not allow it to be so, but for the Acheans and the Trojans the matter could very easily have ended if Menalaus had successfully carried Paris to the Greek lines. He doesn't, and so the battle continues. The problem is, the crime of Paris is not limited to Paris alone; it infects the Trojans. It revolves around the person of Helen, but that is because she disarms men, robbing them of their virtue through her beauty. It is what happens in her presence that we need to reflect on; men lose themselves in their desires and forget all that they owe to their polis, to the gods, to anyone but the beauty they desire. In this way, Paris' sin is not very different from the sin that ruins Hector. Hector pursues a disaster, even though he knows it will bring ruin on all he loves. He pursues it not because it is the right thing to do, but because he is disarmed, lured away by the hope of glory and the chance to end the war. The war cannot be ended, fate will not be cheated...and his actions only ensure that reality.
Hector's death shows us the end of Paris' sin, in someone much nobler and worthy of praise. It is exactly because we pity and mourn for Hector that his death is so important: it shows us the true magnitude of his failure. It was avoidable! Brilliant Achilles could rage all he wants--the walls of Troy protect Hector. But for his name, he will venture out. What happens to him is what would have happened to Achilles if Achilles had ignored Athena in Book 1; total ruin, separated from his polis, alone and betrayed.
Which is why Achilles is the hero. He grows. He almost fails...then leaves his polis to suffer...but Hector's hubris brings him back to the community and possibly saves Achilles.
Finally, one last thought regarding doing acts the gods encourage and still being punished for it: sometimes the gods tell us to do things...but it doesn't mean we get to avoid the consequences of those actions. Its a catch-22, but such is life. Cannot live with a tyrant, cannot kill the king...what to do? What to do indeed...
I have all three main books for Scion and spent part of yesterday putting together notes for a Scion campaign. I have some interesting ideas, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to play or run. Some of that depends on where I end up next. Also, some of the really cool ideas won't work until the characters are at least demigod level. (Opponents are too tough, etc.) I guess that means we'll need to play for a while... :}