21st Century Literature discussion
2015 Book Discussions
>
The Song of Achilles and the Iliad - General Discussion (September 2015)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Casceil
(new)
Sep 01, 2015 08:12AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
The Iliad and the Odyssey are the only surviving parts of a larger cycle of epics and poems about the Trojan War (it is generally assumed they survived in part because they were the best, and hence there were more copies made of them). Between these lost poems and later material, the Trojan War has accumulated additional stories that are only mentioned or not even in the two epics. The author makes use of some of these (such as Achilles on Skyros) but not others (Achilles being invulnerable except for his heel).An interesting contrast or comparison to this book is The Gospel of Loki by Joanne M. Harris which uses the Elder Edda and the Younger Edda (AKA as the Poetic and Prose Eddas) as the basis for her story the way Miller used the Iliad.
I'm still trying to figure out how to organize this discussion, but here is my current plan. This thread is for discussion of how the author used the Iliad, particularly where she stayed true to the original story and where she made changes.
Would this be the thread to discuss both Patroclus' and Achilles' relationship to women? In the Iliad, Achilles did care what happened to Iphigenia and Briseis. But on what level? How did Patroclus feel about Briseis? I don't remember their having a defined relationship in The Iliad.
Speaking of relationships as I am, I've always been of the opinion that Hector and Achilles were more familiar with each other than Miller presents them, that they had heard over the years of each others' prowess, that the stories traveled back and forth about them. I didn't feel that in the book and was a bit disappointed by that.
We don't see all that much of Patroclus in the Iliad. He is important to the story because he serves as a catalyst to a major change in the tide of the battle. He is a close friend of Achilles, but there is no hint that their relationship is anything more than that of friends who serve together in war and respect each other. As far as I remember, there is no mention of any relationship between Patroclus and any female, but since the Iliad takes place years into a long battle, there are not many women around except for goddesses and slaves or concubines. Achilles clearly had a physical relationship with Briseus. The last time we see Achilles in the Iliad, he is going to sleep beside Briseus.
As for the relationship between Achilles and Hector, I do not know to what extent they are supposed to have been aware of each other before the Trojan War. During the war, certainly each was aware of the other as presumably the best fighter on their respective sides.
As for the relationship between Achilles and Hector, I do not know to what extent they are supposed to have been aware of each other before the Trojan War. During the war, certainly each was aware of the other as presumably the best fighter on their respective sides.
You do wonder how different the Greeks saw the Trojans being from them. In the Iliad the Trojans worship the same Gods as the Greeks, fight with the same weapons and follow pretty much the same customs. There isn't any real feeling that they even spoke a different language.It makes the war seem somewhat like a war between two branches of the same people, not a war between the Mycenaean Greeks and an essentially very different Anatolian folk. In that context it is easy to see possible Guest-Friendships (Xenia) between Mycenaean Greek and Trojan nobles, and thus rumors of Hector's and Achilles' prowess could reach each other.
Hector is also the brother of Paris, who had "stolen" Helen. Both are members of an aristocratic, if not the ruling family (I forget the details), so to the extent that family relationships and memberships were closely followed, Hector's existence and prowess has a possibility of being known, as apparently was the legend of Achilles and Patroclus as great warriors to the Trojans. (I can't quote specific lines and verse to support that view without a lot more work than I am willing to do here. The evidence may be more in the stories where Paris meets Helen -- who were present during that event.)
Casceil wrote: "...He is a close friend of Achilles, but there is no hint that their relationship is anything more than that of friends who serve together in war and respect each other...."Certainly at least modern filmmakers have turned to knowledge of Greek practices of male friendship to imply a possible physical and sexual relationship between Patroclus and Achilles. Whether that is supported by the Iliad itself, the scholars and academicians can debate (as well as all other readers :-0). It would be consistent for female relationships to be present as well. Probably soldiers have never been known to go long without them, whether in war or peace.
The arguments are long and vociferous about the source of Achilles' anger in the Iliad. Were they primarily about the wound to his honor when Agamemnon took Briseis? Did Achilles call down Agamemnon on himself by instigating the return of Chryseis?
(Somehow, I am reminded of Trump, Bush, and Fiorina in the debates Wednesday night.)
I just reread the long exchange between Agamemnon and Achilles when Chryseis is returned (Pope translation, I believe). Let me see if Goodreads will permit putting it in a single spoiler:
Nice quote! (Although I had to stop and think about the date of this translation when I saw the word "dame", and what's with all the Roman god names in a Greek epic?)
Peter wrote: "Nice quote! (Although I had to stop and think about the date of this translation when I saw the word "dame", and what's with all the Roman god names in a Greek epic?)"Thanks! I thought I might have gone off the deep end, but the back and forth between Agamemnon and Achilles as well as the vacillation between emotion and reason in the arguments struck me so that I didn't know where else to bound it.
My hard copies of the Iliad include Lattimore, Robert Fitzgerald, and Fagles as the translators. But my Kindle copy seems to be Alexander Pope, a quite early translation. (I missed the time the Lattimore edition was on sale.) Pope may well have been translating from Latin texts, suggesting why the Roman names for the gods. (I am guessing here, not fact checking.) I am struck by how lovely the language is, nonetheless. Somehow I remember Pope being praised for his work the last time I read this thing with a group. I get really hung up on some of the warrior battles, but passages of this thing remain so incredible, one really can revisit them every two to five years and have access to deeper understandings.

